46% Favor Government Guaranteed Jobs for All

Danbones

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,198
113
Senator Bernie Sanders is looking ahead to the 2020 presidential election with a proposed federal government program that guarantees all Americans a job with health insurance. Nearly half of voters like the idea.

46% Favor Government Guaranteed Jobs for All


The survey of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted on April 24-25, 2018 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
46% Favor Government Guaranteed Jobs for All - Rasmussen Reports®

WE are in deep trouble. All the dumb lazy people who think communism wouldn't bump the useless eaters off THIS TIME like they did all the other times, would vote them right on in. That would be your trump haters...voting in and cheering the end of themselves and the free world forever.

Finnish Failure: Guaranteed Basic Income Punishes Work, Subsidizes Sloth

Welfare: The latest "big idea" in the U.S. is the Universal Basic Income — a guaranteed income for all. Progressives of course like the idea, but even some conservatives and libertarians do, too. Only one problem: It doesn't work.
https://www.investors.com/politics/...-basic-income-punishes-work-subsidizes-sloth/

Why Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Isn’t Working

HELSINKI, Finland — Universal basic income is generating considerable interest these days, from Bernie Sanders, who says he is “absolutely sympathetic” to the idea, to Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, and other tech billionaires.

The basic idea behind it is that handing out unconditional cash to all citizens, employed or not, would help reduce poverty and inequality, and increase individual liberty.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/opinion/finland-universal-basic-income.html

While Bernie would call it a "job", either that or "No job", the result of "guaranteed income":
:)
Ask the CCCP.
 
Last edited:
White_Unifier

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
The province should exclude certain categories from casinos:
Undischarged bankrupts
Those receiving financial aid from the Government
Those who live in subsidised rental flats and have more than 6 months of arrears
Those receiving Legal Aid
https://www.ncpg.org.sg/en/Pages/DealWithProblemGambling.aspx?category=2#

I'm all for the state providing financial aid to the poor, but only after it reasonably reduces the probability that the person will just gamble all of the taxpayer's money away.

As for guaranteed employment, I could see the benefit of some kind of peace corps. To avoid abuse though, that program should pay slightly below the free-market rate for the same work so as to encourage people to find work in the private sector.

We also wouldn't want busy-work jobs. We'd need to ensure that the work is economically productive. This might involve providing trades or professional training to have the workers do work the state really needs, be it building schools, railroads, and other infrastructure.

petros said:
Soviets had people that changed traffic lights manually.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, if we were to create guaranteed employment, we'd need to figure out how to make it economically productive and not just busy work.
 
White_Unifier

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
I'll just add that to keep bankrupts, people on assistance and socialized housing out of casinos, casino self-exclusion policies need to change too. In other words, no more relying on facial-recognition cameras. They should introduce scanners at casino entrances and require each person to scan their passport, fingerprint, or other ID and deny entry to any person on an exclusion list. We don't want the taxpayer to be funding gambling.
 
Twin_Moose

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
22,041
6,160
113
Twin Moose Creek
White_Unifier said:
I'll just add that to keep bankrupts, people on assistance and socialized housing out of casinos, casino self-exclusion policies need to change too. In other words, no more relying on facial-recognition cameras. They should introduce scanners at casino entrances and require each person to scan their passport, fingerprint, or other ID and deny entry to any person on an exclusion list. We don't want the taxpayer to be funding gambling.
Click to expand...

Add to it mandatory drug testing
 
White_Unifier

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
Twin_Moose said:
Add to it mandatory drug testing
Click to expand...

Or just extend the exclusion policy to any business that sells gambling products or services, nicotine, or alcohol. It would be easy to establish a national exclusion list and provide scanners to all businesses that sell these products and services to scan people's ID before they sell.

If you're on social assistance, you shouldn't be wasting your money on nicotine or alcohol or gambling.

As for drug testing, that can be expensive if done on a large scale. But when there is suspicion, yes. In that case, offer compulsory institutionalized therapy.
 
Twin_Moose

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
22,041
6,160
113
Twin Moose Creek
Mouth swab isn't very expensive, a lot cheaper than the expense on society than what organized crime and gangbangers impose on us daily.
 
White_Unifier

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
Twin_Moose said:
Mouth swab isn't very expensive, a lot cheaper than the expense on society than what organized crime and gangbangers impose on us daily.
Click to expand...

One problem I can see though is how people who do buy gambling products, alcohol, or nicotine would moan about always needing to carry their ID with them and needing to scan their ID before the seller will sell them their drug of choice. My response to that is that it would take no more than a few seconds to scan it. Technology is now quite advanced.
 
White_Unifier

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
Twin_Moose said:
Yep there is retinol and fingerprint scanners now no need to carry a bulky ID card LOl
Click to expand...

Exactly. If a person doesn't want to have his fingerprint scanned, then he can carry his passport, driving licence, or other ID. Otherwise he can agree to have his fingerprint scanned and downloaded into the database. The choice could be his.

Also, even if a person isn't on social assistance, subsidized housing, or bankrupt but just wants help with an addiction, why not just allow anyone to add his name to the national voluntary self-exclusion list for a reasonable fee? That reduces the risk of a person heading towards social assistance from reaching that point before he even reaches it.
 
H

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
Also poor people who smoke and drink. If you can afford that that you really aren't worthy of help.
 
White_Unifier

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
Hoid said:
Also poor people who smoke and drink. If you can afford that that you really aren't worthy of help.
Click to expand...

One problem with addiction is that a person might spend money he can't afford on it to the detriment of food, clothing, or shelter. We can let them turn to prostitution, but HIV treatment is expensive too. We can let them turn to loansharking and other crimes, but that has its own problems too. So in a sense, if they need help, we're kind of stuck with helping them. What we can do though is make it more difficult for them to access their drug of choice.
 
H

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
Someone who hides out on this board in order to say the stupid and ugly things they are unable to say in real life?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom