Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Friday, January 11, 2013

EPI: War on Poverty: David Cooper: EITC and The Minimum Wage Go Hand in Hand in Fighting Public Dependence

Strengthening the EITC and raising the minimum wage should go hand-in-hand | Economic Policy Institute

If you want to have more low skilled people and people in poverty actually working jobs and getting paid to do so. Then they simply have to have incentive to work its that simple, otherwise why would someone who unless. They have some wanting to work and be productive in society, even if its in their best financial interest and in their families. Best interest for them not to work because they can collect more money and public assistance by not working. And collecting Welfare or Unemployment Insurance, why would someone in that position work if they can collect more money and benefits. From not working which is why I'm in favor of not only eliminating the minimum wage and replacing. It with a living wage starting at 10$ an hour and indexing it from inflation for full time workers 21 or over and not just keeping the. Earned Income Tax Credit or EITC but expanding it so these workers can have access to health insurance and. Even put money away in savings and for retirement, as well as educational opportunities so they can get education and job training. And be able to get themselves off of public assistance and into the middle class for good.

I would take public assistance to the point that it would encourage low skilled people to actually be working. Instead of being unemployed or unemployable because they would end up making more money and collecting more benefits. Then someone who doesn't work but collects public assistance. For example a low skilled worker just starting out. While they are also going through education or job training would make 10$ an hour over forty hours a week. As well as childcare benefits but someone not working and not going to school but collecting public assistance would make 7.25$ an hour. Over forty hours a week and someone working part time or not working at all but going through education. And job training would be collecting lets say 8.25$ and hour over forty hours and also eligible for childcare. Benefits as well where someone not working at all and not in school or job training wouldn't be. So I would incentivize work, education and job training over not doing those things.

As I've blogged before we should move towards having a public assistance system thats so effective that it becomes obsolete. That we would no longer need it, we'll never completely accomplish that but thats what we should be striving for. And you get by valuing work over dependence and self sufficiency over public assistance by making work, education and job training pay. More then dependency and you do this incentivizing people to work and better themselves.

American Prospect: Foreign Affairs: Ending the Mindset that Got Us Into Iraq: New Liberal Democratic Foreign Policy

Ending the Mindset that Got Us into Iraq

President Obama's appointment of former US Senator Chuck Hagel and current Atlantic Council Chairman to. Be his next Secretary of Defense is the final deathblow to the George W. Bush's Neoconservative foreign policy because no longer. We'll be a country that will lead only by defense and no longer will we be a country that will try to govern the World. Or secure the Democratic World on our own because we now have a national security team led by President Obama. To go along with Vice President Biden, soon to be Secretary of State John Kerry, soon to be Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. Soon to be Executive Director of Intelligence John Brennan who doesn't believe in defense only that. You have to use all of your assets at your disposal to make sure America is as secure as possible and our allies can secure themselves. That you can't impose Liberal Democracy on countries that aren't ready for it and don't want it that diplomacy. As well as economic and allied power all have to be part of the same package thats responsible for securing. The United States.

I could give you a whole host of reasons why President Bush's Neoconservative foreign policy didn't work. But it gets to mainly weakening the country as he was trying to secure it, both militarily by overcommitting the US military. Which is what happens when you have a foreign policy that relies so much on defense and doesn't utilize your other assets. But also weakened us economically at a time when China, Russia, Brazil and India are all on the rise and when both. Europe and America were losing influence in the World, as the new powers are becoming powerful, America was becoming. Weaker with the annual debt and deficits we were piling up that we still have to deal with today and owing so. Much money to other countries so we could do the job of other countries in securing those countries. Senator Hagel knows this was a mistake and new at the time when he was in the Senate and even spoke up about it. As early as 2004-05.

In this new era of Liberal Democratic foreign policy, we will no longer try to govern the World. We will no longer try to defend developed nations around the World, we'll no longer borrow money from other. Countries so we can pay them to be able to defend them, we'll have a national defense that we can afford. That we'll pay for without borrowing that can more then meet the national security needs of this great huge country. And we'll no longer invade countries because we don't like their governments and will only take military action. To defend ourselves and to protect innocent people who are simply fighting for their freedom in areas where we can make a positive difference.