Your Government Owes You a Job

[Quantum Windbag]

Possibly "sidewalk" wasn't what I really meant.
I should have written I've walked upon and over and around traditional infrastructure projects like roads, bridges, schools, courthouses, hospitals, waterworks, and post offices built by the WPA without any problems.

Another possibility is that you are an idiot that says things without thinking.

Guess which way I lean.

In a previous post I mentioned some of the things the WPA built during the New Deal, but the WPA was only one agency, another was the PWA. The PWA built some bigger stuff: The Tribourough Bridge in New York also the LaGuardia Airport, Grand Coulee Dam, the highway to the Florida Keys are examples. And for the jobless young men, there was the CCC's that planted trees and cleaned up the national forests. And can any housewife remember turning on a washing machine with electricity from TVA?, or the factories that went in with the new electric generators powered by water?

None of that changes the fact that no WPA sidewalks exist anymore, they all fell apart because sidewalks and tree roots don't mix.

 

[georgephillip]

Sounds outlandish, doesn't it?

It's no more outlandish than a "right to health care".

Both of which could be interpreted as falling under the provision of promoting the general Welfare, no?

 

[georgephillip]

Venture capital financing for people who can't find a job?

Sounds like the Italian government.

Sometimes there are not enough jobs to go around.
Maybe capitalism has outlived its usefulness?

Maybe so. Capitalism isn't in the Constitution. People should be (and are, near as I can tell) free to set up whatever kind of economic systems they like. People can create co-ops and communes and the like. Who knows what else we might dream up? Just don't go forcing it on your neighbors and it's all good.

Surely, you don't imagine "force" would be required to break the stranglehold US capitalism currently exerts from Uganda to Ukraine?

"August 11, 2012

"The economic crisis of the past five years has caused a lot of people around the world to question the very foundations of our system -- is capitalism really the best way to do things?

"One of the biggest problems, though, is that there seems to be no other way to run an economy. Communism has been discredited—the Soviet Union failed, and China has moved to a strange hybrid that at times seems to take the worst of both communism and capitalism—and no one's got an alternative."

Richard D. Wolff: Can We Remake Our Workplaces To Be More Democratic? | Alternet

Freedom ain't free...

 

[regent]

America went from a farming industry to a manufacturing industry and in the process our economic system changed. At the same time our social perspective changed, for example, slavery, while perhaps profitable, seemed socially wrong and it was dropped. The Great Depression caused other economic and social changes that we are still adjusting too, and it is possible that in another 100 years government will require jobs for the able instead of welfare. Workdays, hours or days, may be adjusted as automation is improved. In any case, changes will continue and the changes will be fought, declared un-American and the usual arguments held forth. The big questions, can America make the changes. will the changes be right, and can we compete with the nations that are already changing?
But one thing is certain, changes to economic systems will continue.

 

[dblack]

Sounds outlandish, doesn't it?

It's no more outlandish than a "right to health care".

Both of which could be interpreted as falling under the provision of promoting the general Welfare, no?

Many do interpret it that way. But that interpretation is a perversion of the intent, in my view. The phrase 'general welfare' was an appeal egalitarianism, not socialism. It was intended to limit government to policies that benefited everyone equally, rather satiating privileged classes or, in today's terms 'special interest groups'.

 

[dblack]

Sometimes there are not enough jobs to go around.
Maybe capitalism has outlived its usefulness?

Maybe so. Capitalism isn't in the Constitution. People should be (and are, near as I can tell) free to set up whatever kind of economic systems they like. People can create co-ops and communes and the like. Who knows what else we might dream up? Just don't go forcing it on your neighbors and it's all good.

Surely, you don't imagine "force" would be required to break the stranglehold US capitalism currently exerts from Uganda to Ukraine?

I wasn't referring to foreign policy.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

[MENTION=21665]Dont Taz Me Bro[/MENTION] What constitutional rights has your government taken from you?

 

[editec]

FBI: Capitalism is guaranteed in the COTUS.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

Those innocent looking words are the guarantee of CAPITALISM found in our constitution, citizens.

Capitalism exists only if private property rights exist.

 

[Darkwind]

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

Maybe you should incorporate?

And have them steal more rights? You ARE nuts.

 

[regent]

FBI: Capitalism is guaranteed in the COTUS.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

Those innocent looking words are the guarantee of CAPITALISM found in our constitution, citizens.

Capitalism exists only if private property rights exist.

Do those private property rights apply to government property? If not, perhaps the framers did not believe they were needed?

 

[Darkwind]

You know, the more I think about this, the more I can get behind it.

Everyone who is unemployed can be shipped to our southern border, handed a radio and a pair of binoculars and watch the border. Each person can be stationed 1/4 mile apart, starting at the Gulf and ending at the Pacific.

Failure to report illegals crossing the border can be punished by having to pay back every cent earned on the job AND 5 years in jail.

I think I'm all for providing jobs to people who demand government give them a job.

 

[regent]

FBI: Capitalism is guaranteed in the COTUS.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

Those innocent looking words are the guarantee of CAPITALISM found in our constitution, citizens.

Capitalism exists only if private property rights exist.

Property, can and is taken from private citizens if justly compensated, but like many things in the Constitution just compensation is an undefined term.
The Constitution has a lot of interpreting and defining of terms still to be done. Should we go back and try to find the original intent as the originalist justices prefer or define what best fits our nation today?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Well spoken comrade.

 

[dblack]

Should we go back and try to find the original intent as the originalist justices prefer or define what best fits our nation today?

The original intent of the document, and it's subsequent amendments, is the only thing that can be justified as binding. The Constitution is a contract vesting government with specific, limited powers. No one can be bound to an open-ended contract. If we face new circumstances that need to be addressed at a constitutional level, then we need to amend it to fit, not simply 'reintepret' it to suit the desires of those currently in power.

 

[georgephillip]

America went from a farming industry to a manufacturing industry and in the process our economic system changed. At the same time our social perspective changed, for example, slavery, while perhaps profitable, seemed socially wrong and it was dropped. The Great Depression caused other economic and social changes that we are still adjusting too, and it is possible that in another 100 years government will require jobs for the able instead of welfare. Workdays, hours or days, may be adjusted as automation is improved. In any case, changes will continue and the changes will be fought, declared un-American and the usual arguments held forth. The big questions, can America make the changes. will the changes be right, and can we compete with the nations that are already changing?
But one thing is certain, changes to economic systems will continue.

Another social perspective that changed in the US occurred when people began leaving the farms for New England textile mills and other early factories. Those who remained on the land view urban workers as being "weaker" and more dependent than themselves, since they were no longer growing their own food.

If we've reached the point in the Industrial Revolution where the machine has freed many of us from the need to work, those who continue to toil will have a similar view about those who don't have jobs available.

 

[georgephillip]

It's no more outlandish than a "right to health care".

Both of which could be interpreted as falling under the provision of promoting the general Welfare, no?

Many do interpret it that way. But that interpretation is a perversion of the intent, in my view. The phrase 'general welfare' was an appeal egalitarianism, not socialism. It was intended to limit government to policies that benefited everyone equally, rather satiating privileged classes or, in today's terms 'special interest groups'.

If government is the only 21st century institution capable of providing every American who wants a job with employment, does that qualify as egalitarian?

 

[dblack]

Both of which could be interpreted as falling under the provision of promoting the general Welfare, no?

Many do interpret it that way. But that interpretation is a perversion of the intent, in my view. The phrase 'general welfare' was an appeal egalitarianism, not socialism. It was intended to limit government to policies that benefited everyone equally, rather satiating privileged classes or, in today's terms 'special interest groups'.

If government is the only 21st century institution capable of providing every American who wants a job with employment, does that qualify as egalitarian?

Not unless you start with the premise that the purpose of government is to provide us with jobs. We need to get clear on that - the purpose of government. It's really the main argument these days, but hardly anyone bothers trying to pin it down.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sounds outlandish, doesn't it?

It's no more outlandish than a "right to health care".

Both of which could be interpreted as falling under the provision of promoting the general Welfare, no?

In a word, no.

 

[georgephillip]

Many do interpret it that way. But that interpretation is a perversion of the intent, in my view. The phrase 'general welfare' was an appeal egalitarianism, not socialism. It was intended to limit government to policies that benefited everyone equally, rather satiating privileged classes or, in today's terms 'special interest groups'.

If government is the only 21st century institution capable of providing every American who wants a job with employment, does that qualify as egalitarian?

Not unless you start with the premise that the purpose of government is to provide us with jobs. We need to get clear on that - the purpose of government. It's really the main argument these days, but hardly anyone bothers trying to pin it down.

The Purpose of Government would be a logical starting point.
I suppose there could be more than one...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sometimes there are not enough jobs to go around.
Maybe capitalism has outlived its usefulness?

Maybe so. Capitalism isn't in the Constitution. People should be (and are, near as I can tell) free to set up whatever kind of economic systems they like. People can create co-ops and communes and the like. Who knows what else we might dream up? Just don't go forcing it on your neighbors and it's all good.

Surely, you don't imagine "force" would be required to break the stranglehold US capitalism currently exerts from Uganda to Ukraine?

"August 11, 2012

"The economic crisis of the past five years has caused a lot of people around the world to question the very foundations of our system -- is capitalism really the best way to do things?

"One of the biggest problems, though, is that there seems to be no other way to run an economy. Communism has been discredited—the Soviet Union failed, and China has moved to a strange hybrid that at times seems to take the worst of both communism and capitalism—and no one's got an alternative."

Richard D. Wolff: Can We Remake Our Workplaces To Be More Democratic? | Alternet

Freedom ain't free...

Stranglehold? Seriously? Do you even read the crap you post? Does anyone asking these question realize that it wasn't capitalism isn't the problem, government is?