It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another great idea from the people that brought you high unemployment.

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

States asked to apply for unemployment test plan

Link-a-mundo

Oh you'll love this one, fellow ATS-istanians.


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is looking for states that will experiment with unemployment insurance programs by letting people test a job while still receiving benefits.

The plan is a key feature of a payroll tax cut package that President Barack Obama negotiated with congressional Republicans in February.

The Labor Department will open the application process Thursday for 10 model projects across the country. Any state can apply for the "Bridge to Work" program.

The plan is modeled after a Georgia program called "Georgia Works." Under the plan, workers who have lost jobs can be placed in other temporary jobs as trainees for short periods to retain their skills or gain new ones while receiving jobless assistance. About a third of the time, those workers wind up getting hired full-time.

A number of states are combining unemployment benefits with on-the-job training, including North Carolina, New Hampshire, Utah and Missouri.

A senior administration official said those states would be eligible to apply for the federal demonstration project. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the program before an administration announcement.


Now, any transitory program might be a good thing.

OJT?

Sounds nice.

Um, who pays for it though?

Employers do.

They are already paying high amounts, and the Obama administration is trying to get them to pay more?

As the article states, some states are looking into this to ease unemployment.

I think this won't work.

It's like replacing one tire out of 4 flat ones, and expecting the car to move.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'll be the first to say that I was iffy on this article. But I've been accused of not using "critical thinking" in the past so I try to see the story behind the story.

Just throwing it out there for your reading entertainment.

beez




posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I expect nothing less from them.

Why on Earth would you let someone who is setting around drain tax money from unemployment do this? Are they making the minimum wage that the average trainee makes on a job?

All it sounds like to me is a plan to further nationalize / socialize the workforce.

Here's what I think the country as a whole needs to do for unemployment:

Change from 99 weeks to 40 with a chance to extend in extreme circumstances. (take away the 2 year paid vacations)
No more just calling how many job contacts you made. I know you can do this in Wv I'm not sure with other states.
Anyone getting benefits should have to go to an actual interview and have the employer sign off on it.

All people getting benefits should have to do a minimum of 30 hours of community service. I don't care if its a small town with 50% unemployed. That would be one spotless town.

Mandatory drug testing for all state and federal benefits not just unemployment. You pop once and you lose all benefits for life.


To me this sounds like a real good way to get our country's work ethic back and get us back on track



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DisIllusioned PatRiot
 
Thanks.

I appreciate your take on this. It's something I overlooked.

I agree that the 99 week unemployment breeds complacency and a dependence on more government.

Something they (government) wants to constantly do.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


The plan is modeled after one found in Georgia (again, a State issue tackling its own problems being ported to a National program; sounds familiar) called Georgia Works.

From what I see on how Georgia's plan works is based on one key factor: Voluntary. Is there any doubt that if the Federal Government puts into place some sort of "Works" program and it fails that they wouldn't move to make it mandatory? Maybe pay a fine on your taxes for not participating in the program?

I mean, come on, this is an important sector of our economy and unemployment isn't just limited to one State....

Some interesting facts about Georgia's Plan:
Voluntary (yeah, I am stating it again).
Employer's do not pay the potential employees (its training)
Potential employees basically are getting a state-paid OJT or internship.

The State program looks nice and again, voluntary to employers to participate. Now lets see about the proposed Bridge to Work (not to be confused with the HUD's Bridges to Work program that has been in place since 1996).

Plans would require employers that participate to pay at least minimum wage (why even participate if that person can't perform the job in the first place?) and if their "benefits, ie, unemployment" doesn't make up the difference, than States would have to boost the unemployment. There is little information, yet again, about this idea.

I stand that it should be the States that tackle this problem and an all encompassing Federal program would just be more red-tape and another behemoth bureaucratic mess.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 
Thank you!
(I'm just glad there are smarter people than me on ATS!)

This isn't just an isolated issue.

It appears a trend to take a successful program and mandate it, warp it, mutate it to satisfy their (governments) own needs and place secondary, the selfsame people it was designed to help.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


It will be interesting once more details emerge about it. Supposedly the programs will be in the "Jobs Act 2012" and then we can gain a better perspective on the scope envisioned by Washington to be the savior of the unemployed.

What I wonder is, why does Washington need to legislate the issue? Short answer -- power. It effectively solidifies to the States and down to the People that regulation of employment is a Federal issue. I will admit that I am open to ideas and trying to see if something good can come out of this, but I think it should be a State issue such as Georgia is already attempting.

It is easier to dismantle the program if it fails and it is easier to manage at the State level.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy


It is easier to dismantle the program if it fails and it is easier to manage at the State level.


Well there you go! Once it starts then it'll be yet another level of beaurocracy that'll have a shelf-life just a wee bit longer than plutonium!



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I'll preface by saying I did not vote for Obama. And I realize (from numerous posts) the politcal bias represented here. That said, do you truly believe it is reasonable to place the unemploymentg situation solely on the current administration? As a former long-time small business owner that got crushed in the economic implosion it seems very clear to me that the unemployemnt SHTF back in 2007. What we've seen since is simply the fallout from that. Of course I realize that takes all the fun out of another 'everything is Obama's fault' thread.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 
It's not the "cause" we're discussing so much as the solutions.

I think we can all agree that there have been problems before Obama.

It's the solutions to these problems that we differ on.

My take?

Obama's "solutions" have exacerbated the problems not solved them.


edit on 19-4-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
...[I]s (it) reasonable to place the unemploymentg situation solely on the current administration?


Squarely? Absolutely not. Depending on how deep one wants to dig, we could point way back before any of the current posters were even conceived of being brought into the world regarding the apex of this current chronic unemployment environment.

I can see why you asked that question, given the leading sense of the title, but the content that Beez' presented surely wasn't implicating President Obama as the sole source.


As a former long-time small business owner that got crushed in the economic implosion it seems very clear to me that the unemployemnt SHTF back in 2007. What we've seen since is simply the fallout from that. Of course I realize that takes all the fun out of another 'everything is Obama's fault' thread.


Truly sorry to hear that you endured this. This type of story (yours) has been drowned out since because of massive bailouts and handouts to large corporations deemed "too big to fail". One of the issues here is what has been done since then? As Beez' (you don't mind my little nickname for you do you OP?) pointed out, what are the solutions and have the ones that have been implemented been beneficial?

Some could argue that they have been while of course, other could argue that they only benefited the few, while others will see them as dismal failures.

Discussing and debating this current round of 'solutions' though is warranted. Georgia is experimenting in this type of work program and if it is successful, you can bet other states will begin to fashion a similar program. If it is a failure, it saves State legislatures time of not setting up or devising a similar idea. A massive Federal program that will entrap all states in a fiscal maelstrom yet again and my guess, more compliance costs to the employer.

As a former small-business owner you should understand that the more the Government makes you comply, the less time and money you have to invest into your business.
edit on 19-4-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
SPAM removed by Admin
edit on Apr 19th 2012 by Djarums because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
"The people that brought you high unemployment" were people BEFORE Obama took office.

But heck, if you are a fan-boy of the GOP, lets just keep blaming everything on Obama. What will the ridiculous talking heads of the right blame on Obama next, polio???


Jokers.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Obama created unemployment?

Really? Please explain how he and his administration have created unemployment since his arrival.
To my knowledge the country was losing upward of 750k jobs a month leading up to the 2008 election. During Obama's presidency those numbers have gone down significantly. Unemployment is still too high, but to say that Obama's administration brought on unemployment is misinformation. The only jobs he got rid of were 500k government jobs. That should make you happy. You want smaller government, do you not?

This program seeks to raise employment. How can you dig at him for creating unemployment (which is a lie) @ the same time you dig at him for trying to help those unemployed get back to work?



edit on 19-4-2012 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisIllusioned PatRiot

Here's what I think the country as a whole needs to do for unemployment:

Change from 99 weeks to 40 with a chance to extend in extreme circumstances. (take away the 2 year paid vacations)
No more just calling how many job contacts you made. I know you can do this in Wv I'm not sure with other states.
Anyone getting benefits should have to go to an actual interview and have the employer sign off on it.


And what about those that don't get called for an interview at all even after calling back the employer several times?


All people getting benefits should have to do a minimum of 30 hours of community service. I don't care if its a small town with 50% unemployed. That would be one spotless town.


This might be a good idea.


Mandatory drug testing for all state and federal benefits not just unemployment. You pop once and you lose all benefits for life.


So everybody that is unemployed is a drug user? Nice blanket statement.



To me this sounds like a real good way to get our country's work ethic back and get us back on track


Work ethic has nothing to do with it (or maybe it does with some demographics, but certainly not all). There are no jobs, period (decent paying anyway). The ones that are out there are minimum wage service jobs that 5-10 or more people are applying for per position....unless of course you are willing to pick up roots and go somewhere else...and most people don't have the capital to do that. It's like that in many areas of the country. I couldn't even support myself at a minimum wage job, even if it was full time, and I'm single with no kids. I can't imagine a family trying to survive on that. Housing costs are on the rise, gasoline, food, etc. Unless you live in a major metro area, public transit is non existent.


My solution? Close every military base around the world as of tomorrow morning. Put some of those troops to work building new infrastructure for public transit around OUR country, and repair existing infrastructure, along side civilian contractors. Put the rest on our borders. With the money saved from having to upkeep all those bases around the world, the Fed can dump that into the economy, giving tax breaks to companies that keep jobs HERE, and tax the hell out of the companies that ship all their work overseas. And I'm talking a 75% tax penalty. Make the banks pay back every cent they stole from the taxpayer directly back to the taxpayer. With this new income, you forgive student debt (which just hit one trillion dollars). That will give the economy a direct shot in the arm. Stop funding projects to green energy until these people can make it more efficient and less expensive than petrol. That will save us some bucks.

Of course, that is only a pipe dream, and will never happen. Till then, I'll continue trying to find a full time gig again. This per diem and freelance stuff sucks.





-TS
edit on 19-4-2012 by truthseeker1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   

And what about those that don't get called for an interview at all even after calling back the employer several times?


Its simple. I've been unemployed. I know how hard it is to find a job now. If you don't hear anything back when you apply maybe try aiming a little lower. If they don't call you the obviously don't want you or you aren't qualified or the spots been filled.

You cant always get your dream job or even just a good job.

I hated the idea of being dependent on the government. So what did I do? I went out and got 2 crappy jobs until I found a decent one.



Mandatory drug testing for all state and federal benefits not just unemployment. You pop once and you lose all benefits for life.


So everybody that is unemployed is a drug user? Nice blanket statement.


It's not a blanket statement for anyone. It doesn't matter if its 1 out of 100 that is just one less person that we don't have to pay for. If you have time and money to set around and get high you're not trying that hard to find a job are you?

And I'm not just saying testing for unemployment. I meant testing for anyone that gets any kind of benefits.

I live in Wv and I've seen the way that a large percent of the people getting assistance take advantage of it. Anything from trading their food stamps for cash to by meth or getting money from the state to pay their power bill then let there kids sit in the dark and cold because they used the money to get high.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join