Albers starts with a good idea: helping connect unemployed people with volunteer opportunities so that they can "learn valuable skills, and network with possible job contacts." That's awesome. Then he piles on the wacky and twists a good idea into something illogical and kinda evil. Less awesome.

Then again, this proposal could serve as an excellent catalyst for developing a far-reaching system of alternative transportation in the metro.

If we require the jobless to get to weekly service work, we have to provide them with transportation options. Imagine a person in a Cherokee County slum-burb (I've seen them -- they exist), who has just lost his job and his car at the same time due to inability to make payments. Without daily transportation he can't get to community service work.

This new alternative transportation system would also help with the problem of transit access for seniors:
http://clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2011/0…

report 5 likes, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

well isn't this a far-reaching dilly of a pickle MORE SERVICES for the unemployed are you serious????? give them RIDES? how about we have a sandwich waiting for them with a juice box? WE the TAXPAYERS give these people money to say (many LIE) that they are looking to take work so that they CAN CONTINUE to eat fast food and play video games and smoke grandaddy in their HUD housing.

THEY do not pay taxes this was proven by Breitbart. we send them checks to live in squalor and unrepentant pride of their uselessness and they balk at any attempts to be culpable for their habits; with the help the ACLU of course!!! can't drug test em, its unfair!!! **PILES MONEY ON** can't make 'em volunteer, its evil!!!! **WRITES ANOTHER CHEQUE**

but who would want these people ladeling out soup at a soup kitchen??? or bagging leaves at a retirement home not me; that is to say no one receiving unemployment checks should lend a hand because they are generally unsavory types...loathesome people

in summation this bill is a TREMENDOUS idea for GA and an inteligent way to build community relations BUT OF COURSE it will die after a serious of spurious lawsuits and after the Dem machine sinks in it's talons and pulls all the teeth from it we can all thank heaven for the libs once again!!! thanks for doing nothing at all you blowhards and poverty-mongers way to protect your kids futures and the sanctity of capitalism thank you

report 6 likes, 16 dislikes   like  dislike

Ho ho ho Lookin into my crystal ball here and I got a predition: these Creative LIberals are going to be a'whinin' into their fancy wine glasses over this one!

Hey all you lazy out-of wrok bums! Your country just called. They want they're money back!! Hahahaha

report 2 likes, 16 dislikes   like  dislike

I agree Mobama. Let's take our money back from the military.

report 9 likes, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

Ignoring the two bouts of keyboard-diarrhea above, this is at least the seeds of a good idea. Two questions, though:

1) Is there enough capacity among nonprofits statewide (particularly outside of metro Atlanta) to actually absorb all those receiving unemployment benefits? Some larger nonprofits have well-developed volunteer programs, but it takes time to manage people, and nonprofits with only one or two staff (which is a lot of them, if not a majority) would be hard-pressed to manage an influx of new 'volunteers'.

2) Do the bill authors actually understand that a job search can be exceptionally time-consuming? Not that it would be impossible to do a search and 'volunteer' 24 hours per week, but it certainly won't make it easier to mail applications and resumes or (if you're lucky) do a job interview.

report 5 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

YOU SON OF A BITCHES

report 3 likes, 12 dislikes   like  dislike

We would also consider the households with children. If the unemployed person goes to work at an unpaid position, how would they cover the cost of child care?

I like the idea, because getting out into the world is a good way to network and get a paid position, but it cannot be mandatory. 24 hours per week at an unpaid position with no chance of it leading to a paid position is a waste of time and takes away from the time that would otherwise be spent searching for gainful employment.

Many people can only afford to pay for daycare if they are earning enough to cover necessities and the cost of daycare. Job searching by phone and internet allow parents to be present with their children and still search for employment. It's possible to find a sitter or family member to cover one or two hours while the parent goes to an interview, but consistent safe daycare at 24 hours per week is costly.

It's unfortunate that politicians like the vermin Albers and Loudermilk continue to try to mislead the public by calling unemployment insurance benefits "welfare". Unemployment benefits are payments from unemployment insurance, which is insurance in the case that a citizen becomes unemployed. There is no "hand-out". The policy is paid into by employers and the payout is the result of the insurance policy becoming payable under specific conditions. These dudes are complete dicks!

report 13 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

That's brilliant. Squeezing unfortunate people for paltry ass benefits (that they really need), while requiring nothing of companies that get ridiculous tax benefits (that they don't need) to set up shop here.

report 13 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

I'd like to introduce a bill that would prohibit both Loudermilk & Albers from introducing any bills (either separately or together). Forever.

report 10 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

@ Subversive - Nice try, but only half of unemployment insurance is covered by the employer, the other half is usually covered by the state - so there is a "welfare" (or whatever else you want to call it) component to unemployment.

@ Chuckie - With or without tax breaks, those companies still pay something. They pay it in taxes on revenue, and they pay it in payroll taxes that get distributed to the unemployed, along with a government "match". While, I don't disagree with paying unemployment benefits for a finite period of time, it should be clear that if employers weren't paying this into this tax to support the unemployed, they'd be spending it elsewhere - either paying working employees more, re-invesitng in capital items, expanding business, etc., which would have different economic impacts as well.

So, since the employer is allocating cash that could have been used elsewhere, and since the gov't is chipping in to fund part of these benefits as well, I hardly think asking someone to do a little work for those benefits can be considered "squeezing unfortunate people".

As Mr. A indicated, there are people out there whose unemployment is not a reflection on their capabilities. However, there are a lot of unemployed out there whose unemployment is a reflection of their capabilities (or lack thereof). At the gov't level (since we're talking about the administration of these benefits) it's virtually impossible to distinguish. So, what's the problem with getting unemployed people to do a little work for the assistance they're receiving? I wouldn't suggest 40 hours a week of work, but I would suggest maybe 10-15, that can be scheduled with a lot of flexibility, to ensure that someone wouldn't have to choose between (i) work to receive benefits or (ii) pursue a potential opportunity for a new job.

report 1 like, 8 dislikes   like  dislike

They won't be pestered into leaving the state. They'll be pestered into getting a job or continue volunteer work. What does CL prefer these people do?

report 2 likes, 4 dislikes   like  dislike

"With or without tax breaks, those companies still pay something. They pay it in taxes on revenue, and they pay it in payroll taxes that get distributed to the unemployed, along with a government 'match'"

Thanks. Cool factoid even if it doesn't refute the fact that large corporations are frequently given substantial tax breaks that are disproportionate to their overall economic benefit to the state...under conditions that don't stop them from picking up and moving someplace else for another tax break in a few short years. The absurdity of being someone who advocates such policy while quibbling about providing assistance to people who actually need is still there.

"should be clear that if employers weren't paying this into this tax to support the unemployed, they'd be spending it elsewhere - either paying working employees more, re-invesitng in capital items, expanding business, etc., which would have different economic impacts as well."

Or they could hoard it and economic conditions/unemployment would be exactly where it is now.

"I hardly think asking someone to do a little work for those benefits can be considered "squeezing unfortunate people"."

Seeking employment or being actively involved in training is required of those receiving unemployment benefits. So forcing them to work someplace 20+ hours of week for shits and giggles = squeezing.

report 2 likes, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

Albers is a complete idiot...He SHOULD be focusing on the real issue: job creation. I, for one, would be happy to tie up the state in a federal lawsuit if this asinine bill passes...Leave it to backwards Georgia...wasting millions of tax dollars defending stupid bills like this one and the immigration law in court.

report 2 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Like payroll tax and health insurance, the employer's payments into the state (SUI) and federal (FUTA) unemployment insurance system are a compensation expense that reduces what the employer would otherwise have available to pay the employee. Said another way, unemployment insurance is earned by the employee and is part of an employee's overall compensation package and therefore rightfully belongs to the employee.

Requiring the unemployed to perform public service to receive the unemployment benefits that they earned while they were working amounts to unfair government confiscation of prior compensation.

However, having said that, after the amount contributed to the system on their behalf (the amount earned) has been returned, requiring some service to receive any additional unemployment compensation has some merit, as the unemployed person did nothing to receive that additional money. Along the same lines, it may also be fair to require some minimal service in exchange for some other forms of public assistance that did not require a previous contribution by the recipient.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Like payroll tax and health insurance, the employer's payments into the state and federal unemployment insurance systems are a compensation expense that reduces what the employer would otherwise have paid directly to the employee. Said another way, unemployment insurance is earned by the employee and is part of an employee's overall compensation package and therefore rightfully belongs to the employee.

Requiring the unemployed to perform public service to receive the unemployment benefits that they earned while they were working amounts to unfair government confiscation of prior compensation.

But, after the amount that was earned has been returned, requiring some service to receive any further unemployment compensation doesn't seem unreasonable, assuming the recipient is able.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

forcing people to work for no pay is a market distorting hand-out to favored institutions. Real conservatives would never support it.

report 3 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

I am unemployed. I have officially been in the workforce for 25 years. Before I was unemployed I did my part, and some. For about half of those 25 years, as a small business owner, I PAID into Unemployment Insurance. Now that I am in need of this safety net, which I have thousands of my $$$ vested into the system, some idiot Politician wants to treat me like a criminal?

I thought Republicans (which I have often supported) are supposed to be for keeping the Govt off of the backs of the Individual. This 'proposal' shows an arrogant contempt for citizens, especially those who are least in the position to give up what resources they have.

Let me also remind the 'Honorable' State Senator that all of the Unemployment Benefits that I (& all recipients receive) is TAXABLE INCOME. Kind of a slap in the face, considering that I must use a fair amount of my 'benefit' to pay other taxes, such as Property Taxes, Tag fees (now due), Sales Taxes, etc.

I have never had to look for work in the past. Heck, I turned down projects because things were so busy at times. Believe me, I would much rather be running myself ragged doing work in my field, rather than shooting out resumes (85 applications this year alone), making calls & bugging people for work.
DO NOT start telling me that I am to be looked at the same way as some low-life criminal who is required to pick up trash on the side of the road as 'Community Service'.

This is an obvious case of a politician trying to make a name for himself by pushing a sound-byte. State Senator Albers can't 'dazzle 'em with brilliance', so he's going to 'baffle 'em w/ B.S.'

report 5 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@Chuckie:

"Thanks. Cool factoid even if it doesn't refute the fact that large corporations are frequently given substantial tax breaks that are disproportionate to their overall economic benefit to the state...under conditions that don't stop them from picking up and moving someplace else for another tax break in a few short years. The absurdity of being someone who advocates such policy while quibbling about providing assistance to people who actually need is still there. "

Thanks. However, something is better than nothing, so having a company that is getting tax breaks, providing jobs (regardless of how many), and paying taxes (regardless of how much), is better than not have any jobs or any tax revenue from those respective companies. Period.

"Or they could hoard it and economic conditions/unemployment would be exactly where it is now"

That's what happens in times of uncertainty. When there is no clear direction on which way growth is going, an unclear regulatory environment, and a very real need to potentially "weather the storm" for a while, people and companies alike hoard cash. It's prudent planning. In more normal times, if companies weren't paying out this additional tax, you can bet it'd be placed into a variety of different areas (R&D, CapEx, Payroll, etc.), rather than just sitting in a current assets account.

"Seeking employment or being actively involved in training is required of those receiving unemployment benefits. So forcing them to work someplace 20+ hours of week for shits and giggles = squeezing"

Is that a joke? 'Seeking employment is required of those receiving benefits' - yeah, because everyone who is unemployed is actively seeking new work. Give me a f'ing break. Having someone work 20+ hours a week (assuming they're doing it for the gov't) is worth a lot more than 'shits + giggles'. It can improve the community. It can alleviate a payroll burden (to a degree) of government. It provides the psychological benefit of simply keeping people out and active, instead of giving up and sulking into a couch. It can connect diverse groups of people through a common activity, where ideas can be shared, opportunities can be found, etc. All positive things. I know you'd rather just collect what you think you're entitled to, but that doesn't really do anybody any good.

@ Butwaduino

"unemployment insurance is earned by the employee and is part of an employee's overall compensation package and therefore rightfully belongs to the employee"

As I said before, that's only half true. The government matches what the employer pays in, and so half of the unemployment benefits are earned, and half are handed out. So, from day 1, the unemployed are getting 50% of their benefits from the taxpayer. Let's not also forget the cast, albeit marginal, that the taxpayer pays to process and administer unemployment benefits. It's not a lot, on a pro rata basis, but it's a cost nonetheless.

@ John X

"This 'proposal' shows an arrogant contempt for citizens, especially those who are least in the position to give up what resources they have"

On the contrary. Now that you're unemployed, you have more of a certain resource than any of the employed - that resource being time.

"all of the Unemployment Benefits that I (& all recipients receive) is TAXABLE INCOME"

What's your point? As previously noted, half of these benefits are "earned compensation". Would you just like to get tax-free compensation? Maybe unemployment benefits should come with your own free personal assistant who can find jobs for you, too?

"DO NOT start telling me that I am to be looked at the same way as some low-life criminal who is required to pick up trash on the side of the road as 'Community Service'."

This is your misinterpretation of the intent. Maybe it's picking up trash, maybe it's working for a charity, maybe it's helping out in other areas where there is extra manpower needed. There's nothing shameful in that. People who get nothing from the gov't, by way of benefits, give their time to the community all the time - what's shameful about that? If I were in your shoes, I'd be happy to get out and do some sort of community improvement activity, regardless of what it was.

In general, I guess the difference between people who have such a stick up their ass about this proposal, and those who see it as a bad idea probably boils down to a few things. First, they probably don't realize (like a lot of people here don't) that unemployment benefits are 50% covered by the government, so it's not something that was entirely "earned" by them during their working years. Second, they clearly have an issue with having to meet a requirement or perform a task to get a reward - which is probably indicative (in many, but not all, cases) of why these people wound up unemployed in the first place. Third, many of these people don't seem to grasp the fact that, just because you were super-busy at one point, doesn't mean that you're entitled to a job. Perhaps your job was outsourced, perhaps your skills aren't applicable anymore, perhaps you don't have the tenure or experience in a certain industry, but whatever the case, you don't have the skills that an employer is willing to pay for. Period. So, be happy to get out, be active, meet people, share ideas, and help your community, instead of sitting around "filling out applications"

report 0 likes, 8 dislikes   like  dislike

Instead of coming up with ways to beat down the unemployed...how about figuring out a way to get jobs here!!! I sincerely wish there was a way to make you a unemployed senator so that you can experience what we are going through. What a major @zzhole!! Someone should punch his lights out!

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

AA— if its a place where "extra manpower is needed" then that place should employ somebody.

"which is probably indicative (in many, but not all, cases) of why these people wound up unemployed in the first place."

Yes, it wasn't the recession at all. Thank god we can use whether somebody is employed as a qualitative guide to whether they have any character defects. God knows nobody who holds down a job is lazy or inept.

report 2 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

This is how fucked up the republican party is:

New Deal style infrastructure-improving stimulus spending is wasteful, but giving people the unemployment benefits that they, themselves paid into as a reward for picking up trash on highway median strips is a bold new idea.

Reality Check— being unemployed is hard. Its considerably harder than many jobs that pay a living wage. It limits your freedom, your horizons, and brands you as lazy.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Thanks. However, something is better than nothing, so having a company that is getting tax breaks, providing jobs (regardless of how many), and paying taxes (regardless of how much), is better than not have any jobs or any tax revenue from those respective companies. Period.

"Well if getting *something* is all that matters here without regard to the actual benefits to the state, unemployment benefits are taxed and spent on taxable items; and it actually keeps a significant segment of the populace from complete financial run, which is also economically beneficial (because people with no money at all is bad for the economy, yes)? So (again), it's absurd to be so lax with the provision of tax breaks to large companies that don't need them, while being such a stickler over the distribution of unemployment benefits to people who do. If you'd care to illuminate how that *isn't* absurd this time around, I'd love to see you to take another crack at it.

"That's what happens in times of uncertainty. When there is no clear direction on which way growth is going, an unclear regulatory environment, and a very real need to potentially "weather the storm" for a while, people and companies alike hoard cash. It's prudent planning. In more normal times, if companies weren't paying out this additional tax, you can bet it'd be placed into a variety of different areas (R&D, CapEx, Payroll, etc.), rather than just sitting in a current assets account."

So "they could hoard it and economic conditions/unemployment would be exactly where it is now…" ??? You're really bad at this point-counterpoint thing.

"Seeking employment is required of those receiving benefits' - yeah, because everyone who is unemployed is actively seeking new work."

The requirement is there, and that's factual -- which is in stark contrast to the anal cavity-based observations of one dumb ass CL commentator. Sure it's convenient to make an assertion about the unwillingness of 480,000 people to seek employment, and build an entire case as to what should and shouldn't be done with them based on that, but that just isn't intellectually prudent.

"Having someone work 20+ hours a week (assuming they're doing it for the gov't) is worth a lot more than 'shits + giggles'."

They wouldn't be doing it "for the gov't" but do go on….

"It can improve the community. "It can alleviate a payroll burden (to a degree) of government."

It can also hinder the search for employment (which would accommodate your shoddy list of benefits), which is somewhat problematic if you're trying to solve Georgia's higher-than-average unemployment problem.

"It provides the psychological benefit of simply keeping people out and active, instead of giving up and sulking into a couch."

I don't know if you've ever met anyone that was on a job search, but that also keeps you pretty active and from "sulking on a couch." You're a psychologist, huh? You are quite the renaissance man when you've got your head up your ass. Out here, though, that shit doesn't pass muster. I'm going to stick with shits and giggles, your bullshit observations notwithstanding.

"I know you'd rather just collect what you think you're entitled to, but that doesn't really do anybody any good."

I'm not a recipient of unemployment benefits, just a reasonably intelligent individual that understands how the world works even outside the realm of my personal circumstances. It's the sort of quality that comes with an understanding of facts - which can be severely be hindered by excessive privilege, insecurity about your personal failings, or just familial retardation.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@ Zeds

"if its a place where "extra manpower is needed" then that place should employ somebody"

Unfortunately, when we're talking about the community, a lot of the areas that need help are under government control. So, while it's nice to say "that place should employ somebody", it's not that easy, particularly when your government entities are struggling for cash. So you could make improvements to the community, by asking those who get benefits to do some work, or you could just ignore those areas of potential improvement...for a reason I've yet to really understand.

"Yes, it wasn't the recession at all. Thank god we can use whether somebody is employed as a qualitative guide to whether they have any character defects. God knows nobody who holds down a job is lazy or inept"

That's why I said "in many cases, but not all".

@ Chuckie

"Well if getting *something* is all that matters here without regard to the actual benefits to the state"

Well, let's see incentives to employers to locate here means job growth, which correlates to population growth, which correlates to increased tax revenue. I'd say the state gains by incentivizing employers to move to their respective cities, particularly if those employers stay long term.

"because people with no money at all is bad for the economy, yes"

Sure it is. Nobody argued that. Hell, I didn't even argue against giving out unemployment benefits. All I said was that I don't think it's a bad idea to ask people to contribute to their respective communities if they're going to recieve gov't assitance.

"If you'd care to illuminate how that *isn't* absurd this time around, I'd love to see you to take another crack at it"

Sure. I'll go slow, so you can understand. It doesn't matter whether or not a company "needs" a tax break or other incentive to locate to a specific area. Companies exist to make profits, and tax breaks and other incentives help companies to make those profits larger - which, surprise!, is good for that company, its employees, its investors, etc... What they also do is create an incentive for that company to move into the municipality that's offering those breaks/incentives, at which point the company creates jobs, population growth, and adds to the economic foundation of said area - which, surprise!, is good for the area. It's what's known as a fair trade. I give you something, and you give me something. We both determine that what we're giving is worth less than what we're getting, and we're therefore happy with our agreement. So, while that company may not "need" that tax break, we as an area need people and population growth, and therefore we offer incentives to get that.

Now, with unemployment benefits, the dynamic is somewhat different. You see, an idle unemployed person doesn't have much to offer the municipality. They're not spending much money, they're not creating jobs, and they're not really making contributions to the overall economic foundation of an area (once they become employed, that changes). So, the incentive the government has in paying those benefits out, is to stave off things like crime, homelessness, and blight, and to provide a little bit of a cushion, during which the unemployed can hopefully get back on their feet. However, this is a lopsided trade, because at best, the municipality retains the status quo. Unemployment benefits don't "create" any sort of wealth or improvement, they simply provide a life-line to the status quo. So, given that this is a socially benevolent thing to do, I don't see in harm in asking for that trade to become a little more equitable, by asking for some reciprocity from recipients, in order to make the community a better/cleaner/safer/whatever place.

"The requirement is there, and that's factual"

I'm sure it is, but the enforcement of that requirement isn't there. So, while not all unemployed people are just sitting around doing nothing, plenty are. Those are plenty who could be helping their respective communities. And for those who are actively seeking employment, what's the harm in having them get involved and having them keep active by way of helping out in their community?


"It can also hinder the search for employment (which would accommodate your shoddy list of benefits), which is somewhat problematic if you're trying to solve Georgia's higher-than-average unemployment problem"

Saying it would hinder the search for employment has zero factual basis. It's you speculating that if an unemployed person had to do 20 hours of work a week, that it could interfere with their ability to search for other jobs, which is total bullshit. There's something known as time management - it's where people balance responsibilities and plan accordingly to fit all the things they need to do into their schedule. Since I suggested that the 20 hours of work requirement be flexible in it's scheduling, it would never get in the way of someone taking an interview/meeting, etc. for a future job. Of course, you're also ignoring the fact that by being out in one's community they would be interacting with other individuals of similar circumstance, business owners, etc. which creates opportunities to share ideas, find employment, etc. I should not have assumed you could think with such a basic level of depth.

"just a reasonably intelligent individual that understands how the world works even outside the realm of my personal circumstances"

See, here's where the disagreement it. While you might be 'reasonably intelligent', in the sense that your IQ is average, you're not reasonably intelligent when it comes to real world application. You're too much of a pussy to deal with the harsh reality that there are people out there who don't pull their own weight, and require the reallocation of resources from more capable people just to feed themselves. As that's the case, most people - myself included - willing help (I'm active in a couple charitable foundations, I am an advocate of higher taxes to help solve our economic problems, etc.). However, most people who are willing to help also understand that they're engaged in a lopsided trade. As such, it's not unreasonable by any means to expect a little reciprocity.

report 0 likes, 3 dislikes   like  dislike

"Well, let's see incentives to employers to locate here means job growth, which correlates to population growth, which correlates to increased tax revenue. I'd say the state gains by incentivizing employers to move to their respective cities, particularly if those employers stay long term."

Heehee. That's so adorable how you think you're educating me on how this shit works, while vehemently missing the point. Tax incentives are handed out in Georgia with laughably little oversight, conditions, or serious consideration of the impact of those incentives on the economic viability of the state. So it's grossly inconsistent to attach cumbersome (and unproductive) conditions to the receipt of unemployment benefits to individuals while being OK with unchecked corporate handouts. It is utterly impossible to state that any clearer. I'm at a loss on how to overcome your learning disability.

"Hell, I didn't even argue against giving out unemployment benefits. All I said was that I don't think it's a bad idea to ask people to contribute to their respective communities if they're going to recieve gov't assistance."

This is an extension of you missing the corporate handouts vs. individual assistance inconsistency that I've re-re-explained for you.

"I'm sure it is, but the enforcement of that requirement isn't there."

It is, but I assume that the facts don't matter to you since you've only pulled shit out of your ass thus far.

"So, while not all unemployed people are just sitting around doing nothing, plenty are. Those are plenty who could be helping their respective communities."

So we should attach these arbitrary, unproductive requirements to *all* unemployed people based on your precision assessment that "plenty" are sitting around doing nothing? I feel so stupid. That makes so much sense. How did you arrive at such an exact figure?

"Saying it would hinder the search for employment has zero factual basis. It's you speculating that if an unemployed person had to do 20 hours of work a week, that it could interfere with their ability to search for other jobs, which is total bullshit."

It's me having intimate familiarity with the management of non-profits with large volunteer workforces and having assisted economically disadvantaged people with job placement, amongst other things. I know with certainty that devoting 20+ hrs a week to pointless sanctions for pitiful amounts of money would be unproductive to an active job search. Especially in Metro Atlanta where a job (or the person looking for it) could be anywhere from Alpharetta to Douglasvile to Jonesboro. But you're right, all that definitely pales in comparison to your cursory, learning-impaired examination of this subject. I yield.

"You're too much of a pussy to deal with the harsh reality that there are people out there who don't pull their own weight, and require the reallocation of resources from more capable people just to feed themselves."

LMAO! Yes, it certainly does take big balls of steel to scapegoat poor and unemployed people. I wish I were manly enough to go online and pretend to be successful while ranting against people without jobs. Gawd, I'm such a pussy :(

"As that's the case, most people - myself included -"

Incidentally, idiots misuse "myself" all time -- generally in an attempt to sound scholarly, but failing miserably. Very apropos that you'd use it to season your shitty take on things here.

report 2 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"So it's grossly inconsistent to attach cumbersome (and unproductive) conditions to the receipt of unemployment benefits to individuals while being OK with unchecked corporate handouts"

Nope, sorry, nice try though. Just because you claim an activity is unproductive, doesn't make it so. Just because you claim there is little oversight or consideration given, when giving out corporate tax breaks, also doesn't make it so. Sure, there have been times where a tax break, or other incentive was given when it shouldn't have, but that doesn't make the initiative of corporate incentives ineffective as a whole. It's the same as how, every once in a while, you'll say something that makes sense...but as a whole, you're still a total fucking moron.

"It is, but I assume that the facts"

Enlighten me. Tell me what enforcement there is for unemployment benefits. However, keep in mind that enforcement has to be effective to be considered enforcement, which means applying to a state job program, and clicking in a few resumes here and there doesn't count. Please present me with real facts not, "facts as declared by Chuckie".

"So we should attach these arbitrary, unproductive requirements to *all* unemployed people based on your precision assessment that "plenty" are sitting around doing nothing?"

Well, again, just because you claim it's unproductive, doesn't mean it's so. I can point to a lot of ways it would be productive - cleaning up the community, filling in for public service duty where needed, working as a volunteer for organizations that need extra bodies but can't afford to hire them (those are all productive things). Do you care to tell me why getting out and putting in a few hours of work in each week is unproductive? Or is this you just beating your "I said it, so it must be true" drum?

"It's me having intimate familiarity with the management of non-profits with large volunteer workforces and having assisted economically disadvantaged people with job placement, amongst other things. I know with certainty that devoting 20+ hrs a week to pointless sanctions for pitiful amounts of money would be unproductive to an active job search. Especially in Metro Atlanta where a job (or the person looking for it) could be anywhere from Alpharetta to Douglasvile to Jonesboro. But you're right, all that definitely pales in comparison to your cursory, learning-impaired examination of this subject. I yield."

This doesn't even address the point. You just tossed out some vague reference to your experience, and didn't address the fact that 20 hours a week is such a minor requirement that anyone could work around it, particularly with a flexible program. Have to travel to Douglasville for an interview? Re-schedule your volunteer work. Hell, even have it waived in some cases, to ensure that you don't miss job opportunities.

"LMAO! Yes, it certainly does take big balls of steel to scapegoat poor and unemployed people. I wish I were manly enough to go online and pretend to be successful while ranting against people without jobs. Gawd, I'm such a pussy"

Haha...Am I scapegoating someone because I'm agreeing with a program that I think could be beneficial to a community and to the individuals as well? God forbid people with an abundance of time on their hands be asked to help out their communities. Better not suggest that, or we might be accused of scapegoating by some dickspit.

Once again, your argument is empty and self-congratulatory. Congrats.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Wow @AtlantaAdvocate. It's revealing that you have the time and energy to sit all day commenting on CL's blog instead of working, literally going through each comment and responding to every contribution.

Dog, if you were unemployed, according to your own pompous rants, you would definitely deserve $0 in unemployment compensation ("welfare" as you put it). You better hope some unfortunate circumstance does not befall you.

Here's an idea you might get down with: Install web use monitoring software on any person receiving unemployment benefits to make sure they do not spend all day commenting on blogs instead of being productive. Anyone making asinine comments gets denied!

You create a generalized idea of a type of person, criticize your imaginary people for being lazy, yet you yourself waste your entire day where you sit. You criticize your imagined stereotype for trying to get handouts, yet you avoid work and still feel deserving. Are you republican? No, let me guess...you're actually John Albers aren't you?

report 3 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"Sure, there have been times where a tax break, or other incentive was given when it shouldn't have, but that doesn't make the initiative of corporate incentives ineffective as a whole."

It does, however, make it ineffective if consistently applied in a broke ass state with an established record of higher-than- national-average unemployment. GA has doled out ridiculous size tax packages to lure corporations and keep them here for decades, with obviously shitty results. And it isn't just GA; this race to the bottom has had a detrimental impact on other states clamoring for the "business-friendly" title. The only thing these corporate handouts have accomplished is placating and idiot voters like you who dig faux prosperity, while getting their thongs all knotted over shit like how much volunteer work unemployed people are doing.

"keep in mind that enforcement has to be effective to be considered enforcement, which means applying to a state job program, and clicking in a few resumes here and there doesn't count."

You said that it wasn't enforced, now you're moving goalposts to cover you talk-shitting out of your ass...besides, you just finished disputing that corporate tax incentives are distributed with abandon, and now you want a detailed plan on unemployment benefits enforcement? lol. Fuck outta here. That sentiment perfectly illustrates the inconsistency I originally mentioned, though, so bravo for that.

"You just tossed out some vague reference to your experience, and didn't address the fact that 20 hours a week is such a minor requirement that anyone could work around it"

And the goal posts have been moved again. You're much too stupid to have this argument. I said it would be unproductive to unnecessarily burden job seekers with arbitrary tasks, and your reply is essentially "we should make them do it because it can be worked around?" Real talk, man, you're fucking stupid. Shit's hilarious, though.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@ Sophist - 4 posts over the course of two days..hardly excessive. I'm not sure what type of energy you're referring to either, as it's not really exhausting to punch a few keys on a keyboard. It's more frustrating than anything, to have to listen to the whiny babble from people like you & Chuckie.

@ Chuckie -

"It does, however, make it ineffective if consistently applied in a broke ass state with an established record of higher-than- national-average unemployment".

Trying to make the correlation between a higher than average unemployment rate and the incentives that we give to companies to locate here is weak, at best. Higher than average unemployment across the state is more a result of the fact that the types of jobs that are taking prominence in the U.S. are not within the industries that are dominant in Georgia. So, what do you do when your states employers are gradually becoming obsolete? You try to get new employers and industries to your state/city. How do you do that? With incentives!

"The only thing these corporate handouts have accomplished is placating and idiot voters like you who dig faux prosperity"

Not sure where you got the idea that adding jobs and creating population growth are "faux prosperity". Here on Earth, those things are real prosperity. Given the job growth and the employment growth over the past 10 - 20 years, I'd say some of those incentives worked pretty well. I know it doesn't conform to your "I said it so it must be true" argument, but as usual, you're wrong.

"You said that it wasn't enforced, now you're moving goalposts to cover you talk-shitting out of your ass"

Ineffective enforcement isn't enforcement. However, I'd expect someone like you to judge an action by it's intent, rather than it's results.

"you just finished disputing that corporate tax incentives are distributed with abandon, and now you want a detailed plan on unemployment benefits enforcement"

I said corporate incentives are distributed inefficiently, SOMETIMES, but many times they are not. Job growth and population growth over the past 10-20 years is a fact, unlike your empty rhetoric. Another fact is the emergence of the film industry here over the past couple of years, due to the tax credit it receives. That's an incentive that brings money to the state, creates jobs, and provides for an economic boost. My request for detail about the enforcement of unemployment benefits was put out there, because I know you can't provide any. You can't provide proof or fact that there is an enforcement program out there that actually enforces the intent of benefit requirements. Again, I know you'd like to place the validity of an action on its intent, rather than its result, but unfortunately, that's just not the way things work.

" I said it would be unproductive to unnecessarily burden job seekers with arbitrary tasks, and your reply is essentially "we should make them do it because it can be worked around?" "

Yep, you said it, but the only thing you can back it up with is your opinion. However, as usual, your opinion is pathetically weak. Asking someone to improve their community for 20 hours a week is (i) not a burden, and (ii) not unecessary. Perhaps it's considered a burden to you, because you're a lazy bitch, and perhaps you find it unecessary, because you think everyone is entitled to something without having to work for it, but it's that kind of thinking that got us into that mess in the first place.

report 0 likes, 3 dislikes   like  dislike

unlike the rest of the simpsons generation, AA aspired to become c. montgomery burns

report 2 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

AD HOMINEM ALL THE POSTERS!!!!


AA, wouldn't it be better for the government to pay people to improve their communities, rather than making them "work for free" to get unemployment benefits?

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"AA, wouldn't it be better for the government to pay people to improve their communities, rather than making them "work for free" to get unemployment benefits?"

anything that reminds the poors how inferior they are compared to AA is a positive in his book

compassion? did anyone ever get rich or generate value by giving things away? i don't think so. your move, lazy hippie bitch

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

you know what really helps someone find a job? twenty hours a week of unpaid bitch work just for the privilege of feeding their children

why did you have children while being so dumb and uneducated anyway, stupid poors? you should have spent your time learning about obscure financial policies so that you could create real value for society

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

I really hope there is a meeting of the CL commentators one day. First thing I'm gonna do is have AA park my car.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

he's just going to sit there and scream at the steering wheel for being lazy and entitled. stupid wheel, too uneducated to turn itself. bitch

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

AA, I'm not making a correlation between "incentives that we give" and unemployment, you moron. I've made it pretty clear in multiple comments that I'm referring specifically to indiscriminate and unnecessary tax incentives, and the hypocrisy of their proponents. This is really like having a discussion with a roll of toilet tissue. ONE-PLY toilet tissue, in fact. Try to keep your partially-developed brain from veering of into neversubjects for just one thread.

Tax policy that encourages industry and spurs economic growth is all perfectly fucking fine. GA, however, consistently creates company-centric, lobbied-for tax incentives tailored to entities already here (Delta, Coke, GA Power), to create new jobs that never materialize...or it's done to lure a specific company here with tax incentives that have some ridiculously high dollar to number of jobs created ratio, and they're made with very lax conditions. These giveaways have been the norm since Republicans took control of the legislature in the mid 2000s, and GA's unemployment rate has been higher than the US average for most of that time. That means, quite simply, that the shit isn't working...and it would be pretty obvious why if you weren't bequeathed such crippling retardation by your uncle/dad.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike