Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Republicans in Arizona going after the poor

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Blue Doggy
    started a topic Republicans in Arizona going after the poor

    Republicans in Arizona going after the poor

    PHOENIX (AP) — Facing a $1 billion budget deficit, Arizona's Republican-led Legislature has reduced the lifetime limit for welfare recipients to the shortest window in the nation.

    Low-income families on welfare will now have their benefits cut off after just 12 months.

    As a result, the Arizona Department of Economic Security will drop at least 1,600 families — including more than 2,700 children — from the state's federally funded welfare program on July 1, 2016.

    The cuts of at least $4 million reflect a prevailing mood among the lawmakers in control in Arizona that welfare, Medicaid and other public assistance programs are crutches that keep the poor from getting back on their feet and achieving their potential.
    And this is the republican forte, to cut off the poor from being able to survive, in a nation hollowed out by free trade that helps corporations max out their profits, but which is devastating working americans.

    NOW, if we had enough jobs in America, that could be filled by he poor, which would provide them enough income to feed their kids and keep a roof over their heads, that would be one thing, and understandable. But no one in their right mind thinks that they jobs exist, and given that fact, I think this shows us just what sort of character these republicans have. Which is a total lack of it, and are just calloused men, who delight in darwins jungle, and who do not deserve to be a part of the human race.

    This all began with Clinton giving in to these republicans and totally changing welfare, which he admitted to doing. Yet since that time, due to free trade and the criminal behavior of wall street bankers, an unprecedented number of working americans have dropped into poverty, because their jobs were given to the poor in other places that would max out corporate profits, and the number of people each year increase even as republicans are doing all they can to eliminate these social safety nets, for they are so delusional as to think that kicking people off of welfare will make them go to work, in jobs that do not exist. And they know these jobs do not exist, which should who America the black hearts of these well to do men, who do not believe in social responsibility, and who keep sending jobs to the poor of those in other places, just so the men they represent can get richer.


    So I say, good on them. For their actions will only insure that conservatism will die out sooner rather than later. For you cannot continue to be an enemy of the people in the US, and survive as a political party. You cannot send millions of living wage jobs to communists, and then take away the only means of survival for the people you screwed over in your need to enrich those who are already rich. What these republicans are doing is so illiogical, so incoherent, and so devasting to so many people that one has to think they have totally went insane due to an abstract ideology that is disconnected from reality.

    When we will reach critical mass is anyone's guess, but there is no guesswork involved in the fact that we will reach it. Never, ever, underestimate the power of human stupidity.

  • msc
    replied
    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

    Well, then you have no options at all. And it doesn't matter who you vote for. And this has affected millions of would be voters, who just stay home.

    The primary problem today is that neither of the two parties actually, in fact, represent the interests of the majority in America, and these Americans who are so engrossed and emotionally invested in the contrived ideological division, that they cannot see it's all a sham, theater, so that the status quo of neoliberalism is not threatened.
    Well, honestly I agree with you about not having people representing us in either party. And it has made me unenthusiastic about voting. But I did find it necessary to vote against a candidate in some elections. Simply because I believed that one candidate would bring more ills to our country. I get the principal thing, but one is going to win with or without my vote. Kinda like knowing there is a killer and a robber. If I had to deal with one I'd rather deal with the robber. I find it more frightening to not make the choice because I don't want either, and let others decide, then ending up with the killer to deal with. It would be kinda like cutting off my nose to spite my face.

    It would be kinda cool if there was a rule that, if less than a certain amount of people vote, then the winning candidate will only hold office for one year while prepping for the next election. Yes more costly, but worth it. A clear show that people are not happy with either candidate. And the rule would include not allowing those candidates to run again.

    And I am so against allowing corporations to contribute to campaign's, but since the law allows it. My strategy for a candidate that refuses to compromise their integrity and public servant values for big business backing, to save up his/her dough and campaign hard in the last 3 to 6 six months of the election. People tend to focus more on the last thing they hear. And remember the last thing they hear better. Also the average person is more pumped up at that time to learn about the candidates as they prep to vote.


    Leave a comment:


  • Blue Doggy
    replied
    Originally posted by msc View Post
    Yep the two party thing pisses me off too. But what if you find the third party just as corrupt or lie just as much, or perhaps you disagree with their ideas. Then how do you vote?

    And for the issue of two party general elections, I agree with you. If Paul, Walker, or Cruz don't get the Republican nomination, I would like to see one of them have the courage, against the odds, to run in the general election as an independent. In our days they are independent of what the Republican party has come to Represent. Meaning representatives that work for the governmental establishment and not the people. We need a constitutional President. If a Democrat ran as a constitutional Democrat and went independent that would be a good thing as well. As a people, we are have not been given enough choice in the general elections.
    Well, then you have no options at all. And it doesn't matter who you vote for. And this has affected millions of would be voters, who just stay home.

    The primary problem today is that neither of the two parties actually, in fact, represent the interests of the majority in America, and these Americans who are so engrossed and emotionally invested in the contrived ideological division, that they cannot see it's all a sham, theater, so that the status quo of neoliberalism is not threatened.

    Leave a comment:


  • msc
    replied
    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

    You vote 3rd party that is who. If we would vote in large enough numbers for one of the 3rd parties, who are anti repub, anti dem, the voters could clean up the mess. I like what Michael Steele laid out for the reform party when he ran. But they cannot get into the debates, for the two parties run the debates, and keep others out. It was not always like that.
    Yep the two party thing pisses me off too. But what if you find the third party just as corrupt or lie just as much, or perhaps you disagree with their ideas. Then how do you vote?

    And for the issue of two party general elections, I agree with you. If Paul, Walker, or Cruz don't get the Republican nomination, I would like to see one of them have the courage, against the odds, to run in the general election as an independent. In our days they are independent of what the Republican party has come to Represent. Meaning representatives that work for the governmental establishment and not the people. We need a constitutional President. If a Democrat ran as a constitutional Democrat and went independent that would be a good thing as well. As a people, we are have not been given enough choice in the general elections.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blue Doggy
    replied
    Originally posted by msc View Post
    Well if you don't vote Dem and you don't vote Republican they who do you vote for? If everyone stopped voting, except the politicians than we'd still have a winner and a president we don't want. What are we supposed to do as individual voters? Collectively we can do something, but individually what are our choices?

    I believe we do have some choices this time around, that's if we vote anti establishment and are not betrayed. Don't see any of those options within the Democratic party.
    You vote 3rd party that is who. If we would vote in large enough numbers for one of the 3rd parties, who are anti repub, anti dem, the voters could clean up the mess. I like what Michael Steele laid out for the reform party when he ran. But they cannot get into the debates, for the two parties run the debates, and keep others out. It was not always like that.

    Leave a comment:


  • msc
    replied
    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

    Why are the poor good with it, that is voting for dems who want to aid illegals, which then hurts the poor who are voting? The exact same reason white working people cut their own throats and vote republican, conservative. Ignorance, created by a steady diet of propaganda.

    For let us just say, that someone like sanders wanted to spend a trillion on a grade D infrastructure,which would actually put loads of people back to work, these republican voters would go ape shit, and not want it, for it's spending and its big gov't.
    Well if you don't vote Dem and you don't vote Republican they who do you vote for? If everyone stopped voting, except the politicians than we'd still have a winner and a president we don't want. What are we supposed to do as individual voters? Collectively we can do something, but individually what are our choices?

    I believe we do have some choices this time around, that's if we vote anti establishment and are not betrayed. Don't see any of those options within the Democratic party.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blue Doggy
    replied
    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


    Obama was given a trillion to spend on infrastructure an he pissed it away to unions and state governments.
    I agree. He didn't use it to rebuild infrastructure.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

    Why are the poor good with it, that is voting for dems who want to aid illegals, which then hurts the poor who are voting? The exact same reason white working people cut their own throats and vote republican, conservative. Ignorance, created by a steady diet of propaganda.

    For let us just say, that someone like sanders wanted to spend a trillion on a grade D infrastructure,which would actually put loads of people back to work, these republican voters would go ape shit, and not want it, for it's spending and its big gov't.

    Obama was given a trillion to spend on infrastructure an he pissed it away to unions and state governments.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blue Doggy
    replied
    Originally posted by msc View Post
    How generous the gov't is with other peoples money. People can not afford to be as generous as the gov't is being. Apparently they are not aware of the financial limitations. If more than half the country is not prospering, we clearly can not afford to assist foreigners to prosper. That's not being mean. If we want to give so much and more to the American poor citizen, then why is our gov't dividing their funds with foreigners? And why are the poor good with it? Hmm.
    Why are the poor good with it, that is voting for dems who want to aid illegals, which then hurts the poor who are voting? The exact same reason white working people cut their own throats and vote republican, conservative. Ignorance, created by a steady diet of propaganda.

    For let us just say, that someone like sanders wanted to spend a trillion on a grade D infrastructure,which would actually put loads of people back to work, these republican voters would go ape shit, and not want it, for it's spending and its big gov't.

    Leave a comment:


  • msc
    replied
    Originally posted by CYDdharta View Post


    In addition to the questions I posed above, how would illegal aliens be handled? Would they automatically get a job as soon as they crossed the border? Even if they weren't eligible on a national level, certain states probably would make such provisions. Obama promised us that Obamacare wouldn't be offered to illegal aliens, yet California is already working to change that, at a cost of up to $740 million.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/politic...504-story.html
    How generous the gov't is with other peoples money. People can not afford to be as generous as the gov't is being. Apparently they are not aware of the financial limitations. If more than half the country is not prospering, we clearly can not afford to assist foreigners to prosper. That's not being mean. If we want to give so much and more to the American poor citizen, then why is our gov't dividing their funds with foreigners? And why are the poor good with it? Hmm.

    Leave a comment:


  • radcentr
    replied
    Originally posted by CYDdharta View Post


    In addition to the questions I posed above, how would illegal aliens be handled? Would they automatically get a job as soon as they crossed the border? Even if they weren't eligible on a national level, certain states probably would make such provisions. Obama promised us that Obamacare wouldn't be offered to illegal aliens, yet California is already working to change that, at a cost of up to $740 million.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/politic...504-story.html
    Sorry for the delay. I wouldn't be the policy wonk to develop an "employment right" to replace welfare for all able-bodied adults. Such a policy would best be developed by a bi-partisan group first, with certain provisions that are protected from amendments, like attempts to get payrolls subsidized by a limited number of companies unless they are already quasi-public monopolies. The opposing group, developing their ideal 100% employment policy, would be a private sector group, representing by proportion the employers in the US. IOW, if small employers fund payrolls for 20% of US employees, mediums fund 40%, and large companies fund 40%, that would mirror a 10-member group's composition (2 reps from small employer, 4 from medium, 4 from large). Take the gov't. proposal and private sector proposal and debate them. After extensive debate, pass a "beta" version of a bill, to be tested in one region of the country. Ideally, 100% employment for all able-bodied adults would use any position that is currently productive (private and public sector) and add a cooperative layer. That would be non-governmental, non profit organizations. If such organizations reduce the cost of a product or service for all citizens (general welfare), they may receive subsidies by the gov't., like the quasi-public (eg. utility) companies. A list of jobs might be: Providing for drainage and flood control where heavy equipment can't go, demolition cleanup for condemned properties, reviving part of the homestead act (for abandoned farmland) for small-scale organic farming. The list -things that are needed rather than "make work"- should be detailed in the final bill.

    Public/private sector cooperation would also center around technical and university training for jobs in demand. With a limitation of 2 years, full-time students would have an objective and limit taxpayer expense. Partial funding for employers and part-time employees who are completing a university (4 year) degree with the objective of full-time employment related to the degree.

    Private sector (for profit) receives preferential treatment -partial payroll subsidies for a limited time- for general welfare projects. For instance, developing condemned properties that were cleared away, energy generation, cleaning contaminated water/soil sites, etc. For profits in narrow pursuits -not general welfare- already deduct payroll expenses before paying tax on their net. They can still take advantage of gov't. directly subsidizing employment training as noted above.

    People here illegally; the bracero program used a few decades ago is worth another look. Lowering the numbers wanting to get into the US would help the most, but getting the Org. of American States to develop a hemisphere-wide employment program would be too much to ask at this time. Our business and political leaders could help by at least talking about the issue of massive underemployment in Latin America. That way, US deportations can at least be executed with some context. Trying to deport all 11 million who are here illegally would require a huge increase in staff to get it done, but that would be a less productive (and less permanent) way to lower illegal immigration and raise employment.

    Leave a comment:


  • CYDdharta
    replied
    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    That would not fit the definition of slavery, since the person gets paid. They would also be free agents, could quit the job and accept another, regardless of geography or type of job. Some leftists might still try to argue slavery, but it would be a lame attempt, and they would get no support from other parts of the left who support the "right to a job".

    What arguments might the right wing offer, against the "right to a job" policy, CYD? Your speculation on what some lefty might throw out there implies the right is somehow afraid of the left. I know you don't think that is true.

    In addition to the questions I posed above, how would illegal aliens be handled? Would they automatically get a job as soon as they crossed the border? Even if they weren't eligible on a national level, certain states probably would make such provisions. Obama promised us that Obamacare wouldn't be offered to illegal aliens, yet California is already working to change that, at a cost of up to $740 million.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/politic...504-story.html

    Leave a comment:


  • reality
    replied
    Guys interstate commerce applies to pretty much anything. I give you the abortion that is Wickward v Filburn, a case where a farmer growing wheat on his own land to feed his own cows is "unduly effecting interstate commerce". You can thank FDR for that

    Leave a comment:


  • JDJarvis
    replied
    "Interstate commerce" was pretty broad it could include tasks such as ordering, loading, or using supplies from out of state. If the franchise was buying supplies on a regular basis it would have likely qualified. I'm not an expert on old-time McDonalds ordering but if it was similar to now it was interstate.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    I think, at the time, franchises were not considered interstate businesses and were not covered by FLSA.

    Generally, your business must abide by the FLSA if you have $500,000 or more in annual sales or if your employees work in what Congress calls "interstate commerce" -- that is, if they do business between states. This includes making phone calls to or from another state, sending mail out of state, or handling goods that have come from or will go to another state.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X