Your Government Owes You a Job

[georgephillip]

Governments that exist to serve the best interests of a majority of their citizens would view health care and education as indispensable to the general Welfare, IMHO.

It's the bolded portion that I think is the most significant aspect of the modern liberal conception of government, and the most misguided. In my view, the goal of government should be to secure the rights of all the people, not just the majority. That's a key distinction, and I think it's why our founders steered clear of pure democracy. They deliberately sought government that was limited in it's ability to satiate the majority, especially when doing so would violate the rights of the minority.

Indeed.
A purely democratic society would probably restrict the minority in many ways.
Just imagine if the majority of heterosexuals decided that the minority of homosexuals should pay more tax % simply because they were homosexual.
Just imagine if the majority of whites decided that the minority of blacks should pay more tax % simply because they were black.
Just imagine if the majority of women decided that the minority of men should pay more tax % simply because they were male.
Just imagine if the majority of non-diabetic people decided that diabetics should pay more tax % simply because they are diabetic.
Just imagine if the majority of low income earners decided that high income earners should pay more tax % simply because they earn high incomes.

It requires no imagination to recognize a small minority of high "earners" whose inherited wealth will always grow faster than low earners earned wealth. No one is advocating for the repeal of the US Bill of Rights, so none of your imaginary scenarios apply. The rich are getting richer because they bribe politicians for favorable tax and trade policies. Just imagine what would happen if that were to change.

 

[Katzndogz]

Of course no successful government exists to serve the best interests of the citizens. That's nonsense. You serve your own best interests. The government merely protects your right to do so.

 

[georgephillip]

Of course no successful government exists to serve the best interests of the citizens. That's nonsense. You serve your own best interests. The government merely protects your right to do so.

And if you best interest conflicts with mine, which side does government protect?

 

[dblack]

Of course no successful government exists to serve the best interests of the citizens. That's nonsense. You serve your own best interests. The government merely protects your right to do so.

And if you best interest conflicts with mine, which side does government protect?

Neither. This is why government should protect our rights rather than placate our "interests".

 

[regent]

Of course no successful government exists to serve the best interests of the citizens. That's nonsense. You serve your own best interests. The government merely protects your right to do so.

Washington is filled with lobbyists all working to have government pass laws to help the best interests of their particular clients.

 

[The T]

Of course no successful government exists to serve the best interests of the citizens. That's nonsense. You serve your own best interests. The government merely protects your right to do so.

Washington is filled with lobbyists all working to have government pass laws to help the best interests of their particular clients.

And I'd outlaw the practice. I DO note you stated 'CLIENTS' and not CITIZENS.

 

[Stephanie]

Is the purpose of government to create an environment that people can pursue happiness?

oh wow, you see all them happy people in Venezuela ? China? North Korea?

you people scare me you think this is what government IS FOR

Why don't you take a quick head count of all the happy people in Detroit, Camden, and the South Bronx? You people deserve to be scared.

well, a lot of them get help from the government, do they like all happy, live in the lap of luxury
you've been fed to much how socialism is utopia or something
if they did give you a job maybe it would be ditch digger, sewer worker digging out turds, grave digger...an you can enjoy living off the back of your fellow countrymen and women (for you paycheck)...utopia huh

 

[eagle1462010]

Of course no successful government exists to serve the best interests of the citizens. That's nonsense. You serve your own best interests. The government merely protects your right to do so.

And if you best interest conflicts with mine, which side does government protect?

Broad topic there, and perhaps had we not allowed the Gov't to turn into a 1000 pound Ape instead of keeping the principles of the Constitution we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Local as possible. A rural State will not have the same issues as a State like New York who population is vastly larger and don't see the issues of that smaller State that is more conserned with Farming issues than industry. Which is exactly why State and local rule were the purpose of the Constitution. In that way decisions are made as local as possible, and when we get a RAT in the system they are easier to identify and cull.

But the State's Rights, especially the their legislatures, have been striped away to give the Federals basically the POWER of a King or Queen which is exactly why we kicked the British out in the first place.

Anyway, you are painting with a broad Socialist Brush here as usual. Stop dancing as usual and get down to your main points.

 

[Katzndogz]

Of course no successful government exists to serve the best interests of the citizens. That's nonsense. You serve your own best interests. The government merely protects your right to do so.

And if you best interest conflicts with mine, which side does government protect?

The side that isn't breaking the law. Take it to the courts. The government does not exist to make you happy and not being happy is not a violation of your civil rights.

You have a right to enter into lawful marriage. If you can't find a willing partner does your government owe you one just to make you happy?

 

[eagle1462010]

Another point to add here. It is the career politicians over time that have got us into this mess, and the very purpose of this thread shows that Gov't is the answer to everything. Why should we trust the ones who broke the thing to fix it.

The Status Quo of Whores in Gov't need to be Tared and Feathered and run out of office. They are the disease. Not Capitalism. Not the people. and so on.

Which is why some like myself believe a State called Constitutional Convention should be called with the primary goal to LIMIT THE GOV'T back to the Framers intent.

In the area of Crony Capitalism and Money Manipulation, the Federal Reserve needs to go. It was never intended to be as it is today. You don't give banks the power to coin a Nations Currency. They have used this power to create Currency to the next Universe, which has killed the value of the dollar and LOWERED our STANDARD of LIVING...................They need to be CULLED...........

Free Trade has been and still is the primary reason for our jobs going over seas. It has cost us Millions of jobs as Corps move to lower standard countries taking the jobs with them. Fair Trade should be the norm, and no country with laughable standards should be allowed Free Trade with the United States.

To the Markets. Before the Graham Leahy Act, shadow trading was against the rules. Vital commodities were limited on the number of Trades. Because the markets can easily manipulate the costs in these areas and drive the prices up on commodities everyone NEEDS. Thus lowering the Standard of Living in this country.

So, George.............specify your points please. I just gave some examples specifically. Instead of the usual Broad Brush.

 

[georgephillip]

Of course no successful government exists to serve the best interests of the citizens. That's nonsense. You serve your own best interests. The government merely protects your right to do so.

And if you best interest conflicts with mine, which side does government protect?

The side that isn't breaking the law. Take it to the courts. The government does not exist to make you happy and not being happy is not a violation of your civil rights.

You have a right to enter into lawful marriage. If you can't find a willing partner does your government owe you one just to make you happy?

I never claimed the government exists to make anyone happy.
I claimed when the private sector has proven itself incapable of providing a sufficient number of jobs, the government should step in as employer of last resort.
Your nonsense about marriage is a complete non sequitur unless you're married to your job.

 

[georgephillip]

Of course no successful government exists to serve the best interests of the citizens. That's nonsense. You serve your own best interests. The government merely protects your right to do so.

And if you best interest conflicts with mine, which side does government protect?

Broad topic there, and perhaps had we not allowed the Gov't to turn into a 1000 pound Ape instead of keeping the principles of the Constitution we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Local as possible. A rural State will not have the same issues as a State like New York who population is vastly larger and don't see the issues of that smaller State that is more conserned with Farming issues than industry. Which is exactly why State and local rule were the purpose of the Constitution. In that way decisions are made as local as possible, and when we get a RAT in the system they are easier to identify and cull.

But the State's Rights, especially the their legislatures, have been striped away to give the Federals basically the POWER of a King or Queen which is exactly why we kicked the British out in the first place.

Anyway, you are painting with a broad Socialist Brush here as usual. Stop dancing as usual and get down to your main points.

"A job guarantee (JG) is an economic policy proposal aimed at providing a sustainable solution to the dual problems of inflation and unemployment. Its aim is to create full employment and price stability. It is related to the concept of employer of last resort (ELR).[1]"

Job guarantee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about 3% unemployment, or less?

 

[eagle1462010]

And if you best interest conflicts with mine, which side does government protect?

Broad topic there, and perhaps had we not allowed the Gov't to turn into a 1000 pound Ape instead of keeping the principles of the Constitution we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Local as possible. A rural State will not have the same issues as a State like New York who population is vastly larger and don't see the issues of that smaller State that is more conserned with Farming issues than industry. Which is exactly why State and local rule were the purpose of the Constitution. In that way decisions are made as local as possible, and when we get a RAT in the system they are easier to identify and cull.

But the State's Rights, especially the their legislatures, have been striped away to give the Federals basically the POWER of a King or Queen which is exactly why we kicked the British out in the first place.

Anyway, you are painting with a broad Socialist Brush here as usual. Stop dancing as usual and get down to your main points.

"A job guarantee (JG) is an economic policy proposal aimed at providing a sustainable solution to the dual problems of inflation and unemployment. Its aim is to create full employment and price stability. It is related to the concept of employer of last resort (ELR).[1]"

Job guarantee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about 3% unemployment, or less?

It is an idea of Socialist Stupidity. This is supposed to be a Republic and not the USSR. The Gov't ONLY EXISTS on the backs of those who pay the taxes for it to function. Not the other way around.

It is the Gov't that has caused the jobs to leave, and it is the Gov't who has created this mess through it's policies. We have NO NEED TO ALLOW THEM MORE POWER than they already have today.

It's kinda like having the arsonist, who burned down your house, come to you and say I'm here to help you. Would you allow the arsonist to rebuild your house after burning the dang thing down/

Of course not. You'd lock the scum bag up and build it yourself or hire someone else.

The Status Quo Arsonist are still in power and can not be EXPECTED TO CHANGE A DANG THING.

They need to go, both sides and they will not fire themselves. So, we vote them out or call a Convention and clip their wings.

 

[bripat9643]

Is the purpose of government to create an environment that people can pursue happiness?

oh wow, you see all them happy people in Venezuela ? China? North Korea?

you people scare me you think this is what government IS FOR

Might try reading the Declaration of Independence.

Where does it say the purpose of government is to make you happy?

 

[The T]

oh wow, you see all them happy people in Venezuela ? China? North Korea?

you people scare me you think this is what government IS FOR

Might try reading the Declaration of Independence.

Where does it say the purpose of government is to make you happy?

It doesn't. These idiots are making shit up out of whole cloth and twisting the Founding Documents. It's what they do, what they've been taught in Gubmint Schrools.

 

[bripat9643]

And if you best interest conflicts with mine, which side does government protect?

Broad topic there, and perhaps had we not allowed the Gov't to turn into a 1000 pound Ape instead of keeping the principles of the Constitution we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Local as possible. A rural State will not have the same issues as a State like New York who population is vastly larger and don't see the issues of that smaller State that is more conserned with Farming issues than industry. Which is exactly why State and local rule were the purpose of the Constitution. In that way decisions are made as local as possible, and when we get a RAT in the system they are easier to identify and cull.

But the State's Rights, especially the their legislatures, have been striped away to give the Federals basically the POWER of a King or Queen which is exactly why we kicked the British out in the first place.

Anyway, you are painting with a broad Socialist Brush here as usual. Stop dancing as usual and get down to your main points.

"A job guarantee (JG) is an economic policy proposal aimed at providing a sustainable solution to the dual problems of inflation and unemployment. Its aim is to create full employment and price stability. It is related to the concept of employer of last resort (ELR).[1]"

Job guarantee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about 3% unemployment, or less?

So-called "job guarantees" will do nothing for inflation. If anything, it would aggravate inflation as government tried to finance all the parasites added to the federal payroll.

It wouldn't really solve the unemployment problem either because all the government would be doing is dispensing paychecks. It wouldn't be creating real jobs that would last more than a week after the government money stopped coming.

 

[georgephillip]

Broad topic there, and perhaps had we not allowed the Gov't to turn into a 1000 pound Ape instead of keeping the principles of the Constitution we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Local as possible. A rural State will not have the same issues as a State like New York who population is vastly larger and don't see the issues of that smaller State that is more conserned with Farming issues than industry. Which is exactly why State and local rule were the purpose of the Constitution. In that way decisions are made as local as possible, and when we get a RAT in the system they are easier to identify and cull.

But the State's Rights, especially the their legislatures, have been striped away to give the Federals basically the POWER of a King or Queen which is exactly why we kicked the British out in the first place.

Anyway, you are painting with a broad Socialist Brush here as usual. Stop dancing as usual and get down to your main points.

"A job guarantee (JG) is an economic policy proposal aimed at providing a sustainable solution to the dual problems of inflation and unemployment. Its aim is to create full employment and price stability. It is related to the concept of employer of last resort (ELR).[1]"

Job guarantee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about 3% unemployment, or less?

It is an idea of Socialist Stupidity. This is supposed to be a Republic and not the USSR. The Gov't ONLY EXISTS on the backs of those who pay the taxes for it to function. Not the other way around.

It is the Gov't that has caused the jobs to leave, and it is the Gov't who has created this mess through it's policies. We have NO NEED TO ALLOW THEM MORE POWER than they already have today.

It's kinda like having the arsonist, who burned down your house, come to you and say I'm here to help you. Would you allow the arsonist to rebuild your house after burning the dang thing down/

Of course not. You'd lock the scum bag up and build it yourself or hire someone else.

The Status Quo Arsonist are still in power and can not be EXPECTED TO CHANGE A DANG THING.

They need to go, both sides and they will not fire themselves. So, we vote them out or call a Convention and clip their wings.

We need to FLUSH hundreds of incumbents from both parties from DC next November, and then call for a Second Constitutional Convention. At that time we can all decide whether or not a Jobs Guarantee program violates the Bill of Rights:

"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..."

"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.

"It may sound expensive, but a JG would pay for itself. 'Deficit owls' argue we can afford much more federal spending of this type. Remember, current anti-poverty programs like unemployment insurance pay people not to work, destroying human capital, sales, output, and the tax base.

"Estimated spending for a national infrastructure JG is $750 billion; bottom-up models, cheaper. JG outlays would replace or reduce the costs of much current anti-poverty spending (roughly $746 billion), with exponential benefits.

"The Treasury should finance a JG, but national, state or local agencies could administer it.

Your Government Owes You a Job | The Nation

 

[Katzndogz]

And if you best interest conflicts with mine, which side does government protect?

The side that isn't breaking the law. Take it to the courts. The government does not exist to make you happy and not being happy is not a violation of your civil rights.

You have a right to enter into lawful marriage. If you can't find a willing partner does your government owe you one just to make you happy?

I never claimed the government exists to make anyone happy.
I claimed when the private sector has proven itself incapable of providing a sufficient number of jobs, the government should step in as employer of last resort.
Your nonsense about marriage is a complete non sequitur unless you're married to your job.

Join the military if you think the government should give you a job. Although I would agree that anyone who is able to work and is on public benefits should be required to work. There is plenty of agricultural work to be done. Put them in the fields, then have the farmers pay the government for the service.

 

[regent]

If the purpose of government is not to make its citizens happy what is the purpose of government?

 

[georgephillip]

Broad topic there, and perhaps had we not allowed the Gov't to turn into a 1000 pound Ape instead of keeping the principles of the Constitution we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Local as possible. A rural State will not have the same issues as a State like New York who population is vastly larger and don't see the issues of that smaller State that is more conserned with Farming issues than industry. Which is exactly why State and local rule were the purpose of the Constitution. In that way decisions are made as local as possible, and when we get a RAT in the system they are easier to identify and cull.

But the State's Rights, especially the their legislatures, have been striped away to give the Federals basically the POWER of a King or Queen which is exactly why we kicked the British out in the first place.

Anyway, you are painting with a broad Socialist Brush here as usual. Stop dancing as usual and get down to your main points.

"A job guarantee (JG) is an economic policy proposal aimed at providing a sustainable solution to the dual problems of inflation and unemployment. Its aim is to create full employment and price stability. It is related to the concept of employer of last resort (ELR).[1]"

Job guarantee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about 3% unemployment, or less?

So-called "job guarantees" will do nothing for inflation. If anything, it would aggravate inflation as government tried to finance all the parasites added to the federal payroll.

It wouldn't really solve the unemployment problem either because all the government would be doing is dispensing paychecks. It wouldn't be creating real jobs that would last more than a week after the government money stopped coming.

Properly administered, JG would pay for itself while providing the same sort of social insurance that UE covers today:

"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.

It may sound expensive, but a JG would pay for itself...Remember, current anti-poverty programs like unemployment insurance pay people not to work, destroying human capital, sales, output, and the tax base.

"Estimated spending for a national infrastructure JG is $750 billion; bottom-up models, cheaper. JG outlays would replace or reduce the costs of much current anti-poverty spending (roughly $746 billion), with exponential benefits.

"The Treasury should finance a JG, but national, state or local agencies could administer it."

Your Government Owes You a Job | The Nation