The Republicans are the Problem

[Dirty Penguin]

Let's try just one to start. By the way, anyone can jump in if they so desire.
Let's start with unemployment insurance. I totally disagree with the present policy for the following reasons.
1. I think it promotes a "I do not want to work attitude". Let me give you an example. I have a nephew who was laid off. He went on unemployment and about 3 months into the period he was offered a job. The job paid about $200 more a month than unemployment. He turned it down because he said he could make just about as much and not have to work. When his unemployment expired, he went out and got a job at about the same pay as he was offered the first time. I do not know how much you believe John Stossel, but he did a program on the unemployed. He interviewed people inline at the employment office and various businesses within about a 10 block area. He found many of those business were looking for help, but couldn't find anyone that wanted to work. Of those he interviewed there excuses ranged from, why work to it isn't in my career field.
I therefor think that the time period for unemployment should be lowered back to an earlier time limit.

There can definitely be people trying to get over but here in my metropolitan area when you go on unemployment you have to be actively looking for a job and you have to prove that you are applying for work or they cut off your benefits....or at least that was understanding. At the unemployment and employment offices there are people there that offer some free assistance to help you get a job.

There are many that turn down a job because it's not in their field and are unwilling to adapt such as changing their field. Some aren't willing to reeducate themselves. Working at a school I see this a lot. I had a mom who worked for a company as an Executive Administrative Assistance at a large company. She was downsized and let go. She was making around 65k a year. She was receiving severance pay from the company that let her go and it was due to run out in 6 months. She was actively looking for a job and one came up that a friend turned her on to. she went through the interview processes but turned the job down because they offered 55k a year.

I thought she was crazy but all she kept saying was that it was too low. She almost got to a point where her severance was about to run out and now is working as an Admin Asst. on a temporary contract. She should have taken the 50k. She recently told me that she now needs to focus on school as well because she is competing in a market of younger people who already have 2 and 4 years of college under their belt. She doesn't.

These people, years ago, who got comfortable and nestled into a job just by who they knew and getting that on the job experience may not be able to do that kind of thing anymore because the market is really tough. Now she wishes she took that full time salaried position for 50k.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

IMO, one of the best ways to help people get off welfare is universal health insurance and a decent set of social programs for everybody.

What can sometimes happen is that a person can get medical coverage while on welfare, but then they lose it when they get a job: even though they appear to be making more money, the fact that they now have the added expense of medical care for their family means that it costs them more to work than be on welfare.

If you're worried about the well-being of your family (and I know very few people who aren't), then this can be a huge disincentive against getting a job.

Hopefully, Obamacare will address this - I'm not really sure how well it works at that income level that's too high for MedicAid but low enough that the jobs don't typically have benefits.

 

[Storm]

IMO, one of the best ways to help people get off welfare is universal health insurance and a decent set of social programs for everybody.

What can sometimes happen is that a person can get medical coverage while on welfare, but then they lose it when they get a job: even though they appear to be making more money, the fact that they now have the added expense of medical care for their family means that it costs them more to work than be on welfare.

If you're worried about the well-being of your family (and I know very few people who aren't), then this can be a huge disincentive against getting a job.

Hopefully, Obamacare will address this - I'm not really sure how well it works at that income level that's too high for MedicAid but low enough that the jobs don't typically have benefits.

Even having benefits isn't a solution for those with legitimate health problems. My best friend in Portland had a pretty good job with decent benefits. She also had a variety of legitimate health problems, including a depressed immune system. On top of the premiums that came out of her paycheck, she racked up about $5,000 in debt from co pays and prescriptions her plan didn't cover.

On top of that, she got written up for taking 4 days off sick when she's allowed 3.5, and told she'd be fired if it happened again. Which of course, would lose her what coverage she had.

So, yeah. I support universal healthcare. I'm such a despicable socialist.

 

[esmith]

Have just posted a new thread on this sub forum entitled "After The Welfare State" if anyone is interested.

 

[Storm]

Have just posted a new thread on this sub forum entitled "After The Welfare State" if anyone is interested.

Read and posted. I take it you're not really interested in any reform other than the elimination of all safety nets?

 

[esmith]

Read and posted. I take it you're not really interested in any reform other than the elimination of all safety nets?

Didn't say that. I believe that there should be safety nets for those that really need it, but how many government entities does it take. Did you get a chance to look at this article?

Federal Government Cannot Identify How Many Government Welfare Programs Exist, Much Less Whether They Are Working | The Carleson Center for Public Policy

 

[Storm]

Didn't say that. I believe that there should be safety nets for those that really need it, but how many government entities does it take. Did you get a chance to look at this article?

Federal Government Cannot Identify How Many Government Welfare Programs Exist, Much Less Whether They Are Working | The Carleson Center for Public Policy

I really have no interest in such an article, so no.

Why don't you just respond to my post?

 

[Shermana]

Why did Republicans shoot down Obama's job bill that would have been a giant tax cut that would make it easier to hire domestically?

 

[esmith]

I really have no interest in such an article, so no.

Why don't you just respond to my post?

Not sure which one you are referring to. Is the one where you asked me if I was only interested in eliminating all safety nets? If it is I answered it. Not sure why you will not read a article that says the federal government doesn't know how many different agency are involved in all aspects of various welfare programs and any indications on how they are doing. This was from the OMB

 

[Storm]

Not sure which one you are referring to. Is the one where you asked me if I was only interested in eliminating all safety nets? If it is I answered it. Not sure why you will not read a article that says the federal government doesn't know how many different agency are involved in all aspects of various welfare programs and any indications on how they are doing. This was from the OMB

No, I meant the one about unemployment insurance. You know, the topic you chose. I'd settle for the bit about universal healthcare.

I won't read the article because "the federal government" is not an individual capable of giving interviews, and I'm not playing the "uninformed people represent us all" game.

ETA:I did however, Google the Carleson Center for Public Policy on a hunch, and sure enough there's a great big banner announcing: "Advancing the Reagan Agenda." I don't bother with studies from people who go out of their way to point out their bias.

 

[esmith]

No, I meant the one about unemployment insurance. You know, the topic you chose. I'd settle for the bit about universal healthcare.

Will have to go back and find it then think about it. You will not get me into a discussion about universal health care because it is not currently a viable topic up for consideration in Congress

I won't read the article because "the federal government" is not an individual capable of giving interviews, and I'm not playing the "uninformed people represent us all" game.

Yes, but a representative of the GAO is giving testimony to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. So I would assume the GAO is telling the truth. Correct?

ETA:I did however, Google the Carleson Center for Public Policy on a hunch, and sure enough there's a great big banner announcing: "Advancing the Reagan Agenda." I don't bother with studies from people who go out of their way to point out their bias.

Yes, you are right. However, they are directly quoting(with accompanying video) Patricia A. Dalton, the Chief Operating Officer of the General Accountability Office(GAO)

 

[esmith]

I really have no interest in such an article, so no.

Why don't you just respond to my post?

I think you might be referring to post #720
So, let me give you my opinion. Unfortunately, there are many unemployment case workers that either really don't care if someone is scamming the system or not. They get paid whether a person is denied or granted unemployment checks. There are no "unemployment investigators". Requirement vary from state to state as well as the amount paid. One problem with long term unemployment is the stigma employers associate with long term unemployment. Unemployed Face Discrimination Just One Month After Losing Their Jobs, Report Says

 

[Reverend Rick]

Employers want current employed people, not people who have become accustomed to doing nothing all day.

 

[no-body]

Employers want current employed people, not people who have become accustomed to doing nothing all day.

Oh boy. If this kind of sick logic continues don't be surprised if this happens soon:

 

[Revoltingest]

Employers want current employed people, not people who have become accustomed to doing nothing all day.

Dang! That leaves me out.

 

[Storm]

Employers want current employed people, not people who have become accustomed to doing nothing all day.

Because worrying about how to keep a roof over your head makes you lazy and incompetent?

 

[Quiddity]

Oh boy. If this kind of sick logic continues don't be surprised if this happens soon:

He is not off in what he is saying. I can tell you from experience that our company has done this time and time again. Why? Because our HR department knows that desperate people will take anything and will leave as soon as they get the chance. Especially if they are a tad over qualified. Our company doesn't want to fill positions with people that see it as...."this is just to pay the bills temporarily"...they have their foot out the door already.

Is it fair? No, but that's the reality. A company, just like people, find ways to protect themselves.

 

[Storm]

I think you might be referring to post #720
So, let me give you my opinion. Unfortunately, there are many unemployment case workers that either really don't care if someone is scamming the system or not. They get paid whether a person is denied or granted unemployment checks. There are no "unemployment investigators". Requirement vary from state to state as well as the amount paid. One problem with long term unemployment is the stigma employers associate with long term unemployment. Unemployed Face Discrimination Just One Month After Losing Their Jobs, Report Says

So, we make "investigation" one of their job duties. Perform it, or you'll be applying for unemployment.

It's not that complicated, so how about a critique that can't be solved by a 5 year old?

 

[Quiddity]

Because worrying about how to keep a roof over your head makes you lazy and incompetent?

As mentioned in my previous post, it makes you desperate and with little loyalty.

 

[Storm]

He is not off in what he is saying. I can tell you from experience that our company has done this time and time again. Why? Because our HR department knows that desperate people will take anything and will leave as soon as they get the chance. Especially if they are a tad over qualified. Our company doesn't want to fill positions with people that see it as...."this is just to pay the bills temporarily"...they have their foot out the door already.

Is it fair? No, but that's the reality. A company, just like people, find ways to protect themselves.

Maybe you should offer better jobs then? Also, if you're poaching employees from rival companies, what makes you think they'll show any more loyalty to you? It's like marrying the guy who left his wife for you.

Don't blame the unemployed for your high turnover.