Congress adjourned November 22 without taking any action on an extension of unemployment benefits for long-term jobless workers, after the Bush administration refused to intervene in a dispute between the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate. The result is that nearly one million unemployed will lose their benefits by the end of the year.

Those jobless workers will begin exhausting the total of 39 weeks of benefits on December 28, when 830,000 become ineligible. An additional 95,000 will lose benefits in each subsequent week, according to Labor Department estimates, until the total reaches 2.1 million by the end of March 2003.


California, with 129,900 losing benefits December 28 and a total of 317,100 by March 31;

Texas, with 62,100 losing benefits December 28 and a total of 213,100 by March 31;

New York, with 65,900 losing benefits December 28 and a total of 176,900 by March 31.

Other states with significant numbers being cut off benefits December 28 include Washington (45,400), Illinois (41,700), New Jersey (40,700), Florida (40,500), Pennsylvania (35,600), Michigan (32,900), Oregon (28,800) and North Carolina (28,000).

So who is to blame?

Nox

Those who are able to work but don't anyway should not expect to eat.

GO LIBERTARIANS!

Its about time that they got the incentive to get off their butts and back to work.

Huzzah.

I have some advice for them
GET OFF YOUR ASSES AND GET A FUCKING JOB
QUIT FREELOADING OFF OF THE REST OF US GODDAMN YOU!!!!
I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR YOU TO EAT

Homer

I do find myself in agreement with you all, however, does no one else find that close to cristmas a poorly chosen time to cut off benifits? Would it not have been in better taste to do such a think in. for example, the middle or beging of summer, or some other time that doesn't leave them completly without benifits for the holidays? Wheres the "holiday spirit"? Or has the government, and the rest of you, become some sort of embodyment oF Ebinezer Scrooge? The timing, not neccassarily the action, is in poor taste if you ask me...

Why should the government care about the timing of a Christian pseudo-holiday? Maybe an argument could be made about cold weather or something...

Unemployment bennies reek of ChuckStone.

They should care because a very large portion of the population celebrates that holiday. Cold weather is also another reason, in many parts of the country there's heating bills to pay this time of the year...
After winter would have been such a more tasteful choice for this sort of thing.

If they truly wanted a Merry Christmas, they should have gotten a job as they would have been paid more in salary then they would have in benefits.

I agree the timing is off.

They should have done it along time ago.

My dad was unemployed for a long time except small time piddly shit he just did to get some cash. Its not like you can just say, "Yeah, here I am, 45, over-qualified and underpaid, anyone looking for help?" It isnt peoples fault if corporations would rather have their HQ in Singapore.

It was also a choice not to extend benefits, meaning that they allready knew of the possibility of their benefits not being extended.