Once again, I have to question your purpose for starting this thread. These last few posts don't really jibe with the first posts you made in this thread. This woman's tuition was paid for with no loans, so the cost was obviously completely reasonable. Describing "unemployment benefits" as the taxpayer's dime is only accurate in the most serpentine way? What is it about this story that you find so outrageous that it justifies four exclamation points in the thread title?
Do you have a problem with unemployment benefits, period?
sorry doggity i didnt see the first time you asked the question.
I was under the impression that UE was paid for by the tax payer although like you said it could be deemed that it is it was not in the way that i believed it to be. As with most threads the the original topic is not usually the topic that ends up being discussed and we have moved past that as or now.
How long does UE last?
what are the conditions of UE? in Texas I believe that a person must be continually looking for employment, again not certain of that
The intended purpose is for the person to seek employment, not education, while on UE. I'm saying its wrong, and for this woman is probably the right thing to do.
this is more of what the thread has become doggity, you seem to do that alot come in and take a statement in the wrong context.