"'Jobs, jobs, jobs _only_ is a Right-Wing market-based solution to poverty, and no more effective

[GreenPartyVoter]

than the trickle down theory."

[blondeatlast]

1. With all due respect, shich question are we answering?

Edit; I'm not the "other vote, btw.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Sorry let me go edit. I hope it's a bit clearer now.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Sorry to be disagreeable, lol...

But I chose disagree. I think we do need to think about the social safety net too.

OF COURSE we need jobs!

We really need both...

Recommended...

:hi:

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Peggy, I think both are very important. Clearly we need jobs, but like you

I don't think jobs alone will do it. Thanks for the Rec!

[Forkboy]

5. No, alone it'll never be enough.

There has to be more than just jobs. A job alone is no guarantee that you won't still be living in poverty anyways.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. And how many people do we know who have a job but not healthcare? Jobs alone

definitely aren't enough. A job today is no guarantee for what your tomorrow might look like.

[defendandprotect]

22. Exactly... we can't advance on any issue without UNIVERSAL health care -- !!

[harun]

6. Jeesh ask one question. Too confusing.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. Sorry. I left it at one question. :^)

[Capn Sunshine]

9. Yes Jobs are not enough

but in an environment of full employment it's easier to turn our attention towards the social net and other attendant issues to alleviate the underlying causes of poverty. So lets hope we see that happen soon.

After all, the recession ended in June 2009. Let quit the goofing around

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. Yes, that's the irony of the situation. The times when we have higher levels of

poverty are the times when its less likely to be addressed.

We have a Repub gubernatorial candidate who is promising to cut taxes, not services. I have no idea how he can honestly pull that off, but I fear that a lot of people will buy into the promise and vote for him. :(

[w8liftinglady]

12. that is identical to my senator's editorial today

our editorials were like opposite images-
Mine was about poverty-her's was about cutting the debt...

[w8liftinglady]

11. it is multi-factorial

Jobs are necessary-but true jobs with the ability to support yourself and your family.training to help you change fields if your job is obsolete.Financial,childcare,and medical asistance while you learn/train.Minimum-wage with no benefits is the right-wing solution for "the unkept"

[bobbolink]

14. that is true, but please don't forget.. what can an 89-year-old woman "train"for?

There are DUers who are essentially house-bound from their disabilities... what can they "train" for?

Is it the glue factory for *us*?

[w8liftinglady]

15. exactly.I agree 100%...but if the right had their way-

BTW-I am on disability for over a year,so I know how it feels to be "unworthy"

[bobbolink]

16. "BTW-I am on disability for over a year,so I know how it feels to be "unworthy""

:hug: :pals:

:cry:

All my disabled friends are in so much pain from all they have lost.. all they want is their lives back, but they can't have that.

To then be considered "unworthy" and to be consigned to the trash heap.... I don't honestly know how some keep breathing..... :cry:

Shame on all those who want to ignore us! :nuke:

[pnorman]

13. and NEVER forget all the Jobs that Bush43 created!

[Curmudgeoness]

17. I voted "agree" with reservations. Because I do think that

jobs really are the biggest answer we can have to most problems. Consider that there is 0% unemployment for all who are able to work. That means wages must go up to keep employees or attract new ones. Also, all the employed people will be paying taxes and this will make it possible to treat the people who are unable to work well. The taxes will also improve all the social safety nets, infrastructure, etc. People would gain the self-respect of having employment. Conditions in workplaces would have to improve to attract and keep employees. More people would be satisfied with their jobs, and if they weren't, there would be options available to them.

So although it is not all about jobs, full employment would go a long way to helping.

[bobbolink]

19. There is no such thing as "full employment" It cannot and will not ever happen.

[Curmudgeoness]

20. I understand that. Which is why I said "consider".

Well, I kind of understand that. I understand that I have always been told there is no such thing. But I never really knew why. It should be possible. That's ok, though, if you feel better, consider 2 or 3% unemployment. The results are about the same.

[bobbolink]

29. Economists will tell you that a minimum of 4% unemployment is necessary to keep the economy

"healthy".

"Full employement" would wreak havoc with the economy.

SOOOOO, those who are unemployed should be viewed as sacrificial lambs, and treated with respect... they are saving our asses.

[Curmudgeoness]

33. LOL, it would wreak havoc because of all my suppositions.

Lord knows that business does not want to have to compete for employees, which would mean making workplaces a good place to be.

Actually, I was in Houston when unemployment was below 3% and that is where I decided that we would all be better off if everyone who wanted to work could have a decent job. At that time, treat an employee like shit and they walked out---had another job right away. I didn't notice the economy crashing there.

[bobbolink]

36. I'm not going to argue with you. Talk to an economist.

This thread is really about those who can't work, and that is what I will concentrate on.

There are a lot of us suffering. Does that matter?

[Curmudgeoness]

39. There is no argument here. My post #17 stated that if there are

jobs for everyone who can work, taxes will be collected and we can treat the people who are unable to work much more fairly than we do now. There should not be people suffering. And yes, that matters---a lot. And having more tax revenue available from those who can work will make it possible to have money available for those people to have a decent life.

And as to talking to an economist, no thanks. They can tell me all about what should have or has happened, like telling me that the recession ended in June of 2009 (thanks for the timely info, economists). But they really don't know what WILL happen. And which economist is another issue---they are all over the place in opinions.

[defendandprotect]

25. Of course .... but it should be a declared goal of the Democrats ....

That everyone who can work -- and wishes to work -- has an opportunity to work.

5 hour a day week would help in many ways --

First, we need all workers to slow down .... stop doing the jobs of 2 or 3 employees.

Stop increasing productivity which only profits corporations and makes them greedier!

[bobbolink]

30. It can't work that way. See my reply above.

[defendandprotect]

35. The goal can be full employment...though we understand it wouldn't actually

be reached -- if you're thinking I'm saying send the sick and disabled to work --

that's not what I'm saying at all.

We need work for everyone who CAN work and who wants to work --

and -- again -- a shorter work day --

Workers have to SLOW down -- the faster you work the more you cheapen your own labor!

[bobbolink]

37. I explained why it can't be.

[defendandprotect]

38. I'll be happy to read it ... where is it?

Meanwhile, we are Waaaay below where we should be with employment --

22 million at the least unemployed -- 17% last I heard Sanders recite the numbers --

and 25 million if you count those who want full time jobs and can only find part time

employment --

If we don't get something done about that, they will be our new poor and new homeless.

[bobbolink]

59. One last time... JOBS is all "progressives" are able to talk about.

Given that I am among those left to die, I don't appreciate it, and feel very alone.

Not that it matters to anyone but me.

I have heard all the arguments, so I don't need repeats.

What the REST of you refuse to hear is that many of us are suffering and dying because of this meme.

[Gaedel]

65. Jobs

If everybody is working and there are no unemployment insurance payments required to support the employable unemployed, there will be a larger pot of money for progressives to tap to support the aged, disabled, and unemployable. The Great Society boomed in the 1960s, a period of relatively full employment, and died during the stagnant 1970s.

[bobbolink]

67. And you're willing to let people die until you reach that Utopia.

Those of us facing death thank you.

[defendandprotect]

75. And, actually, returning progressive taxation on the RICH/corporates would also

expand funding for homeless and impoverished --

THESE are the things we have to keep pushing Obama to do !!!

Our politicians have to start to find it uncomfortable to be "sponsored" and "bribed"

by corporations -- from the health care industry to big pharma -- to the oil industry!

[L0oniX]

88. Jobs also reduce crime.

[defendandprotect]

96. Yes -- great point -- probably also ...

alcoholism and DUIs -- and domestic violence --

Poverty breeds crime!

[defendandprotect]

74. Understandable ... but how many more homeless do we want to have??

We have to try to STOP the foreclosures --

We have to hare JOBS to keep others from becoming homeless?

Certainly, if the homeless problems gets even bigger, there will be LESS help

for homeless!

The cry for JOBS, JOBS, JOBS is not going to go away --

And, further, we need to overturn the trade agreements which continue to suck

500,000/700,000 jobs a month out of US!

We need jobs for the 99'ers . . . many of whom have already lost their houses

and are now losing their rentals!!

Increasing the numbers of homeless shouldn't be an option!!

We need to END HOMELESSNESS -- NOT EXPAND IT!!

[bobbolink]

79. So, let the people who are now homeless just die.. and those on disability, while you trumpet "Jobs"

Funny, I used to think my life was actually worth something, even though I can no longer work.

Obviously, I was wrong.

[defendandprotect]

81. YOU are saying that -- no one else here is ....

Pushing for jobs improves the economy -- and the status of all citizens --

meaning that we would have MORE resources to help the HOMELESS -- and less EXCUSES

for not doing it!!

There no reason to give up EITHER appeal -- either for jobs which our citizens need --

22 million/25 million of them -- NOR for our homeless !!!

I think America can do more than one thing at a time --

[bobbolink]

90. You don't seem to understand..... there is NO MENTION OF HOMELESS PEOPLE on these programs, or in

the papers.

It is all about JOBS JOBS JOBS, and when you continue that drum beat, WE ARE BEING IGNORED, AND WILL SUFFER AND DIE.

I don't understand why you can't get what it feels like to have your living situation be so drastic, and still be ignored.

You don't need to keep telling me how wonderful jobs are..... I hear it everywhere. You can't say anything that I haven't heard about jobs.

What you COULD do is understand just how ignored and isolated we feel, and how this constant igoring us is making our situation WORSE.

I really don't understand how you don't get it.

[defendandprotect]

93. It is Obama and Democrats who are ignoring the homeless and impoverished ...

Not necessarily posters here -- and certainly not me!

I don't watch the corporate-press --

Many of us tried over DECADES to change things -- it can't be done until we actually

change our system of government -- knock out corporate control of our "people's" goverment.

We cannot stop asking for an overturning of the trade agreements which are sucking 500,000

to 700,000 jobs a MONTH out of the country! How could you think we could do that?

And, of course, in losing jobs we are losing payroll taxes -- which pay for services and

safety nets.


I'm not at the moment homeless ... but I can assure you that I have compassion for what

you are saying -- and I doubt there is anyone here at DU who doesn't!

I don't understand why you can't get what it feels like to have your living situation be so drastic, and still be ignored.

What you COULD do is understand just how ignored and isolated we feel, and how this constant igoring us is making our situation WORSE.

I really don't understand how you don't get it.

However, it would be highly unrealistic to imagine that we can let all those going thru foreclosure

just sink into homelessness. How would it help the already 3 million homeless to be joined by

another million?

Or how we can stop asking for unemployment extensions when to do otherwise would put many more

into absolute poverty?

I've suggested a number of times that DU have a regular thread once a week -- maybe once

a month is more realistic -- just discussing homelessness and poverty in America.

If Obama isn't going to make HOMELESSNESS a visible issue, maybe we here at DU can help do that?

:)

[bobbolink]

94. clearly, you are going to ignore the point that there is a good reason WHY we poor folk are ignored.

because people like YOU won't get off the standard issues and actually speak out for us.

We are invisible, and it is exactly THIS kind of dead-end arguments that keep us invisible.

You have responsibility in this, and I doubt that you will look at that any time soon.

So, keep pounding on the whole jobs thing, and when the issue of homeless people killing themselves finally makes the news, maybe it will dawn on all of you that what I was saying was worth hearing.

So long.... it is clearly of no use talking to a wall.

[defendandprotect]

97. The homeless, the disabled, those without medicare care are all suffering --

creating more of them isn't going to help anyone --

And, Americans can speak on more than one issue at a time --

The problem isn't with those speaking out, Bobbie --

the problem is with those who are supposed to be listening --

They, far more than any of us, know the true dimensions and seriousness of

all of these problems and our government -- Obama and Democrats -- are

refusing to give leadership to helping the impoverished and homeless!

[marzipanni]

44. Yes. What if people are finding out they actually like more time, not more stuff

If 10% unemployment is the problem, make a 36 hour work week. 4 hours= 10% of 40 hours, enough hours for the unemployed to fill.

Labor-saving devices were supposed to have some effect, weren't they?

Children in the U.S. were once employed because more workers were needed.

Women were employed during WWII to fill the jobs of men who were fighting the war.

Now we have too many people, not enough work, so people produce crap we don't need just to give people a way to "make a living"?
( like the incredible over-abundance of clothing sewn by third-worlders for first-worlders who throw away clothes and buy more every season (?!), or the junky plastic toys created for the sole purpose of luring small children into a life of burger-fries-soda addiction--->obesity--->statin dependence.)


http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2009/03/is-it-time-for-four-day-working-week.html

[defendandprotect]

77. I'm encouraging SLOW-DOWNS ... force corporations to take on more workers ....

Yes. What if people are finding out they actually like more time, not more stuff

Long ago we were talking about a 5 hour work day -- which not would give individuals

more time for recreation and time with S/Os and children -- for volunteer work, etal.

If 10% unemployment is the problem, make a 36 hour work week. 4 hours= 10% of 40 hours, enough hours for the unemployed to fill.

Agree with that ... but unfortunately re this --

Labor-saving devices were supposed to have some effect, weren't they?

Robots and computers replace people -- which the Luddites have long been trying to make clear.

Others tried to suggest that they "hated" or "feared" machinery -- but the truth is they like

jobs for people!

Children in the U.S. were once employed because more workers were needed.

Right wing will always try to force child labor -- very cheap and profitable for them!

Plus, fewer educated children to compete with their own -- no schools for the poor!

Women, too, are still making less than males for same work --


Now we have too many people, not enough work, so people produce crap we don't need just to give people a way to "make a living"?

( like the incredible over-abundance of clothing sewn by third-worlders for first-worlders who throw away clothes and buy more every season (?!), or the junky plastic toys created for the sole purpose of luring small children into a life of burger-fries-soda addiction--->obesity--->statin dependence.)


http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2009/03/is-it-time-for-f...

We need sweeping cultural changes -- get rid of the crap!

Today I was at the beach looking around at all the people NOT SMOKING!!

That change came abruptly -- and very few now who haven't gotten the message.

REAL PROGRESSIVE CHANGE CAN HAPPEN!!




:)

[bobbolink]

18. As a people, we are finally going to have to decide whether ALL people are important.. or just those

who can make a profit for the system.

We are divided on that essential point.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. I went round and round in circles with a minister once over "He who does not work, does not eat,"

one of those Biblical gems that conflicts with other Biblical ideas. Sadly, the minister seemed to be in agreement with not working means not eating rather than caring for "the least of these." (And although I get the meaning of the phrase "the least of these" I think in today's world many people wrongly interpret it to mean "the least worthy."

[bobbolink]

26. OMG....no wonder the churches are so......godless!

Really, that is just pathetic!

Jim Wallis to the rescue! ^_^

I hope that person is no longer in the pulpit.. he was never a pastor, with that attitude, so I hope he has left.

Thank you for speaking up for the least!

[defendandprotect]

The "god" of the Old testament is a very violent, murderous god ... compliments

of the Hebrews who wrote the Bible to cement patriarchy --

The New Testament -- and who knows what that is because so much was removed and altered --

offers a kinder, gentler god -- but many are eager to go back to the old one!

Like our own schizophrenic Constitution, one moment everything is love and equality --

and oops! the next we have Segregation, Inc. and women and Native Americans and AA as 2/3rd citizens!


Needless to say, this built in schizophrenia works for the elites!

[defendandprotect]

28. The Bible is as flexible as who's reading it... like a typwriter and who's doing the writing -- !!

The heart is more important than the written word --

[defendandprotect]

27. Our numbers now -- 7 billion -- actually cheapen human life ....

HOWEVER, if we don't hold every life up as high value then we cheapen our own lives --

and the lives of our children.

[bobbolink]

31. "if we don't hold every life up as high value then we cheapen our own lives "

BUMPERSTICKER!

Unfortunately, it sounds like an anti-abortion theme... sigh....

Some of us would just like to be valued somewhere... :(

[defendandprotect]

32. Well, I mean every LIVING person ... not an embryo nor fetus ---

but it is true, the more of us there are --the less our lives are valued.

[defendandprotect]

21. Agree ... questions are off: we need a REAL SAFETY NET...and firm understanding of why--!!!

However, we also need jobs -- and flexible jobs - and guaranteed education at all

levels for all who can and who wish to take advantage of it --

One excellent reason for supporting and not ignoring your fellow human beings is that

YOU never know what problems you are going to face in life -- or what problems your

childen -- or other relatives may face. It's really for selfish reasons!

On the other hand, none of us wants to sit down to a meal and think someone else is

going hungry -- or sleep at night without thinking of those without a bed of their own.


All of this needs wide discussion which isn't happening even with Democrats in control of

Congress -- Amazing how the more Democrats are the majority, the more we see of Repugs as

the minority on our home screens! I've just turned off Olbermann tonight for that reason.


With our increasing populations, we should also be moving to a 5 hour a day week -- that's

a workday that most can handle.

[Jackpine Radical]

24. Jobs are obviously important, and need not be tied to the private market

(that's only one economic model). But must we measure everything by how it contributes to the dollar economy? I could make an argument that one of our major problems is that too much work of some kinds is being done.

What of disabled people? Should we discard them because they are no longer "useful" to the dollar economy? Is human dignity of no value, or does it wink out of existence when one cannot "contribute" by doing some mind-deadening job? There is not one person on this Earth who can guarantee that tomorrow they will not be severely and suddenly disabled by a stroke, an accident, an infection. If we as a society can't take care of our most vulnerable members out of compassion, then let us do it out of greed and self-interest. A society that has no concern for providing decent living conditions for today's disabled is not likely to have much interest in you either if you should have a bit of bad luck tomorrow.

[DireStrike]

34. I disagree

It is more effective than trickle down, which only does harm and zero good.

Focusing on jobs will indeed stabilize the economy as long as the spending stays on it.

I suppose it is right-wing in that the point of it is to perpetuate capitalism at minimal expense to the owner class.

[laughingliberal]

40. I've thought a lot about this.

There is certainly something to be said for the benefits of full employment. One of those benefits is that the more people who are working, the more tax revenue we raise that can be used for social programs. And working people who have a job will spend more and that, in turn, will stimulate the economy, creating more jobs and, in turn, more tax payers (revenue). Spending on programs to help the poor and the disabled has a stimulative effect on the economy as the money we spend on food stamps, for example, gets spent in the real economy and that, in turn, creates demand and...more jobs. Jobs and the social safety net are synergistic in their effect on the economy. All of that is sound economic policy.

The problem with that is we never seem to get around to using the money raised in times of full or near full employment to address poverty. During the best economic times in recent history (the Clinton years) welfare benefits were cut and nothing was done to reverse the draconian SSDI & SSI policies that went into effect under Reagan. We were running surpluses when Clinton left office and, still, no one was talking about doing anything about poverty.

I would say if we were only going to do one or the other (jobs or safety net), the safety net should be expanded. Here's why:

1) It's the right thing for an allegedly civilized nation to do.

2) Spending on programs for the poor can not fail to stimulate the economy and, in return, create jobs but we have seen that, even in times of full employment, we can and do fail to expand our safety nets. IOW, jobs will follow an expansion of the safety net but an expansion of the safety net will not necessarily follow jobs.

As for Reagan's trickle down scam, it was based on giving money, in the form of tax cuts, to those who did not need more money in the belief they would invest in endeavors which would create jobs and everyone would prosper. We see how that worked out. Trickle down economics neither created jobs nor increased tax revenue. Supply side economics does not work. Creating demand works. The most direct route to creating demand is to put the money in the hands of people who will spend it. Arguably, increasing SS payments for those in poverty and increasing food stamps and subsidies for housing would have the most direct stimulative effect on the economy and would create jobs.

Laughing Liberal's 3 step program for a prosperous America for all:

1) Repeal the Bush tax cuts on those at incomes above $250,000 and create a new, higher bracket for those with incomes above $1 million.
2) Increase SS, SSDI, SSI, food stamps, subsidies for housing to reflect the real increases in the cost of living over the past 27 years.
3) Create effective jobs' programs-investment in infrastructure and green industries as well as programs to retrain those who are still able to work but unqualified for jobs in the new economy.

Once we get that done, it's time to talk about expanding access to affordable health care to all Americans. :)

[mntleo2]

45. I might add ...

...if you make over 100 grand CONTINUE TO PAY SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES. NOW YOU GET TO SKATE AND DON'T HAVE TO PAY INTO IT AFTER THAT AMOUNT.

Since besides being our safety net for the elderly and disabled, we have been using SS as our bank, it is time to pay it back AND to make it solvent forever. If the rich paid the 15% the rest of us paid we would *never* have to worry about having a bank AND making sure all are served.

My 2 cents

Cat in Seattle

[laughingliberal]

46. Oooh, good point!

Will have to change that to Laughing Liberal's 4 point program.

[OneGrassRoot]

53. Bookmarking this thread because of the brilliant responses here...

:applause:

Thank you.... :hi:

[bobbolink]

95. You make a very intelligent case for choosing to restore and enlarge the safety net.

Unfortunately, that is not the popular view, so I doubt that many will hear it, no matter how intelligently expressed.

Empathy doesn't work, and neither does solid reasoning.

People in my situation are screwed, but we appreciate that a few of you are able to actually see what is going on.

Thanks! :yourock:

[Generic Brad]

41. If they say "Jobs, jobs, jobs", I ask "How, how, how?"

How do they propose to create those jobs? Recent history has proven that cutting taxes on the wealthiest does not create employment opportunities for the masses. If they want to cut government spending, then they clearly do not expect government to create jobs. Take those two goofball ideas out of the equation and the right wing is left with what it always has - just another empty slogan with no workable solution to make it happen.

[defendandprotect]

42. Exactly ... and we need to overturn those trade agreements ...

[defendandprotect]

78. We need to overturn the trade agreements .... that's 500,000/700,000 jobs a MONTH....

we are losing!!

[Odin2005]

43. Agree, K&R

[scheming daemons]

47. Technically speaking, doesn't the OP's username violate DU rules?

...by advocating for a party other than the Democratic Party?


Would "RepublicanPartyVoter" be an ok username?

[GreenPartyVoter]

48. Considering how long I have been around here, I am sure the admins would have said something by now

if it was an issue. I suppose it's because I'm not advocating for anyone to vote any which way, but rather listing information specifically about myself?

Now as to the actual point of the OP, what do you think? Yea or nay?

[scheming daemons]

49. Yea

[GreenPartyVoter]

50. Thanks. :^)

[bobbolink]

63. Given that so many now advocate Republican talking points, it would be truth in advertising.

[Lifelong Protester]

51. I hope you all can catch Tavis Smiley and Arianna Huffington

right now~great interview. Tavis is really hitting on the fact that the word "poverty" NEVER came up in the presidential debates between McCain and Obama, and we don't hear the word "poverty" at all from this administration. Tavis is stating that Washington has a 'tin ear' for the problem of poverty. Arianna is worried about us becoming a third world country, and how people have to work 'harder' to become become more 'economically literate'. But Tavis keeps hitting on the concept that no one is really talking seriously about poverty and what needs to be done.

Yes jobs, but also, as has been stated here, we need to look not ONLY at jobs~the issue of poverty is more complex than that.

[GreenPartyVoter]

52. Thank you for the heads up. I will have to see if there is archive where I can catch the replay.

[bobbolink]

91. Thank you, Tavis!! Finally, it is soooo good to have a voice for our side!

:yourock: Tavis!

[quaker bill]

54. Most of the poor have jobs

Unemployment is a quick and sure way to get poor, but a great number of people with jobs are still poor. Minimum wage or a little better does not lift you from poverty, it can largely keep you fed and with some sort of roof over your head (shared with several others often). Jobs per se is not the solution for poverty, that said, more jobs and better quality jobs would help alot.

Of course to the extent jobs alone is not a solution, neither is government benefits, as they generally pay less than a job would by design. Many of the full time employed still qualify for food stamps. This is why we need a living wage. Without a living wage, we end up subsidizing businesses that pay low wages by providing taxpayer funded food and shelter assistance to their employees. A better choice would be to require a living wage so the taxpayer (to include the business itself) would not have to be taxed and then the money spent to make up the difference.

A real market based solution to poverty would by necessity require a hot to overheated labor market with so many jobs that it would drive the price of labor up. However since the Reagan administration's created recession of 1981, the labor market has been kept on the cool to cold side, except for a short moment toward the end of the Clinton years, specifically to fight inflation. At any point where any sign of a heated labor market occurred the Fed has quickly raised interest rates to cool the economy down, so there has very rarely been a situation where labor supply did not more than meet demand, which has intentionally and by design kept the price of labor low. As long as this inflation fighting policy is followed as it has been for the last 30 years, jobs alone will never be the answer to the challenge of increasing poverty in this country.

[txlibdem]

57. Shocking that it took 54 replies to get the point

You are absolutely right. The RW keeps saying they want to create jobs. And they do. They have created tens of millions of jobs --- in China. They have created low wage jobs to replace the good paying jobs that have been destroyed or shipped overseas over the past 20 years.

What our society needs, if it is to prosper, are jobs that pay well enough that one wage earner can support a family.

Healthcare and education up to a Bachelor's Degree should be a guaranteed right for all citizens as well and should be paid for by a fair flat tax on all sources of income.

[bobbolink]

60. I guess none of you can ever understand..

There are MANY THOUSANDS (MILLIONS?) of people who are too old, too sick, too injured to WORK.

Why the hell do you continue to ignore us?

Does it make you feel better to turn away from us?

[dotymed]

55. Jobs are essential

but to propagate this economic system, unchanged, would be horrendous.

[bobbolink]

61. I'm very surprised that one who can't work would say that.

I guess we really are doomed, when those of us in the same boat can't even recognize each other.

:(

[dotymed]

84. Miscommunication?

I said that jobs are essential, IMO, to everyone, whether we are able to take advantage of them or not.
I also stated that to "propagate our economic system, unchanged, would be horrendous."
Translation- jobs are very important. If jobs are created to maintain the status quo of trickle down bullshit, that is unacceptable. Many of us have worn themselves out...it really doesn't matter what the reason, people are vastly more important than profits.
Would you feel more satisfied if you had a good paying job of a type that you felt confident you could accomplish and make a difference in doing so? I know I would.
I did not say anything in this post, that is inconsistent with my already stated beliefs.
The fact that I have heart failure and have been jerked around by SS for 6 yrs., does not mean that I think jobs are not important. Do I think that should be a revival of the status quo? Hell No. People before profits in every instance.

[bobbolink]

92. I give up.

[blindpig]

56. Jobs for those who can work, sustenance for those who can't.

In a society of such productiveness it is a horrible indictment that so many go without. It is not for lack of resources, it is how those resources are distributed. The current arrangement not only immiserates those least able to cope but perpetuates this arrangement.

By sustenance I so not mean the work house and gruel but decent housing, clothing, good food, opportunities for education and leisure.

[laughingliberal]

72. +1000 nt

[dotymed]

85. You hit the nail on the head.

Thank You.

[blindpig]

86. Ain't nothin' original...

ya can not go wrong when ya crib from Marx.

[dotymed]

87. I know

but truth is un-American if it comes from anyone who is anti-capitalism.......Fascism is fine though..............

[el_bryanto]

58. Do we intend to maintain a capitalist economy?

If so than employment is a key component in alleviating poverty. Of course one also has to focus on seeing that the workers are fairly compensated.

Bryant

[bobbolink]

62. And those who can't work are euthanized.

[el_bryanto]

64. Exactly. Now you're catching on. And not just those who can't work

I mean what about those who can't work efficiently. I mean I think that if you can't keep your quota for the day, armed capitalist goons should pull you to the side and blow your head off right there. We'd set up incinerators that they could kick the bodies into, so as to keep things hygenic.

Bryant

[bobbolink]

66. You're right on. It beats the hell out of people having to kill themselves.

[el_bryanto]

68. Yes, I like to think of myself as a compassionate conservative.

Most people would be happier dead anyway.

Bryant

[bobbolink]

69. Your last sentence fits a lot of poor people I know.

Never mind that you are being fascicious.... you are on the mark.

[Uncle Joe]

70. I agree, an advanced society must have the entire package to cover all of it's citizens.

Thanks for the thread, GreenPartyVoter.

[GreenPartyVoter]

71. And thank you for participating in it. :^)

[Forkboy]

73. Kick

[GreenPartyVoter]

76. Thanks for the kick!

[TheBigotBasher]

80. Kicking

Politicians should be forced to talk about the poor and not just the "middle class".

[GreenPartyVoter]

82. Yes, and not only the working poor at that. Thanks for the kick!

[a la izquierda]

83. Too late to Rec, but here's a kick.

[GreenPartyVoter]

89. Thanks! :^)