S.3706 - Americans Want to Work Act

A bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits and cut taxes for businesses to create hiring incentives, and for other purposes. view all titles (4)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: A bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits and cut taxes for businesses to create hiring incentives, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Popular: Americans Want to Work Act as introduced.
  • Official: A bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits and cut taxes for businesses to create hiring incentives, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Short: Americans Want to Work Act as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 121-150 of 13010 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    VLeichsenring 08/08/2010 8:59am
    Monday, Sep 13, 2010

    2:30 pm.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.

  • Comm_reply
    GDCal 08/08/2010 9:27am


  • HopefromCA 08/08/2010 9:02am

    Thanks for forwarding the information about what qualifies someone for a new claim in California. I had read the $900 limit and the $1200 limit but did not know how they came up with those figures until you forward the information in your posts. I have been talking to others that have interviewed for jobs recently that goes to the same Technology school I do and the response is mostly " You are overqualified". In my opinion when a potential employer says that I read between the lines and see it as being for other reasons that they are not legally allowed to say.

  • Abaratarrr 08/08/2010 10:58am

    “On the steps of the Federal Hall on August 12th, Thursday this coming week, from noon to 1:00 PM, a group of 99er’a are planning to hold a rally in the place that George Washington took his Oath of Office and the financial capital of the U.S.”


    maybe some of you guys that are close could put some adds onto craigslist to organize car pools.

  • Jorath13 08/08/2010 8:22pm


  • attackgypsy 08/09/2010 1:53am

    Just to dissuade anybody from badmouthing Sen. Stabenow, she is not up for re-election until 2012.


  • Comm_reply
    jgallop 08/09/2010 4:50am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    Bad mouthing Stabenow??? I live in Michigan and have witnessed her and useless Carl Levin watch jobs leave the state for years, also paying businesses to outsource. Letting illegals come into the state and take the jobs that are left.. Get the facts bozo

  • Comm_reply
    attackgypsy 08/09/2010 4:57am

    First of all, I don’t wear white face paint, a rubber nose, have red hair that points out the side, or big floppy shoes.

    Second, someone mentioned that she was introducing this because she was up for re-election. That is incorrect. She is NOT currently up for re-election. That IS a FACT! That is the badmouthing I was referring to.

    Now, if you want to get into a flame war, I’m game. But I’d rather either do something better with my time, or just somewhere else. Because this issue is too important to do this here.

  • Comm_reply
    kc3295 08/09/2010 6:51am

    Thank you…let’s keep it positive…and pleae people, check out your facts before posting…if it is an opinion…please state as such. Let’s not create panic or discord. This is a lifeline we all need…let’s be supportive.

    Thanks…and thanks attachgypsy for your post.

  • Comm_reply
    Marcy 08/09/2010 10:25am

    Thank you.

  • Comm_reply
    kc3295 08/09/2010 7:02am

    Thank you!

  • sassysally50 08/09/2010 5:26am

    A little tibit of info I found on another site:

    How long the federal government paid EMERGENCY unemployment insurance to address previous spikes in joblessness:

    1970’s: Benefits in effect for: 46 months (184 weeks)

    1980s: mid 1982 through mid 1985 Benefits in effect for: 33 months (132 weeks)
    Peak rate: 10.8% Rate when benefits expired: 7.4%

    1990s: late 1991 through mid 1994 Benefits in effect for: 29 months (116 weeks)
    Peak rate: 7.8% Rate when benefits expired: 6.4%

    2000s: 2002 through early 2004 Benefits in effect for: 25 months (100 weeks)
    Peak rate: 6.3% Rate when benefits expired: 5.6%

  • Comm_reply
    kc3295 08/09/2010 6:49am

    This is really cool information. Thanks!

  • Comm_reply
    Jorath13 08/09/2010 7:13am

    Source on that site Sassy? I could use it to kick the butts of some people complaining we 99ers have gotten more unemployment than any other time in history…

  • Comm_reply
    Marcy 08/09/2010 10:34am

    I think she got it from here: http://unemployed-friends.forumotion.com/unemployment-chit-chat-f1/184-weeks-of-ui-in-the-70-s-so-what-s-the-problem-t14256.htm

    See the first post. In the 6th posting down is the link where it originally hailed from:


  • Comm_reply
    NoGoodOnesLeft 08/09/2010 12:09pm

    I could be wrong but I don’t believe that is how many weeks people received. It is how long the extensions were in effect for – ie. how long it was from when they first starting giving an extension until they stopped giving them (the deadline).

  • Comm_reply
    Marcy 08/09/2010 1:11pm

    Ah, I did not think about that when I read her posting. You are right, that is not the ammount of weeks that could be claimed, but the amount of time the extensions were in effect. Mea culpa, I was too happy, too soon.

  • Comm_reply
    VLeichsenring 08/09/2010 6:06pm

    NoGoodOnesLeft You are right!
    It just means this is how long emergency benefits were in affect. It doesn’t mean this is how many weeks of benefits people got.
    Sometimes people don’t read with understanding.

  • GDCal 08/09/2010 8:11am

    Has anyone applied for food stamps in CA? A few questions if so:

    Do they call your landlord to verify rent? Not because I would be hiding anything, but because I would prefer they not know!

    Do they call any former employers? Again, I would not be hiding anything, but those agencies I am registered with might take me off their list if they knew I was on food stamps.

    No, I have not yet applied for them. Just curious. I keep thinking a job (temp) will come through so I don’t have to do that. Not looking too likely at this juncture.

    Thank you!

  • Comm_reply
    MrsChang 08/09/2010 8:44am

    They don’t verify rent or contact employers, but they look at bank statements and IDs, and take your picture and fingerprints.

  • Comm_reply
    attackgypsy 08/10/2010 12:58am

    Well, I’m not in CA. I’m in CT. But some of the rules are the same.

    They do need to verify your rent. Make a photocopy of your lease and bring it for them. This way, they won’t have to send your landlord a rent verification letter. Which can get embarrassing.

    Bring your last 3 bank statements. They will need them. Especially if they have copies of your last 3 rent checks with them.

    Bring a photo ID.

    Bring copies of ANY household bills you have. And yes, cable is now considered a household bill.

  • Comm_reply
    MrsChang 08/10/2010 9:31am

    That’s right, they did ask for proof of rent payment, for which I provided a printout of a cancelled check. They didn’t call the landlord.

    I didn’t provide utility bills because our rent covers utilities, and they didn’t ask for phone bills. Strangely enough, they uncovered an interest payment on a rental deposit which the landlord has to provide every year, by law. They sent me a letter saying I didn’t disclose this bank account, so I had to get an explanation from the property manager (on a “to whom it may concern” letter) on why such payment was made, and that they are a real estate business, not a bank.

  • Comm_reply
    Jorath13 08/10/2010 1:32pm

    Its because in California its the law for rental agencies if they hold a deposit you provided, must generate interest on that amount – which can be applied, of course, to the move-out costs you generate.

  • Comm_reply
    MrsChang 08/10/2010 3:42pm

    We all know that, except for the Food Stamps people. Maybe the landlords of the other FS recipients do not pay them the interest due them.

  • sassysally50 08/09/2010 10:34am

    I forgot to post the link from my last post ..Here it is

    184 weeks of UI in the 70’s so what’s the problem?


  • Comm_reply
    kc3295 08/09/2010 12:30pm

    Found the article…good research, Girlfriend…historical ammunition for our eamil, fax blast!!!

  • Comm_reply
    kc3295 08/09/2010 12:31pm

    Okay, Group, just know that I can spell and type and I will quit taking up space with corrections…LOL

  • Marcy 08/09/2010 10:54am

    I also posted the information on s.1699. It’s great info, sassy.

  • Comm_reply
    Marcy 08/09/2010 8:48pm

    And posted the mea culpa there, also.

  • kc3295 08/09/2010 12:06pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I spoke with a friend of mine earlier today and she told me (I have not verified) that on the Yahoo news site someone dais that if they pass this bill it will destroy Social Security in the year 2013.

    I think what she is referring to is not our bill but some obscured, not yet written bill, that would put the age of SS to 70…anyone know anything about this. I am not ready for Social Security, bu this kind of misinformation is not good for us!

Vote on This Bill

87% Users Support Bill

964 in favor / 150 opposed

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments