Your Government Owes You a Job

[georgephillip]

The problem facing this is two fold...One, finding work for these new employees to perform.
Two...Funding the wages and benefits.
You figure out how to put millions of people on the public payroll without punishing the private sector with tax increases and we have a deal. Otherwise, you are having a socialist pipe dream.

There's no shortage of work or job applicants for a public jobs program, and the richest citizens, natural and corporate, are sitting on billions of dollars susceptible to a financial transaction TAX or a property TAX on intangible property like stocks and bonds. It's time to stop punishing productive elements of society in order to fund the lifestyles of parasites.

"In short, we have proposed the formation of a National Investment Employment Corps similar to the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps developed in response to the unemployment crisis of the Great Depression.

"The employment corps could address a host of national human and physical infrastructure needs including the building and restoration of roads, highways, dams, museums, parks, the postal service, child care centers, health clinics and schools.

"It could serve as a pilot site for the implementation of innovative green technologies that would enhance our environmental health. And the jobs could offer decent pay and benefits."

Federal Law Requires Job Creation - NYTimes.com

Why don't you just propose the dictatorship of the proletariat? People would understand a log better what you are trying to accomplish.

It's obvious how the Captains of Industry routinely generate corporate monopolies of common resources (including labor) which, in turn, create artificial scarcity characterized by deficiency of effective demand and diminished purchasing power.

If government provided the buffer of a paid labor force instead of unemployment insurance, society would be better equipped to earn enough income to purchase its output, whether or not the proletariat ever took control of the means of production.

Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

Well, I suspect that's just the kind of 'externalizing' he's talking about. But the answer to that isn't 'economic democracy'. Indeed, 'economic democracy' is the vehicle for nonsense like TARP.

Yes, actually. If you want a stupid solution to a problem, then use democracy to make your decisions. The record of democracy is one colossal idiocy after another. Obamacare is the latest example.

Democracy is suitable for decisions that require consensus - like choosing representatives, for example. But forcing consensus (and conformity) where it isn't necessary is usually a bad idea.

In other words, democracy is appropriate for decisions that require democracy. That's like saying that some decisions require stupidity. I think the goal should be to eliminate stupidity from your decision making process to the maximum extent possible. If majority rule can be eliminated entirely, then it should be.

 

[bripat9643]

There's no shortage of work or job applicants for a public jobs program, and the richest citizens, natural and corporate, are sitting on billions of dollars susceptible to a financial transaction TAX or a property TAX on intangible property like stocks and bonds. It's time to stop punishing productive elements of society in order to fund the lifestyles of parasites.

"In short, we have proposed the formation of a National Investment Employment Corps similar to the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps developed in response to the unemployment crisis of the Great Depression.

"The employment corps could address a host of national human and physical infrastructure needs including the building and restoration of roads, highways, dams, museums, parks, the postal service, child care centers, health clinics and schools.

"It could serve as a pilot site for the implementation of innovative green technologies that would enhance our environmental health. And the jobs could offer decent pay and benefits."

Federal Law Requires Job Creation - NYTimes.com

Why don't you just propose the dictatorship of the proletariat? People would understand a log better what you are trying to accomplish.

It's obvious how the Captains of Industry routinely generate corporate monopolies of common resources (including labor) which, in turn, create artificial scarcity characterized by deficiency of effective demand and diminished purchasing power.

Not only is it not obvious, the historical record proves it to be pure horse manure. The so-called "captains of industry" have done precisely the opposite. Government creates monopolies and drives up the cost of everything.

If government provided the buffer of a paid labor force instead of unemployment insurance, society would be better equipped to earn enough income to purchase its output, whether or not the proletariat ever took control of the means of production.

How does paying people to do jobs that nobody wants done increase revenues to the government or make the economy grow?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There's no shortage of work or job applicants for a public jobs program, and the richest citizens, natural and corporate, are sitting on billions of dollars susceptible to a financial transaction TAX or a property TAX on intangible property like stocks and bonds. It's time to stop punishing productive elements of society in order to fund the lifestyles of parasites.

"In short, we have proposed the formation of a National Investment Employment Corps similar to the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps developed in response to the unemployment crisis of the Great Depression.

"The employment corps could address a host of national human and physical infrastructure needs including the building and restoration of roads, highways, dams, museums, parks, the postal service, child care centers, health clinics and schools.

"It could serve as a pilot site for the implementation of innovative green technologies that would enhance our environmental health. And the jobs could offer decent pay and benefits."

Federal Law Requires Job Creation - NYTimes.com

Why don't you just propose the dictatorship of the proletariat? People would understand a log better what you are trying to accomplish.

It's obvious how the Captains of Industry routinely generate corporate monopolies of common resources (including labor) which, in turn, create artificial scarcity characterized by deficiency of effective demand and diminished purchasing power.

If government provided the buffer of a paid labor force instead of unemployment insurance, society would be better equipped to earn enough income to purchase its output, whether or not the proletariat ever took control of the means of production.

Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you just keep repeating the same debunked lies over and over no one, even the people who agree with you, is actually going to listen.

 

[georgephillip]

Any but government. It's a fairly clear and concise point of view. We don't what government that presumes to be a caretaker or provider. Because when you mix the role of caretaker with the role of coercive authority you create servitude.

It isn't at all clear to me what institution except government could implement an UE program. Church? Corporate??

Unemployment compensation is insurance, not charity. It is paid for through premiums taken out of an employees pay. There's no reason private companies can't offer similar coverage .

Wouldn't the Constitution protect you from servitude to the state in a republic?

Apparently not.

Do you think private companies offering UE insurance would expect to earn profits for their labor?

 

[georgephillip]

Before the Great Depression hit America states were responsible for welfare. The states in turn often turned the problem over to the counties, i.e. county poor house, farm etc. The county would often hire their poor out, including the kids, to various contractors for work.
When the Great Depression hit, states could no longer afford helping the poor and the national government under FDR took on the responsibility, but there was a catch, if you could work it was a WPA, PWA, CCC or other government job and the job was usually aiding America, somehow.
I did a six monther in the three C's and got thirty a month, room and board and meals. Of the thirty I sent it all home and the government gave me an extra five bucks for doing so.

The WPA kept a roof over my mother's family through most of the Great Depression, and her father was one of the hardest working individuals I've ever known. You deserve a lot of respect for parting with 100% of your pay; America would be much better if such selflessness were in greater supply today, IMHO.

It sure is enlightening observing all the welfare babies reminisce about how they sponged off the taxpayers, and they don't offer a word of thanks for them.

By what stretch of your limited imagination does the word "sponged" relate to the following:

"The amount of infrastructure projects of the WPA included 40,000 new and 85,000 improved buildings. These new buildings included 5,900 new schools; 9,300 new auditoriums, gyms, and recreational buildings; 1,000 new libraries; 7,000 new dormitories; and 900 new armories.

"In addition, infrastructure projects included 2,302 stadiums, grandstands, and bleachers; 52 fairgrounds and rodeo grounds; 1,686 parks covering 75,152 acres; 3,085 playgrounds; 3,026 athletic fields; 805 swimming pools; 1,817 handball courts; 10,070 tennis courts; 2,261 horseshoe pits; 1,101 ice-skating areas; 138 outdoor theatres; 254 golf courses; and 65 ski jumps.[18] Total expendit.."

Works Progress Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many hours a week do you donate to helping the poor in your community?

Thanks.

 

[dblack]

It isn't at all clear to me what institution except government could implement an UE program. Church? Corporate??

Unemployment compensation is insurance, not charity. It is paid for through premiums taken out of an employees pay. There's no reason private companies can't offer similar coverage .

Wouldn't the Constitution protect you from servitude to the state in a republic?

Apparently not.

Do you think private companies offering UE insurance would expect to earn profits for their labor?

Yep

 

[georgephillip]

Unemployment compensation is insurance, not charity. It is paid for through premiums taken out of an employees pay. There's no reason private companies can't offer similar coverage .


Apparently not.

Do you think private companies offering UE insurance would expect to earn profits for their labor?

Yep

What incentive would for profit insurance companies have for providing UE that's at least as useful to workers as the current government version?

 

[dblack]

Do you think private companies offering UE insurance would expect to earn profits for their labor?

Yep

What incentive would for profit insurance companies have for providing UE that's at least as useful to workers as the current government version?

I dunno. I don't care. You seem to be missing the point that I don't want caretaker government.

 

[alan1]

Do you think private companies offering UE insurance would expect to earn profits for their labor?

Yep

What incentive would for profit insurance companies have for providing UE that's at least as useful to workers as the current government version?

Profit.
Duhh.

 

[georgephillip]

Yep

What incentive would for profit insurance companies have for providing UE that's at least as useful to workers as the current government version?

I dunno. I don't care. You seem to be missing the point that I don't want caretaker government.

I'm sure the oligarchs appreciate your rugged individualism

 

[dblack]

What incentive would for profit insurance companies have for providing UE that's at least as useful to workers as the current government version?

I dunno. I don't care. You seem to be missing the point that I don't want caretaker government.

I'm sure the oligarchs appreciate your rugged individualism

Not really. It denies them their power.

 

[SAYIT]

Sounds outlandish, doesn't it?

"A right to a job may sound outlandish, but it’s common sense. You need dollars to eat, and unless you steal the dollars, you generally have to earn them.

"If the government wants to protect property with cops, courts, and prisons, issue a single, common currency, and tax and fine us in it, it should at least guarantee we can work for our own dollars.

"Politicians ramble about equality of opportunity and the dignity of work, but to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, we need boots.

"And lest our boots stomp each other’s necks in senseless competition for too few jobs, we need a job guarantee.

"A job guarantee isn’t that radical.

"Thomas Paine proposed one in 1791.

"In 1944, FDR included the right to a living wage job in his Second Bill of Rights and his Republican opponent promised state-ensured employment.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrined the right to work and philosophers Rawls and Dewey advocated government provide enough work.

"LBJ deliberated a JG and Martin Luther King Jr., demanded one."

Your Government Owes You a Job | The Nation

Since US Capitalism prefers extracting wealth as opposed to producing wealth leading to a situation where median household income today, adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was in 1989, it becomes clear that US capitalism no longer delivers the goods for a majority of its citizens.

The democratic solution calls for government to provide what the private sector is no longer capable of providing.

What the gov't owes us is the OPPORTUNITY to get a job and the best way they can do that, constitutionally, is to get out of the way of the market.

 

[georgephillip]

Yep

What incentive would for profit insurance companies have for providing UE that's at least as useful to workers as the current government version?

Profit.
Duhh.

Question went right over your head, Moron.
Maybe you're congenitally confused,
Duh!

 

[georgephillip]

I dunno. I don't care. You seem to be missing the point that I don't want caretaker government.

I'm sure the oligarchs appreciate your rugged individualism

Not really. It denies them their power.

How so?

 

[georgephillip]

Sounds outlandish, doesn't it?

"A right to a job may sound outlandish, but it’s common sense. You need dollars to eat, and unless you steal the dollars, you generally have to earn them.

"If the government wants to protect property with cops, courts, and prisons, issue a single, common currency, and tax and fine us in it, it should at least guarantee we can work for our own dollars.

"Politicians ramble about equality of opportunity and the dignity of work, but to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, we need boots.

"And lest our boots stomp each other’s necks in senseless competition for too few jobs, we need a job guarantee.

"A job guarantee isn’t that radical.

"Thomas Paine proposed one in 1791.

"In 1944, FDR included the right to a living wage job in his Second Bill of Rights and his Republican opponent promised state-ensured employment.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrined the right to work and philosophers Rawls and Dewey advocated government provide enough work.

"LBJ deliberated a JG and Martin Luther King Jr., demanded one."

Your Government Owes You a Job | The Nation

Since US Capitalism prefers extracting wealth as opposed to producing wealth leading to a situation where median household income today, adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was in 1989, it becomes clear that US capitalism no longer delivers the goods for a majority of its citizens.

The democratic solution calls for government to provide what the private sector is no longer capable of providing.

What the gov't owes us is the OPPORTUNITY to get a job and the best way they can do that, constitutionally, is to get out of the way of the market.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/equal-opportunity-our-national-myth/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

"Today, the United States has less equality of opportunity than almost any other advanced industrial country.

"Study after study has exposed the myth that America is a land of opportunity.

"This is especially tragic: While Americans may differ on the desirability of equality of outcomes, there is near-universal consensus that inequality of opportunity is indefensible.

"The Pew Research Center has found that some 90 percent of Americans believe that the government should do everything it can to ensure equality of opportunity."

Do you agree?

 

[dblack]

I'm sure the oligarchs appreciate your rugged individualism

Not really. It denies them their power.

How so?

The oligarchs and crony capitalists thrive on the welfare state. It keeps them afloat, and maintains an underclass of compliant 'employees' to exploit. All at the taxpayers expense. I'd like to deny them such a tool.

 

[SAYIT]

What the gov't owes us is the OPPORTUNITY to get a job and the best way they can do that, constitutionally, is to get out of the way of the market.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/equal-opportunity-our-national-myth/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

"Today, the United States has less equality of opportunity than almost any other advanced industrial country.

"Study after study has exposed the myth that America is a land of opportunity.

"This is especially tragic: While Americans may differ on the desirability of equality of outcomes, there is near-universal consensus that inequality of opportunity is indefensible.

"The Pew Research Center has found that some 90 percent of Americans believe that the government should do everything it can to ensure equality of opportunity."

Do you agree?

I absolutely agree with 90% of Americans but absolutely disagree with Steigler's opinion piece.
As already stated, what the gov't owes us is the OPPORTUNITY to get a job and the best way they can do that, constitutionally, is to get out of the way of the market.
Do you agree?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The WPA kept a roof over my mother's family through most of the Great Depression, and her father was one of the hardest working individuals I've ever known. You deserve a lot of respect for parting with 100% of your pay; America would be much better if such selflessness were in greater supply today, IMHO.

It sure is enlightening observing all the welfare babies reminisce about how they sponged off the taxpayers, and they don't offer a word of thanks for them.

By what stretch of your limited imagination does the word "sponged" relate to the following:

"The amount of infrastructure projects of the WPA included 40,000 new and 85,000 improved buildings. These new buildings included 5,900 new schools; 9,300 new auditoriums, gyms, and recreational buildings; 1,000 new libraries; 7,000 new dormitories; and 900 new armories.

"In addition, infrastructure projects included 2,302 stadiums, grandstands, and bleachers; 52 fairgrounds and rodeo grounds; 1,686 parks covering 75,152 acres; 3,085 playgrounds; 3,026 athletic fields; 805 swimming pools; 1,817 handball courts; 10,070 tennis courts; 2,261 horseshoe pits; 1,101 ice-skating areas; 138 outdoor theatres; 254 golf courses; and 65 ski jumps.[18] Total expendit.."

Works Progress Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many hours a week do you donate to helping the poor in your community?

Thanks.

And now for the other side of the argument. But for our entry into WW II the Great depression would have lasted well beyond the late 1940's. And in part due to excessive federal spending on "make work" projects.
BTW, many of those facilities and buildings, etc fell into disrepair well before their shelf life came to an end. With no funding to maintain them, many fell into disrepair and were closed.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sounds outlandish, doesn't it?

"A right to a job may sound outlandish, but it’s common sense. You need dollars to eat, and unless you steal the dollars, you generally have to earn them.

"If the government wants to protect property with cops, courts, and prisons, issue a single, common currency, and tax and fine us in it, it should at least guarantee we can work for our own dollars.

"Politicians ramble about equality of opportunity and the dignity of work, but to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, we need boots.

"And lest our boots stomp each other’s necks in senseless competition for too few jobs, we need a job guarantee.

"A job guarantee isn’t that radical.

"Thomas Paine proposed one in 1791.

"In 1944, FDR included the right to a living wage job in his Second Bill of Rights and his Republican opponent promised state-ensured employment.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrined the right to work and philosophers Rawls and Dewey advocated government provide enough work.

"LBJ deliberated a JG and Martin Luther King Jr., demanded one."

Your Government Owes You a Job | The Nation

Since US Capitalism prefers extracting wealth as opposed to producing wealth leading to a situation where median household income today, adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was in 1989, it becomes clear that US capitalism no longer delivers the goods for a majority of its citizens.

The democratic solution calls for government to provide what the private sector is no longer capable of providing.

What the gov't owes us is the OPPORTUNITY to get a job and the best way they can do that, constitutionally, is to get out of the way of the market.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/equal-opportunity-our-national-myth/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

"Today, the United States has less equality of opportunity than almost any other advanced industrial country.

"Study after study has exposed the myth that America is a land of opportunity.

"This is especially tragic: While Americans may differ on the desirability of equality of outcomes, there is near-universal consensus that inequality of opportunity is indefensible.

"The Pew Research Center has found that some 90 percent of Americans believe that the government should do everything it can to ensure equality of opportunity."

Do you agree?

90% of which Americans? The 800 or 900 people the Pew center contacted over two days asking leading questions designed to illicit a predetermined result?
Cut the shit.
Equality of opportunity? Is this the latest lib buzz term to compel government to exact further control over the private sector?
At least you had the balls to admit you believe in equality of outcome.