100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Of "Free money" and 'entitlement' | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 09/24/17 12:24 PM
|
|
I wonder how people feel about investing 12 years of their life to education,but come out with as much of an education as it takes to flip hamburgers at McDonald's//So ya mean I went to school for 12 years to start at the bottom. I feel the biggest thing we could do for the citizens of these United States is to provide a better education system so that starting at the bottom becomes a thing of the past, You give people entitlement money ya feed them monthly give them a better more advanced education and you give them the ability to make money.. You hear all about these companies that can't find the skilled workers you incorporate these companies into the education system which for the schools would become financially better for them as well because the companies would be investing in the schools as well To me the education system is old and outdated and that if you don't advance the people at better pace more conducive with the times then you will just start them as a fry cook in some dank nowhere job ...  Someone else paid the $150,000 for that k-12 education and someone has to flip burgers if McDonalds or any service based industry is going to exist. Half of all people working in the US have worked at McDonalds, and if that is all you get out of your education maybe YOU are the one that needs to put more into it, not the system. Are you saying people should start at the top and then work their way down so by the time they are retiring they are McDonald employees? Because someone has to do it unless you think we should bring in foreigners to do any and all entry level jobs. People chose what they make of things, their are many successful people in the US, there are many hardworking people who are doing pretty good in the US, and there are many that just don't put out the effort to do better than to flip burgers at McDonalds. Should we. Punish those who do good and reward those who chose to do the minimum to get by? Should people be in school and retired longer than they work? And who's going to pay for this? sigh let me start slowly No. Im not saying people should start at the top. Im saying it would be wiser to invest the money now spent on 'entitlements' to guarantee people have work at a mere 20000 per year, that is not a 'top' job People who want to make more still have all the same options to do so. People that want to work at mcdonalds, significantly less demanding than the government jobs being considered, would still do so. No. We should not punish anyone and this would not punish anyone. Merely put people to work for funds that previously were 'given free' No. People should not be in school and retired longer than they work. The average lifespan in the US is 79 years and the average age of retirement is 63 what that means is there is an average 16 year retirement years in a lifetime People are supported by their parents the first 18. so their employment or unemployment has no impact on anyone which leaves a working age span of 61. so whether we compare 16 (retirement years) to 61 (potential self providing years) or 34 (youth and retirement) to 45 (lifespan minus youth and retirement) people are STILL spending more years working than anything else... who is going to pay for this is citizens , the same way they currently pay for 'entitlements' that they gripe about presumably because they see it as 'free'money, the same way they pay administrative costs to maintain government departments, employees, and politicians. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hm. Well, a proposal like this will never make it through a Republican controlled Congress, so there's that.
The biggest problems I have with it, are the same ones I have with pretty much every proposal I've heard from either major party for the last thirty years or more: they always want to address only ONE of the many MANY reasons for people being out of work or under-employed. Most of them just want to do something to make a certain agitated subgroup feel better. I don't see that this is significantly different from so-called "workfare," proposed back in the eighties. Save for the idea that government would create the jobs. Problems NOT addressed by this, or any of the opposing proposals I've seen include, but are not limited to: * the high cost of living driven by a once MUCH higher average income level (adjusted for inflation), and NEVER brought down again, means that the reason why so many Americans don't want so-called entry-level jobs, is simple math. You can't make a living doing them, as a person once could. * Americans also can no longer "move to where the jobs are," as we once could, in large part because (again) of the housing cost problem. Politicians love to point to job growth in various locales, and claim righteously that people should be willing to go where the work is, but they ignore the fact that no one can afford to actually do that...ESPECIALLY if they are currently unemployed. * A lot of people who are out of work and on the rolls, are actually mentally or physically unfit, especially to perform the kind of labor involved with these "entry level" jobs. You can fuss at them all you want, they wont be capable of doing what you want them to do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how people feel about investing 12 years of their life to education,but come out with as much of an education as it takes to flip hamburgers at McDonald's//So ya mean I went to school for 12 years to start at the bottom. I feel the biggest thing we could do for the citizens of these United States is to provide a better education system so that starting at the bottom becomes a thing of the past, You give people entitlement money ya feed them monthly give them a better more advanced education and you give them the ability to make money.. You hear all about these companies that can't find the skilled workers you incorporate these companies into the education system which for the schools would become financially better for them as well because the companies would be investing in the schools as well To me the education system is old and outdated and that if you don't advance the people at better pace more conducive with the times then you will just start them as a fry cook in some dank nowhere job ... Someone else paid the $150,000 for that k-12 education and someone has to flip burgers if McDonalds or any service based industry is going to exist. Half of all people working in the US have worked at McDonalds, and if that is all you get out of your education maybe YOU are the one that needs to put more into it, not the system. Are you saying people should start at the top and then work their way down so by the time they are retiring they are McDonald employees? Because someone has to do it unless you think we should bring in foreigners to do any and all entry level jobs. People chose what they make of things, their are many successful people in the US, there are many hardworking people who are doing pretty good in the US, and there are many that just don't put out the effort to do better than to flip burgers at McDonalds. Should we. Punish those who do good and reward those who chose to do the minimum to get by? Should people be in school and retired longer than they work? And who's going to pay for this? sigh let me start slowly No. Im not saying people should start at the top. Im saying it would be wiser to invest the money now spent on 'entitlements' to guarantee people have work at a mere 20000 per year, that is not a 'top' job People who want to make more still have all the same options to do so. People that want to work at mcdonalds, significantly less demanding than the government jobs being considered, would still do so. No. We should not punish anyone and this would not punish anyone. Merely put people to work for funds that previously were 'given free' No. People should not be in school and retired longer than they work. The average lifespan in the US is 79 years and the average age of retirement is 63 what that means is there is an average 16 year retirement years in a lifetime People are supported by their parents the first 18. so their employment or unemployment has no impact on anyone which leaves a working age span of 61. so whether we compare 16 (retirement years) to 61 (potential self providing years) or 34 (youth and retirement) to 45 (lifespan minus youth and retirement) people are STILL spending more years working than anything else... who is going to pay for this is citizens , the same way they currently pay for 'entitlements' that they gripe about presumably because they see it as 'free'money, the same way they pay administrative costs to maintain government departments, employees, and politicians. In case you hadn't noticed Harmony that quote was not by you and a little off the topic fof the original post so my response was toward that quote not the main topic. Now in regards to. making people work sounds a bit like slavery or communism so we should be clear that those who chose to work can get a job, and those who chose not to work get nothing. Wait, isn't that kind of how things should work even without government intervention? They already have programs to help handicap people get work where the employers put a small wage in and the government kicks in the rest. The problem is many of the people flat out do not want to work, or like Igor says are mentally or.physically unable to preform many jobs. As far as the years people work (full time) is on average 18 to 65 or 47 years of their life. Those who go to college may be shorter, and some people certainly work more than that. But in order to be supported as a juvinile and a senior you rely on others and in return you are expected to support others during your working years. That's how take and give is supposed to work, but some just take and never give and it throws the whole system out of balance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how people feel about investing 12 years of their life to education,but come out with as much of an education as it takes to flip hamburgers at McDonald's//So ya mean I went to school for 12 years to start at the bottom. I feel the biggest thing we could do for the citizens of these United States is to provide a better education system so that starting at the bottom becomes a thing of the past, You give people entitlement money ya feed them monthly give them a better more advanced education and you give them the ability to make money.. You hear all about these companies that can't find the skilled workers you incorporate these companies into the education system which for the schools would become financially better for them as well because the companies would be investing in the schools as well To me the education system is old and outdated and that if you don't advance the people at better pace more conducive with the times then you will just start them as a fry cook in some dank nowhere job ... Someone else paid the $150,000 for that k-12 education and someone has to flip burgers if McDonalds or any service based industry is going to exist. Half of all people working in the US have worked at McDonalds, and if that is all you get out of your education maybe YOU are the one that needs to put more into it, not the system. Are you saying people should start at the top and then work their way down so by the time they are retiring they are McDonald employees? Because someone has to do it unless you think we should bring in foreigners to do any and all entry level jobs. People chose what they make of things, their are many successful people in the US, there are many hardworking people who are doing pretty good in the US, and there are many that just don't put out the effort to do better than to flip burgers at McDonalds. Should we. Punish those who do good and reward those who chose to do the minimum to get by? Should people be in school and retired longer than they work? And who's going to pay for this? sigh let me start slowly No. Im not saying people should start at the top. Im saying it would be wiser to invest the money now spent on 'entitlements' to guarantee people have work at a mere 20000 per year, that is not a 'top' job People who want to make more still have all the same options to do so. People that want to work at mcdonalds, significantly less demanding than the government jobs being considered, would still do so. No. We should not punish anyone and this would not punish anyone. Merely put people to work for funds that previously were 'given free' No. People should not be in school and retired longer than they work. The average lifespan in the US is 79 years and the average age of retirement is 63 what that means is there is an average 16 year retirement years in a lifetime People are supported by their parents the first 18. so their employment or unemployment has no impact on anyone which leaves a working age span of 61. so whether we compare 16 (retirement years) to 61 (potential self providing years) or 34 (youth and retirement) to 45 (lifespan minus youth and retirement) people are STILL spending more years working than anything else... who is going to pay for this is citizens , the same way they currently pay for 'entitlements' that they gripe about presumably because they see it as 'free'money, the same way they pay administrative costs to maintain government departments, employees, and politicians. In case you hadn't noticed Harmony that quote was not by you and a little off the topic fof the original post so my response was toward that quote not the main topic. Now in regards to. making people work sounds a bit like slavery or communism so we should be clear that those who chose to work can get a job, and those who chose not to work get nothing. Wait, isn't that kind of how things should work even without government intervention? They already have programs to help handicap people get work where the employers put a small wage in and the government kicks in the rest. The problem is many of the people flat out do not want to work, or like Igor says are mentally or.physically unable to preform many jobs. As far as the years people work (full time) is on average 18 to 65 or 47 years of their life. Those who go to college may be shorter, and some people certainly work more than that. But in order to be supported as a juvinile and a senior you rely on others and in return you are expected to support others during your working years. That's how take and give is supposed to work, but some just take and never give and it throws the whole system out of balance. as a juvenile their parent or guardian foots the bill... and no, the current system does not GUARANTEE employment, it only guarantees the opportunity to beg and plead for whatever someone once to imburse you against hundreds, dozens or sometimes thousands begging for the same. take and give would be met by making sure people had jobs that they were imbursed for performing... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how people feel about investing 12 years of their life to education,but come out with as much of an education as it takes to flip hamburgers at McDonald's//So ya mean I went to school for 12 years to start at the bottom. I feel the biggest thing we could do for the citizens of these United States is to provide a better education system so that starting at the bottom becomes a thing of the past, You give people entitlement money ya feed them monthly give them a better more advanced education and you give them the ability to make money.. You hear all about these companies that can't find the skilled workers you incorporate these companies into the education system which for the schools would become financially better for them as well because the companies would be investing in the schools as well To me the education system is old and outdated and that if you don't advance the people at better pace more conducive with the times then you will just start them as a fry cook in some dank nowhere job ... Someone else paid the $150,000 for that k-12 education and someone has to flip burgers if McDonalds or any service based industry is going to exist. Half of all people working in the US have worked at McDonalds, and if that is all you get out of your education maybe YOU are the one that needs to put more into it, not the system. Are you saying people should start at the top and then work their way down so by the time they are retiring they are McDonald employees? Because someone has to do it unless you think we should bring in foreigners to do any and all entry level jobs. People chose what they make of things, their are many successful people in the US, there are many hardworking people who are doing pretty good in the US, and there are many that just don't put out the effort to do better than to flip burgers at McDonalds. Should we. Punish those who do good and reward those who chose to do the minimum to get by? Should people be in school and retired longer than they work? And who's going to pay for this? sigh let me start slowly No. Im not saying people should start at the top. Im saying it would be wiser to invest the money now spent on 'entitlements' to guarantee people have work at a mere 20000 per year, that is not a 'top' job People who want to make more still have all the same options to do so. People that want to work at mcdonalds, significantly less demanding than the government jobs being considered, would still do so. No. We should not punish anyone and this would not punish anyone. Merely put people to work for funds that previously were 'given free' No. People should not be in school and retired longer than they work. The average lifespan in the US is 79 years and the average age of retirement is 63 what that means is there is an average 16 year retirement years in a lifetime People are supported by their parents the first 18. so their employment or unemployment has no impact on anyone which leaves a working age span of 61. so whether we compare 16 (retirement years) to 61 (potential self providing years) or 34 (youth and retirement) to 45 (lifespan minus youth and retirement) people are STILL spending more years working than anything else... who is going to pay for this is citizens , the same way they currently pay for 'entitlements' that they gripe about presumably because they see it as 'free'money, the same way they pay administrative costs to maintain government departments, employees, and politicians. In case you hadn't noticed Harmony that quote was not by you and a little off the topic fof the original post so my response was toward that quote not the main topic. Now in regards to. making people work sounds a bit like slavery or communism so we should be clear that those who chose to work can get a job, and those who chose not to work get nothing. Wait, isn't that kind of how things should work even without government intervention? They already have programs to help handicap people get work where the employers put a small wage in and the government kicks in the rest. The problem is many of the people flat out do not want to work, or like Igor says are mentally or.physically unable to preform many jobs. As far as the years people work (full time) is on average 18 to 65 or 47 years of their life. Those who go to college may be shorter, and some people certainly work more than that. But in order to be supported as a juvinile and a senior you rely on others and in return you are expected to support others during your working years. That's how take and give is supposed to work, but some just take and never give and it throws the whole system out of balance. as a juvenile their parent or guardian foots the bill... and no, the current system does not GUARANTEE employment, it only guarantees the opportunity to beg and plead for whatever someone once to imburse you against hundreds, dozens or sometimes thousands begging for the same. take and give would be met by making sure people had jobs that they were imbursed for performing... Juveniles are provided food and shelter by their parents, gaurdians, OR THE GOVERNMENT. But as far as their education that is most often paid for by taxes, not sure how many parents are truly bearing that $12,000 a year for each of the children they have in school. Guaranteeing people have a job does not guarantee they do the work or do a good job at it. You gave a number of $20,000 a year. Working a 40 hour week or about 2000 hours a year at $10 an hour is $20k a year. Anyone is able to do that at a McDonalds, and I do mean anyone who is willing to show up (on time) and do what they are told. The problem is expecting things for nothing and not respecting others. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
are you including education in 'entitlements' ? Interesting
would it be better to leave future generations uneducated? and no, anybody is NOT able to just work, they have to compete for the jobs and FIT what the employer wants and be in that area for the job... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have a similar thing here. benefits. I've always thought why don't they get people cleaning up the streets and pay them at least you'd get something for the money. But I don't think we can make them work, probably a leftie law  Only people who are disabled physically or mentally should be on entitlements! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
are you including education in 'entitlements' ? Interesting would it be better to leave future generations uneducated? and no, anybody is NOT able to just work, they have to compete for the jobs and FIT what the employer wants and be in that area for the job... The education is a complicated thing that has to do with being part of the civilization and the government hopes to produce tax paying citizens to keep things going. That is also the reason for the child tax credit, with out getting new tax payers the system falls apart. Its in hopes that most people will pay for their education and retirement during their working years, some will not due to death or disability,but the rest are expected to put some effort in making an attempt to better things. Those who don't work or live in poverty are more likely to have a child that goes thru life living in poverty. So as many of the middle class and rich have cut the number of children they have many of the poor have remained having larger number of children and so the cycle adds to the number in need while reducing the numbers paying to help. The government seems to think printing more money is the answer to everything. It may actually be cheaper to give the needy $1000 a month like the Hillary plan than to try to create jobs and babysit those who do not want to work. I've always said its hard to get anything done when your holding somebody's hand all day, I have experienced those who don't show up for work, screw things up and it takes longer to fix it then if you would have done it yourself, or constantly need to be reminded what they are doing and how it is done. I usually say you can fire half the people and double your production. Go to a fast food place and it seems like the more people working the longer it takes to get your food when you know a few qualified people could get it right out to you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 09/24/17 05:14 PM
|
|
We have a similar thing here. benefits. I've always thought why don't they get people cleaning up the streets and pay them at least you'd get something for the money. But I don't think we can make them work, probably a leftie law Only people who are disabled physically or mentally should be on entitlements! in an ideal world where everybody was guaranteed GAINFUL employment but in the culture where jobs are restricted to those things near a person that a person can compete and WIN out against other applicants for which fit their needs ,,,, where men are not providing for their families/children and where child care costs are exhaustive many will be unemployed even if they are 'able bodied' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not do this as well as EyeAm, but I was reading (cool pasttime) a story about a proposed program to replace the current programs people refer to as 'entitlement' or 'free money' and get people working To break it down, how I understand it, was that instead of the government 'giving free money' , reinvesting that money in employment this is how it would work last year, the US spent roughly 931 billion on 'entitlement' program -i am not including medicare or Social security in this figure https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52408 according to the last census there are 323 million citizens if we divide that spending with the population we get a per capita spending of roughly 29000 so we know that more than that is spent if we consider JUST those who are on the rolls, as not every citizen receives this spending so, the program would work by guaranteeing EMPLOYMENT instead, by putting people to work and PAYING them for their work( the current system has programs that put people in jobs in return for their under minimum wage monthly benefit) at at least 20,000 per year this would dispel the concern about people getting money for 'nothing' and the myth of 'generational welfare' elevating recipients to merely mutually employed citizens earning a living doing necessary 'government' type jobs like fixing and building infrastructure, teaching, or processing paperwork within the different government department I love the idea not only that the whiners about 'money for nothing' would be silenced, but that we would be making our country assets even stronger in the process(infrastructure, education, the flow of government) and at less cost than is currently called for.. Conceptually this is a good idea. I believe everyone should work for what they get. I just don't see how the government could make this happen especially in a (semi) free market society. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have to realize that jobs are going to be taken by technology and machines, I recommend you look up the book and or video "Robots Will Steal Your Job But That's OK" Look it up on Youtube this time the promise is real and is already in effect on an exponential rate. Government and money are religous notions, they do not exist in the real world but thought constructs in people's minds. Money is printed out of thin air by the central banks which are private institutions, not really a part of the government. Though, they do control policy by donating to politicians campaigns. The people no longer have a say in policy hence we do not live in a democracy but an oligarchy.
I welcome you all to look into The Venus Project and what they have coined as a Resource Based Economy. It is a vastly different concept than most are familiar with and goes beyond all the isms you may be familiar with. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know it's a ton of fun to proclaim that "everyone but the infirm should have to work for whatever they get and that's that." It feels good to be self-righteous and decisive, because it provides the illusion that you aren't responsible for the natural and logical results of whatever you are self-righteous about.
But it's just an illusion. Lots of societies have decided to say "work or suck it" to all their people. All of them had to deal with the consequences of that approach. That included, in every case, people dying in the streets from starvation (especially the old), children deserted everywhere, very bad health care for everyone but the very rich, higher cost of living to deal with the increases in crime (not all starving people accept it and lie down peacefully to die), prison costs skyrocketed, and the economies all stayed laconic. Every time a change in technology came along, another depression resulted, due to thousands of people being temporarily thrown out of work. There have been no examples where this was NOT the case. Hence, though I don't like this particular idea of having the government INVENT work to force people to do, I favor that something entirely different from the "laissez faire" concept. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
last year, the US spent roughly 931 billion on 'entitlement' program ...323 million citizens... if we divide that spending with the population we get a per capita spending of roughly 29000 You need to check your math. $931,000,000,000 / 323,000,000 people = approx $2,900 per person. Not to mention, if you look at the link you notice: $241 billion is spent on interest payments on current debt. $600 billion is deficit spending (difference between the 2 charts). So (using the reasoning, math, and understanding of the charts from the OP and all things being equal), in order to spend $2,900 per citizen the government assumed additional debt and current debt/interest payments of approx $2,600 per person. the program would work by guaranteeing EMPLOYMENT instead, by putting people to work and PAYING them for their work( the current system has programs that put people in jobs in return for their under minimum wage monthly benefit) at at least 20,000 per year Okay, for the sake of argument lets just pretend there's some sort of magic money fairy and it was $29,000 per citizen which you wish to redistribute. Does this mean if someone takes a government job paying $29,000 a year and they don't do the job, they get fired? And no more money? So need welfare? Or they can show up, do nothing, but still get paid $29,000? Or are you going to send the police or FBI in to beat them or jail them until they promise to try harder to perform the job? I'm not even going to touch what it would do to the private sector and labor markets. mutually employed citizens earning a living doing necessary 'government' type jobs like fixing and building infrastructure I don't think you know how government builds infrastructure? You do know there isn't like a special segment of the U.S. military whose sole purpose is building U.S. "infrastructure?" "Infrastructure" is built by private contractors. Competing against other private contractors for the job/long term contract. What you are basically saying here is "let's put private contractors out of business and just nationalize all their jobs, and give/force those jobs onto people who aren't capable of independence and need government help, plus take away any incentive for them to do a good job because they can't really be fired or lose the contract. At best we can remove the non productive people and keep playing revolving employees until we find some that know what they're doing and are providing the quality we need." I love the idea not only that the whiners about 'money for nothing' would be silenced, but that we would be making our country assets even stronger in the process(infrastructure, education, the flow of government) and at less cost than is currently called for.. It's a silly utopian ideal based on a desired emotional outcome in no way based on reality. You really think giving people free jobs (that might directly compete with others) is going to make people whining about free money go away or change their beliefs? You really think randomly sticking a bunch of welfare recipients on "infrastructure" crews will magically increase efficiency and value in the "country assets?" I'd say go down to your local depressed area and find 10 people that just look homeless. Take them home and say "okay, I am going to pay you 10k each. That's guaranteed. But you have to work for it. If you don't, well, then at worst I'll give you 10k and find another job for you, and at the same time go look for someone else who will do the job and give them 10k and hope they actually do the job. Because I can't not give you money. I want you to build me a fence! Here are the plans and instructions and some more money for expenses and construction training. I know doing this will increase efficiency and I will get the highest quality of fence!" See what happens and get back to us. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EyeAmYorHost39,,
Hey You I had to take a flight all the way to your neck of the woods and pay you visit at your cyber home. Since I'm a valued guest, I want to give you my take on so called free money. Well it's do the thinking for a minute, we thought them minimum balance credit cards you get in the mail was free money until you get your bill, and ah oh ....its not. Then we thought we can apply for a paid grant programs until we learned that the politicians & those who vote for then get them opportunities first so by the time it get's your community there no longer available. Then we hear about a guy in a book he wrote " How to claim Free money via internet without ever paying it back" good hustle for him for a while until he got sued by the U.S> Government for unapproved finance secretes. so we ll know fee money comes at nothing.......lol aight love I got get back to my mansion keep posting later! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
last year, the US spent roughly 931 billion on 'entitlement' program ...323 million citizens... if we divide that spending with the population we get a per capita spending of roughly 29000 You need to check your math. $931,000,000,000 / 323,000,000 people = approx $2,900 per person. Not to mention, if you look at the link you notice: $241 billion is spent on interest payments on current debt. $600 billion is deficit spending (difference between the 2 charts). So (using the reasoning, math, and understanding of the charts from the OP and all things being equal), in order to spend $2,900 per citizen the government assumed additional debt and current debt/interest payments of approx $2,600 per person. the program would work by guaranteeing EMPLOYMENT instead, by putting people to work and PAYING them for their work( the current system has programs that put people in jobs in return for their under minimum wage monthly benefit) at at least 20,000 per year Okay, for the sake of argument lets just pretend there's some sort of magic money fairy and it was $29,000 per citizen which you wish to redistribute. Does this mean if someone takes a government job paying $29,000 a year and they don't do the job, they get fired? And no more money? So need welfare? Or they can show up, do nothing, but still get paid $29,000? Or are you going to send the police or FBI in to beat them or jail them until they promise to try harder to perform the job? I'm not even going to touch what it would do to the private sector and labor markets. mutually employed citizens earning a living doing necessary 'government' type jobs like fixing and building infrastructure I don't think you know how government builds infrastructure? You do know there isn't like a special segment of the U.S. military whose sole purpose is building U.S. "infrastructure?" "Infrastructure" is built by private contractors. Competing against other private contractors for the job/long term contract. What you are basically saying here is "let's put private contractors out of business and just nationalize all their jobs, and give/force those jobs onto people who aren't capable of independence and need government help, plus take away any incentive for them to do a good job because they can't really be fired or lose the contract. At best we can remove the non productive people and keep playing revolving employees until we find some that know what they're doing and are providing the quality we need." I love the idea not only that the whiners about 'money for nothing' would be silenced, but that we would be making our country assets even stronger in the process(infrastructure, education, the flow of government) and at less cost than is currently called for.. It's a silly utopian ideal based on a desired emotional outcome in no way based on reality. You really think giving people free jobs (that might directly compete with others) is going to make people whining about free money go away or change their beliefs? You really think randomly sticking a bunch of welfare recipients on "infrastructure" crews will magically increase efficiency and value in the "country assets?" I'd say go down to your local depressed area and find 10 people that just look homeless. Take them home and say "okay, I am going to pay you 10k each. That's guaranteed. But you have to work for it. If you don't, well, then at worst I'll give you 10k and find another job for you, and at the same time go look for someone else who will do the job and give them 10k and hope they actually do the job. Because I can't not give you money. I want you to build me a fence! Here are the plans and instructions and some more money for expenses and construction training. I know doing this will increase efficiency and I will get the highest quality of fence!" See what happens and get back to us.  sounds about right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EyeAmYorHost39,, Hey You I had to take a flight all the way to your neck of the woods and pay you visit at your cyber home. Since I'm a valued guest, I want to give you my take on so called free money. Well it's do the thinking for a minute, we thought them minimum balance credit cards you get in the mail was free money until you get your bill, and ah oh ....its not. Then we thought we can apply for a paid grant programs until we learned that the politicians & those who vote for then get them opportunities first so by the time it get's your community there no longer available. Then we hear about a guy in a book he wrote " How to claim Free money via internet without ever paying it back" good hustle for him for a while until he got sued by the U.S> Government for unapproved finance secretes. so we ll know fee money comes at nothing.......lol aight love I got get back to my mansion keep posting later! unless one is standing still they are 'giving' something to someone, their time, their effort, or whatever, but we do not value what people 'give' unless they are paid, and we have too many people enslaved in a system that tells them that ANYTHING someone else pays them in return for their efforts or time should be enough for them, when living expenses certainly are not met by this 'anything' ideal life isn't free, if you are living it, you are paying for it in some way, but seeing to it that people have basic needs for oneself and family in a society of such excess EVERYTHING should not be a controversial concept the idea that only those who find the opportunities to be paid for their efforts should have such access, should be |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Humm how are they going to Guarantee them work??? Can't make Employer's hire those that are not experienced and the Government sure can't create that many jobs?? Besides where do you think the money comes from to do this??? Yep they will raise taxes again we are paying for their living?  Honestly not well thought out on where those jobs and money to pay for those jobs will come from if the government creates them they will have to pay for them.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if the government stopped giving away money, plenty of ceos would be homeless, plenty of corporations would never see the light of day, and plenty of overzealous millionaires, billionaires would actually BE BANKRUPT behind their unpaid debts and obligations
and we could go back to the good old days where people just 'did what they were told' by massa, rather than starve or be without shelter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Free money????.. Lol
The U.S Government ( unlike other countries) is not in business, meaning they do not sell stuff , like services, oil, ect, ect .. like China and others. So there is no " free money" That " free money" you speak off.. is taxes.. carried on the backs of people who pay them Those people ( like me) do not like giving it away when people start to actually pay taxes.. then they care where it goes. Those who don't, frankly... could care less.... right |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm starting a new " program"
Its the " get off your F-ing and work, like the rest of us" program Aimed at people who are always looking for a Government " program" |
|
|
|
|
