• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you favor a revamped Civilian Conservation Corps

Favor ongoing revamped C C C

  • yes

    Votes: 2 40.0%

  • no

    Votes: 3 60.0%
  • Total voters
    5
  • Poll closed .
listener

listener

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
52
Reaction score
4
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That Is the question. I think it would be a good investment if carefully planned to accomolish useful work. It would kick in any time overall unemployment exceeded six percent or any time unemployment exceeded ten percent for any work segment such as youth unemployment or minority unemployment. I think the more people who become job creators by earning spendable money from useful work the better off we all are.
 
listener said:
That Is the question. I think it would be a good investment if carefully planned to accomolish useful work. It would kick in any time overall unemployment exceeded six percent or any time unemployment exceeded ten percent for any work segment such as youth unemployment or minority unemployment. I think the more people who become job creators by earning spendable money from useful work the better off we all are.
Click to expand...

I would consider it, under specific conditions, and with specific guidelines and wage structure. Those conditions would be that it would not carry permanent government benefits in the form of retirement and pensions, except for social security and medicare, just as private enterprise is required to make deductions for, and that it would not be considered a permanent government-owned "corporation".

Your poll really needs a *maybe* option, or *depends* option, because there are many considerations to make in an endeavor such as this one.
 
listener said:
That Is the question. I think it would be a good investment if carefully planned to accomolish useful work. It would kick in any time overall unemployment exceeded six percent or any time unemployment exceeded ten percent for any work segment such as youth unemployment or minority unemployment. I think the more people who become job creators by earning spendable money from useful work the better off we all are.
Click to expand...

It might be useful to include to a link explaining what the Civilian Conservation Corps was.

Civilian Conservation Corps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
'Replacement' is a strong word. Partial substitution is a more effective application.
Click to expand...

NO, replacement. Why should the government pay workers go do jobs when it is already paying millions to sit and do nothing. We already pay them, lets get some work out of them. It would be highly unfair to require some to perform labor but let others still get paid for nothing. With millions of people available to work, and we are going to pay them anyways, we wouldn't need to give them much in the way of heavy machinery, shovels, hammers, wheel barrows, picks, axes, tow harnesses. Put all of them to work, not just a few.
 
DVSentinel said:
NO, replacement. Why should the government pay workers go do jobs when it is already paying millions to sit and do nothing. We already pay them, lets get some work out of them. It would be highly unfair to require some to perform labor but let others still get paid for nothing. With millions of people available to work, and we are going to pay them anyways, we wouldn't need to give them much in the way of heavy machinery, shovels, hammers, wheel barrows, picks, axes, tow harnesses. Put all of them to work, not just a few.
Click to expand...

Lots of reasons. For one, welfare keeps skilled laborers from sinking into poverty and becoming a risk factor for social unrest and economic decay. There's no reason for a software engineer to become a manual laborer when he's between jobs, as he can serve himself and the rest of society better in the private sector.

However, if the software engineer sinks into poverty, then, for example, he won't be able to negotiate with the banks and companies involved with acquiring a mortgage a home in the part of the country where the next new position in his industry becomes available. Poverty kills good credit first.

You can say "he can work in the work relief program until he finds a new job", but that sort of job is a commitment. You can't have people continually leaving the project to return to skilled labor in the private sector, otherwise the unskilled labor drags on forever and produces nothing.

That's why these programs targeted directionless young men for the most part. They have no families, careers, or commitments to distract them from the work for an indefinite period of time.

In short, they exist for a specific type of person.

Welfare also exists for specific types of person.
 
Last edited:
DVSentinel said:
As a replacement for Welfare, sure.
Click to expand...

Or as a replacement for unemployment, or maybe that's what you were referring to- I couldn't tell for sure, but definitely substitute it for unemployment bennies.
 
listener said:
That Is the question. I think it would be a good investment if carefully planned to accomolish useful work. It would kick in any time overall unemployment exceeded six percent or any time unemployment exceeded ten percent for any work segment such as youth unemployment or minority unemployment. I think the more people who become job creators by earning spendable money from useful work the better off we all are.
Click to expand...

It might be a good idea, but I don' see it as being legal or appropriate at the federal level. I might support such a program in my state though.
 
Federalist said:
It might be a good idea, but I don' see it as being legal or appropriate at the federal level. I might support such a program in my state though.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the technical legality of it, but it sure as hell beats paying so many people to sit at home, putting off even looking for work. I've heard story after story of people turning down jobs that they were qualified for, "until their unemployment runs out".
 
lizzie said:
I'm not sure about the technical legality of it, but it sure as hell beats paying so many people to sit at home, putting off even looking for work. I've heard story after story of people turning down jobs that they were qualified for, "until their unemployment runs out".
Click to expand...

Anyone can tell a story. Numbers and empirical evidence are the only basis for social policy.
 
lizzie said:
I'm not sure about the technical legality of it, but it sure as hell beats paying so many people to sit at home, putting off even looking for work. I've heard story after story of people turning down jobs that they were qualified for, "until their unemployment runs out".
Click to expand...

But lizzie, I don't see paying people to sit at home as legal or appropriate at the federal level either.

States, of course can establish whatever programs they wish to deal with the health and welfare of their citizens.
 
Federalist said:
But lizzie, I don't see paying people to sit at home as legal or appropriate at the federal level either.

States, of course can establish whatever programs they wish to deal with the health and welfare of their citizens.
Click to expand...

You know that I don't either, but you and I both know that this isn't going to change, at least not anytime in the near future.
 
Federalist said:
But lizzie, I don't see paying people to sit at home as legal or appropriate at the federal level either.

States, of course can establish whatever programs they wish to deal with the health and welfare of their citizens.
Click to expand...

Luckily there's no reason to feel uneasy about such things as the Supreme Court is constitutionally charged with deciding the constitutionality of such things.
 
lizzie said:
Or as a replacement for unemployment, or maybe that's what you were referring to- I couldn't tell for sure, but definitely substitute it for unemployment bennies.
Click to expand...

I was referring to Welfare, from the description MG put, that sounds like unemployment. Two different things.

Maybe not everywhere anymore, but Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma I know didn't take the bailout (reinvestment and employment act) money because it would change the unemployment insurance programs. These states, at least, to qualify for unemployment, you have to have a job that pays into unemployment insurance, not all jobs do. Part of accepting that money was states that took it had to provide unemployment for everyone, regardless of previous payment into unemployment insurance and it required states to pay unemployment to people moving from out of state looking for work, again, they never paid into the states unemployment insurance. So these states, having very low unemployment at the time (less than half the unemployment rate of Cali. and some other states) told Obama to stick it.

I guess in some states that took the money and made the changes, there is no real difference between unemployment and welfare, here there definitely is.
 
No, but only because I'd rather see the WPA brought back and expanded. I'd rather see anyone who draws a government check, be it welfare or unemployment, be required to do some meaningful work in order to receive it. Of course, those not physically or mentally able to work would be exceptions to the rule.
 
Federalist said:
It might be a good idea, but I don' see it as being legal or appropriate at the federal level. I might support such a program in my state though.
Click to expand...
I voted no because I don't think the federal needs to assume any more extra constitutional powers, if anything we need to shrink it from it's present state. I would have no problem with states wanting to create that type of program, it's well within their rights and delegated powers. It does get quirky regarding federal interstates, but the states could be reimbursed for work done by their corps.
 
Morality Games said:
Luckily there's no reason to feel uneasy about such things as the Supreme Court is constitutionally charged with deciding the constitutionality of such things.
Click to expand...

I am simply explaining what I'd vote for and what I'd oppose, along with my reasons. The thread is asking our opinion, is it not? I certainly don't claim to have any power to enforce the constitution, if that's what you think.
 
Federalist said:
I am simply explaining what I'd vote for and what I'd oppose, along with my reasons. The thread is asking our opinion, is it not? I certainly don't claim to have any power to enforce the constitution, if that's what you think.
Click to expand...

There are a number of arguments against the federal government administering a program like this I would accept as logically valid, even if I didn't agree with them. But when the U.S. Constitution asserts that the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of such things, there's basically no theoretical limit on the number of policies the federal government administers that can be constitutionally (and therefore legally) valid.

The Supreme Court could say the 2nd Amendment as currently worded really means, "Absolutely no one can have any weapon of any kind," and require a policy of confiscating all privately held weapons, and it wouldn't be unconstitutional. It would be an abuse of power, an affront to all sense and logic, and an awful policy that would likely result in the dissolution and/or reform of the Supreme Court, but under the current powers vested in the Supreme Court, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to rule the strongly guaranteed right to bear arms in print really means there is no right to bear arms at all.
 
Morality Games said:
There are a number of arguments against the federal government administering a program like this I would accept as logically valid, even if I didn't agree with them. But when the U.S. Constitution asserts that the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of such things, there's basically no theoretical limit on the number of policies the federal government administers that can be constitutionally (and therefore legally) valid.

The Supreme Court could say the 2nd Amendment as currently worded really means, "Absolutely no one can have any weapon of any kind," and require a policy of confiscating all privately held weapons, and it wouldn't be unconstitutional. It would be an abuse of power, an affront to all sense and logic, and an awful policy that would likely result in the dissolution and/or reform of the Supreme Court, but under the current powers vested in the Supreme Court, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to rule the strongly guaranteed right to bear arms in print really means there is no right to bear arms at all.
Click to expand...

As I said, the thread is asking whether we favor a particular government action. I don't favor that action, because I don't think it comports with the Constitution, and therefore believe it to be illegal and inappropriate.

Again, I realize that my opinion means squat, but it is the basis for my own personal votes and political choices. I don't claim to have any authority over anyone else when it comes to the Constitution.
 
I do not think we should ever have more teachers, fireman, policemen or other public workers than are needed but I think one of the tragedies of the recession we are still largely in is the number of public workers necessarily laid off for lack of funds.

David Brooks said that the stimulus package should have been entirely for infrastructure and help for states so they would not need to lay off needed workers. The tax breaks were nice but not as economically helpful as would have been infrastructure spending and hokding on to needed government employees. He said that before the stimulus package passed and I think he was right on.
 
Morality Games said:
There are a number of arguments against the federal government administering a program like this I would accept as logically valid, even if I didn't agree with them. But when the U.S. Constitution asserts that the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of such things, there's basically no theoretical limit on the number of policies the federal government administers that can be constitutionally (and therefore legally) valid.
Click to expand...
As an aside, are you asserting that the constitution gives the supreme court the SOLE power to decide on constitutionality? If so, I'd like to see the section where this can be found.
 
listener said:
I do not think we should ever have more teachers, fireman, policemen or other public workers than are needed but I think one of the tragedies of the recession we are still largely in is the number of public workers necessarily laid off for lack of funds.
Click to expand...

That is a necessary response to over-extending government jobs/bennies that has been happening for quite some time now. Imagine what is going to happen when John and Jane Doe, who are not even government employees, but just lucky recipients of government funds, which they never, or barely, paid into are facing cut-backs as well. As much as we want to pretend we can afford virtually any amount of government subsidizing, we can't, and we will have to pay the piper at some point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom