Join the forum, it's quick and easy

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Latest topics
» Stillnutty passed away
Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response EmptyWed Feb 06, 2019 3:59 pm by Sad American

» UF2 Members Chat Thread: Part 3
Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response EmptyThu Mar 02, 2017 1:02 am by DesperateInRI

» UFO 2.1 VIDEO JUKEBOX - Our Chords & Keys To Ascension
Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response EmptyWed Mar 01, 2017 8:19 pm by DesperateInRI

» I see this board has been quiet
Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response EmptyTue Jun 07, 2016 1:24 pm by Knight1009

» Hello Ya'll. *Theirmommie*
Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response EmptyTue Nov 17, 2015 9:42 am by my_lucid_bubble72

» 20 % of Americans Struggle To Buy Food
Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response EmptyThu Jul 16, 2015 1:00 pm by pbrad009

» The Make Some One Day Challenge
Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response EmptyWed May 27, 2015 12:32 pm by Prof_NSA

» Clues to why they not hiring you
Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response EmptySun Apr 05, 2015 5:25 pm by Sandra5yearsunemployed

» New Year Nothing Change
Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response EmptyTue Jan 20, 2015 5:48 pm by Prof_NSA

» Passed?!?! H.R. 3979: Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2014
Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response EmptyFri Dec 19, 2014 4:24 pm by charliekerper

» Forbes: America's #1 Problem is Jobs, Not Debt
Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response EmptySat Nov 15, 2014 10:50 pm by jmainframe

» Economy just getting worse
Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response EmptyMon Oct 06, 2014 12:16 pm by oncemore

» January Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Adds 157,000 Jobs; Unemployment Rate Up To 7.9 Percent
Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response EmptyFri Oct 03, 2014 11:23 am by DesperateInRI

» Hey Guys!!!!
Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response EmptyMon Sep 29, 2014 9:17 am by pbrad009

» Up all NIGHT WORRIED!
Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response EmptyThu Sep 25, 2014 11:56 pm by pbrad009

Social Networks
April 2021
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Calendar Calendar


Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response

Go down

Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response Empty Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response

Post by Guest Mon May 16, 2011 10:52 am

The Ways and Means bill has little chance of passing the Senate with the Democrats in charge. But it provides dangerous fuel to antitax efforts in the states. And it presages more fights to come in Washington.

Joblessness is not expected to fall much this year, so come 2012, federal benefits will need to be renewed. Republicans are sure to resist, even though the arguments for renewal are sound: the benefits bolster the economy by supporting consumption and they are a humane response to economic calamity. There are better ways to help the states and bolster business during tough times. Reducing unemployment benefits is the wrong choice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/16/opinion/16mon1.html?_r=2&hp


Last edited by DesperateInRI on Sun May 22, 2011 1:04 pm; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response Empty Re: Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response

Post by Guest Mon May 16, 2011 11:02 am

Everyone is starting to see it and report it. The radio stations here in the Philadelphia/South Jersey area are all reporting it. Especially the difficult times the 45 and older unemployed are sure to expect, mainly due to the cost of insuring us. It is expected across the country to be a very difficult year for anyone over 16 years old looking for part-time or seasonal work as well.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response Empty Re: Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response

Post by suri Mon May 16, 2011 11:18 am

WOW, it's only taken HOW LONG? No SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE --- SOON! There is a new special out on SS which I know will 'reveal' how many have had to claim for some source of income? Ya' think? Also, a May grad time and no even little jobs around unless you KNOW someone. I'm in a funk... confused

suri
Member

Posts : 99
Join date : 2011-04-05

Back to top Go down

Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response Empty Re: Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response

Post by Guest Sun May 22, 2011 10:25 am

Letter to the Editor of the NY Times from David Camp in response the this article:
To the Editor:

“Going Back on the Deal” (editorial, May 16) concludes that “there are better ways” to help the unemployed than the Jobs Act, and that changes to the unemployment program go back on a December deal between the administration and Congress.

The only thing the Jobs Act “goes back on” is the tired notion that more Washington spending is the only way to help the unemployed.

Here are five facts about the bill: (1) it gives states flexibility to help the jobless in their state get working again; (2) it sets minimum standards to ensure that more people receiving benefits engage in basic job search and education; (3) it helps prevent immediate tax increases on jobs; (4) it doesn’t bail out some states at the expense of others; and (5) it doesn’t add to the deficit.

DAVE CAMP
Washington, May 17, 2011

The writer, the chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, is the author of the Jobs Act.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/opinion/l22jobs.html?_r=1

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response Empty Re: Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response

Post by Guest Sun May 22, 2011 12:57 pm

Thanks for posting this. I said this a month ago. How can the tax cuts remain in effect in States that basically are going back on their agreement. If they are accepting the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts, they should not be allowed to now re-work the unemployment issue unless the Tax Cuts go back on the table as well.

When more and more people are working, more and more revenue is collected which helps the deficit. If they created Jobs and passed legislation to create jobs instead of worrying about the oil companies, insurance companies and banks, maybe extension after extension would not have to be granted, because fewer and fewer people would need them, and, with more and more people working and higher revenues it would not be such an issue to add to the deficit.

But to me, when you reach a compromise or make a deal, such as the deal in December, you cannot introduce legislation that then goes back on one part of the deal and not the other. It makes everyone feel like they have been lied to, except of course the top 2-3%.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response Empty Re: Going Back on the Deal - Camp's 'Letter to the Editor' Response

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum