Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even those that cant write a correct sentence. I suppose they have plenty of those types already. This country is doomed with a cadre of lazy takers. We have utterly failed our children and they have utterly failed themselves.
Actually, it is a good idea in theory -- if you could eliminate welfare, hire them at minimum wage with no benefits, and put them to work like your typical third world laborer.
In practice, you can pretty much guarantee that they'd be overcompensated, which defeats the purpose.
Look...there's an enormous difference between FDR's New Deal and today's economic stimulus packages.
During the Great Depression, government jobs and benefits were meant to be temporary, to help people out until industry began hiring again. And, it worked because the looming war eventually fed the economy and most of those on the dole or working for Uncle in things like the CCC and WPA went back to work for private business.
Today, those government jobs and benefits must essentially be permanent because WE HAVE NO INDUSTRY to wait for! It's gone and it's not coming back any time soon, if ever. Those who have been displaced by the Great Recession are generally people from the manufacturing sector and the jobs they lost are permanently gone off to China or India.
Either we accept the fact that the taxpayers must pay them for make work from now on, or we spend money retraining them for the jobs that WILL return, mostly in the service industry. Or, we can just follow the GOP's idea of letting them starve out.
I don't understand why the democratic party doesn't adopt a "full employment" platform where every one is hired according to their skills and every new federal position is developed for every "want" in society.
How could anyone be against "full employment"?
Society needs a central planner to take care of things that need to be taken care of, right?
I don't understand why the democratic party doesn't adopt a "full employment" platform where every one is hired according to their skills and every new federal position is developed for every "want" in society.
How could anyone be against "full employment"?
Society needs a central planner to take care of things that need to be taken care of, right?
I don't think I need a contraction using an iPad. Get a life juvenile
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, we do not need FDR's "great society" part II. We need the US government to get the heck out of the way and STOP THE SPENDING!
