HR 1745 being readied, not a peep on HR 589

But aside from these new flexibilities, the bill would impose new restrictions on the use of federal unemployment benefits, most of which are designed to ensure that benefit recipients are actively looking for work.

For example, the bill would require those who are "most likely" to exhaust benefits, such as those without a high school degree, to pursue education and training programs that boost their chances of finding work. The bill also specifies that benefit recipients must be "able to work, available to work and actively seeking work."

exhaustedandtired/1208 wrote:You know from deeper thinking, the dems. who oppose and may have filibuster options can block the 1745 and work out a compromise and say they will consider 589 if they relax 1745. Like delay its affective date after the 14 weeks or something! Also Ok the so called union support how many union workers have jobs with no high school diploma or GED or degree???? Hello! If you are a union supporter , are they going to reject 1745!!!! Are all who have jobs union and non union be fired because they do not have GED or high school cert.??? hello! How can the repubs. or anyone else discriminate! This bill is discrimination bill. AND WHAT ABOUT THE HIGHER % OF AFRICAN AMERICANS WHO MAY NOT HAVE A GED OR HIGH SCHOOL.. WOULDN'T THIS BILL BE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION... HELLO! TIME FOR SOMEONE TO POINT THIS OUT!!!!!! CBC needs to fight this bill as I am smart enough to notice this discrimination!! I am going to tweet Barb. Lee.. There is no way this bill will or should pass!

DesperateInRI wrote:

exhaustedandtired/1208 wrote:You know from deeper thinking, the dems. who oppose and may have filibuster options can block the 1745 and work out a compromise and say they will consider 589 if they relax 1745. Like delay its affective date after the 14 weeks or something! Also Ok the so called union support how many union workers have jobs with no high school diploma or GED or degree???? Hello! If you are a union supporter , are they going to reject 1745!!!! Are all who have jobs union and non union be fired because they do not have GED or high school cert.??? hello! How can the repubs. or anyone else discriminate! This bill is discrimination bill. AND WHAT ABOUT THE HIGHER % OF AFRICAN AMERICANS WHO MAY NOT HAVE A GED OR HIGH SCHOOL.. WOULDN'T THIS BILL BE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION... HELLO! TIME FOR SOMEONE TO POINT THIS OUT!!!!!! CBC needs to fight this bill as I am smart enough to notice this discrimination!! I am going to tweet Barb. Lee.. There is no way this bill will or should pass!

The House can't filibuster. That is only allowed in the Senate. When HR 589 was introduced in the House in Feb. it only took one objection from Rep. Denny Rehberg to stop it dead in its tracks and send it to the W & M Committee.

DesperateInRI wrote:

exhaustedandtired/1208 wrote:You know from deeper thinking, the dems. who oppose and may have filibuster options can block the 1745 and work out a compromise and say they will consider 589 if they relax 1745. Like delay its affective date after the 14 weeks or something! Also Ok the so called union support how many union workers have jobs with no high school diploma or GED or degree???? Hello! If you are a union supporter , are they going to reject 1745!!!! Are all who have jobs union and non union be fired because they do not have GED or high school cert.??? hello! How can the repubs. or anyone else discriminate! This bill is discrimination bill. AND WHAT ABOUT THE HIGHER % OF AFRICAN AMERICANS WHO MAY NOT HAVE A GED OR HIGH SCHOOL.. WOULDN'T THIS BILL BE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION... HELLO! TIME FOR SOMEONE TO POINT THIS OUT!!!!!! CBC needs to fight this bill as I am smart enough to notice this discrimination!! I am going to tweet Barb. Lee.. There is no way this bill will or should pass!

The House can't filibuster. That is only allowed in the Senate. When HR 589 was introduced in the House in Feb. it only took one objection from Rep. Denny Rehberg to stop it dead in its tracks and send it to the W & M Committee.

exhaustedandtired/1208 wrote:

DesperateInRI wrote:

exhaustedandtired/1208 wrote:You know from deeper thinking, the dems. who oppose and may have filibuster options can block the 1745 and work out a compromise and say they will consider 589 if they relax 1745. Like delay its affective date after the 14 weeks or something! Also Ok the so called union support how many union workers have jobs with no high school diploma or GED or degree???? Hello! If you are a union supporter , are they going to reject 1745!!!! Are all who have jobs union and non union be fired because they do not have GED or high school cert.??? hello! How can the repubs. or anyone else discriminate! This bill is discrimination bill. AND WHAT ABOUT THE HIGHER % OF AFRICAN AMERICANS WHO MAY NOT HAVE A GED OR HIGH SCHOOL.. WOULDN'T THIS BILL BE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION... HELLO! TIME FOR SOMEONE TO POINT THIS OUT!!!!!! CBC needs to fight this bill as I am smart enough to notice this discrimination!! I am going to tweet Barb. Lee.. There is no way this bill will or should pass!

The House can't filibuster. That is only allowed in the Senate. When HR 589 was introduced in the House in Feb. it only took one objection from Rep. Denny Rehberg to stop it dead in its tracks and send it to the W & M Committee.

THE SENATE CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

exhaustedandtired/1208 wrote:AS i SAID AND i HOPE SOME DEMS. GET MY MESSAGE: THIS BILL IS HIGHLY DISCRIMINATORY ESPECIALLY THE HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF UNEMPLOYED AFRICAN AMERICANS AS WELL AS OTHER UNEMPLOYED! It cannot and will not pass! The education part and GED or diploma! BTW! I am 63 with GED and a little college.. Will they make me go back to school?
Also where the hell can I find my GED records. I took my GED while in the Navy! I hope Ron S. addresses this! And G !!!

DesperateInRI wrote:

exhaustedandtired/1208 wrote:

DesperateInRI wrote:

exhaustedandtired/1208 wrote:You know from deeper thinking, the dems. who oppose and may have filibuster options can block the 1745 and work out a compromise and say they will consider 589 if they relax 1745. Like delay its affective date after the 14 weeks or something! Also Ok the so called union support how many union workers have jobs with no high school diploma or GED or degree???? Hello! If you are a union supporter , are they going to reject 1745!!!! Are all who have jobs union and non union be fired because they do not have GED or high school cert.??? hello! How can the repubs. or anyone else discriminate! This bill is discrimination bill. AND WHAT ABOUT THE HIGHER % OF AFRICAN AMERICANS WHO MAY NOT HAVE A GED OR HIGH SCHOOL.. WOULDN'T THIS BILL BE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION... HELLO! TIME FOR SOMEONE TO POINT THIS OUT!!!!!! CBC needs to fight this bill as I am smart enough to notice this discrimination!! I am going to tweet Barb. Lee.. There is no way this bill will or should pass!

The House can't filibuster. That is only allowed in the Senate. When HR 589 was introduced in the House in Feb. it only took one objection from Rep. Denny Rehberg to stop it dead in its tracks and send it to the W & M Committee.

THE SENATE CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No need to yell at me, 1208. Let's get these bills introduced in the House before we start thinking about Senate filibusters. If it gets to that point, I give up. Look how long it took to finally get a 13 month extension of deadlines on 4213. It started in February 2010 and ended in December 2010. I can't wait that long.

exhaustedandtired/1208 wrote:Desp! I love it when you and I spar. You are a friend.. You have tolerated me for so long!!! But anyway! Can you show me those exceptions so that I have a better understanding of what and how this bill may affect me and others?? Also so that I may know more about it!

‘(B) For purposes of this paragraph, an individual shall not be considered to have met the minimum educational requirements of this subparagraph unless such individual--

‘(i) has earned a high school diploma;

‘(ii) has earned the General Educational Development (GED) credential or other State-recognized equivalent (including by meeting recognized alternative standards for individuals with disabilities); or

‘(iii) is enrolled and making satisfactory progress in classes leading to satisfaction of clause (ii).

‘(C) The requirements of subparagraph (B) may be waived for an individual to the extent that the State agency charged with the administration of the State law deems such requirements to be unduly burdensome in the case of such individual.’.

DesperateInRI wrote:

But aside from these new flexibilities, the bill would impose new restrictions on the use of federal unemployment benefits, most of which are designed to ensure that benefit recipients are actively looking for work.

For example, the bill would require those who are "most likely" to exhaust benefits, such as those without a high school degree, to pursue education and training programs that boost their chances of finding work. The bill also specifies that benefit recipients must be "able to work, available to work and actively seeking work."

The section I put in bold proves that they are clueless. I'll bet there are more 99ers with degrees than high school drop-outs. I know I have been excluded from all the part-time, minimum wage McJobs because I have a degree. Why do they think that the long term unemployed are enjoying this bout of "funemployment"? Do they really think we enjoy having no life and constantly worrying about if we'll have a roof over our heads tomorrow?

I really find it insulting that they would even insinuate that we are not looking for jobs!

I think they'll find time this week to introduce 1745. It should be interesting to see how it all plays out.

New_Wave_Princess wrote:

DesperateInRI wrote:

But aside from these new flexibilities, the bill would impose new restrictions on the use of federal unemployment benefits, most of which are designed to ensure that benefit recipients are actively looking for work.

For example, the bill would require those who are "most likely" to exhaust benefits, such as those without a high school degree, to pursue education and training programs that boost their chances of finding work. The bill also specifies that benefit recipients must be "able to work, available to work and actively seeking work."

The section I put in bold proves that they are clueless. I'll bet there are more 99ers with degrees than high school drop-outs. I know I have been excluded from all the part-time, minimum wage McJobs because I have a degree. Why do they think that the long term unemployed are enjoying this bout of "funemployment"? Do they really think we enjoy having no life and constantly worrying about if we'll have a roof over our heads tomorrow?

I really find it insulting that they would even insinuate that we are not looking for jobs!

I think they'll find time this week to introduce 1745. It should be interesting to see how it all plays out.

I too have a degree (two in fact) and degrees are actually hurting me. I've had employers tell me they don't hire people with degrees or people with masters. I met a guy with a Ph.D in some scientific field (I think it was nuclear biology) who's been unemployed longer than me. I have applied for jobs way below my level and I am ALWAYS rejected.

I do feel those without high school diplomas should be forced to go back and get a GED but how many people today don't have one? Probably not many.

DesperateInRI wrote:IThe only problem I have with this part is for people with learning disabilities. Education isn't everything. My late brother-in-law did not have his high school diploma because he had a learning disability and back in the 60's and 70's people who were afflicted were stigmatized. He was a very successful carpenter who went on to have his own thriving business.

Again, this will be up to the individual states and there will be exceptions, however I do think it is discriminatory towards the older workers who don't have a high school diploma, many of whom enlisted in the armed services during the Viet Nam war era.

gettheminNOVEMBER wrote:I asked crewof42 this is the answer I got.

http://tinyurl.com/3bzzt3k

Nothing new.

fredm74 wrote:I'm totally confused, Obama doesn't agree with the HR589 bill?