Bernie Proposes Guaranteed Fed .Government Jobs for All .

1. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   $15.00 per hour min wage and benefits , "....... goal to eliminate working poverty and --involuntary unemployment altogether ", .....whatever that means .  But doesn't know where the finances to pay for it will come from yet his "......people are working on that....... "?

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      What is this, instead of worrying about derision that Trump has earned, how about backing up this claim about Bernie that you seemed to have extracted from a bodily orifice, and you know which one.......?
      
      Government jobs, indeed....

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         How about read the news Credence and become informed all  on your own , it's actually intellectually invigorating .

         replyreport
   2. 61

      Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Instead of looking at the man, as if an idiot, try to find the logic behind the supposed proposal.
      
      Say, we are not going to get rid of the welfare system. This article  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac … 190e7aeb04  has the average welfare recipient with a family receiving about $35,000 a year in total benefits. Some states would have a higher average. That is well above a $15 per hour income.
      
      I am a firm advocate of jobs as a helping hand instead of doling out handouts. Do I want to see the government bungle another program? Of course not. But, in theory, this is intriguing. Once a person develops a work ethic it is entirely feasible to think they would want to better themselves and find employment at a higher rate. This idea runs the risk of breaking the chain of a welfare mentality. This idea allows children to grow up in a productive environment and not in one where the apparent only income opportunities are drug dealing and other crimes.
      
      Bernie isn't an idiot. He is a dreamer.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         He'a dreamer alright ,  "Welfare to work" should use only existing departmental assets with new restrictions without inventing new government offices which are only expensive but apathetic in actually producing ....anything . We already know that . Sanders is a 'political " idiot with a four- idea general rant , ever really listen to him or been to his town meetings ?     I have . 
         
         Socialism cannot run government office  they never have without bankrupting whatever nation that it exists in ,    Face it there have always been jobs , there has always been welfare programs and that never changes .  There has also always been the element of population that isn't ever going to go to work. Education at the earlier ages , work ethics , family ethics, economics ethics  is the key to better preparing young to life's employment  problems .

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Well, we can agree on some of that and not on other parts. I don't believe in hand outs so, hand ups will require some thought.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               AS long as we eliminate generational welfare roles and keep it welfare TO work .

               replyreport
      2. 76

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         There are two major problems with Bernie's dream, as far as I can see.
         
         The first is the massive "cliff" shown near the bottom of your link.  As welfare recipients better themselves through higher wages, better jobs, etc. their family income - the resources they have to live on - can and does actually fall.  Perhaps the result of people not wanting to see their tax money going to those already able to take care of themselves, but in in case it is NOT an inducement to work harder, get better training or risk a new job.  It is the opposite, and is one massive link in the chain tying welfare recipients to government charity.
         
         The second is that unless those jobs are accompanied with some real teeth (as in: no work, no charity) it isn't going anywhere.  Until there is an incentive to get out of bed and spend the day working hard in the hot sun there aren't many people that will do it.  In addition the thrust, over several decades, has gone from pride in holding a job to pride in getting more than the next person from the limitless pockets of Uncle Sam.
         
         It's a fine dream, and one I could support if done correctly, but it will be accompanied by pain for many and by loud screeching from the liberals that demand equality in all things (except time spent working).

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Personally, I think work should be tied to aid. Because, you are right. What is the incentive if you get the money whether you work or not?
            
            I can't see any system resembling this ideal being put in place but it would be an interesting experiment. To see how it affects later generations. Would it reduce the welfare mentality? Would it reduce belief in entitlement?

            replyreport
            1. 76

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               It HAS been tried, and to some extent is still in effect.  "Workfare" was the popular term at the time (a decade ago?).  It was also determined to be "demeaning" at the time and never got a lot of support from the liberal side or from those getting their free lunch.
               
               I could be wrong, but I think it is still a requirement - to either work or be looking for work - but there are far too many loopholes to make it an effective program at this time. 
               
               But the incentive thing - as of now there is an incentive, and a strong one, NOT to work.  To leave things alone outside of working the system harder.  I watched a young couple a few years ago break those chains, but it took years to do it, years of steadily improving their position and watching as it continually grew more and more difficult to support themselves.  That "cliff" again - as they grew their income their welfare "checks" decreased even faster, making it harder and harder to just get by.
               
               We have designed a system that creates a dependency on charity that is terribly difficult to break - to the point that I suspect it is done intentionally and with just that result being the goal.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I lived in a county with a high percentage of its citizens on the public dole. None of them worked,that I knew, and most had an extremely inflated sense of self worth which prohibited them from taking the only jobs they were educated for. I remember one guy who owned a subsidized apartment complex. He'd chase a woman for days for the rent. Her portion after the government allotment was $1. But she consistently fought attempts to collect it.
                  
                  Workfare is a farce.
                  
                  Conversely, I knew people who worked but needed assistance. They were belittled by the social service workers to the point they were embarrassed to continue the application.
                  
                  Again, workfare is a farce.

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     I knew a young woman, single with two small children, that was going to school and working part time.  She asked for assistance with the electric bill but was told she couldn't have any.  BUT.  If she would quit her job the state would pick up her college tuition and fees, housing, living expenses and even child care.
                     
                     It's how the system is set up; lock them in early and never let them out.

                     replyreport
   3. 0

      Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Apparently after reading some Marx, smoking some dope, and eating a pudding cup while watching the movie "Dave" he decided that he can give every American a job.

      replyreport
2. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   I heard that too. If true, he's probably trying for the millennial vote again. The millenials might as well be called Neohippies. Why don't they just establish communes and have at it. Bernie can be their mentor and leader,
   and they can all live happily ever after.
   And leave the rest of us alone.

   replyreport
3. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   FYI:
   "Sanders has not announced a 2020 presidential run but has left his options open. He was notably the country's most popular active politician in a Harvard-Harris poll last year.
   
   The Vermont senator will be 79 years old on Election Day in 2020, four years after losing to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primary."
   FROM
   http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3845 … -americans

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      He's too old but will hold the political capital of young votes you speak of for trading with fellow liberal candidates . Sad part is two things could happen ,  one that he's really awakened the young  -far -left voters in America and that could could be a power,  Or two , that voting" fad "of younger voters will return to it;s political slumber because of the apathy and boredom of politics for that age group.
      
      Democrats aren't showing great initiative to change from the Clinto-corruption they used in 2016 ,  The DNC is lead now by a delusional hate monger . Trump success' are too strong for anything but a super- celebrity- god like candidate to arise from the DNC ashes .  Democrats are too self absorbed in the economic success today, in other words they aren't hungry or unemployed , Trump wins!

      replyreport
4. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   The single most important issue that dispels all of the comparisons of  " If they are on welfare it must be because there's no jobs and they need it "   attitudes is that unemployments rates  are staggeringly low  and improving , jobs availability is staggeringly high and improving .
   
   Welfare roles majority percentages have to be of poor or no life planning AND  poor or little desire to improve and this falls as true for "the projects" as it does for the immigration debates , we don't justify illegal immigration because of those who say the work force needs hands . That holds no water . At what , 3.9 % unemployment and corporate America screaming for help at every level , don't blame or tax the private or corporate system for more jobs programs . Essentially , today -those who aren't working probably don't want to be .
   
   Life planning at the educational levels would certainly cure much, much more poverty than adding yet another government funded work or welfare program .  And guess what folks ?   The education system in America is already sorely lacking  that ability -all on it's own .  Parents , schools , or even higher education is sadly due a re- course in educationally  reinstilling  principles , ethics and moral compass to the masses .

   replyreport
5. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   I once knew a woman with four little kids under eight or so and  a live in ex-husband who was trading favors with her social worker case manager in his office and her car for remaining on the welfare roles for years and she spoke rather proudly of it . Those extra food stamps bought a lot of cigarettes and beer I guess.
   Happens every day.

   replyreport
6. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ … -two-years

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Socialism fails in all arenas , As soon as they run out of other peoples money to spend .

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         … and as soon as the people with the money, (through consistent hard work and self-mastery/ discipline,) are sick and tired of funding everyone else, (losers).

         replyreport
7. 82

   Credence2posted 7 years ago

   Now that I have all rightwingers and conservatives in one room...
   
   I am no socialist, but am for capitalism on a leash. Bernie goes too far, even for me.
   
   But moving in the direction that Bernie speaks about without going his full route will it do for me.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You mean the route the DNC took with Bernie ?

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I supported Bernie, and I was displeased with the DNC for being so out of step with the prevailing winds and where they were leading in 2016.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Out of step ? Is that it ? You have a real soft spot then for ahh........systematic corruption ?

            replyreport
            1. 82

               Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Am I to assume the chiselers at GOP central are really any better?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes , it was the GOP that essentially screwed up and demanded Trump run as a republican making him sign a contract wasn't it , which was either brilliant on their part or completely  numbskullish ?
                  
                  Oh well as long as you and I are better off for that !.......;-]

                  replyreport
   2. 81

      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Why?

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Why? OK, which point do you want me to address?
         
         Is it why I think capitalism needs to be on a leash
         
         or why I think Bernie goes too far
         
         or why I see much of Bernie attitude and approach as favorable...

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            … why do you not mind "moving in the direction that Bernie speaks… " ?
            
            I would like to hear from a Bernie supporter what that direction actually is.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

               “The goal is to eliminate working poverty and involuntary unemployment altogether,” Darrick Hamilton, an economist at The New School, told the Post.
               
               This in regard to Bernie's idea:
               
               After reading more about it, beyond the goal stated above, his idea is impractical. But I instintively distrust conservatives and was too quick to jump into Bernie's lap, a man who sees many things the way I do. I was impulsive in seeing Bernie as a solution as I am dissatisfied with the status quo. But there is a chasm between that and embracing his proposal at this time.

               replyreport