Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
Unlike your answer? "It's stupid!" [ no explaination ]
Geeshus, read the damn article, read the entire detail of the suggestion itself on the website, and get remotely accurate. The vast majority of the jobs are not "ridiculous temporary jobs for 16 year olds"
Oh, wait - just skip that for your own typical right-wing knee-jerk angry rhetoric.
|
Explanation? What about asking who pays for these jobs when the fed money runs out? Who bears the brunt of the costs of the jobs moving forward? Or is this a half-law too to be figured out at a later date?
No the jobs are janitors, tree huggers, "work study", fix it men, and the nebulous "community" workers.
Yeah this sounds like a sustainable plan to turn the economy around.
A job isnt something that just is "created" and sustained because people don't have one. There has to be a purpose AND there has to be a way to pay for them. The purpose given may be admirable (well as long as you ignore the political implications of those being "given" jobs) but there is no way to sustain these jobs unless there is unlimited federal money (not happening) or the states/local govts will have these expenses thrust upon them at a time they can least afford them. And if these jobs are simply stopgap, temporary jobs are these same people going to return to the gov't payroll in the form of unemployment payments?