Obama Proposal Gives Americans A Pathway Back to Work
By Sarah Baron, Guest Blogger
President Obama’s 2014 budget may have agitated many on both ends of the political spectrum, but the inclusion of the Pathways Back to Work Fund deserves more praise and attention. As millions of Americans are at great risk of being left behind as the economy recovers from the Great Recession, this proposal creates opportunities for jobs for the long-term unemployed and youth who’ve been hit hardest by the downturn.
The Fund includes three distinct parts: $8 billion for subsidized employment opportunities low-income and long-term unemployed adults; $2.5 billion for summer and year-round employment opportunities for low-income youth between the ages of 16 and 24; and $2 billion for innovative training and employment strategies such as on-the-job training.
Obama originally included the fund in the American Jobs Act, which Republicans blocked in 2011. Currently 4.7 million workers have been unemployed for at least 6 months, and studies show that workers who have been unemployed for long periods find it increasingly difficult to find jobs again. 16.2% of Americans between the ages of 16 and 24 are unemployed, double the national rate of unemployment. 6.7 million youth are neither employed nor in school, and unless we intentionally connect unemployed youth to jobs, youth and young adults won’t gain skills or earn enough to support their families, to the detriment of the country’s long-term economic growth and competitiveness.
Subsidized and transitional jobs and work-based employment have a proven track record of re-engaging the workforce as well as increasing personal and family income and directly benefiting employers. This fund also builds on the success of the 2009 federal investments in job creation that put more than half a million youth and adults to work in that year alone.
- more -
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/22/1901551/obama-pathway-back-to-work-fund/
Ah, what could have been without Republican belligerence.
Macroeconomic Advisers on the American Jobs Act, proposed a year ago:
We estimate that the American Jobs Act (AJA), if enacted, would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term.
-The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers’ after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing, combined with the spending increases aimed at maintaining state & local employment and funding infrastructure modernization, would:
-Boost the level of GDP by 1.3% by the end of 2012, and by 0.2% by the end of 2013.
-Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013, relative to the baseline
Of course, it that had happened, Obama would be more or less a lock for reelection. Instead, having blocked the president’s economic plans, Republicans can point to weak job growth and claim that the president’s policies have failed.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/the-jobs-program-that-wasnt/
In Obama’s Budget, Poverty Initiatives Face an Uphill Battle
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022674502
President's budget: Maintains Strong Support for Worker Protection.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022673679
President's budget: Excellent proposals that Congress should support.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022670043
= new reply since forum marked as read
Well, what's the use then? Why don't we all just stop doing our jobs because not everyone is in complete agreement? Take gun control, for instance, the other side was just much more persuasive and probably intimidating. Are you saying he didn't really want some form of gun control? That it was all an act? 
Instead of "waiting and seeing" what gets passed, what are you prepared to do to ensure it's passage? Or is this just more internet griping that hasn't accomplished a whole lot?
I realize many of you feel that once you've cast your ballot, you're done, so you can sit back in your barcalounger and type screeds from afar. That's not activism. Your other "problem" seems to be one of cynicism and defeatism, and that's not the president's issue, it's definitely yours. 
I know, typing angry screeds on the internet is so much more effective. 
You do realize there are many seniors who don't rely on SS as their primary retirement source, right?
I think you know the answer to that. 
that I am told he knows won't be accepted - is not "really positive".
That would be like getting all excited about campaign speeches.
To be fair, I would never click on an OP in the Obama thread 
Anyway, is Obama running again? As far as I can tell, he doesn't need my vote or my money or my admiration.
I am "looking forward" to 2014 and 2016. And hoping the mantra for the GOP in 2014 and 2016 is not "Obama wants to cut Social Security".
Peace and out.......
I no longer believe that whether I or the rest of the 99% "support" an initiative makes any difference at all.
But, since I cannot bring myself to ooooh! and ahhhh! over proposals and speeches, I promise to stay out of Obama threads.
I thought DU was here to elect Democrats, not to venerate and cheer no matter what they do or what actually happens.
Some of the things this administration wants to do will make it very hard to get progressive Democrats elected.
Maybe this should be called Centrist Obama Underground.
(No, not in a rage, not at all. Far from it, actually.
