Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest montecarloss

The Obama Presidency

Recommended Posts

No posts in this thread for over 2 weeks? I wonder what that means.

 

I'm sure you can fix that once you have caught up on your assigned summer reading from WND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a question about the taxes. I understand that illegals that were being paid under the table are not paying taxes but what happens to the money for those that were working under stolen/fake SSN? Isn't the employer required to withhold taxes? It's not like you are going to file a return under a stolen SNN.

 

Can anybody shed some light on that?

 

The employer pays social security taxes bases on gross payroll, not on individual employees.  So even "under the table" payments to employees that do not have SS numbers result in SS taxes going to the feds unless the employer's books are totally cooked.  That is why the Federal Government loves illegal immigrants.  The Feds collect the taxes, do not pay out any beneifts, and the border states pay for all the social services the immigrants need.  That is why we will never legalize illegal immigrants. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the politics threads have been almost dead lately. It's been nice.

 

The Mods are laying a heavy hand.  People are scared to post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dissent is patriotic :)

 

Isn't it a little self-important to refer to one's own complaints on a web forum as 'dissent' and 'patriotic'?  I detect the soft bigotry of low expectations in those characterizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a topic!

 

Unemployment Extension In Spotlight As Obama Blasts GOP Filibuster Of Jobless Aid

 

First Posted: 07-19-10 11:55 AM   |   Updated: 07-19-10 12:05 PM

 

President Obama used his bully pulpit Monday to blast Republicans for holding up a bill to reauthorize extended unemployment benefits, one day before the Senate will try once again to restore aid to the 2.5 million long-term jobless Americans who have missed checks since May.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/19/unemployment-extension-in_n_651183.html

 

 

So, from what I can gather, this debate hinges on the fact that Democrats want to add the $33 billion in extended unemployment benefits to the federal deficit and Republicans want to use stimulus funds for the extension. This would make for 99 weeks of unemployment benefits in some states. That's nearly 2 years for the mathematically challenged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I might agree with the Republicans on that one.  But, they better own it if that is their preferred course of action and not just hollow suggestions they know the Democrats won't accept. 

 

Speaking of campaigning, a big issue is going to be the continuation of the Bush tax cuts..... errrrrrrr, I mean 'tax rates'.  I promise you that the memo has already went out to NOT refer to the tax cuts as tax cuts, but rather "current rates."  The spin will be that eliminating the cuts..... errrrr, I mean changing the rates, is going to be pushed as a tax increase.  Nevermind that the tax cuts (rates) were not paid for prior to passing and that they favor some 13 yr old's trust fund as much as they encourage economic growth.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USE THE MONEY TO CREATE JOBS, DIRECTLY. Create another d@mn government agency to handle that, if you must. Just stop giving out free money that doesn't produce labour out of the people it's given to because people like my brother have had no incentive to even LOOK for a job the past couple years and he's a plumber who went to trade school - he'll never have trouble finding work. He's still sitting on his ass, banking on the third-tier benefits. To me, it's an issue of habit. People get too comfortable with their free money and they're not in the routine of looking for work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a touchy subject because there are obviously people out there that genuinely cannot find work and haven't been able to for the last year or longer.  But then you have people like David's brother who have no incentive to go back to work because they're riding the third-tier gravy train.  To me, 2 years seems like a terribly long time to be receiving unemployment benefits regardless of the economic conditions.  Unemployment is at 10%... it's high but it's not THAT high. 

 

If/when this extension passes I just ask myself one question:  when do the extensions end?  What if we're still at 10% unemployment when this next extension runs out?  Do we extend benefits again?  What about in 5 years when some poor cities unemployment is still riding at 15-20%?  Does the federal government grant them special unemployment benefits? 

 

I'm also very skeptical of people that say that unemployment benefits work very well at stimulating the economy.  Here's an interesting quote from a huff post article:  "The Congressional Budget Office estimated that for every dollar the government spent on aid to the unemployed, the economy would see output rise by between $0.70 to $1.90 -- the biggest bang for buck of any government stimulus policy."  So after we funnel some money through the government (and probably spend about 30% of it on administrative costs) and send it out to the people we can expect the people to spend MORE than what we've given them even though they have no other source of income.  I'm no economics expert, but this makes no sense to me.  Me giving a man a dollar will increase the economic output of the US by up to $1.90... how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting quote from a huff post article:  "The Congressional Budget Office estimated that for every dollar the government spent on aid to the unemployed, the economy would see output rise by between $0.70 to $1.90 -- the biggest bang for buck of any government stimulus policy."  So after we funnel some money through the government (and probably spend about 30% of it on administrative costs) and send it out to the people we can expect the people to spend MORE than what we've given them even though they have no other source of income.  I'm no economics expert, but this makes no sense to me.  Me giving a man a dollar will increase the economic output of the US by up to $1.90... how?

 

Excellent point and let me add that it looks like a whole lot of the unemployed will stay that way for a long time.  The only long term solution seems to be austerity on the part of the under- or unemployed.  Downward mobility has gone national.

 

Meanwhile in the Imperial City...

 

House Democrats hit boiling point over perceived lack of White House support

 

By Paul Kane

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, July 15, 2010; A01

 

House Democrats are lashing out at the White House, venting long-suppressed anger over what they see as President Obama's lukewarm efforts to help them win reelection -- and accusing administration officials of undermining the party's chances of retaining the majority in November's midterm elections.

 

In recent weeks, a widespread belief has taken hold among Democratic House members that they have dutifully gone along with the White House on politically risky issues -- including the stimulus plan, the health-care overhaul and climate change -- without seeing much, if anything, in return. Many of them are angry that Obama has actively campaigned for Democratic Senate candidates but has done fewer events for House members.

 

The boiling point came Tuesday night during a closed-door meeting of House Democrats in the Capitol. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) excoriated White House press secretary Robert Gibbs's public comments over the weekend that the House majority was in doubt and that it would take "strong campaigns by Democrats" to avert dramatic losses.

 

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/14/AR2010071406006_pf.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before, the biggest problem with government 'entitlement' programs, if you like to call them that, is fraud in the system, not the programs themselves.  If David's brother is not actively looking for employment and just sitting on his arse collecting unemployment, then somebody at the UC office is not doing their job and catching him in his lies.  We need to step up enforcement to ensure that those who are truly and genuinely in need (out of work through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN) receive assistance and those who want to milk the system (out of work due to their own shortcomings and/or laziness) pay the price for lying on their applications for benefits.  The system is not designed to work in those people's favor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a touchy subject because there are obviously people out there that genuinely cannot find work and haven't been able to for the last year or longer. But then you have people like David's brother who have no incentive to go back to work because they're riding the third-tier gravy train. To me, 2 years seems like a terribly long time to be receiving unemployment benefits regardless of the economic conditions. Unemployment is at 10%... it's high but it's not THAT high.

 

If/when this extension passes I just ask myself one question: when do the extensions end? What if we're still at 10% unemployment when this next extension runs out? Do we extend benefits again? What about in 5 years when some poor cities unemployment is still riding at 15-20%? Does the federal government grant them special unemployment benefits?

 

I'm also very skeptical of people that say that unemployment benefits work very well at stimulating the economy. Here's an interesting quote from a huff post article: "The Congressional Budget Office estimated that for every dollar the government spent on aid to the unemployed, the economy would see output rise by between $0.70 to $1.90 -- the biggest bang for buck of any government stimulus policy." So after we funnel some money through the government (and probably spend about 30% of it on administrative costs) and send it out to the people we can expect the people to spend MORE than what we've given them even though they have no other source of income. I'm no economics expert, but this makes no sense to me. Me giving a man a dollar will increase the economic output of the US by up to $1.90... how?

 

Through the magic of Socialism!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about in 5 years when some poor cities unemployment is still riding at 15-20%?  Does the federal government grant them special unemployment benefits? 

 

Thank you.

 

I mean, cities like Detroit have been in a full-blown depression forever. If the federal government is expected to lend a helping hand during natural disasters that only effect certain cities or regions, why are economic disasters any different? I guess it's more justifiable to assume it's the avg. Detroiter's fault; I don't know. I think we need to draw a line somewhere or figure out when it really is appropriate to help people out; even if it involves local economies.

 

 

I'm also very skeptical of people that say that unemployment benefits work very well at stimulating the economy.  Here's an interesting quote from a huff post article:  "The Congressional Budget Office estimated that for every dollar the government spent on aid to the unemployed, the economy would see output rise by between $0.70 to $1.90 -- the biggest bang for buck of any government stimulus policy."  So after we funnel some money through the government (and probably spend about 30% of it on administrative costs) and send it out to the people we can expect the people to spend MORE than what we've given them even though they have no other source of income.  I'm no economics expert, but this makes no sense to me.  Me giving a man a dollar will increase the economic output of the US by up to $1.90... how?

 

People who get unemployment benefits aren't wealthy and thus spend their money as soon as they get it. Wealthy individuals are risk-averse during times like these. Their basic day-to-day spending habits don't change but they're more cautious about investing or buying assets. By giving money to the lower class through unemployment benefits, it supposedly circulates money that will eventually end up in the hands of busineses and be used for restructuring, retooling, merging, research and development or just general innovation and efficiency from being able to afford to hire more human capital. That's when you're able to squeeze $1.80 out of $1.00 but I don't think that happens as much as economists would like us to believe. Guys like Paul Krugman have to make it look good to Europe if he wants that Nobel Prize. I'm sure a lot of that money heads overseas since the markets are so big for things we buy that are considered 'necessities'.

 

You know, regardless, I think even if 1.00 generates 1.20, it would generate even more if the money were given to people for some sort of labor/service. Distribute the money to employers payroll for the sole use of creating a job. No employer wants to see people out of work; they would absolutely go for it. This is just common sense; you don't need a chart or math equasion to figure it out.

 

 

I've said it before, the biggest problem with government 'entitlement' programs, if you like to call them that, is fraud in the system, not the programs themselves.  If David's brother is not actively looking for employment and just sitting on his arse collecting unemployment, then somebody at the UC office is not doing their job and catching him in his lies.  We need to step up enforcement to ensure that those who are truly and genuinely in need (out of work through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN) receive assistance and those who want to milk the system (out of work due to their own shortcomings and/or laziness) pay the price for lying on their applications for benefits.  The system is not designed to work in those people's favor. 

 

For many people, the amount they get in unemployment benefits exceeds what they can get from a job in this economy even though it's still good, honest work. He's a plumber who went to trade school; people never stop having plumbing issues during a recession but because there aren't all of these fancy construction projects anymore, he would have to lower himself.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Then that is what he needs to do.  At the very least, his UC officer should be off-setting his benefits with what he COULD be earning if he wasn't sitting on his couch all day.  For example, if he was earning $1,000 per week while employed and his benefit allowance is $500, but he COULD be earning $400 per week if he desired, then he should only recieve $100 per week in UC benefits (with certain adjustments for applicable exceptions).  Whether or not he decides to take the other opportunity is up to him but does not affect his entitlement to benefits. 

 

He would still be entitled to 'partial' unemployment benefits - i.e. the difference between his benefits allowance (as determined by past income) and his actual income.  If the UC officer handling his case is not aware that there is employment which he is passing up because he does not want to work, then your brother is either lying on his applications or the UC officer is not doing his/her job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phenomena like this were one of the reasons welfare-to-work was such a success (and why it's mindboggling to me to see so much of the program's gains slated to be nullified by the current administration).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, regardless, I think even if 1.00 generates 1.20, it would generate even more if the money were given to people for some sort of labor/service. Distribute the money to employers payroll for the sole use of creating a job. No employer wants to see people out of work; they would absolutely go for it. This is just common sense; you don't need a chart or math equasion to figure it out.

 

This is not common sense.  I heard yesterday that the top 10 tech companies have amassed $250 billion in cash reserves.  Companies are stockpiling cash and are slow to hire.  Revenues are up for many companies but it is not translating to hiring.  I wish we lived in a world "where no employer wants to see people out of work."  Many (not all) companies are more interested in maximizing profits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, regardless, I think even if 1.00 generates 1.20, it would generate even more if the money were given to people for some sort of labor/service. Distribute the money to employers payroll for the sole use of creating a job. No employer wants to see people out of work; they would absolutely go for it. This is just common sense; you don't need a chart or math equasion to figure it out.

 

This is not common sense. I heard yesterday that the top 10 tech companies have amassed $250 billion in cash reserves. Companies are stockpiling cash and are slow to hire. Revenues are up for many companies but it is not translating to hiring. I wish we lived in a world "where no employer wants to see people out of work." Many (not all) companies are more interested in maximizing profits.

 

More accurately, they're interested in protecting themselves against uncertainty.  Hoarding cash is the exact opposite of maximizing profits.  Think of your own finances.  If you've got $100,000 in your checking account, you are *not* maximizing your own investments, nor are you likely maximizing your own social welfare.

 

There is uncertainty with respect to future taxes, with respect to the raft of new regulations (health care, financial reform) coming out of Washington, with respect to the election in November, with respect to the state of the capital markets, and so on.  The capital markets uncertainty may be among the strongest explanations, both because that uncertainty is so pervasive and because that's the one form of uncertainty that leads directly to the conclusion "hoard cash."  If you have no way of knowing if you'll be able to get a decent commercial loan or place share offerings, you're going to hoard cash because the alternative is a potentially devastating liquidity crunch, even if you're completely solvent on a balance-sheet basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, regardless, I think even if 1.00 generates 1.20, it would generate even more if the money were given to people for some sort of labor/service. Distribute the money to employers payroll for the sole use of creating a job. No employer wants to see people out of work; they would absolutely go for it. This is just common sense; you don't need a chart or math equasion to figure it out.

 

This is not common sense. I heard yesterday that the top 10 tech companies have amassed $250 billion in cash reserves. Companies are stockpiling cash and are slow to hire. Revenues are up for many companies but it is not translating to hiring. I wish we lived in a world "where no employer wants to see people out of work." Many (not all) companies are more interested in maximizing profits.

 

I don't know if that was his point or not.

 

I think "unemployment" should involve:  The government will give you money.  In return, you have to do X amount of work, like community service.  I could put the entire unemployed population of Cleveland to work picking up trash around the city.  And if you don't want to pick up trash (or whatever set of tasks) then you don't get unemployment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, regardless, I think even if 1.00 generates 1.20, it would generate even more if the money were given to people for some sort of labor/service. Distribute the money to employers payroll for the sole use of creating a job. No employer wants to see people out of work; they would absolutely go for it. This is just common sense; you don't need a chart or math equasion to figure it out.

 

This is not common sense. I heard yesterday that the top 10 tech companies have amassed $250 billion in cash reserves. Companies are stockpiling cash and are slow to hire. Revenues are up for many companies but it is not translating to hiring. I wish we lived in a world "where no employer wants to see people out of work." Many (not all) companies are more interested in maximizing profits.

 

What I meant was that I think they would go for it since it's not a risk to them if money were given to them strictly to hire. I'm sure they could figure out productive jobs for new people, even if it takes a little creativity. I know companies are hoarding cash and that they're slow to hire but I think it's because they feel they can't take on that risk right now with our uncertain future. I think my solution would provide a way to counter-act that kind of behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, regardless, I think even if 1.00 generates 1.20, it would generate even more if the money were given to people for some sort of labor/service. Distribute the money to employers payroll for the sole use of creating a job. No employer wants to see people out of work; they would absolutely go for it. This is just common sense; you don't need a chart or math equasion to figure it out.

 

This is not common sense.  I heard yesterday that the top 10 tech companies have amassed $250 billion in cash reserves.  Companies are stockpiling cash and are slow to hire.  Revenues are up for many companies but it is not translating to hiring.  I wish we lived in a world "where no employer wants to see people out of work."  Many (not all) companies are more interested in maximizing profits.

 

I don't know if that was his point or not.

 

I think "unemployment" should involve:  The government will give you money.  In return, you have to do X amount of work, like community service.  I could put the entire unemployed population of Cleveland, or any other location in the country, to work picking up trash around the city.  And if you don't want to pick up trash (or whatever set of tasks) then you don't get unemployment.  PERIOD! 

 

AMEN!  TOTALY AGREE!

 

I've been preaching this for years.  I believe in order to get unemployment you should have to complete X hours of community service a week!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, regardless, I think even if 1.00 generates 1.20, it would generate even more if the money were given to people for some sort of labor/service. Distribute the money to employers payroll for the sole use of creating a job. No employer wants to see people out of work; they would absolutely go for it. This is just common sense; you don't need a chart or math equasion to figure it out.

 

This is not common sense. I heard yesterday that the top 10 tech companies have amassed $250 billion in cash reserves. Companies are stockpiling cash and are slow to hire. Revenues are up for many companies but it is not translating to hiring. I wish we lived in a world "where no employer wants to see people out of work." Many (not all) companies are more interested in maximizing profits.

 

I don't know if that was his point or not.

 

I think "unemployment" should involve: The government will give you money. In return, you have to do X amount of work, like community service. I could put the entire unemployed population of Cleveland, or any other location in the country, to work picking up trash around the city. And if you don't want to pick up trash (or whatever set of tasks) then you don't get unemployment. PERIOD!

 

AMEN! TOTALY AGREE!

 

I've been preaching this for years. I believe in order to get unemployment you should have to complete X hours of community service a week!

 

In theory, I agree.  However, a job search can be seriously time consuming.  That X number can't be too high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, regardless, I think even if 1.00 generates 1.20, it would generate even more if the money were given to people for some sort of labor/service. Distribute the money to employers payroll for the sole use of creating a job. No employer wants to see people out of work; they would absolutely go for it. This is just common sense; you don't need a chart or math equasion to figure it out.

 

This is not common sense.  I heard yesterday that the top 10 tech companies have amassed $250 billion in cash reserves.  Companies are stockpiling cash and are slow to hire.  Revenues are up for many companies but it is not translating to hiring.  I wish we lived in a world "where no employer wants to see people out of work."  Many (not all) companies are more interested in maximizing profits.

 

I don't know if that was his point or not.

 

I think "unemployment" should involve:  The government will give you money.  In return, you have to do X amount of work, like community service.  I could put the entire unemployed population of Cleveland, or any other location in the country, to work picking up trash around the city.  And if you don't want to pick up trash (or whatever set of tasks) then you don't get unemployment.  PERIOD! 

 

AMEN!  TOTALY AGREE!

 

I've been preaching this for years.  I believe in order to get unemployment you should have to complete X hours of community service a week!

 

In theory, I agree.  However, a job search can be seriously time consuming.  That X number can't be too high.

 

People going to school full time manage to conduct job searches while in school.  People who are employed full time successfully conduct job searches.  They manage to find the time.  I'm quite sure the person doing community service work can find a new job as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a difference between unemployment benefits and welfare benefits, and obviously people abuse both, but some people actually use these benefits to pull themselves out of a bad situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think pension funds are going to be a hot debate soon. Banks are starting to accept future installments from pension funds as collateral against loans for things like mortgages. What do you guys see as the consequence of this? I don't think it looks good at all; many of these 'safe-havens' have already collapsed from risky investing and with the babyboomers getting old and the uncertainty of social security, along with people living longer, people are going to have a really hard time getting by after retirement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, regardless, I think even if 1.00 generates 1.20, it would generate even more if the money were given to people for some sort of labor/service. Distribute the money to employers payroll for the sole use of creating a job. No employer wants to see people out of work; they would absolutely go for it. This is just common sense; you don't need a chart or math equasion to figure it out.

 

This is not common sense. I heard yesterday that the top 10 tech companies have amassed $250 billion in cash reserves. Companies are stockpiling cash and are slow to hire. Revenues are up for many companies but it is not translating to hiring. I wish we lived in a world "where no employer wants to see people out of work." Many (not all) companies are more interested in maximizing profits.

 

I don't know if that was his point or not.

 

I think "unemployment" should involve: The government will give you money. In return, you have to do X amount of work, like community service. I could put the entire unemployed population of Cleveland, or any other location in the country, to work picking up trash around the city. And if you don't want to pick up trash (or whatever set of tasks) then you don't get unemployment. PERIOD!

 

AMEN! TOTALY AGREE!

 

I've been preaching this for years. I believe in order to get unemployment you should have to complete X hours of community service a week!

 

There was just a big river cleanup in the Dayton area and a comment like that was made in the paper.  TOTALLY AGREE!  That's basically what happened in the Great Depression with the WPA, CCC, etc.

 

What is the problem nowadays? Are unemployed people too good to work?  Are there such things as "jobs Americans just won't do"?  I hope not but if that's true then those Americans deserve destitution (I'm speaking of the able-bodied, of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think "unemployment" should involve: The government will give you money. In return, you have to do X amount of work, like community service. I could put the entire unemployed population of Cleveland, or any other location in the country, to work picking up trash around the city. And if you don't want to pick up trash (or whatever set of tasks) then you don't get unemployment. PERIOD!

 

AMEN! TOTALY AGREE!

 

I've been preaching this for years. I believe in order to get unemployment you should have to complete X hours of community service a week!

 

In theory, I agree. However, a job search can be seriously time consuming. That X number can't be too high.

 

It probably can't be 60.  But it could definitely be 30, particularly for anyone childless.  Even for those with children, well, if they're searching for a full-time job, then they're obviously banking on being able to balance their career and family commitments if their job search is successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the jobless benefits are continued! It passed 60-40 in the senate. It still has to go to the House and Obama for stamps of approval but it shouldn't be an issue. My brother is going to love his lump sum once they finally send these out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you honestly believe that Republicans would let Obama get away with creating new organizations like the CCC where the Federal government was actually employing people directly?  They'd cry and scream socialism and that Obama was building an army of socialist laborers to take over the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you honestly believe that Republicans would let Obama get away with creating new organizations like the CCC where the Federal government was actually employing people directly? They'd cry and scream socialism and that Obama was building an army of socialist laborers to take over the country.

 

If it added *new* people to the federal payroll, perhaps.  If it took people from welfare (money for nothing) and put them to work (money for something), I think there would be a substantial number of conservatives who would concede that it was an improvement.  There would still be the usual suspects indicting the program reflexively simply because it's a proxy for indicting the proponent, which is what their real goal is and always will be.  However, not everyone is so cynical, and there would be enough acknowledging that it was an improvement to give the administration bipartisan credentials in pushing it through.  In fact, I think a stronger conservative counterattack would be along the lines of "however far this goes, it doesn't go far enough."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you honestly believe that Republicans would let Obama get away with creating new organizations like the CCC where the Federal government was actually employing people directly?  They'd cry and scream socialism and that Obama was building an army of socialist laborers to take over the country.

 

Are you talking to me? I suggested they give the money to corporations to add to their payroll for new hires. Since when have Republicans complained about the government giving money to corporations? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Then that is what he needs to do. At the very least, his UC officer should be off-setting his benefits with what he COULD be earning if he wasn't sitting on his couch all day. For example, if he was earning $1,000 per week while employed and his benefit allowance is $500, but he COULD be earning $400 per week if he desired, then he should only recieve $100 per week in UC benefits (with certain adjustments for applicable exceptions). Whether or not he decides to take the other opportunity is up to him but does not affect his entitlement to benefits.

 

He would still be entitled to 'partial' unemployment benefits - i.e. the difference between his benefits allowance (as determined by past income) and his actual income. If the UC officer handling his case is not aware that there is employment which he is passing up because he does not want to work, then your brother is either lying on his applications or the UC officer is not doing his/her job.

 

This is essentially Nixon's Negative Income Tax which Clinton eventually passed as the Earned Income Credit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you honestly believe that Republicans would let Obama get away with creating new organizations like the CCC where the Federal government was actually employing people directly? They'd cry and scream socialism and that Obama was building an army of socialist laborers to take over the country.

 

If it added *new* people to the federal payroll, perhaps. If it took people from welfare (money for nothing) and put them to work (money for something), I think there would be a substantial number of conservatives who would concede that it was an improvement. There would still be the usual suspects indicting the program reflexively simply because it's a proxy for indicting the proponent, which is what their real goal is and always will be. However, not everyone is so cynical, and there would be enough acknowledging that it was an improvement to give the administration bipartisan credentials in pushing it through. In fact, I think a stronger conservative counterattack would be along the lines of "however far this goes, it doesn't go far enough."

 

Of course, the (gasp) government program that would have to be created would not simply employ the unemployed.  You would need countless supervisors and staffers that would have to be hired to administer such a program.  You would need to purchase benefits for all these people and you would need to purchase the equipment, office space, and other assets necessary.  Not that I don't agree it is a good idea, but Loretto's point still stands and the fright wing would piss and moan.  But regardless... how would that be different from ANY other single initiative the present administration has implemented ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...