Military pay/benefit cuts proposed

[nsplayr]

The government has enveloped an entire sub-society habituated on handouts which ultimately serves as a large percentage of voters.

So how about this potential solution?

The government should either directly employ (unlikely) or start public-private cooperatives (more likely) that put people who are receiving unemployment benefits to work on basic infrastructure projects. Last time I checked roads still needed paving and ditches still needed digging, so if the government is paying people anyways why not actually require them to do the nation's work? Since the government itself doesn't have the process setup to directly employ millions more people, why not allow federal money to be used to start public-private cooperatives with companies that work in contracting, paving, construction, etc. who could employ people in low-skilled but necessary jobs? Take it a step further; why can't the government partner with charities, home-healthcare companies, etc. to do the same? At least make people receiving long-term unemployment benefits do something to earn those benefits. I'm sure there are soup kitchens that could use an extra hand.

[matmacwc]

So how about this potential solution?

The government should either directly employ (unlikely) or start public-private cooperatives (more likely) that put people who are receiving unemployment benefits to work on basic infrastructure projects. Last time I checked roads still needed paving and ditches still needed digging, so if the government is paying people anyways why not actually require them to do the nation's work? Since the government itself doesn't have the process setup to directly employ millions more people, why not allow federal money to be used to start public-private cooperatives with companies that work in contracting, paving, construction, etc. who could employ people in low-skilled but necessary jobs? Take it a step further; why can't the government partner with charities, home-healthcare companies, etc. to do the same? At least make people receiving long-term unemployment benefits do something to earn those benefits. I'm sure there are soup kitchens that could use an extra hand.

I agree with you again! They'd probably unionize and demand more entitlements, or some group (let's just say ACLU for this example) would step in and say this is against their rights to watch TV and slam natty light all day. (not that there is anything wrong with that)

Edited June 19, 2011 by matmacwc

[Masshole]

So how about this potential solution?

The government should either directly employ (unlikely) or start public-private cooperatives (more likely) that put people who are receiving unemployment benefits to work on basic infrastructure projects. Last time I checked roads still needed paving and ditches still needed digging, so if the government is paying people anyways why not actually require them to do the nation's work? Since the government itself doesn't have the process setup to directly employ millions more people, why not allow federal money to be used to start public-private cooperatives with companies that work in contracting, paving, construction, etc. who could employ people in low-skilled but necessary jobs? Take it a step further; why can't the government partner with charities, home-healthcare companies, etc. to do the same? At least make people receiving long-term unemployment benefits do something to earn those benefits. I'm sure there are soup kitchens that could use an extra hand.

I would be completely on board with that kind of initiative. I would also suggest that we push people to study more trades (auto repair, electrician, ect) while unemployed. Only give benefits to those willing to work in your suggested system or if they are willing to learn a trade and work in those industries.

I agree with you again! They'd probably unionize and demand more entitlements, or some group (let's just say ACLU for this example) would step in and say this is against their rights to watch TV and slam natty light all day. (not that there is anything wrong with that)

I understand because we live in an imperfect world. There are plenty of jobs out there now, but people refuse to swallow their pride and accept certain jobs after being laid off. Instead they just accept their ninety-nine weeks of free money and hope everything miraculously improves so they can get their old job and benefits back. I do not know where this sense of entitlement developed, but it is making the situation worse than it would have been.

[nsplayr]

There is plenty of support for these kinds of investments outside of politics because they make sense. It's like tying together entitlement reform and job creation, two things we desperately need. Unfortunately there has been political opposition to any new spending even on things that make sense; these kinds of initiatives are the ones that need to grow even if we're cutting discretionary spending on the whole. Using a scalpel rather than a chainsaw is always better because this is the kind of program that gets cut by the chainsaw.

Private sector employment and innovation + federal incentives and seed money + making people work for the good of the country = win.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO are both for stuff like this, and they pretty much hate each other.

[Learjetter]

There is no such thing as "federal money" and liberal ideas like this don't work out and aren't cheap. Cut all welfare beyond disaster relief, and taxes, let charity do the heavy lifting. Slay the Medicare dragon and watch health care costs plummet as providers compete. Halve the size and scope of the federal and state governments. Federal: national security, international treaties, immigration, environmental Issues. State and local: everything else.

[Guest]

So how about this potential solution?

The government should either directly employ (unlikely) or start public-private cooperatives (more likely) that put people who are receiving unemployment benefits to work on basic infrastructure projects. Last time I checked roads still needed paving and ditches still needed digging, so if the government is paying people anyways why not actually require them to do the nation's work? Since the government itself doesn't have the process setup to directly employ millions more people, why not allow federal money to be used to start public-private cooperatives with companies that work in contracting, paving, construction, etc. who could employ people in low-skilled but necessary jobs? Take it a step further; why can't the government partner with charities, home-healthcare companies, etc. to do the same? At least make people receiving long-term unemployment benefits do something to earn those benefits. I'm sure there are soup kitchens that could use an extra hand.

I like making people work for their money but this just wouldn't work.

You would be forcing companies to employ more people than they already have on board, which is the death of any business. They would also have to employ people the government sent their way, not people they sought ought, screened and hired themselves. There is no way to know if those new employees would actually add value and there would likely be no way to fire them and keep the contract.

Not a capitalistic solution.

[bfargin]

So how about this potential solution?

....

Sounds like an FDR solution, and that dude should have been taken out a day after he was elected, so we could have eliminated 11 years and 364 days of his presidency. Those are the type of ideas that started our trajectory toward this welfare state. Some good intentions I'm sure, but terrible for the country in the long run (and the short run) and way beyond the scope of what our government was authorized to do.

[Masshole]

There is no such thing as "federal money" and liberal ideas like this don't work out and aren't cheap. Cut all welfare beyond disaster relief, and taxes, let charity do the heavy lifting. Slay the Medicare dragon and watch health care costs plummet as providers compete. Halve the size and scope of the federal and state governments. Federal: national security, international treaties, immigration, environmental Issues. State and local: everything else.

We could probably save a ton of money by tightening restrictions on earned income credit. They really need to simplify the tax code. I would like it if the first $20,000 was not taxed and anything else was 20% with no deductions. Corporations would get taxed the same, but dividends would be a deductible expense (no sense in getting taxed twice). As far as the Federal Government goes, it should only be Defense, very limited Treasury, Infrastructure, and Justice.

[nsplayr]

Most of these are very libertarian views and while I can respect that and see where you're coming from, I don't think that would work either. I firmly believe that the government can and should do things for the benefit of the people beyond the limited scope some of you guys are looking through and that it can be a force to help shape the private sector into productive ventures. For all it's faults (mainly politicizing government employment), I think the Works Progress Administration overall (and the Civilian Conservation Corps in particular) were fairly successful in putting people back to work for public good before WWII fixed that problem more permanently.

To Rainman, I obviously haven't thought out the details so perhaps the way I described it wouldn't work based on the points you made. But to me, you have these three problems of unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, and unearned benefits in the form of long-term unemployment checks. There has to be a way that you can attack all three of those simultaneously without it being framed as a "big government take over."

Although judging by the comments about how FDR was a total failure, that the government should only do defense and a few other very limited tasks, etc., I think that is unavoidable.

Edited June 20, 2011 by nsplayr

[pawnman]

We could probably save a ton of money by tightening restrictions on earned income credit. They really need to simplify the tax code. I would like it if the first $20,000 was not taxed and anything else was 20% with no deductions. Corporations would get taxed the same, but dividends would be a deductible expense (no sense in getting taxed twice). As far as the Federal Government goes, it should only be Defense, very limited Treasury, Infrastructure, and Justice.

"2"

But I wouldn't tax corporations anything. Corporations don't pay taxes. Period. You can look at their tax return and see that X million dollars was paid in taxes...but the corporation didn't pay it. They either passed it on to consumers as higher prices, or on to their employees as pay cuts, benefit reductions, or fewer hours worked.

[Guest]

To Rainman, I obviously haven't thought out the details so perhaps the way I described it wouldn't work based on the points you made. But to me, you have these three problems of unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, and unearned benefits in the form of long-term unemployment checks. There has to be a way that you can attack all three of those simultaneously without it being framed as a "big government take over."

I agree they need to be addressed, I just don't think it is possible to have an elegant solution that involves the government messing with the free market.