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 31-60 of 4889 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    vinmarly 04/16/2011 9:50am

    vote obama biden 2012 if you hate the constitution, want to hike taxes, gas prices, invasive illegal activity molestation by the tsa, anti-american job policies, anti-small business policies, a president that loves corporate elitists, who ignores our issues, who ignores the unemployed, and for biden the smartest person on earth! they are just like us folks!

  • Comm_reply
    kbj741 06/09/2011 11:10am

    I have one thing to add to that. I live in Austin, TX (sanctuary city) and my apartment complex went from mostly Hispanic to mostly people of mostly Middle Eastern decent. I was kinda nervous the first time I saw all of the women waiting for their kids at the front gate. It is not just Mexicans swarming across the Southern boarder any more. So while we Americans get molested at airports the Boarder is practically unregulated. If illegals get caught they are released. Current orders are not to detain people crossing the boarder illegally. Nice change. Maybe if we stop immigration we will see some progress in employment.

  • Comm_reply
    JohanDeKing 06/11/2011 3:37am

    Speculation (a KOCH Bros. thing) is a wonderful thing to drive up the prices on everything. Oil prices rule all

  • Comm_reply
    traimondi 07/17/2011 3:51am

    I agree we are in fact enslaved to Corporate America in many areas, however most importantly is that fact that Corporate America will not hire you if you have a blemished credit profile… Is this fair to the millions that are unemployed? How do you get the unemployed back into the economy, by giving them jobs!

    Is running a credit profile constitutional? ABSOLUTELY NOT, it is a form of redlining, but why is it that our legislation openly allows this practice? Since when does a credit profile determine your experience and what you can contribute to a company’s growth? Perhaps since we are unemployed we would make a substantial difference in terms of soliciting business and establishing relationships…

    Look at the Board of Directors of Enron – perfect credit scores, however look at the end results of those untarnished credit reports! THIEVERY.. hmm so who are the real victims here?

  • Comm_reply
    nancym 07/17/2011 12:39pm


    My simple cynical answer to that is that there is no justice now, unless you are wealthy. The practical explanation is that it costs an employer a fee to run a credit check on an applicant, which makes the credit agencies wealthier, and as a bonus saves the corporate HR departments time in sorting through more applications than they have time or staff for. So the lobbyists for this claptrap system of redlining, a good term you used for it, keep it going and have somehow managed to make the country believe this is a reasonable thing to do by labeling those with low credit as somehow suspect individuals. Their lobbyists have more money than our lobbyists, and so it spirals.

  • Comm_reply
    nancym 07/17/2011 12:39pm

    My further gripe about this system is the practice, which I didn’t even know existed until I lost my good credit, of banks holding money on a payment check going into your account, which has no relation to your own check writing, no matter how big the company is who wrote the check! Not only do they not apologize for this nonsensical behaviour, but the bank staff defend it on the basis of “policy.” So the bank gets to hold your own money for a set period of time while you have to go without money to pay bills.

  • Comm_reply
    suzieqs 03/08/2011 7:28am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    vinmarly 04/16/2011 9:52am

    you will have to ask president obama why he thinks GE should have been given our tax money and a huge tax break while ignoring us american regular people. if thats not promoting the welfare of the elite, then i don’t know what is. this president has achieved in bed status with unions/mobsters, and CEO’s to the level the GOP could only have dreamed of! obama biden 2012!

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/12/2011 4:37am

    On the preamble:

    “…th[e] preamble…has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government…or on any of its departments”

    “The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se. It can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them.”


  • Comm_reply
    sclark113 02/12/2011 5:03am

    I feel sooooo much better now that I know you are using the vast legal resources provided by wikipedia!

    “There is another beginning— the social, cultural, and spiritual attitudes of those who wrote and adopted the document. Only by trying to understand these beginnings can we understand the Constitution. This site is dedicated to helping you “start at the beginning” as you explore the Constitution. We hope that the debate about the details will continue. We should all try to understand the first, second and fifth amendments— and the other narrow slices of the Constitution that current debates center on. But we must go beyond the details – the Articles and Amendments can not be understood in isolation. They must be considered in light of the “general purpose” of the Constitution, and an understanding of the beliefs of its framers and adopters.”


  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/12/2011 7:57am

    Instead of interpreting what is meant, we should be taking the literal wording. That is how a republic works, it is a rule of law, not interpretation. Democracies are doomed to fail because they are run by “mob rule” or the “right makes might” belief.

    Also, there’s only 1 General Welfare clause in the original Constitution, and no, I don’t consider the introduction of the Constitution (preamble) as having equal weight of the actual document. Thomas Jefferson had some good things to say about the General Welfare clause as it related to banking and bank powers.

  • Comm_reply
    sclark113 02/12/2011 8:24am

    2’ND Amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I’m guessing that all those gun owners out there are part of the literal “well regulated Militia” that the Amendment speaks to?

    Or how about the section in the Constitution that states “which numbers shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free persons, excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

    Come ’on man, feel free to get off your pedestal and join the human race. The constitution was designed to be a living document, not the dead sea scrolls.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/12/2011 1:02pm

    Sclark113, the only way it is a “living document” is for constitutional amendments to be placed onto the document, which I have no problem with. If we assume the progressive view of being able to “interpret” the constitution to what we believe it should say, we start down a path of mob rule, i.e. those in power can interpret it to say whatever they want instead of following a rule of law.

    The literal militia IS those gun owners. Let’s say for some reason the government declares martial law, and whomever is President decides to be king, and those in congress become appointed potentates of their districts. A “well regulated Militia” IS “necessary to the security of a free state”.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/12/2011 1:03pm

    As far as the 3/5th’s Clause, that was amended by the 14th Amendment, Section 2. So, instead of pretending like it wasn’t there, they had an amendment to change it because it no longer applied. We should make amendments if we want to change it, not interpret what it might’ve meant. Yes, the spirit is important, but it’s too easy to twist negatively if we only use the spirit and not the wording.

    So when it comes to unemployment, either show me where it says we are required to pay for someone to have a home or a job or an xbox or admit it’s not an unalienable right.

  • Comm_reply
    sclark113 02/12/2011 2:16pm

    There’s no law that says people shouldn’t be allowed to starve or freeze to death, or be separated from their loved ones because that’s the only way they will let them into a shelter. If that is the America that you espouse to then I think that maybe you never got the memo. There is more to citizenship than self-righteous indignation and history is full of little despots that met their comeuppance eventually.

    It is obvious that my view of America is very different from yours. I often wonder what makes the 5% feel that they are in the majority when it is just not the case.

    I do believe in the right to bear arms by the way, my example was in response to your claim that the Constitution should be taken literally, and I obviously disagree with you on this point. Literally speaking, you sidestepped the whole “regulated Militia” thing in its entirety. Uncle Bob being a member of the NRA does not constitute being a member of a well regulated militia. There’s a higher burden than that.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/12/2011 5:17pm

    It’s not about an America where our neighbors freeze to death, it’s about an America where we take pride in doing for ourselves. We want an America where everyone wants to be their best, and strives to support themselves. Yes, it’s not always attainable, but if they’re striving to be their best, it’s easier to say, “Yes, they want a handout. Let’s help them”,even if that means begging on the streets, being separated from their families, or working less than minimum wage jobs under the table to afford for their families. It’s hard to see those on long-term unemployment trying to attain this while they still consider some jobs “beneath them”.

    *Side note, you’re right, I did sidestep the “well regulated” item because a gun owner would know no one wants everyone to be wielding a weapon without some training. In a different conversation, perhaps we could expound upon what it means in more detail.

  • Comm_reply
    sclark113 02/13/2011 4:22am


    I can’t help but think that you are operating on some very seriously erroneous information. I don’t know what your history is on boards such as this one, but you have the long term unemployed figured out all wrong. The vast majority of the long term unemployed, especially the 99ers that have no income stream whatsoever now, would jump at that minimum wage job that you say they think is beneath them. By far the lion’s share of people on this board would take a job, any job over continued unemployment benefits.

    The 99ers have already lost it all, homes, cars, sold any possessions of any value, most are living from hand to mouth – do you seriously think that these people just want to hang around in desperation just for an unemployment expansion? Fact – 5 people for every job, full time or part time, minimum wage or not – do the math 4 out of 5 will still be left jobless, and your answer is to just throw them to the wolves???

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/13/2011 7:19am

    Here’s the facts:

    1.) 99 weeks of unemployment = 95.19% of 2 years.
    2.) Unemployed for 27 weeks or longer = 6.210 million
    3.) Total unemployes as of Jan 2011 = 14.842 million
    4.) FUTA for 6.210 million individuals making $100,000/year for 20 years = $99.36 billion.
    5.) FUTA for 14.842 million individuals making $100,000/year for 20 years = $237.472 billion.
    6.) Over $390 billion has already been spent on unemployment during the past 2 years
    7.) $390 billion is ~3.93 times the amount paid in for 6.210 million individuals and ~1.64 times the amount paid in for 14.842 individuals, all things being equal

    “The vast majority of the long term unemployed…would jump at that minimum wage job”, if that’s the case, then why aren’t they out there working in fields for food and why is there such a large amount of turnaround at fast food and retail industries if “highly trained” professionals are willing to work for minimum wage?

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/13/2011 7:19am

    “your answer is to just throw them to the wolves???” Actually, my answer is to not spend any more money because nowhere in the Constitution does it say someone is owed a home or a job. We’ve already spent what was put in, now is the time to cutoff the handout. We have to fight for that ourselves. Life is hard.

    If we raise it from 99 weeks to 113, the government has to pay for it. Which means they have to take money from businesses, which mean those businesses will have less money for jobs, which may mean more unemployed. It’s a cyclical effect and it should end. It sucks to be unemployed for 2 years, but if it’s a choice between them or those with a job, I fight for those working so the problem doesn’t get worse.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/13/2011 7:20am

    And yes, I do believe in charity. But I believe those receiving charity after so much has been spent for them have a duty to prove they’re worthy of further charity. I would love to see where government doesn’t payout unemployment because it doesn’t need to b/c those unemployed are receiving help from their neighbors in more of an amount than the government would provide. Those days are far behind us though.

  • Comm_reply
    sclark113 02/13/2011 7:50am

    fakk2 – I can see that you are very resolute in you position, but I would ask that you read the article below as my rebuttal to your recent post – McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, Subway, Quizno’s, Dairy Queen, et all can’t even come close to providing enough jobs even if they fired every single one of their existing employees and hired only the unemployed!

    2010 Unemployment Extension – a Proper Perspective


  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/13/2011 10:33am

    Sclark113, VERY good article. I liked it A LOT.

    And 15 million is a lot of people, but unless a bill like this can be funded without raising hardships on businesses/individuals or raising the deficit, it shouldn’t be passed. If it were to be funded out of our current revenue, then the only issue would be the creation of a “terminally unemployed” class which resembles the welfare and SSI classes.

    If we don’t end the extentions at some point, people will expect to keep getting them. After 99 weeks, it’s no longer a temporary adjustment as people have to create a new lifestyle to adjust to their new situation. And because there is not a better option, and no good options, it seems reasonable to cut off the extentions at 99 weeks instead of prolonging the inevitable because if we don’t, it’s a cyclical downward spiral into a new type of welfare.

  • Comm_reply
    sclark113 02/13/2011 11:05am

    It is said that the only thing new is the history you haven’t learned yet. I know that I am an advocate for ending the wars that cost us 160 billion dollars and year and funneling that and some of the 700 billion that we spend every year on the defense department and create a WPA program to put people back to work fixing our country’s infrastructure, teaching our children, and producing things of lasting value. Add value to the country as a whole as we prop up those millions left to beg with something meaningful and productive.

    Back to our constitution discussion, I hold “promote the general welfare” with every single bit of importance as “provide for the common defense.” Saving ourselves from terrorism at the expense of millions of citizens is just unconscionable to me. Call it work relief, call it whatever you want, but just watch how many people sign up for work versus a handout, I think you’d be amazed.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/14/2011 4:50am

    Oh, no doubt putting people to work instead of giving them a paycheck for nothing would be the better alternative! If we could pay for a WPA program without raising the deficit by cutting other non-essential programs (like the war, or other spending), then I see no reason to not do it. If we can build infrastructure without raising our debt by using the 15 million unemployed, then that would be a great alternative to this bill.

    And I even will agree that promoting the general welfare is important, but, as has always been the case, I do not believe that means we must spend to promote. I think the general welfare can be promoted in different ways other than giving someone a check (welfare, UI, etc.), and with higher efficacy, such as with a WPA program that is paid for by our revenues instead of our debt. Just another case of a Hamilton & Madison differing of views I guess.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/14/2011 4:57am

    *"I see no reason not to do it" as the government stands right now I mean. I still think the states should be making these laws and paying for it because I’m still a little government guy.

  • Comm_reply
    sclark113 02/14/2011 8:14am

    Hear on NPR this morning that with the new budget that Obama has proposed it would be at the smallest level since Eisenhower.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/14/2011 11:27am

    Wow, that’s quite amazing, if it actually stays that way. We shall see what this new congress does. I’m not getting my hopes up though until I see it.

  • Comm_reply
    Abaratarrr 02/13/2011 5:45pm

    nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government, with the threat of imprisonment and with the barrel of a gun, that the government can force an individual to give the government 6 months of labor a year in exchange for nothing.

    If the government was not forcing everyone that can find work to work for 6 months a year for free, unemployment insurance would not be needed. As long as the government is strangling the economy by forcing its subjects to provide the the government with 6 months a year of free labor, programs like unemployment insurance and social security will be needed. People should demand that a small portion of the fruit of their labor be returned to them in hard times, sadly I fear that if this problem is not addressed soon more of starving masses will begin to use the same tactics that the government uses to get what it wants.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/14/2011 5:39am


    I’m assuming you’re talking about taxes, if you’re not, then please extrapolate because I don’t know of anything else where people work with threat of imprisonment as punishment (with exception of military law, and that’s completely different than civilian law). So, if you are talking about taxes, then it is in the constitution and we the people are the ones who have given the government so much power. Who doesn’t like to hear of “something for nothing”, and that’s what was promised with the New Deal and Great Society and every politician in the 20th and 21st century. We’ve forgotten that we can only be given something by the government if it is first taken away. This would be manageable on a small scale, like the state legislatures, but on a national scale, it’s out of control. If we want it to change, then we need to restore states’ rights and have the good will of the people watchdog government, it has proven it can’t watchdog itself.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/12/2011 8:23am

    Since the same wording in Wikipedia is in the case, here’s another reference for you:

    1st Quote: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16169198038706839183&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

    2nd Quote: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/preambles21.html

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