Your Government Owes You a Job

[The T]

The govt owes me nothing. Govt owes the constitution an apology.

*AMEN.

 

[The T]

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.

Actually, I wouldnt trust walking on a sidewalk built by govt. What they do provide is an excellent example of incompetence, irresponsibility, unaccountability, and ineptitude.

And CONTROL.

 

[Duped]

The government owes us responsibility to the constitution, it does not owe us a job - that is our responsibility.

We need to elect out those who don't serve us, but we are to stupid, and gullible to do so; too many sucking on the gov. teats!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

Actually, I wouldnt trust walking on a sidewalk built by govt. What they do provide is an excellent example of incompetence, irresponsibility, unaccountability, and ineptitude.

And CONTROL.

Yeah, I'd have to place control at the top.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

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.

In a perfect world, everyone would have food and shelter, and a true utopian society would be devoid of sexism, racism and other forms of oppression. But for most of the world's population, this perfect society just isn't possible. Communism is one proposed solution to these problems.
Most people know what communism is at its most basic level. Simply put, communism is the idea that everyone in a given society receives equal shares of the benefits derived from labor. Communism is designed to allow the poor to rise up and attain financial and social status equal to that of the middle-class landowners. In order for everyone to achieve equality, wealth is redistributed so that the members of the upper class are brought down to the same financial and social level as the middle class. Communism also requires that all means of production be controlled by the state. In other words, no one can own his or her own business or produce his or her own goods because the state owns everything.

HowStuffWorks "How Communism Works"

Comrade, I hear Russia is lovely this time of year ...

 

[Stephanie]

The government owes us responsibility to the constitution, it does not owe us a job - that is our responsibility.

We need to elect out those who don't serve us, but we are to stupid, and gullible to do so; too many sucking on the gov. teats!

no kidding, if enough people by this crap in this thread, we can kiss our freedoms and country, goodbye

 

[The T]

The government owes us responsibility to the constitution, it does not owe us a job - that is our responsibility.

We need to elect out those who don't serve us, but we are to stupid, and gullible to do so; too many sucking on the gov. teats!

They don't OWE anyone HealthCare or WELFARE either.

 

[The T]

The only thing I am owed by my government is the one thing they are abysmally failing at, protecting my Constitutional rights.

They're only stealing them...ONE at a time...over the past 100 years. PROGRESS in their minds, don't ya know?

 

[eagle1462010]

We The People Hired the Federal Government and it's employees to DO A JOB, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

It's way past the time that they need to remember that.

 

[The T]

We The People Hired the Federal Government and it's employees to DO A JOB, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

It's way past the time that they need to remember that.

Shitstorm coming in November.

 

[georgephillip]

haha

Jimmy Carter is your hero.

Not really.
Why made you draw that particular asinine conclusion?

Your support for the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.
Perhaps you didn't realize Jimmy Carter was president at that time.

Supporting one piece of legislation signed by Carter doesn't imply hero worship.
I believe the US Economy would be stronger today if congress implemented provisions of the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, regardless of who was president at that time.

"The Act set specific numerical goals for the President to attain. By 1983, unemployment rates should be not more than 3% for persons aged 20 or over and not more than 4% for persons aged 16 or over, and inflation rates should not be over 4%.

"By 1988, inflation rates should be 0%.

"The Act allows Congress to revise these goals over time.

"If private enterprise appears not to be meeting these goals, the Act expressly allows the government to create a 'reservoir of public employment.'

"These jobs are required to be in the lower ranges of skill and pay to minimize competition with the private sector."

Humphrey?Hawkins Full Employment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The T]

Not really.
Why made you draw that particular asinine conclusion?

Your support for the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.
Perhaps you didn't realize Jimmy Carter was president at that time.

Supporting one piece of legislation signed by Carter doesn't imply hero worship.
I believe the US Economy would be stronger today if congress implemented provisions of the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, regardless of who was president at that time.

"The Act set specific numerical goals for the President to attain. By 1983, unemployment rates should be not more than 3% for persons aged 20 or over and not more than 4% for persons aged 16 or over, and inflation rates should not be over 4%.

"By 1988, inflation rates should be 0%.

"The Act allows Congress to revise these goals over time.

"If private enterprise appears not to be meeting these goals, the Act expressly allows the government to create a 'reservoir of public employment.'

"These jobs are required to be in the lower ranges of skill and pay to minimize competition with the private sector."

Humphrey?Hawkins Full Employment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WHY does Government NEED to meddle in the FREE MARKET in the first place? ANSWER that...THEY should but the HELL OUT.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

WHY does Government NEED to meddle in the FREE MARKET in the first place? ANSWER that...THEY should but the HELL OUT.

1. Capitalism can only exist with government support. Courts, police, infrastructure, etc. are all required for it to work.
2. Regulation is not Meddling, it's necessary. Unregulated Capitalism will soon destroy itself, which is why no nation on the planet allows for such a thing.

Start your education with Adam Smith. He understood both of those basic points, and wrote of them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WHY does Government NEED to meddle in the FREE MARKET in the first place? ANSWER that...THEY should but the HELL OUT.

1. Capitalism can only exist with government support. Courts, police, infrastructure, etc. are all required for it to work.
2. Regulation is not Meddling, it's necessary. Unregulated Capitalism will soon destroy itself, which is why no nation on the planet allows for such a thing.

Start your education with Adam Smith. He understood both of those basic points, and wrote of them.

1. Yet black markets and the drug trade all manage to exist the entire weight of the government dedicated to wiping them out. Can you explain that?
2. See above.

Are you trying to tell me that Adam Smith, the man who described the self regulating market, actually argued that external regulations are necessary to markets? Why do I think that you are full of shit?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

WHY does Government NEED to meddle in the FREE MARKET in the first place? ANSWER that...THEY should but the HELL OUT.

1. Capitalism can only exist with government support. Courts, police, infrastructure, etc. are all required for it to work.
2. Regulation is not Meddling, it's necessary. Unregulated Capitalism will soon destroy itself, which is why no nation on the planet allows for such a thing.

Start your education with Adam Smith. He understood both of those basic points, and wrote of them.

Invisible hand
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Invisible hand (disambiguation).
This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (October 2013)

In economics, the invisible hand of the market is a metaphor used by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behavior of the marketplace. Individuals can make profit, and maximize it without the need for government intervention.[1] The exact phrase is used just three times in Smith's writings, but has come to capture his important claim that individuals' efforts to maximize their own gains in a free market may benefit society, even if the ambitious have no benevolent intentions. Smith came up with the two meanings of the phrase from Richard Cantillon who developed both economic applications in his model of the isolated estate.[2]

He first introduced the concept in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, written in 1759. In this work, however, the idea of the market is not discussed, and the word "capitalism" is never used.[3] By the time he wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776, Smith had studied the economic models of the French Physiocrats for many years, and in this work the invisible hand is more directly linked to the concept of the market: specifically that it is competition between buyers and sellers that channels the profit motive of individuals on both sides of the transaction such that improved products are produced and at lower costs. This process whereby competition channels ambition toward socially desirable ends comes out most clearly in The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter 7.

The idea of markets automatically channeling self-interest toward socially desirable ends is a central justification for the laissez-faire economic philosophy, which lies behind neoclassical economics.[4] In this sense, the central disagreement between economic ideologies can be viewed as a disagreement about how powerful the "invisible hand" is. In alternative models, forces which were nascent during Smith's life, such as large-scale industry, finance, and advertising, reduce its effectiveness.[5]

Invisible hand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you either have not read him or you have comprehension problems ...

 

[georgephillip]

The United Sates is the greatest society in history. The Soviet Union collapsed ignominiously.

So, Barak Obama and his Marxists acolytes want to repeat the Soviet experiment.

Why?

Pathological jealousy seems the only plausible answer. And they instrument is utter and complete Control of our lives...just like in the failed Soviet Union.

What similarities do you find between the current political economy of the US and that of 1917 Russia?

No one is advocating for complete control of your life.
If you're happy as a pawn of rent seekers, feel free to suffer for as long as you can manage.
If you're among the majority of Americans who've noticed how Finance Capitalism's ability to provide quality jobs is sadly lacking, public jobs could help you find your bootstraps:

"America has achieved the distinction of becoming the country with the highest level of income inequality among the advanced countries.

"While there is no single number that can depict all aspects of society’s inequality, matters have become worse in every dimension: more money goes to the top (more than a fifth of all income goes to the top 1%), more people are in poverty at the bottom, and the middle class—long the core strength of our society—has seen its income stagnate.

"Median household income, adjusted for inflation, today is lower than it was in 1989, a quarter century ago.[1]

"An economy in which most citizens see no progress, year after year, is an economy that is failing to perform in the way it should. Indeed, there is a vicious circle: our high inequality is one of the major contributing factors to our weak economy and our low growth."

Joseph Stiglitz | Why Inequality Matters and What Can Be Done About It

Income inequality doesn't have a damn thing to do with this weak economy. Both the weak economy and increasing income inequality are the result of excessive regulation, poor fiscal policy, and poor monetary policy.

Any endeavor that is burdened with tens of thousands of pages of government regulation, is doomed to failure. The same people that find it impossible to manage the federal government properly, are trying to manage an economy that they don't even understand.

The current growth in income inequality is simply the result of the Fed throwing free money at banks, and those banks handing that money over to their friends to invest in the stock market. But that money also covers the massive debt that the government is running up. Government feeding upon itself, while the buzzards take their share.

This economy and the lack of jobs can be solved with one legislative measure. Nullify every regulation written since 1990, with the exception of those absolutely necessary to implement existing law.

The growth in income inequality in the US began twenty years before 1990 when the richest 1% earned about 8% of US income compared to over 20% today. That ratio produced a thriving middle class that was capable of driving 70% of US GDP with their purchases; today, by contrast, we have an economy that isn't working for its middle or lower classes. Median household income, adjusted for inflation, is lower now than it was in 1989. Finance capitalism prospers today by extracting wealth, not by producing wealth. Since private capitalists have proven themselves incapable of providing an adequate number of jobs, it's left to the public sector to supply the necessary work.

"But JG (Job Guarantee) employees needn’t construct trains or solar panels.

"Locally administered, non-capital-intensive programs have thrived in Argentina and India.

"Economist Pavlina Tcherneva has extensively researched Argentina’s decentralized strategy, which emphasized childcare, eldercare and community gardening, empowered women in particular and swiftly slashed extreme poverty by 25 percent.

"A bottom-up JG could bolster small businesses and nonprofits, and co-ops could apply for JG grants to pay wages.

"Neighborhoods wouldn’t have to bankroll Walmart or McDonald’s.

Your Government Owes You a Job | The Nation

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Yep, a job, healthcare, pre school, public school, contraception, subsidized university, civil srevant employment, housing, retirement.... Lol

All owed to these dumb f---ing progressive neo-coms

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Adam Smith Would Neither Recognize Nor Approve Of Our Financial, Monetary, Economic Or Legal Systems
Posted on July 31, 2011 by WashingtonsBlog

The father of modern economics – Adam Smith – is used as a poster child to support the status quo that we have today. Smith is invoked as the patron saint of free market economics.

In fact, Smith would neither recognize or approve of our current financial, monetary, economic or legal systems.

I noted last year:

Americans have traditionally believed that the “invisible hand of the market” means that capitalism will benefit us all without requiring any oversight. However, as the New York Times notes, the real Adam Smith did not believe in a magically benevolent market which operates for the benefit of all without any checks and balances:

Smith railed against monopolies and the political influence that accompanies economic power …

Smith worried about the encroachment of government on economic activity, but his concerns were directed at least as much toward parish councils, church wardens, big corporations, guilds and religious institutions as to the national government; these institutions were part and parcel of 18th-century government…

Smith was sometimes tolerant of government intervention, ”especially when the object is to reduce poverty.” Smith passionately argued, ”When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.” He saw a tacit conspiracy on the part of employers ”always and everywhere” to keep wages as low as possible.

Adam Smith Would Neither Recognize Nor Approve Of Our Financial, Monetary, Economic Or Legal Systems Washington's Blog

We are clear "free market economics" implies NO government intervention ....

 

[Erand7899]

Not really.
Why made you draw that particular asinine conclusion?

Your support for the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.
Perhaps you didn't realize Jimmy Carter was president at that time.

Supporting one piece of legislation signed by Carter doesn't imply hero worship.
I believe the US Economy would be stronger today if congress implemented provisions of the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, regardless of who was president at that time.

"The Act set specific numerical goals for the President to attain. By 1983, unemployment rates should be not more than 3% for persons aged 20 or over and not more than 4% for persons aged 16 or over, and inflation rates should not be over 4%.

"By 1988, inflation rates should be 0%.

"The Act allows Congress to revise these goals over time.

"If private enterprise appears not to be meeting these goals, the Act expressly allows the government to create a 'reservoir of public employment.'

"These jobs are required to be in the lower ranges of skill and pay to minimize competition with the private sector."

Humphrey?Hawkins Full Employment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I have had to sadly inform many executive boards, a goal is not a goal unless one has a viable plan in place to achieve that goal. Otherwise, it is nothing more than a dream, and an exercise in futility.

However, there is one means of accomplishing some of what you want. The FDR administration came up with one useful program and that was called the Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC), and it actually worked. They took thousands of young men, put them in camps in the national forests, fed them, clothed them, and worked them. They taught them useful skills, built public infrastructure, cleared underbrush, planted trees, etc. Many of those projects still exist today.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Yes ! Yes! Another works progress administration...a newer new deal and a greater great society comrades