+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL (/Thread-NATION-WITH-CRUMBLING-BRIDGES-AND-ROADS-EXCITED-TO-BUILD-GIANT-WALL)
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - fredtoast - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 12:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did the Hoover Dam build itself?
So you don't really want to force unemployed hair dressers and shoe salesmen to build the wall.
Instead you want a massive government funded work program.
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - fredtoast - 08-30-2016
And if the government were to force people drawing unemployment benefits to work would they refund the "unemployment insurances" costs that employers have been paying to fund those benefits? Otherwise the government would be getting work done paid for by the money paid by private employers.
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - bfine32 - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 12:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you don't really want to force unemployed hair dressers and shoe salesmen to build the wall.
Instead you want a massive government funded work program.
I don't think anyone should be forced to work. But if folks aren't getting their haircut enough for you to have a job you might want to learn how to build a wall to put food on the table.
I do think an able-bodied person should provide a service if the government is cutting them a check. If you don't want to provide a service, you gets no loot; but nobody should force you.
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - bfine32 - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 01:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And if the government were to force people drawing unemployment benefits to work would they refund the "unemployment insurances" costs that employers have been paying to fund those benefits? Otherwise the government would be getting work done paid for by the money paid by private employers.
Nope unemployment insurance is a cost of being a business owner. It's called Capitalizm with strong social programs. I hear some folks like that.
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - Vas Deferens - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 11:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I'm serious. IF it is determined that we are to build a wall then why would we not explore every means possible to reduce the cost?
No one is suggesting not paying anyone, simply allow those that are currently drawing unemployment a change to earn their money and perhaps learn a trade.
No sure what material you think would be required (I did see that you chose to run with the materials suggested), but I cannot see raw building materials being more expensive that the labor to erect it.
So are we talking about a concrete wall or a massive chain link fence? I thought Trump specified it would be a concrete wall, but could be mistaken.
Bottom line is building a wall is a terrible idea on a multitude of fronts; effectiveness, cost, environmental impact being the largest. It doesn't sound like you're really behind the idea either, rather just arguing it could put some people to work. The obvious point of the article is those resources are better expended on other projects which would still serve your end goal of employment.
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - fredtoast - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 01:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope unemployment insurance is a cost of being a business owner. It's called Capitalizm with strong social programs. I hear some folks like that.
But if the peop;e get a job building a wall then they should not be paid from "unemployment" funds because these people are no longer "enemployed"?
What you are suggesting is a large government funded work program that would not be funded from the unemployment insurance paid by private employers, correct?
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - fredtoast - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 01:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't think anyone should be forced to work. But if folks aren't getting their haircut enough for you to have a job you might want to learn how to build a wall to put food on the table.
So what is the long term employment projection for "wall builders" in America?
How much should the US invest in job training for wall builders?
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - bfine32 - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 01:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So what is the long term employment projection for "wall builders" in America?
How much should the US invest in job training for wall builders?
I would say the ability to build structures has a future in America. Not really sure we need a "wall builders program" perhaps the can learn on the job and earn a certification.
Who knows it could be offered at the basic education level for folks that don't want to take Chemistry.
Anymore questions?
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - bfine32 - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 01:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But if the peop;e get a job building a wall then they should not be paid from "unemployment" funds because these people are no longer "enemployed"?
What you are suggesting is a large government funded work program that would not be funded from the unemployment insurance paid by private employers, correct?
Sure they are unemployed until another employer hires them. You don't like Captialisim with strong Social programs?
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - Belsnickel - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 01:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But if the peop;e get a job building a wall then they should not be paid from "unemployment" funds because these people are no longer "enemployed"?
What you are suggesting is a large government funded work program that would not be funded from the unemployment insurance paid by private employers, correct?
(08-30-2016, 01:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure they are unemployed until another employer hires them. You don't like Captialisim with strong Social programs?
But if they are building the wall, then they are employed. According to GASB you would not be able to use the unemployment fund money to pay the workers on the project. Building the wall would have its own budget of personal services related to the project and because of the way the law is written with regards to unemployment insurance funds they would not be able to be used for the personal services in the project, different buckets of money and never to two shall meet.
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - Vas Deferens - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 02:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But if they are building the wall, then they are employed. According to GASB you would not be able to use the unemployment fund money to pay the workers on the project. Building the wall would have its own budget of personal services related to the project and because of the way the law is written with regards to unemployment insurance funds they would not be able to be used for the personal services in the project, different buckets of money and never to two shall meet.
Wait. Is this a real thing being proposed somewhere? I dismissed it in the thread a couple times thinking people here were just missing one another a bit. Sounds like this is a legitimate talking point being bandied about...
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - bfine32 - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 02:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But if they are building the wall, then they are employed. According to GASB you would not be able to use the unemployment fund money to pay the workers on the project. Building the wall would have its own budget of personal services related to the project and because of the way the law is written with regards to unemployment insurance funds they would not be able to be used for the personal services in the project, different buckets of money and never to two shall meet.
No one ever said that there would not be a need to rewrite code. The "it's not designed that way" is a defeatist mentality.
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - bfine32 - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 01:15 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: So are we talking about a concrete wall or a massive chain link fence? I thought Trump specified it would be a concrete wall, but could be mistaken.
Bottom line is building a wall is a terrible idea on a multitude of fronts; effectiveness, cost, environmental impact being the largest. It doesn't sound like you're really behind the idea either, rather just arguing it could put some people to work. The obvious point of the article is those resources are better expended on other projects which would still serve your end goal of employment.
The discussion is not if the wall is a good or bad idea. That can has been kicked down the road plenty. The discussion is IF (I capalized it again) a wall is to be built; who could it be funded to save they tax payer a few bucks.
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - GMDino - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 02:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The discussion is not if the wall is a good or bad idea. That can has been kicked down the road plenty. The discussion is IF (I capalized it again) a wall is to be built; who could it be funded to save they tax payer a few bucks.
By paying people minimum wage and no benefits and making them live in the desert.
And not building a wall by rather a fence.
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - fredtoast - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 01:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure they are unemployed until another employer hires them. You don't like Captialisim with strong Social programs?
But once the government hires them to build a wall they are no longer "unemployed".
Get it?
They can't give "unemployment benefits" to people with jobs.
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - bfine32 - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 02:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But once the government hires them to build a wall they are no longer "unemployed".
Get it?
They can't give "unemployment benefits" to people with jobs.
As I said; Code would have to be revised. They are unemployed until they are hired by an employer. Why are folks so opposed to reform?
The only thing that would change is the unemployed would contribute and learn a trade. This would have zero effect on businesses and their payment of unemployment insurance.
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - Vas Deferens - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 02:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The discussion is not if the wall is a good or bad idea. That can has been kicked down the road plenty. The discussion is IF (I capalized it again) a wall is to be built; who could it be funded to save they tax payer a few bucks.
I noted your first capitalization, still don't believe you think this is a good idea. Apparently you and I had different readings of the OP's article. Not the first time, won't be the last I'm sure.
So you are proposing telling people they have the choice of building the wall to collect the benefits they are entitled, or loose said benefits, correct? Will there be a draft of some type?
In all seriousness. Did you just conjure this proposal up for the purposes of this board, or is this being discussed by the Trump campaign as a way to pay for a wall? First I've heard of it.
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - Wyche'sWarrior - 08-30-2016
Repair the infrastructure.....use unemployed Americans (like the CCC) to repair them. Then, tell the corps that use said infrastructure, but hide their profits in tax shelters like the Netherlands to either quit using it, or pay for the shit. Winner winner, chicken dinner.
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - Belsnickel - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 02:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No one ever said that there would not be a need to rewrite code. The "it's not designed that way" is a defeatist mentality.
This is more than just rewriting code, though. We're talking about employing people to do the job, which means they are no longer unemployed. It's a very dishonest thing to do and would set a precedent that would destroy an already leaking unemployment system.
RE: NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL - Belsnickel - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 02:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said; Code would have to be revised. They are unemployed until they are hired by an employer. Why are folks so opposed to reform?
The only thing that would change is the unemployed would contribute and learn a trade. This would have zero effect on businesses and their payment of unemployment insurance.
It would absolutely have an effect. Unemployment insurance rates can be increased depending on the number of people drawing and the time they are drawing on it. If you are continuing to count laborers employed by the government as unemployed, it is unfairly impacting the calculation used for those employers in those states that do this.