People receiving Gov't assistance are employees of the state....

His platform is easy to understand. America first. To hell with illegal aliens and Islamist refugees.

 

I think it's both (b) & (c). I believe the start up costs would be prohibitive; your looking at another whole level of bureaucracy because manager & supervisors would have to hired. In this era of high taxes most people aren't interested any increases no matter what the amount is.

The other issues that arise are even if the math adds up, there is no guarantee that everyone will be willing to work for minimum wage and in the unlikely event that all did, how many jobs can the cities produce for all those on the unemployment/welfare lines? It's unrealistic to think that the cities can find enough work for these people to do; how many people can you use for a 37sq mile city to rake leaves, pick up garbage and sweep sidewalks? 50,000? They'd be tripping over one another and then there is the issue of truly getting any work out most of them.

Studies have shown that people perform most efficiently when they are doing a job they like, have good working conditions and are well compensated. You pay minimum wage, you're going to get minimum wage work out of them (barely); I think the development of social programs to assist those on unemployment would be the best bet. For those stuck picking up garbage with no hope of really achieving the American dream leads to despair and hopelessness and thus the same problems remain that were originally present. Just my opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

It's just a matter of time until he flip-flops on that as well.

 

I'll take my chances.

 

Haha...you do that.

 

That's just an entitlement program at the paycheck level.

 

Everybody is on government assistance.

 

Maybe, but it is something capitalists could be doing about too much government. I guess only the far right has a problem with government given all of the socialization of private costs.

 

Me actually serve for your assistance? Nonsense. Now peel me a grape and be gone.

 

Yes, some people take advantage of government assistance, but many more truly need it. If they had the ability to work, they wouldn't need it in the first place. You think a single mother of twp young children with no family and no ability to pay for daycare or a fulltime babysitter has time to work? If she did, she wouldn't need assistance, and if she needs assistance, it means she can't work.

And let's not forget the people who work 80 hrs per week and still can't afford food, like a single parent in NY. A cheap apartment is going to take most of her income in rent.

And what about the mentally challenged?

 

Ok, so the drug testing is because we are treating them like employees. Ok. So do they get invited to the company picnic? Do they get employee subsidized healthcare? How about sensitivity training? 2 weeks of paid vacation? A 401k?

Of course you wouldn't read the link because it blasts a hole in your nonsense. Yet you claim that the drug testing would be because they are employees and not to prevent wasting taxpayers dollars. Yeah, that makes sense. Do you even read what you wrote?

Have you ever been employed? If you think everyone at a large company receives the same treatment, I wonder if you've ever actually worked for a large company. Talk about degradation! Someone who is on welfare needs to pick up trash or rake leaves to get their check in your eyes.

I have more, but this thread is so stupid and devoid of merit, i'm done. Thank goodness you are not in charge of anything consequential.

 

but see thats the thing, its not indentured servitude either... its a JOB... all I'm saying is the government should be the fallback for employment, not for welfare... if people need money to buy the things they need to survive, I say the government should be required to employ them at the minimum wage... if the person chooses not to work in exchange for currency, which they can use to buy the items they want or need, there should be no obligation of the state or country to provide them...

so this isn't slavery, its not indentured servitude, its offering employment... NOW, in the case of someone disabled, or someone incapable of physically or mentally being able to perform these job duties, I feel the state does have an obligation to provide welfare for them because the person is incapable of working... but to suggest that offering someone work at their free will, is indentured servitude is just another attempt to demean and belittle it as below them or a form of slavery... its not, its a JOB...

because there is no set time period the person must work for the state, they are free to cease work with the state at their choice... so its not indentured servitude... the irish were brought over as slaves because they had no free will to leave or control the conditions in which they worked... they worked or they were punished for refusing to work... these are vastly different things... one has a CHOICE, the other is COMPELLED without choice... so please stop trying to call it anything but a JOB... free will folks...

 

that is incredibly insulting to the poor, it amounts to saying they are only 'good enough for government work'.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Good+Enough+for+Government+Work

freedom still guarantees people their basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

so they ought to freely choose not to work, while still having their right to life protected with welfare that meets their needs for life, such as safe housing and healthy food.

minimum wage enslaves them in poverty, making the government hold the whip and chains is no different than when the capitalist does.

 

That is pretty much what we are doing now. Conservative mythology notwithstanding you don't simply go down to the welfare office and say gimme. Just about all the programs I know of that give a family a check have either a work, seeking work or a training requirement. If you know of any that don't, please link to them here.

 

how much do you think welfare pays... you think its that much more than minimum wage? and somehow they have dignity in receiving someone elses money?

its not insulting to offer someone who can't get a job, a job... stop trying to pull some emotional heart strings as if we're violating their rights or emotion... offer them a job, let them get a foot in the door, and then work their way up in life, nobody is saying they have to continue working for minimum wage or the government... in fact if the government absorbed all these people into its own workforce, it would create an artificial labor shortage for private employers, which means wages would have to increase to attract these public workers over to the private industry... so my method would not just get them working and used to it, but it would create more opportunity and wealth on the back end when they finally get to leave someplace else to work... I'm literally giving them a better path forward by giving them a JOB instead of welfare...

your method of just give them welfare and somehow they feel better about themselves? all thats proven to do over the decades is trap people in poverty, lets stop trapping them and starting moving them forward, because so far, your method has failed miserably in improving their lives... so lets do something to actually make it better, by their own two hands...

 

in theory thats what the conservative methodology does... in theory it makes people work... but even thats proven to have its own flaws, by pulling benefits from people who simply run out of time or ability to perform many of the jobs in that community... by actually giving them a job, rather than making them look for one, you can receive immediate benefits from their labor, rather than a "wait and see" approach hoping they get a job... don't get me wrong, I would rather see people looking than not looking, but simply looking doesn't solve the problem there are people who will apply for jobs they know they won't get, just to keep the checks coming in... see the problem?

giving someone an actual job, allowing them to actually earn income, rather than be given income for little to no effort in apply for a job, is a huge difference... plus I want the additional benefit of creating an artificial labor shortage by essentially removing these people from the private sector labor pool, which means we would put pressure on employers to pay more in order to get them away from these public sector jobs... so not only would we stop paying people to "look" for work, we would help create increased wages for when they finally are able to find a job and leave the public employment jobs...

this would do far more for people in poverty than the current method of giving them someone elses money, or having them "look" for employment... it would have them start working immediately today, which changes a person, it would give them incentive and immediate motivation to find something that pays better or is easier, because they aren't just spending 5min a week filling out applications and then cashing a check on friday... this notion we can force people to work or not receive welfare doesn't solve the ultimate problem, it just placates an ideology who thinks this solves the issue, it doesn't solve it, it just passes the problem along hoping it goes away...

 

Offering to protect someone's life is not the same as offering to provide for it.

Saying someone doesn't have the right to shoot you is not the same as saying you have a right to demand others feed you.




​

 

Cities could save tons of money by not being forced to hire private contractors at every turn. And the cities can pay their people better.

 

Why Only blame Labor (as the least wealthy in our Republic) for capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment and not capitalists?

 

Why only blame capitalism? BTW nothing today is capitalism, it's all socialism.

As soon as the government gets involved it's socialism.

 

capitalists get a capital gains tax preference and don't even create a Jobs Boom with it.

 

It is quite literally the exact same thing - they just get their cheques via the paycheck instead of through the mail. It's all the same fiat nonsense. Ordering everyone to be paid more is no different to using the Fed to print money for their provision directly - the exact same inflation results. It's just a more nuanced way of doing things.

So why would I support it? Why would anyone who is seriously laissez-faire?

 

rights are not privileges, when rights become privileges, they are no longer rights

 

Neither does the government. What's your point?

Also again your about a socialist program, not a capitalist program.

 

Our understanding of economics is better. Why did Quantitative Easing not produce the inflation claimed by those of your point of view?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, government does. That is my point.

In any case, the government isn't asking for a capital gains preference to help ensure full employment.

 

a useless eater will starve to death if the taxpayer does not provide them with food. the constitution protects their right to life and general welfare.

using coercion or threats of intimidation to work where they are denied access to addictive food stuffs such as sugary sweets, fattening snacks, and other unhealthy diabetic and obesity causing foods that rich capitalists make unholy profits from, is a form of forced labor.

whether forced labor comes from satisfying hunger and the seductive craving for high fructose corn syrup or artery clogging fried foods, it is still slavery.

we all are in a way enslaved to chocolate glazed donuts, but the poor are denied access to them unfairly.