Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Jobs for schoolchildren: Zapped too quickly?

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 20, 2012, 10:06 a.m. EST by jomojo (562)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Any program that advocates that our federal, state and local governments budget more income to students who are living in poverty is worth a second look.

I wouldn't have Newt Gingrich run a horse show, unless his job was to clean stalls. Let's not go there.

The race of the majority of poor students might be white. Let's not go there either.

Personally every job I have ever worked was a useful learning experience. I also learned that I had power over the money in my pocket or my bank account. Field work, delivery, bagging groceries and frying chicken, did not pay much to this student, but it was honest money that was all mine. (My musician job paid great, but I was known to sleep it off in class when I didn't skip)

I know it could turn out to stigmatize these students. I know it was a racist slur. Put those idea killers aside and think about what the student living in poverty needs, and if the program's implementation did not help provide these, then don't budget for the program.

Dignity. I think all work should be respected, but also the job should include mentors, (who could be hired from the unemployment lines), that would implement the student's internship.

Education. If the student is challenged in some school area, then this could be "worked" into the job.

Occupation. + one for occupy. The latch key, xbox, tv kids, deserve a safe healthy productive place to be, even if their caretaker is working two jobs, or a worse situation, such as the home include someone incoherent with mental problems. Homeless kids should not be left out.

Counseling. It's tough out there.

Nourishment. One of the many problems of poverty.

Cash. Last, but not least of what a student wants, and what's unavailable.

Etc. This off the top of my head list, is not intended to be complete.

In summary, I think BIG program$ are needed to provide new jobs. These jobs should not be designed to bust unions, or replace private jobs with public sector jobs, as best as possible they should be NEW jobs. These type of programs for the unemployed have been tried before, by the WPA, CCC, and 50% federal wage pay subsidies. It's time to try again.

The younger you are in America, the more likely it is that you're living in poverty.

The issue has gotten national attention, I'd like for it to get a national budget.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Does anyone participating in this thread know anyone who is or has been on welfare?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

There Are NO JObs

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 2 years ago

The National Employment Corporation of America NECA


[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

Yeah, I like the idea of students working on export products. There could be some products for charity, export or not. Foreign exchange experience could help their futures.

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 2 years ago

"February 12, 2012: NECA Corporation was created to export millions of American -made products and services to 153 allied nations while giving 33 percent of all profits back to “We the People,” insuring every American has access to basic human survival needs, such as: food, water, housing, health care, clothing, education as well as other humanitarian projects. "

[-] -3 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

The democrat party needs poor kids to continue their agenda. If there were no poor there would be no need for the democratic party. That is why they fight any type of personal responsibility or the smallest of wealth. The rich democrats that get richer every year need the poor democrats that get poorer every year to vote for them. This afternoon, George Soro could announce that he is giving every penny he has away, but he likes being a billionaire and he likes you being poor. You get what you vote for. Young poor kids can change their life style for the better but you dont want that. You like them poor or you would support them.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

i imagine you are basing that claim on the ability to get a job. well there are no jobs! or did you miss the news about 500k jobs in this country that have been eliminated. you are thinking there are 1million jobs being created somewhere ? so that the 500k that have been lost,, plus another 500k for the kids?

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Have I missed the news? No, actually I have seen the Help Wanted section of the NEWS paper and see all the jobs available. I also have seen the help wanted signs around town. There are jobs on www.monster.com and other sites. What I have read is the numbe of people that have ENJOYED the multi year unemployment CHECKS that you and I are paying for. And,,,,, I thought obama and his lib folks have talking on the news about all the job creation he is proud of. Whats up with that? If he hasnt created jobs,,,,, then you REALLY need to fire him.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

presidents dont create jobs. corporations create jobs did he not bail out corporations with the intent that they create jobs?? and did they? no they spent that money giving bonuses to executives instead of creating job. dont blame the one person that at least tried to keep people employed his mistake was he did not put on paper that the money was tied to increased job creation so the low life business men just took that welfare(while makin fun of welfare no less) money and bought themselves a new car. yes there are jobs. maybe 100k there are 500k that were eliminated. and 100k new job seekers beyond the 500k that lost a job. thinking cause there are ads doesnt mean anything many of those posting are bogus,, the company doesnt intend to hire anyone but it looks good on the books to say they are. open your eyes!

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Wow, didnt know we have enough money to bail out EVERY "corporation" in the U.S.. Interesting. Or, maybe he bailed out those that contributed to democrats. And, SO WHAT? Nothing really important other than a few people that have lost sleep every single night fretting over it,, like you.

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

Since you played the party card....

The odds are fifty/fifty on anyone's opinion being right, at least before you hear it.

The other party would only budget money for this on the condition that the money would quickly find its way back into the billionaires' pocket.

Otherwise two cents would be too much to increase the national debt, to help fight a war on poverty.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

For 50 years we have heard the words, "Fight the war against poverty." FIFTY YEARS. Sadly, the many republicans have agreed to fall for this stunt and we are now sitting on a $15 trillion (T) debt and growing every day. A few years ago, "We need to raise the debt to $3 Trillion to fight the war against poverty. If we dont get this money, people will get poorer and die." Today, $15 trillion and it is still not enough. Just maybe,,,,,,, this is the wrong way to solve the problem,,,,,,, ya think? Maybe there is a better, maybe easier,, way to end poverty? So, OK, you would be happy with $16 trillion debt today and before long you would be mad at us because you needed $20 trillion. America has now gone 1,000 days without a Federal Budget. With $15 trillion in debt one would have to assume the Senate and the President would have a f** budget. You mentioned the Budget-Card.

[-] 0 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

Well put.

Do you think that if every dollar appropriated for the war against poverty was eliminated, that there would be no expense to the government, due to poverty?

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

"We now go to the White House for this Presidential address." "My fellow Americans, tomorrow in the mail you will receive the "Who in the F*** are you People" card. This card will require all Americans to tell me, who the "F" you are and what the "F" you are doing. We are spending more in our Federal budget than Kim Kardashian does on clothes and it must stop. If you are sick, in a wheel chair, mentally ill, or just down on your luck I want to help you,, but I need to know it. If you are wort on society, a self proclaimed idiot, produce children faster than GM can produce cars, lazy, 600 pounds because you like TV,,, I need to know that too. If you are a waste on society, we are going to kick your ass back into shape. If you are sick as stated above, I want new medical tests preformed to determine what is wrong with you and the what needs to be done,,, at our cost. If you are in the lazy portion, grab your ass, we will train you and have a job ready for you. May not be what you want, but it will be enough to meet your needs. To make this easier I expect you to form a long line in front of the White House because I want to see you in the face. If you need the help you will get it. I expect, at the end of the day, to cut the federal budget for welfare and poverty programs by 90%. This is step one of my process to eliminate the poverty hoax. Good night and God Bless America.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Let's distill your position on welfare down to its core elements: If you're in a bad spot and it's not your fault, then we'll help you get by because it's the right thing to do. If you're sick enough that you belong on disability, then we'll cover the tests to prove it and if it turns out you qualify then once again we'll help you get by. If you don't have a job, that's going to change. We're going to create jobs that require a full day's work for a day's wage, but will pay enough to support you and your family up until you're old enough to retire. I don't know about you, but that sounds like the things I've been advocating from day one.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

haha you cant even produce the 500k jobs needed to replace the ones eliminated. and your going to produce more than that for the ones that were already without before those jobs were eliminated? you are laughable

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

He He.

I and many federally aided poor citizens agree with most of your Presidential satire.

Since it seems that my post, (as usual), is only good at getting opposition...and that's welcome... let me agree for the moment.

I agree that some system needs to be invented to measure the expenditures of those that qualify for poverty assistance. (I also think cash should be taxed.)

I don't want to help those that are "getting over" and laughing their way to pay cash at the Lexus dealer.

The rest will HAVE to be a burden on the treasury, in one way or the other, but at least everyone would know how much their true income is. By counting their purchases rather than assuming that they live, using only the income they declared on the application, we could eliminate those who are smart enough to bypass a legitimate job, and get aid.

BTW: What about student jobs and the cost of not funding anything for the poor?

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

If YOUR goal is to eliminate poor, what cost would you have if you were successful? You do have a plan for success? Is there a PLAN to end poverty? (yes for 50 years)

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

Off topic plan after lunch......

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

The following is somewhat opposite to the famous plan of letting big business practice their ancient plan of free enterprise. In my opinion their plan does not mean to create free competition for their customers or their employees. This, I believe, would boost the economy radically, and improve working conditions as well.

Change tax laws, healthcare, while repairing the economy. Self employ. Posted Oct. 25, 2011, 12:35

The payroll deduction system has not worked, except for the IRS, congress and corporations.

By changing to the below five point system, there would be thousands more small business start ups, creating more non corporate jobs. Full employment would increase wages and lower each person's taxes, while increasing tax revenues, which would fund social services.

One of the leading causes of new business closures is that the management must manage not only their own but also employees tax and benefits. Default of rules and payment of Income, SS, MC, sales taxes, permits and fees are reasons the IRS, state and local tax enforcements close many. Even without employees, the self-employed are threatened by the present system being a tax and healthcare minefield.

The production of products or services is what the entreprenuer should be spending their work time on. Business accounting would replace tax planning.

The new plan would:

1.Require that full earnings be deposited at a bank.

2.Eliminate sales tax collection by retailers.

3.Have federal, state, and local governments deduct their tax revenue from earnings when they are deposited.

4.Offer benefits desired by the worker/owner as an optional cafeteria plan. Insurance, retirement plan, education savings, charities, christmas club, etc, with payments deducted and fowarded from earnings.

5.Require that earnings and salaries from business be deposited/taxed the same as a wage earner. (larger deposits, larger tax %). Reinvestment in business would be therefore pretaxed.

This plan greatly enhances the freedom to quit a job, start a business, hire employees, with everyone having equal benefit availability. All employees would have to be lured with better pay and a more desirable job.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

and make sure romney is the first in line for this plan!