Value for the money

[gallantwarrior]

Maybe a plan like this would sit better with the people footing the bills, the Taxpayers?

Everyone on Welfare and receiving unemployment payments need not feel useless and can learn to accept a value for their labor.
For example: there are many, many government sponsored programs and infrastructure projects that require labor to complete. In this case, let's look at the maintenance of National and State Parks facilities. Could an unemployed carpenter not be asked to help repair or build Park facilities in order to justify his payments?
Or, could an otherwise unskilled Welfare mother not be asked to provide child care for other recipients of government funds in order to justify government support for her/himself?
I do not understand why there is such government hesitance to require people otherwise unemployed or unoccupied to render some service to that government in order to "earn" their government provided incomes.

 

[Euro]

Maybe a plan like this would sit better with the people footing the bills, the Taxpayers?

Everyone on Welfare and receiving unemployment payments need not feel useless and can learn to accept a value for their labor.
For example: there are many, many government sponsored programs and infrastructure projects that require labor to complete. In this case, let's look at the maintenance of National and State Parks facilities. Could an unemployed carpenter not be asked to help repair or build Park facilities in order to justify his payments?
Or, could an otherwise unskilled Welfare mother not be asked to provide child care for other recipients of government funds in order to justify government support for her/himself?
I do not understand why there is such government hesitance to require people otherwise unemployed or unoccupied to render some service to that government in order to "earn" their government provided incomes.

Greed is an even bigger problem in USA. The thing is that the rich in USA have so much money, that if the politicians could agree on taxing the rich the unemployment would fall to maybe 2% and all this tasks you suggest would be taken care off.

So tax the rich to employ the unemployed.

 

[inALIENable]

Could an unemployed carpenter not be asked to help repair or build Park facilities in order to justify his payments?
Or, could an otherwise unskilled Welfare mother not be asked to provide child care for other recipients of government funds in order to justify government support for her/himself?

That's been suggested before. Their reply: "THAT'S SLAVERY!" I kid you not.

 

[American Horse]

Maybe a plan like this would sit better with the people footing the bills, the Taxpayers?

Everyone on Welfare and receiving unemployment payments need not feel useless and can learn to accept a value for their labor.
For example: there are many, many government sponsored programs and infrastructure projects that require labor to complete. In this case, let's look at the maintenance of National and State Parks facilities. Could an unemployed carpenter not be asked to help repair or build Park facilities in order to justify his payments?
Or, could an otherwise unskilled Welfare mother not be asked to provide child care for other recipients of government funds in order to justify government support for her/himself?
I do not understand why there is such government hesitance to require people otherwise unemployed or unoccupied to render some service to that government in order to "earn" their government provided incomes.

Wouldn't the government become the employer of first resort? Do we want that? Of course these folks would say they don't have any time to look for a job for the work they have to do for their benefits. I for one don't want to see that happening.

 

[itfitzme]

Maybe a plan like this would sit better with the people footing the bills, the Taxpayers?

Everyone on ... receiving unemployment payments need not feel useless and can learn to accept a value for their labor.
For example: there are many, many government sponsored programs and infrastructure projects that require labor to complete. In this case, let's look at the maintenance of National and State Parks facilities. Could an unemployed carpenter not be asked to help repair or build Park facilities in order to justify his payments?
...
I do not understand why there is such government hesitance to require people otherwise unemployed or ..order to "earn" their government provided incomes.

Interesting question.

To begin with,

1) the reason that it is called unemployment INSURANCE is because you paid insurance premiums, in the form of taxes, to receive benefits in case you became unemployed.

2) As part of the insurance payment program, you are required to look for work. Your job is to look for work, eight hours a day, five days a week.

Unemployment INSURANCE benefits is not free money. It is a INSURANCE payment.

Having job seekers work to repair state park facilities, while a wonderful idea would be like your automobile insurance company requiring you to run deliveries of documents or clean the office windows in order to receive the insurance claim payments when you were in an accident.

The tax payer isn't footing the bill, any more then you are footing the bill when someone makes a claim on their auto insurance policy with the company that you also have auto insurance.

You already "earned" the money when you worked, before you became unemployed.

Now, that doesn't speak to the long term unemployment that occurred during this recession. The Federal government subsidized the state unemployment programs due to this recession. This recession was an unusual emergency situation, much like hurricane Katrina and other disasters.

That the emergency disaster aid provided by the federal government was necessary, doesn't change the basic processes of the state unemployment insurance benefits programs. It just means that, like any insurance program, systematic risk cause an extra ordinary level of claims. It doesn't change the fundamentals of the program.

And, the thing is, in such a difficult job market, it seems that job seekers need to spend even more time looking for work. Looking outside their immediate profession, outside their usual area, etc. Being required to spend less time looking for work, at the very time that more time is needed, would be self defeating.

 

[eflatminor]

...there are many, many government sponsored programs...

There's your problem right there.

 

[itfitzme]

Never Argue With A Fool – They Will Drag You Down To Their Level, Then Beat You With Experience!

Thanks for the warning. I will be sure not to argue with you.

 

[AquaAthena]

Maybe a plan like this would sit better with the people footing the bills, the Taxpayers?

Everyone on Welfare and receiving unemployment payments need not feel useless and can learn to accept a value for their labor.
For example: there are many, many government sponsored programs and infrastructure projects that require labor to complete. In this case, let's look at the maintenance of National and State Parks facilities. Could an unemployed carpenter not be asked to help repair or build Park facilities in order to justify his payments?
Or, could an otherwise unskilled Welfare mother not be asked to provide child care for other recipients of government funds in order to justify government support for her/himself?
I do not understand why there is such government hesitance to require people otherwise unemployed or unoccupied to render some service to that government in order to "earn" their government provided incomes.

I have long been in agreement with your suggestions, gallantwarrior. I think people on those programs, IF THEY ARE OF SOUND MIND AND BODY, should all have to volunteer in something.

The problem would be supervising those, that would hold a grudge, for having to "earn their keep." That COULD get expensive to oversee the program. Still, it might just balance the outgo of taxpayer's earnings.

Only a conservative would check it out, because they arer interested in seeing our country stay out of bankruptcy, now that we are so close.

That issue is where a Ron Paul focus would come in very handy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Everyone on Welfare and receiving unemployment payments need not feel useless and can learn to accept a value for their labor.
For example: there are many, many government sponsored programs and infrastructure projects that require labor to complete. In this case, let's look at the maintenance of National and State Parks facilities. Could an unemployed carpenter not be asked to help repair or build Park facilities in order to justify his payments?
Or, could an otherwise unskilled Welfare mother not be asked to provide child care for other recipients of government funds in order to justify government support for her/himself?
I do not understand why there is such government hesitance to require people otherwise unemployed or unoccupied to render some service to that government in order to "earn" their government provided incomes.

While it’s true unemployment comp is not public assistance, and those on Cash assistance are required to perform community service while looking for work, WPA/NRA type programs would be an excellent idea, particularly for those in the hard-hit construction industry. But the House would never authorize such plans, as they conflict with conservative dogma.

 

[Widdekind]

unemployment comp is not public assistance, and those on Cash assistance are required to perform community service while looking for work

logical extension, of existing programs, to new programs

 

[gallantwarrior]

So many points to address:
First, while an employee pays into a fund designated to assist them should they become unemployed, that payment was never meant to become a two-year bailout. The unemployment program was intended to help bridge a short period of time, allowing a person to find new employment. In Alaska, that used to be six months. And the amount paid was only a small percentage of what you were earning before becoming unemployed. There is also a cap on how much you pay into the fund, regardless of how much you earn. The supplemental funds provided by the Fed to bolster their mandate to the States does come from the federal taxpayer.

Second, I do not propose requiring full-time occupation, but rather some form of part-time community service. The longer a person stays unemployed, the slimmer their chances of finding another job become. By taking "employment" as part of such a program, the prospective employee can show employers that he/she is still in the market and willing to do what is necessary to work. I would consider a modification that the requirement to perform community service not be instated until the unemployed person had been unsuccessful in their job acquisition, allowing perhaps a specified period during which they would devote their efforts solely to finding another job.

Third, the CCC, WPA, TVA, and many other programs instituted as an offset to the jobs lost during the Great Depression worked. Unemployed workers vied for those jobs, and the government got a lot of good infrastructure projects completed. Not to mention, many of the projects that were done during that time are now in desperate need of repair or replacement. If the Feds are going to expending taxpayer funds, why not require the recipients to do something more than unsuccessfully look for jobs that are admittedly not available. There are more than enough government agencies already in place to administer such programs, although that might require those government employees to do more than party on the taxpayer dime.

 

[Flopper]

Although putting everyone to work on public service projects that receive Welfare or unemployment payments is certainly a good idea, the political and funding problems are almost insurmountable. Congress would not allocate funds for such a program. There is much work needed to be done in every city and county in the country, but that would require local funds, something that few local communities have.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

unemployment comp is not public assistance, and those on Cash assistance are required to perform community service while looking for work

logical extension, of existing programs, to new programs

True. Many in this category would be good candidates for OJT, where Federal funds subsidize pay rolls and allow tax incentives to employers. Employers could hire more workers (without adversely effecting profits), and consequently increase state and local revenue. It’s just a matter of getting workers back on a pay roll, where subsidies can be gradually removed as the economy continues to improve.

 

[Widdekind]

True. Many in this category would be good candidates for OJT, where Federal funds subsidize pay rolls and allow tax incentives to employers. Employers could hire more workers (without adversely effecting profits), and consequently increase state and local revenue. It’s just a matter of getting workers back on a pay roll, where subsidies can be gradually removed as the economy continues to improve.

"subsidies" are Government Intervention in the market

if there are Public Works that need to be done...

then why not offer Public Contracts to (appropriate) private businesses... covering costs, for

• hiring, training, utilizing Labor
• raw materials, fuel
• (reasonable) profits

no "subsidies", instead bid-able Public Contracts ? if there exist potentially-profitable Public Works, then wouldn't private investors willingly fund the project(s) ?