Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  29 30 31 32 33 (33 total)
05:01 PM on 10/09/2012
It would have been nice to have a link to the bill so one could see if any safe guards were in it to keep companies from working the system. The $7000 is around 92.8% of the minimum wage for 26 weeks (26 weeks *40*$7.25 = $7540; no benefits). But, then again I thought that government money couldn't create jobs?
The real question is why would companies hire an extra body if there is no additional demand for their product? This sounds a little like putting the cart before the horse. Wouldn't it be better to create some construction jobs (an industry that is lagging in the hiring department) by passing a bill to fix some of our infrastructure (power lines, roads, bridges, sewer lines, storm drains, water lines, ...)? this would give value for the money instead of just offering another subsidy to businesses who already receive too many subsidies for their low minimum wage jobs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
forty8r
Gerrman Freethinker
05:10 PM on 10/09/2012
True tax cuts don't create jpbs its demand for the product or service in which they hire people create jobs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DK in MS
Reinstate Glass-Steagall
05:19 PM on 10/09/2012
Fundamentally, the problem is supply-side economics. It simply doesn't work.
photo
submicron
I can't wait for the next Hairy Pooter movie!
06:14 PM on 10/09/2012
Assuming business isn't sitting on expansion money, waiting for a Washington regime change, I agree with you. If there is some of that going on (capital purposely withheld), this is an extra incentive to hire.
04:57 PM on 10/09/2012
I think this plan is a good start. It has its kinks that need to be worked out. We dont want companies hiring people for 6 months just to get the check then firing them only to hire someone else for 6 months and get another check and we dont want companies firing current employees to hire the person with the $7000 check but this is something. This is an idea, this is a possibility. I give this guy credit for having some kind of idea.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Retrorepublican
Never trade the thrills of living for the security
05:14 PM on 10/09/2012
This idea is moronic. No one hires someone because of a tax incentive. Period.
photo
submicron
I can't wait for the next Hairy Pooter movie!
06:18 PM on 10/09/2012
I don't think there is enough money at stake here for companies to invent some kind of complex Ponzi scheme. Hiring people and employing them for 6 months is just not worth $7K. Lets be realistic.
Realist2011
beware false profits....
04:56 PM on 10/09/2012
A short-sighted solution. Make it a year before they can get the money. Insist that these jobs pay decently and have benefits.

Otherwise, it's just going to be nothing more than one more way to scam our tax dollars for their profit.

Corporations are not responsible any more. They hire/fire with zero thought. Without some teeth and definitive "bottoms" for compensation and benefits, they'll do nothing but "churn" people through on 6 month intervals to game the system.

But it's certainly better than anything the GOP has brought forth to date, which is why it has zero chance of being implemented. They don't want any progress to even have a chance at taking root until either Obama is re-elected and they know their game is over, or Romneykins gets elected and can get "credit" for starting to fix a mess the GOP owns in the first place.
nothingchanges
too soon old, too late smart
04:55 PM on 10/09/2012
and where will the money come from?

"You know Paul, Reagan proved, deficits don't matter".

Worked out REAL well................didn't it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptainRenault
Here to keep an eye on the rascals.
05:02 PM on 10/09/2012
If you read the article, you can find out there.

^ ^
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Retrorepublican
Never trade the thrills of living for the security
05:15 PM on 10/09/2012
Yes. Even though businesses are crying out for skilled workers, we will cut that to subsidize jobs at Walmart.
04:53 PM on 10/09/2012
The real unemployment number is 14.7 % see the link;
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp
Who does the Administration think they are kidding by playing games with the unemployment numbers. The people who are no longer looking for work are still unemployed, but not counted
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mheister
Raconteur. Blog michaelheister.com
04:31 AM on 10/10/2012
Both parties have played games with those numbers for decades. Reagan made his unemployment numbers look better by adding in active-duty military as fully-employed (they weren't counted either way under Carter and earlier).
07:59 AM on 10/10/2012
Don't you see what you're saying the government we are suppose to trust is screwing around with the employment numbers to make them look good for them not for our interest. That's the problem we have in government today. The government needs to stop devising ways to make their created numbers look good for the politicians and their appointed bureaucrats who control we the people.
Look up the definition of government propaganda.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Micheal Frisbie
04:45 PM on 10/09/2012
Rep. Robert Dold (R-Ill.) introduced legislation that would ask the U.S. Labor Department to test giving $7,000 certificates to Americans who've been jobless six months or longer. The certificates, in turn, would entice employers: If the job candidate was hired and stayed on a company's payroll for six months, the company would get the cash... how about also offering any company hiring an unemployed person, their unemployment check for each month they are employed and would have been entitled to a payment... that would entice and help companies pay for the training period.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ron45
11:09 PM on 10/09/2012
Why not tax companies 60% on profits not reinvested and 20% on invested profits in America. I also think we should let them deduct healthcare cost for employ benefit
04:42 PM on 10/09/2012
Unless demand is increased, there's no reason for an employer to hire additional employees, so this seems like a boondoggle that could reward an employer for replacing current employees with those that carry a $7,000 prize.

Why didn't we just pass Obama's jobs bill (not to be confused with the J.O.B.S. Act) that would have put hundreds of thousands back to work fixing our infrastructure and creating new infrastructure like a smart grid? That way more people are employed and with the money they've earned they will spend more creating more demand which will require employers to hire more workers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptainRenault
Here to keep an eye on the rascals.
04:45 PM on 10/09/2012
The infrastructure idea is a very good one and should be part of any program to improve the employment picture. This is truly an investment in America's present and future. I say present b/c, as studies have repeatedly shown, our infrastructure is in serious need of fixing up already, let alone improving.

Some of this money should come out of the defense budget, which is loaded with pork and boondoggles.

^ ^
04:49 PM on 10/09/2012
I'm a 99er (know what that means?) and a long-term underemployed. All I've had since I lost my FT/Perm job with benefits is temp/contract/and intern jobs. This program sounds GREAT to me. The JOBS BILL had nothing to offer the long-term unemployed. And, I don't need more training--have a master's degree and took additional training in Health IT. It's been 3 1/2 years. I'm ready for a FT/Perm job with benefits. This sounds great to me with a little extra hooks. At least a GOPer got off his high horse and came up with a reasonable solution.
05:10 PM on 10/09/2012
What you will get with this bill is a minimum wage, no benefits job for 6 months, and then be out on your ear. That is if you are lucky enough to get a job. There is no incentive to hire if production is keeping ahead of sales.It would be better to spend the money on improving the countries infrastructure to creat jobs.
05:38 PM on 10/09/2012
There WAS NO Jobs bill passed, it didn't make it out of the House because the Republicans voted it down. That's the problem. If Rep. Dold wanted to create more jobs for you, then why didn't he vote for them? His solution won't get you any closer to a job if there are no jobs to be had. As I said, all it may serve to do is to take a job away from one person and give it to another person so the employer can collect $7,000.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptainRenault
Here to keep an eye on the rascals.
04:41 PM on 10/09/2012
This bill sounds good on its face, but, like most GOP proposals, is all smoke and mirrors in the way it works.

First off, it takes away money from exsiting training programs for the unemployed. So, there are losers here.

Secondly, as noted by Rick McHugh of NELP, it may go to employers who were going to hire anyway.

Thirdly, let's be clear, while the candiate is already motivated to get a job, likely b/c he or she has exhausted any UI benefits and is on the verge of homelssness and up to their eyeballs in hock.--So, if this is going to be done, why not earmark a piece of it, say $1,000 (non-taxable)for the *employee* payable after a probation period. I would say that 8 months would be reasonable.

I thnk it's clear why this bill has zero co-sponsors. It's not going to work. The traininig programs are already underfunded, and some of them outright impractical, since they do not pay enough to incentivize the recipient. How are you going to pay for living while going to school when the program only covers non-degree programs and part-time tuition?

This is another too little, too late idea.

^ ^
04:41 PM on 10/09/2012
Ah, corporate welfare. Genius.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mheister
Raconteur. Blog michaelheister.com
04:19 AM on 10/10/2012
Agreed.
botazefa
Sounds like Bodhisattva
04:41 PM on 10/09/2012
None of these plans matter if the American consumer continues to stay away from the game.

We need massive infrastructure investment, not rebate gimmickry.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mheister
Raconteur. Blog michaelheister.com
04:19 AM on 10/10/2012
Amen.
photo
KingCashio
A wise man once said, "What's going on?"
04:40 PM on 10/09/2012
Is that before or after the long-term jobless person takes drug tests, ultrasounds, religion tests and whatever other doing anything but help real people roadblacks the GOP put up to "ensure this President is a one term President?"

Excuse me if I don't pat this joker and his too little too late bill on the back.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realitytrumpsbull
Two 'alves of coconut!
04:35 PM on 10/09/2012
People gotta eat, and that food could come from a couple different places: Charity, begging, dumpster, govt. assistance, proceeds from criminal activity, proceeds from the wages of honest work, if any such were actually available. If/when #5 becomes unavailable, the other 4 start to rise in prominence as primary means of support.
photo
KingCashio
A wise man once said, "What's going on?"
04:41 PM on 10/09/2012
Any country is only three missed meals away from open rebellion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cynthia Dudley
04:35 PM on 10/09/2012
So companies could try out for Extreme Couponing?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
jonalisa
The People's Front of Judea
04:30 PM on 10/09/2012
Sounds like we could be in for a large round of 6 mo. temp jobs.
04:42 PM on 10/09/2012
Bingo. Companies dipping in the coupon pool again and again.
04:51 PM on 10/09/2012
This could be modified to make the companies accountable...unless it is a poor match. I think it sounds great for the most part.
05:43 PM on 10/09/2012
This bill is a DUD. I just read it. It's a one-pager with no meat to it. It's a waste of time even discussing it.