CBC Wants your questions! Don't tweet? Leave them here - we will do it for you! ! Keep them coming!

exhaustedandtired/1208 wrote:I posted 4 questions, my only concern about not tweeting my self is I hope my questions get to them. But I know if I tweet my self they stand no better chance of making it to them and probably a better chance if you make the questions to them. Oh well. I pray for a good outcome and Obama's answers...

OfficialCBC The CBC
We support @RepBarbaraLee & @repbobbyscott on HR 589, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2011.

Kathleen wrote:My question would be "Is there strong enough incentive for US businesses to hire back former employees laid off in downsizing exercizes; especially those over 50?"
My former company will use us as contract temporary employees, but after 50 we are SOL when it comes to rehire; the way it is structured now we don't have a legal leg to stand on.

Exhausted99er
@OfficialCBC #CBCObama My question wld B "Is thr strong enough incentive 4 US businesses 2 hire back former em… (cont) http://deck.ly/~rFTKg
1 minute ago Favorite Reply Delete

exhaustedandtired/1208 wrote:OK...A: What are the true possibilities that 589 may pass intact!
Also B: the true possibilities the two bills (can't remember the numbers) will get passed?
And C: how many dems support those bills In their estimation
If by some reason of insanity would the President sign off on them????

I truly hope these questions will be ask ! Thanks,

lendmeflight2 wrote:

carl98430 wrote:I'm with you 1208. And there are certainly ways to pay for this legislation (HR 589, that is). Here's a link to an article about that amendment that Senator Thune introduced last year:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20101214/pl_ac/7404974_unemployment_extension_amendment_proposed_by_sen_john_thune

There IS a way to make this happen; the only question is whether the White House has the will to do it. They're in 2012 re-election mode; i'm not so sure how committed they are to helping people like us.

Thune's amendment would have paid for benefits out of discretionary funds. Those funds are not there now. I am all for paying to 589 and feel like that is the only way that it will pass the republicans, but no one ever has any idea where to get the money. Everyone says to find it "somewhere". Where? The government isn't a business or a household. It doesn't hold money to use later. It budgets out all the money it has. This is why government grants are always totally spent by the people who get them, if they don't spend it all they get less next year. If you take the money from government programs it will put even more people out of work. This is the problem that we are running into on the state level. To fix budget deficits they are laying off teachers? Why? Because there isn't "somewhere" to find the money.

This is why this problem is hard to solve.