H.R.589 - Emergency Unemployment Compensation Expansion Act of 2011

To amend title IV of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 to provide for additional weeks of first-tier emergency unemployment compensation, and for other purposes. view all titles (4)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To amend title IV of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 to provide for additional weeks of first-tier emergency unemployment compensation, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Popular: Emergency Unemployment Compensation Expansion Act as introduced.
  • Popular: Emergency Unemployment Compensation Expansion Act of 2011 as introduced.
  • Short: Emergency Unemployment Compensation Expansion Act of 2011 as introduced.

Comments Feed

Displaying 61-90 of 4889 total comments.

where 03/14/2011 7:00pm
in reply to n0bama4me2010 Mar 14, 2011 2:53pm

Ok great, So we know nObama doesn’t like any republicans, And no one here has any democrat hero’s, So now we have no differences right?

So lets take it from there and not have all the arguing that accomplishes nothing. Brothers and Sisters united against our corrupt government!

adamaiken 03/18/2011 3:04am

Whereever I link to on the internet in my search for news on the consideration of 589, I am coming across the same discontent with our President. I could not agree more with the perception that he has not stepped up for the unemployed. People are saying that he will not get their vote next time. My problem with this line of thinking is that we really will not have a choice if he is running against any Republican. I simply do not think we can afford to replace complacency with outright destructiveness. At least he will never sign away our rights to SSI or Medicare or Medicaid etc. but if a Republican, any Republican is voted in, his pen will be ready, willing and able.
I would love for Kucinich or Bernie Sanders to run in his stead so I could vote with gusto but that is not going to happen so I am pulling the lever for Obama one more time.

Sher1 02/27/2011 1:48pm

A rally in San Francisco on Saturday drew thousands to the city’s Civic Center, in a show of solidarity with Wisconsin and the public sector unions there. The San Francisco demonstrators were angry about Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to strip public sector unions of their collective bargaining rights, but that’s not all they were angry about.

n0bama4me2010 03/14/2011 2:53pm
in reply to WasMiddleClass Mar 13, 2011 6:20pm

hell i dont care what you call me. i dont like one republican or democrat yet your so stupid and lost that some how you say im pro republican. how can you be pro republican and not like 1 single republican today? interesting…

by the way. go ahead tax the “rich” socialists want to do just that. tax the people who have money until they have no more money. tax everyone out of business. tax our country out of existence. tax everyone until we are all poor. obama doing a good job of that no worries. just about all of us are poor right? after all liberals say its the top 2 percent. that means 98 percent of us are poor lol. liberals wana take out that top 2 percent that employs us all and writes our checks good going! kinda the reason why you all are unemployed right now. isnt it?

bugsy166 02/16/2011 9:50am
in reply to bugsy166 Feb 16, 2011 9:49am

“Both Houses need over 50% of either house to pass a bill on to the President. For an ordinary bill to pass each chamber or house of the US congress, it needs a simple majority of yea votes which would be 50% + 1 vote. In the US House of Representatives, ordinarily there are a total of 435 seated Representatives. 50% of 435 is 217.5. As there are no half votes, the fewest yea votes required for an ordinary bill to pass the House would normally be 218. In the US Senate, ordinarily there are a total of 100 seated Senators. 50% of 100 is 50. A simple majority is 50% + 1, thus the fewest yea votes required for an ordinary bill to pass the US Senate is 51.”

Continue reading on Examiner.com: New unemployment extension bill for 99ers gains cosponsors – National Unemployment | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/unemployment-in-national/new-unemployment-extension-bill-for-99ers-gains-cosponsors-the-new-bill-that-wo#ixzz1E9lZJjD3

WasMiddleClass 02/16/2011 12:42pm

A Disillusioned 99’er Shares His Disappointment With The American Dream, Welcomes Death

“Mark”, a member of the ever growing cadre of disillusioned, disenchanted and disgruntled millions of American unemployed, has written a letter shared by A Company of One, in which he explains the plight of 99’ers (those whose extended unemployment benefits are set to expire) in which he chronicles his plight and his terminal disappointment with the American system. One can only imagine how all the “99’ers” would feel if they did not have the benefit of living at least partially subsidized for 2 years in the socialist state of America. If Bahrain is any indication, where the government’s attempt to purchase the love of its people just failed today, pretty soon not even the 99 weeks of EUCs will do much to suppress what is an unmistakably rising anger among the broad US population.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/disillusioned-99er-shares-his-disappointment-american-dream

BPennett 02/17/2011 11:15am
in reply to wstaff Feb 17, 2011 10:14am

That is so sad WSTAFF……and yet I believe there is truth to what you say…..
Anyone who would MOCK (or make a mockery out of) an unemployed person is an ass hole……know that as a true fact as well…..you wouldn’t want to work for a jack as like that anyway…..

Sher1 02/27/2011 1:54pm

On Saturday, Chicagoans joined the chorus of protesters across the country to support union members in Wisconsin and other states who are fighting to keep their bargaining rights.

More than 1,000 people reportedly turned out at the afternoon Thompson Center rally, chanting “Save the American Dream.”

Demonstrators gathered elsewhere in Illinois as well. Hundreds of union supporters rallied in Springfield Saturday afternoon.

“If they bust the unions up (in Wisconsin), it’s a matter of time before they bust the unions up here,” laid-off Illinois electrician Rich Bonzani told the Chicago Tribune. “It’s an assault on the middle class.”

WasMiddleClass 02/14/2011 10:23am
in reply to fakk2 Feb 14, 2011 9:32am

@"Someone working minimum wage for 30 years can put enough away during that time period to at least pay for 1 year’s living expenses."

What planet do you live on?

Minimum wage has always been WAY below the poverty level in America.

Do you realize 99ers started running out of benefits almost a year ago?

Do you realize many have been out of work for well over three years?

Do you realize most Americans live paycheck to paycheck?

99Survivor 03/09/2011 12:31pm

House Dems Open To Compromise On 99ers Bill

WASHINGTON — The Democrats in the House of Representatives who are pushing for additional jobless aid for the long-term unemployed say they are willing to compromise with Republican leadership on cutting spending from the budget to prevent the cost of new benefits from adding to the deficit.

In a Wednesday letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Bobby Scott (D-Va.) wrote, “We want to work with you to identify how best to finance this legislation and ensure its swift passage.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/09/99ers-house-dems-compromise_n_833545.html

HopefromCA 04/19/2011 6:46am

According to an article recently we now have approximately 44 million people participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Its time for Congress to start thinking about taking care of our own country. The answer is Jobs, jobs and jobs.

sclark113 03/27/2011 6:52am

2011 Unemployment Extension – New Unemployment Claims Data for March. 24’TH

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7900951/2011_unemployment_extension_new_unemployment.html

WasMiddleClass 04/03/2011 3:34pm

Maybe Obamas new slogan should be “I am less evil”?

WasMiddleClass 03/22/2011 4:07pm

I have a couple HUGE questions these days…

Why didn’t the Democrats try to come up with a way to pay for it when they controlled both houses of Congress, and before the elections when it would have gained them countless votes from the 99ers.

Why would they not even bring it to the floor for an up or down vote?

And why would the Democratic leaders not push for it, or even allow it to be included in the tax cut deal when the rich overwhelmingly benefited from that deal while taxes on the poor were increased?

Now the conversation in DC is all about how much more is going to be cut in help to the poor we are supposed to think they are finally going to actually try to help the 99ers?

I say BS! The Dems had every chance in the world already to help us and they did nothing! They left us to freeze and die on the streets!

And everyone knows the Republicans have no intention of helping us besides talking more about their phantom job creation BS.

wstaff 02/16/2011 7:52am

Good Job Senator Bernie Sanders who see the recession for what it is and not make light of how costly the recession still is and not sugar coating this. While
other senators still believe that we are coming out of the recession looking favorable.

where 01/21/2012 11:40pm
in reply to WasMiddleClass Jan 20, 2012 10:40pm

Oh go ahead and “Change” it feels good! I will hold down the fort for you WasMiddle =D

Legion1 04/17/2011 4:48pm

Job cuts for poor seniors could up homelessness

Really? No shit…you’re joking…right?

LOS ANGELES – For $700 a month, 65-year-old Esmeralda Calderon cares for children part-time through a federal community service job that’s in jeopardy because of cuts to the proposed federal budget for 2011.
Under the Department of Labor’s Senior Community Service Employment Program, more than 75,000 elderly Americans living in poverty in all 50 states earn their keep by the slimmest of margins. To qualify, participants must be over 55 and earning less than 125 percent of the federal poverty level — $13,600 a year.
In the budget bill signed Friday by President Barack Obama, the program was slashed by 45 percent, from $825 million to $450 million a year. Advocates say it could mean as many as 58,000 fewer jobs if states or national groups are forced to discontinue the program because of the reductions.

more @ : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_senior_jobs_cuts

Legion1 04/18/2011 2:05am
in reply to where Apr 17, 2011 8:01pm

a moment of weakness…feed ‘em to the lions, burn ’em at the stake, whatever we can come up with isn’t a bad enough form of execution to cover what they’ve done & what they continue to do to us & this country

WasMiddleClass 06/24/2011 11:15pm

@nancym

I agree with many progressive ideas, though not all…

Unfortunately I learned after watching countless hours of Cspan over the past few years that the only thing many Democrats do to actually push for them is some lip service…

WasMiddleClass 02/10/2011 12:24pm
in reply to WasMiddleClass Feb 10, 2011 12:21pm

But they scream how the rich need huge tax cuts while also screaming how they must cut lots of things that help the lower 90%.

Spam Comment

nancym 06/19/2011 2:44pm

@Was

Terrific link from www.oftwominds.com, thanks. Back around the mid-nineties or maybe earlier, what were called “Personnel” departments all over the country were turning into “Human Resource” departments. When they were called Personnel departments, their job was at least partially for the interests of employees—stuff like the paperwork for benefits, resolving disputes, etc., or at least neutral in just shuffling the paperwork for new hires and fires.

But the relatively neutral “Personnel” departments turned into “Human Resource” departments about the time that employees were being referred to not as persons with skills, but rather as “resources.” A “resource” is more easily a dispensable thing, implying a temporary worker or even a contracted company, even machinery, rather than someone whose life would be shattered by losing a job.

wstaff 03/21/2011 7:08am

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Hank Johnson (GA-04) today introduced the Fair Employment Act of 2011 – H.R. 1113 – which would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect against discrimination on the basis of unemployment status.

Congressman Johnson’s bill responds to widespread reports of job listings that explicitly exclude unemployed applicants. Some advertisements stated that applicants “must be currently employed” or stipulated that “no unemployed candidates will be considered at all.” Some ads read, “No layoff candidates considered.”

http://hankjohnson.house.gov/2011/03/rep-hank-johnson-fights-discrimination-against-unemployed-with-civil-rights-bill.shtml

wstaff 04/26/2011 11:54am

“NJ employers can’t discriminate against unemployed”

Employers in New Jersey can no longer exclude unemployed people when they advertise job vacancies in their companies.

Legislation barring the practice was recently signed into law by Republican Gov. Chris Christie, who had conditionally vetoed an earlier version of the measure. Violators will face fines of up to $1,000 for the first offense and $5,000 for subsequent offenses.

The bill prohibits employers from publishing job advertisements — in print or online — that state that unemployed individuals can’t apply for the position. Proponents say the measure, which may be the first of its kind in the United States, addresses a growing national problem.

Wish California Government would wake up to this happening here!!!!!

Gonefishing 11/12/2011 9:45am

The US stagnation is absurd at this point. The one most important / priority Obama should have been focusing on was the ECONOMY!!!! Our President’s most distinguishing characteristic is to be able to see what is MOST important. Any moron would have seen we needed to stop the bleeding of the financial crisis; that’s right an idiot would have known this (oh, sorry is that crass? spare me the semantics!!!!)
What did we get? A President who BLEW UP THE BALLOON of government and said; Oh yes” we sugar coated that one”…..Now let’s have a party / and spin everything about how successful we’ve been. This makes me want to barf. It has been one side show after another and now it’s the campaign? The Obama experiment should be over. It sucked and failed. (cont)

Gonefishing 11/12/2011 9:46am

Government should not only have undergone the same correction the economy experienced but it should have been cut in half. This is where we needed the LEADERSHIP of a man who can accurately be called PRESIDENTIAL. Not some Avant-garde ding a ling…….. He has STUNTED the growth of our economy, oh, but I guess that is what “Progressive’s” do. At what point do we say enough is enough.
Finally, the constitution comes from the future and was written as such looking forward to preserve the essence of our Declaration of Independence. As Thanksgiving approaches, please stop this guy from treating it as an archaic document to be eroded away into nothing. He must be stopped!

WasMiddleClass 02/10/2011 6:34pm

I’m sending this message to all the unemployed viewers out there,

We need your help now. This is literally our last chance to get a little more help from our government to survive on. You know the jobs situation…

Many of our old warriors have gone offline because of no money. Some have passed on…

Many of us are tired, and feel like giving up. We feel like the battle is hopeless after all we have been through…

Many of us are middle aged, including myself, and….don’t want to have to fight anymore.

Unfortunately the situation that we were thrown into leaves us with few choices now. Stand up and fight for what we deserve, and believe in, or lay down and die.

We can see the people of Egypt doing it on our news all day…

Do I need to remind you that we are Americans, and all the things we fought for?

It is time to put all the party affiliations aside and remember that we are all “We The People”. There are many Democrat and Republican unemployed and homeless now…

WasMiddleClass 02/10/2011 12:21pm

Income inequality: It wasn’t always this way

In recent decades, the bulk of income growth in America has gone to the top 10% of families, but that was not always the case. Throughout most of the 20th Century, the bottom 90% claimed a much larger share of income growth than they have in recent years.

Between 1948 and 1979, a period of strong overall economic growth and productivity in the United States, the richest 10% of families accounted for 33% of average income growth, while the bottom 90% accounted for 67%. The overall distribution of income was stable for these three decades. In an extreme contrast, during the most recent economic expansion between 2000 and 2007, the period that led up to the Great Recession, the richest 10% accounted for a full 100% of average income growth.

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/income_inequality_it_wasnt_always_this_way/

suzieqs 03/08/2011 7:28am
in reply to fakk2 Feb 12, 2011 4:36am

So how would you define what the words “Promote the general welfare” to mean? If a community is starving, or mired in health problems, we are ignoring the “general welfare” of that community, if a family is forced into the streets to scrounge for food from dumpsters and cardboard box shelter we as Americans are ignoring the “general welfare” of that family.

So tell me, how would you “promote the general welfare” of our society, because if you fail to help one you’re failing to help all.

fakk2 02/14/2011 10:11am
in reply to wstaff Feb 14, 2011 6:18am

Wstaff, very true. Education spending has not helped during the last 40 years. Our test scores are exactly the same as when the Department of Education was created. We should stop spending so much of that money on something that doesn’t work and reinvest it.


Vote on This Bill

75% Users Support Bill

702 in favor / 240 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments