Does this dildo head ever stop?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Gaylord has homoerotic obsessions.

why have you turned this site into your personal diary?

 

[apple0154]

This spendthrift needs to fricking GO!
____________________________________________


President Obama campaigned this week for "new and innovative approaches" to America's economic crisis. So naturally, the futurist-in-chief filched his fresh, bold ideas straight from...the 1930s. The grand new solution to the jobs deficit, according to the White House, is more FDR-style federal job-training spending.

Sounding every bit like the whiteboard eggheads who keep spinning around the Ivy League-Washington revolving door, Obama announced breathlessly: "If we could match up schools and businesses, we could create pipelines right from the classroom to the office or the factory floor. This would help workers find better jobs, and it would help companies find the highly educated and highly trained people that they need in order to prosper and to remain competitive."

In Obama World, private businesses are just too darned dumb to figure out how to connect the dots and create these pipelines for themselves.

In the real world, private businesses spend up to 12 times more on job-training programs and trainee salaries than state and federal governments combined, according to workforce analysts. The American Society for Training and Development reports that U.S. private entities spent an estimated $125.9 billion on employee learning and development in 2009 alone. And you can bet in these financial hard times that private-sector employers are making sure every job-training penny is well spent.

As for your tax dollars, rest assured they are being squandered the same way public-sector job trainers have been squandering such funding for the past eight decades. Earlier this year, a General Accounting Office report found that no one in the bowels of the Beltway really knows how effective the feds' $18 billion a year spent on 47 separate job-training programs run by nine different agencies really is. That's because half of those programs haven't undergone a performance review since 2004, and only five have ever conducted research on whether job seekers in the program do better than those who weren't enrolled.

Among those five, the GAO wrote, the evaluators "generally found the effects of participation were not consistent across programs, with only some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to be small, inconclusive or restricted to short-term impacts."

read more here

(Excerpt from posted link) "Many, if not most, of the participants in federal jobs and job-training programs would be better off today if the programs had never existed. Aside from wasting scores of billions of dollars, government manpower programs distorted people's lives and careers by making false promises, leading them to believe that a year or two in this or that program was the key to the future. People spent valuable time in positions that gave them nothing more than a paycheck or a certificate, while they could have been developing real skills in private jobs with a future. The fallacy underlying all job-training programs is that the private sector lacks the incentive to train people for jobs." (End)

That's nonsense. Companies have been complaining, for ages, about the lack of qualified individuals.

(Excerpt) Jim McLaughlin wants to hire auto mechanics to fix front-end loaders, big trucks, and other vehicles that roll into his Lynnway Truck Center. But he can’t find anyone qualified to apply for the work,...

A lack of proper training often is a barrier to employment. It also can keep companies from growing. But if the economy stabilizes, skills training is essential, according to a new Labor Market Blueprint published by the North Shore Workforce Investment Board in Salem.

The board is also screening applicants for a two-year machinist training program run by GE and North Shore Community College.
http://articles.boston.com/2011-01-...assistants-skills-training-work-in-acute-care

Large companies may be able to afford to train people but small businesses ( a handful of employees) can not afford to have someone on payroll who is not doing a job. Besides, if someone is out of work it benefits neither them nor society to sit at home doing nothing when they can be learning a skill.

I might have mentioned this before but when I was young (20s) and out of work collecting unemployment I asked if I could take a course (mechanical instrumentation?) in order to keep up with new building systems technology. The course was offered to welfare recipients. I was told businesses contributed to Unemployment Insurance and the "members" would object to contributions if people attended school. Businesses were not going to pay for someone's education!

Utter stupidity! They would rather I sit at home and run out my eligibility time rather than learn something new which would aid in finding employment.

It benefits neither the person nor society, in general, to offer people nothing when they have the time to learn. Who is going to be more prepared to return to the work force; someone who sat at home for a year and forgot aspects of their job or someone who increased their knowledge?

The Conservative, the very people who detest government spending, cut off their nose to spite their face by refusing to subsidize training programs. The "unemployment collector" graduates to welfare and other government programs costing society much more money in the long run. Completely illogical.

 

[Canceled2]

(Excerpt from posted link) "Many, if not most, of the participants in federal jobs and job-training programs would be better off today if the programs had never existed. Aside from wasting scores of billions of dollars, government manpower programs distorted people's lives and careers by making false promises, leading them to believe that a year or two in this or that program was the key to the future. People spent valuable time in positions that gave them nothing more than a paycheck or a certificate, while they could have been developing real skills in private jobs with a future. The fallacy underlying all job-training programs is that the private sector lacks the incentive to train people for jobs." (End)

That's nonsense. Companies have been complaining, for ages, about the lack of qualified individuals.

(Excerpt) Jim McLaughlin wants to hire auto mechanics to fix front-end loaders, big trucks, and other vehicles that roll into his Lynnway Truck Center. But he can’t find anyone qualified to apply for the work,...

A lack of proper training often is a barrier to employment. It also can keep companies from growing. But if the economy stabilizes, skills training is essential, according to a new Labor Market Blueprint published by the North Shore Workforce Investment Board in Salem.

The board is also screening applicants for a two-year machinist training program run by GE and North Shore Community College.
http://articles.boston.com/2011-01-...assistants-skills-training-work-in-acute-care

Large companies may be able to afford to train people but small businesses ( a handful of employees) can not afford to have someone on payroll who is not doing a job. Besides, if someone is out of work it benefits neither them nor society to sit at home doing nothing when they can be learning a skill.

I might have mentioned this before but when I was young (20s) and out of work collecting unemployment I asked if I could take a course (mechanical instrumentation?) in order to keep up with new building systems technology. The course was offered to welfare recipients. I was told businesses contributed to Unemployment Insurance and the "members" would object to contributions if people attended school. Businesses were not going to pay for someone's education!

Utter stupidity! They would rather I sit at home and run out my eligibility time rather than learn something new which would aid in finding employment.

It benefits neither the person nor society, in general, to offer people nothing when they have the time to learn. Who is going to be more prepared to return to the work force; someone who sat at home for a year and forgot aspects of their job or someone who increased their knowledge?

The Conservative, the very people who detest government spending, cut off their nose to spite their face by refusing to subsidize training programs. The "unemployment collector" graduates to welfare and other government programs costing society much more money in the long run. Completely illogical.

ummm apple these are trade school kinds of jobs-our new Obama government is reluctant to fund them at all- Trade School programs are not the kinds of schools some liberals support- In fact they are the kinds of schools some liberals have targeted as "bad" because they don't always live up to their claims of after graduation placement-they do just as well as private and public universities in this regard that are often merely diploma mills themselves. The fact that kids do not want to attend a trade school to be a truck mechanic is just not germane to what Obama is proposing.

 

[zappasguitar]

LOL....so now it is "ask" not demand....and now you admit you dropped it over a week ago....did you make a public declaration like you did when you constantly harped and demanded others be civil?

:lol:

what a little liar

See that? Asked him to provide a link to a post where I "demand" someone be civil...and did Yurskin come through with the proof to back his buullshit?

OF COURSE NOT...So here we are ...still waiting.

So I'm a liar?

Then prove me wrong...go and find one single post where I demanded the other poster be civil.

You've been running around like the little bitch, claiming I "demand" others be civil...but of course, as with 97% or Yurskin's posts...it's nothing but a lie.

If you believe I am lying then you must have some evidence at hand...come on Yurskin, let's see your proof...

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Are you still tying 2x4's across your boyfriends asses so they won't fall in or have you upgraded to something that won't leave splinters yet?

Does your better half still assume the top position, so that she doesn't become lost and smothered in layer and layer of fat on top of her?

 

[apple0154]

ummm apple these are trade school kinds of jobs-our new Obama government is reluctant to fund them at all- Trade School programs are not the kinds of schools some liberals support- In fact they are the kinds of schools some liberals have targeted as "bad" because they don't always live up to their claims of after graduation placement-they do just as well as private and public universities in this regard that are often merely diploma mills themselves. The fact that kids do not want to attend a trade school to be a truck mechanic is just not germane to what Obama is proposing.

I have no problem with the government checking into schools to ensure they're doing their job; teaching skills that will enable one to find employment. My point is government subsidized education benefits both the individual and society.

My main objective was to the remark in the link, "The fallacy underlying all job-training programs is that the private sector lacks the incentive to train people for jobs."

The private sector does not provide sufficient job-training. If it did it wouldn't be looking for qualified candidates to fill vacant positions. It would be training them! On the other hand I can understand why companies do not offer job training. They have no guarantee a person will remain with the company after training. That's where the government has a role to play.

Once again, the problem usually rests with for-profit. Anything that is for-profit, from schools to medical care, the first objective is to sell a product. The government needs to take a bigger role in education/training. The student learning to be a plumber or electrician has to be aware that after graduation they are not plumbers and electricians. They are qualified for an entry level position and have to do an apprenticeship and write government exams. For-profit schools tend to "hype" the courses and opportunities because they're there to make money.

From the article, ".....Obama announced breathlessly: "If we could match up schools and businesses, we could create pipelines right from the classroom to the office or the factory floor. This would help workers find better jobs, and it would help companies find the highly educated and highly trained people that they need in order to prosper and to remain competitive."

Isn't that an excellent idea?

 

[zappasguitar]

See that? Asked him to provide a link to a post where I "demand" someone be civil...and did Yurskin come through with the proof to back his buullshit?

OF COURSE NOT...So here we are ...still waiting.

So I'm a liar?

Then prove me wrong...go and find one single post where I demanded the other poster be civil.

You've been running around like the little bitch, claiming I "demand" others be civil...but of course, as with 97% or Yurskin's posts...it's nothing but a lie.

If you believe I am lying then you must have some evidence at hand...come on Yurskin, let's see your proof...

24+ hours and hows about that?

No Yurskin and NO PROOF TO BACK HIS BULLSHIT!

Typical...or is it he's just too busy chasing the object of his obsession around the board?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

will the angry and bitter zappygetard ever address this:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?32719-For-Admins&p=824896#post824896

zappyretard keeps coming back in this thread and bumping it and claiming that the lack of answer is proof of something....but the dishonest, bitter, poster, won't answer a simple post.

answer that post and i will answer yours. that simple. using your logic....you are far more guilty than i. and i am heartened to know that legion troll gave you props in his post....though i would not be surprised if the loser deleted his post.

 

[Canceled2]

I have no problem with the government checking into schools to ensure they're doing their job; teaching skills that will enable one to find employment. My point is government subsidized education benefits both the individual and society.

My main objective was to the remark in the link, "The fallacy underlying all job-training programs is that the private sector lacks the incentive to train people for jobs."

The private sector does not provide sufficient job-training. If it did it wouldn't be looking for qualified candidates to fill vacant positions. It would be training them! On the other hand I can understand why companies do not offer job training. They have no guarantee a person will remain with the company after training. That's where the government has a role to play.

Once again, the problem usually rests with for-profit. Anything that is for-profit, from schools to medical care, the first objective is to sell a product. The government needs to take a bigger role in education/training. The student learning to be a plumber or electrician has to be aware that after graduation they are not plumbers and electricians. They are qualified for an entry level position and have to do an apprenticeship and write government exams. For-profit schools tend to "hype" the courses and opportunities because they're there to make money.

From the article, ".....Obama announced breathlessly: "If we could match up schools and businesses, we could create pipelines right from the classroom to the office or the factory floor. This would help workers find better jobs, and it would help companies find the highly educated and highly trained people that they need in order to prosper and to remain competitive."

Isn't that an excellent idea?

You missed the part that cited the stats, that in fact private companies far out spend the government on job training, and the money the government has spent has not produced any kind of meaningful stats, meaning its a great place to cut the budget not add to it! The problem with the government's monitoring of for profit schools, is that they fail to monitor public ones, with the same vigor.

 

[apple0154]

You missed the part that cited the stats, that in fact private companies far out spend the government on job training, and the money the government has spent has not produced any kind of meaningful stats, meaning its a great place to cut the budget not add to it! The problem with the government's monitoring of for profit schools, is that they fail to monitor public ones, with the same vigor.

This is the kind of situation to which I'm referring.

(Excerpt) West Bend - Not long ago, Bucyrus International Inc. stood out in Milwaukee as a veritable poster child for business opportunity and expansion.

And so it was awkward last week when Sullivan told a packed auditorium of civic leaders that he needed to make a "confession," something he's kept quiet for years. Finding qualified, factory-grade welders in an old-line industrial city such as Milwaukee had become arduous to near impossible. Calling himself a "killjoy," Sullivan said he quietly phoned a few contacts in Texas…….

A delegation of senior Texas government authorities met Sullivan at the airport,…..

More important, they asked Sullivan exactly what sort of workers he needed. Sullivan said 80 with specific skill. The state gave Sullivan a guarantee that the workers would be waiting when the doors opened at the expansion site in Kilgore. State officials customized a recruitment, training and certification program. One year later, when the expansion site in Kilgore opened its doors, the 80 welders were waiting.

"We shouldn't fool ourselves that if companies cannot find labor in Milwaukee, that they won't look somewhere else," Sheehy said. "The message for Milwaukee is to fix the workforce or die." (End)
http://www.jsonline.com/business/123694664.html

Instead of governments cutting programs they need to fix them. How can anyone expect government programs to run successfully when one potential government (the Repubs) are against any and all government programs?

Cutting does not solve anything. There's no reason why the Federal Government can't do the same thing Texas did. They could survey companies and find out where the shortage of skilled workers are and re-train them. Everyone wins.