When you call any 800# plz ask them to transfer you back to the USA. Lets force those businesses to come back .

This petition is based on: Recovery Fraud Complaint RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506-0 March 2012 against the Department of Labor CUIAB Case No. A0-265448 won on 10/20/2011 (challenged the faulty and illegal EUC08 policy mistakes and prevailed). (A) The Department of Labor published an implementation error in the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC08). (B) This error was published by the Employment & Training Administration in August of 2008, in UIPL 23-08 Change 1, in the Q&A section about "Multiple EUC Claims". (C) "Multiple EUC Claims" does not comply with 20 CFR 615.5(2). What they advise all states to do violates regulations and laws. If you are a scholar and researcher of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), then you might want to look into Division B, Subtitle II section 2001, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC08). The Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration published an error in their EUC08 guidelines Q&As that they issued to all state agencies starting in August of 2008. The Q&A about "Multiple EUC Claims" does not comply with 20 CFR 615.5(2) the "definition of an exhaustee". What this does is force claimants for EUC08 to "finish off" any remaining balance leftover from any older benefit years EUC08 claim first, before being allowed to start receiving payment for EUC08 based on the most recent benefit year. Example: 1. A Teacher becomes unemployed in 2008. 2. She qualifies for and runs through a 26 week state regular compensation unemployment claim for $81/week based on a part time temp job. 3. She then becomes an "exhaustee" and qualifies for EUC08 at the same $81/week in late 2008 (99 weeks total available on this claim back then). 4. This claimant only uses up 5 weeks at $81/week but she has a 95 week still available when she returns to a much higher paying job again. 5. The EUC08 claim stops payment and ends (according to 20 CFR 615.5(2)). http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6ab144a522fac8b1680f3fb9dec8ebc9&rgn=div8&view=text&node=20:3.0.2.1.8.0.1.5&idno=20 6. When she loses her job again in 2009, and she goes back onto a new state regular unemployment insurance claim for 26 weeks. This time she qualifies for $450/week. This claim is available for 52 weeks. In her case she started in August of 2009 and the state claim ends in August of 2010. 7. When she runs out of this 26 weeks of state aid for the second time now in early 2010, she becomes an "exhaustee" again for federal EUC08, and the "Multiple EUC Claims" error START (see link for (B) below). 8. Instead of paying her a new 99 week EUC08 claim, based on the 2009-2010 $450 week state claim she just finished, the "Multiple EUC Claim ERROR", incorrectly instructs the states to put her back on the old EUC08 claim from 2008-2009 claim at $81/week for the remaining 95 weeks. 9. This means that when the new benefit year she just entered that paid her $450/week ends in 52 weeks, she will still be stuck on the older $81/week EUC08 claim. She then loses eligibility to the $450/week claim (August 2010). 10. Also when she crosses the last state unemployment claims 52 week benefit year end in August of 2010, she WILL FAIL the Public Law 111-205/HR4213 eligibility test because she is being paid EUC08 from the old 2009 claim and not the 2010 one that would make her eligible for this important law as well. This law requires that the claim she has ENDS after July 22,2010. The old 2009 one does not, but the 2010 one she should have been paid on does (if 20 CFR 615.5(2) had been followed and "Multiple EUC Claims" had been ignored). So she may be forced off the $81/week federal EUC08 and be forced on to a new even lesser state claim for another 26 weeks. On and on... It is just complicated enough that the feds think we are too dumb to figure this out. That almost worked too. Much less federal aid has been paid out for far shorter time periods due to these errors. You can compare and research the ERROR that the DOL ETA made in these links here (just like I did and used to win my appeal case with): Here's the problem with the EUC08 program: (A) Look up the Department of Labor Operating and Implementing Instructions for EUC08: EUC08 Program pre-errors definition of an "exhaustee" http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08a1.pdf (B) Then look up what the DOL issued just a month later and pay attention to Section D. Monetary Eligibility, Q&A (7) "Multiple EUC Claims": EUC08 Program errors begin with this Q&A http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08C1a1.pdf (C) Then compare that to the DOL's own regulations for Federal State Extended Benefits at 20 CFR 615.5(2), and the definition of an "exhaustee" found here at (C) is the same as (A): 20 CFR 615.5 (C) Refutes what (B) says and supports (A) http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6ab144a522fac8b1680f3fb9dec8ebc9&rgn=div8&view=text&node=20:3.0.2.1.8.0.1.5&idno=20 The California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Case I won on 10/20/2011, pointed this same problem out. Case No. A0-265448 prevailed in support of 20 CFR 615.5(2) over the Q&A "Multiple EUC Claims ERRORS" that the Department of Labor published. So there actually is a harmful and wasteful implementation error mistake in the "Stimulus". Further details can be found here (based on the appeal case mentioned): an ARRA Implementation Error Exposed http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/18/1121545/-An-ARRA-Implementation-Error-Exposed Here is the Recovery Fraud Complaint RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506-0, that the Recovery Accountability & Transparency Board has "buried", and that the Department of Labor is "ignoring" (they are the "accused party in this complaint"). http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/17/1121274/-a-Recovery-Fraud-Complaint-ignored As for the Obama Administration that is seeking re-election...they got involved in this mess too: Mr. President there is a serious problem with the EUC08 program...

Like Kentucky's Governor Steve Beshear congress should cut their government salaries by 10%. This would help decrease the national debt. And leave my social security and medicare alone!!!

Paul Ryan used the Mahoning County St. Vincent de Paul Society soup kitchen for an unauthorized publicity stunt. Now, the soup kitchen is facing a backlash, because of Ryan's stunt, in the way of their donors saying they will no longer donate to the charity.

I live in Ohio and resent the fact that he'd exploit homeless folks in our state for cheap political gain. Its not fair to them, our state or the St. Vincent de Paul Society for his shenanigans. He should be ashamed. I have had relatives who were homeless, and I have received food from a food bank once. Good people go there who don't need phony's using their pain to get elected.

Mitt Romney has failed time and time again to mention our Veterans. At this point, it is obvious that is a conscious decision. He has not mentioned his stand on veteran's programs. Veterans Health Care is big budget socialized medicine, is this the cut that he is going to use to balance his budget. I believe that he and Ryan plan to voucherize Veterans Health Care and that is why they are not interested in Veterans they see them as part of the 47% that are on the dole. Force Romney to state his position on Veterans Health Care and the budget. This could be a deal breaker for Veterans and that is why he avoids it.

It's clear that we've got to amend the U.S. Constitution to overrule the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. But most of the amendments in play in Congress deal only with the problem of money in politics (see http://FreeSpeechForPeople.org/node/441 ). That's important, but we have to go deeper too: Citizens United also said corporations have constitutional rights, like free speech, as if they were people. This gives corporations the power to get the courts to throw out all kinds of laws they don't like - including food labeling, health, environmental, and civil rights laws as well as laws on money in politics. We need an amendment that makes it clear that people, not corporations, are in charge of America. The People's Rights Amendment, H.J. Res 88, does this (see http://PeoplesRightsAmendment.org ). It has extensive bipartisan support in the House but has not yet been introduced in the Senate. That's why we need your help. Please sign on, then spread the word. Thanks, from the whole team at: http://FreeSpeechForPeople.org

We are a group of students working to ban the sale of bottled water on the Clark Univeristy campus. -Bottled water creates unnecessary waste; 86% of bottled water ends up in landfills. - Bottled water is typically more than a thousand times more expensive than tapped water. - The PET plastic used to produce bottled water is produced using the chemical benzene which is correlated with the development and other health problems. Please sign the following petition to show your support and make a difference on our campus. Thank you

From the moment Walmart announced plans to open a grocery store in Chinatown, that community has been clear. They don’t want the retail giant’s poverty-wage jobs, nor do they want to see the destruction of Chinatown’s small businesses and unique neighborhood character. But Walmart won’t take no for an answer. So now it’s up to the City Council – and to us. Ten councilmembers already have pledged their support for an emergency law to stop Walmart and other chains from locating in Chinatown. We need two more votes to prevent Walmart from moving ahead. Please tell City Councilmembers Tony Cardenas and Joe Buscaino to vote YES on the Chinatown Interim Control Ordinance.

In a true democracy everyone's vote should count equally. the whole system is broken, which becomes especially apparent when someone who has lost the popular vote can still "win" the election. The electoral college is an antiquated system that needs to be eliminated. Everyone should feel equally empowered, by their right to vote.

Undocumented youth in Arizona have tried it all. Went to his congressional office, to his Tucson headquarters and even invited him to a town hall meeting to address immigration, but he refuses to do so! He even went on Prensa Hispana (a Spanish newspaper) saying he does support the DREAM Act. Ask Jeff Flake to stop ignoring us and tell the truth on how he voted no on the bill in 2010.

billboards in south Florida " friends don't let friends nuke friends" I've seen several billboards in my area that is disturbing to say the least