AOC’s Green New Deal Demanding Benefits For People UNWILLING TO WORK!
There are liberal ideas that when you hear them you almost have to wonder if they even proofread the language before they let someone read it.
Like this whole nonsense of the Green New Deal. It makes absolutely no sense at all and at times is pretty offensive to any person with any self worth.
Not the liberal version of offensive where they will claim racism if you put real sugar into your coffee or something silly like that. Real offensive, the kind that used to exist before liberals co-opted the word and twisted the meaning to their own use.
I say this because there is something in the language of the way someone like AOC speaks just makes me angry. There is a grocery store that I go to once a week where there is a guy in a wheelchair at the cash register.
He looks like he is in the physical condition that if he just sat at home nobody would say a word about it to him. However, he is one of those people that works as hard as people at his job as people with two working legs do. He takes pride at what he does and to be honest has one of the sharpest minds of anyone I have ever seen.
As a trick once, he managed to memorize every sale item going back for six weeks and recited all of them like he was reading a book. It was amazing. If you can work, you should work. If you can’t work, you should get help.
The Green New Deal promises not just to guarantee jobs to all Americans willing and able to work–but also to guarantee “economic security” for those “unwilling to work.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), a self-described Democratic Socialist, introduced the Green New Deal on Thursday. It outlines a plan to abandon the economic system that has dominated American society since its inception, fundamentally changing the patterns of industry output, employment, consumption, and the relation of government to the market.
One of its most radical proposals is issued almost in passing: a guarantee of “Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”
The U.S. has long had programs, private and public, to assist those unable to work. But it has never embraced the idea that the role of the government included guaranteeing economic security for those who are unwilling to work.
In fact, traditional American liberalism regarded full employment as its goal because of the importance of work to society and the individual.
Senator Eugene McCarthy wrote in his 1964 book A Liberal Answer to the Conservative Challenge:
The full consideration of unemployment must take into account the nature of work and its meaning to the human being. Neither unrelieved leisure activities nor idleness is the road to happiness. Man by nature needs more than satisfaction of his capacity to consume. He needs also to produce, to construct, to add some degree of perfection to goods or to provide services to other men.
This is not the Job Guarantee popularized by the recently trendy Modern Monetary theory crowd as a solution to mass unemployment. Neither is it the sort of Income Guarantee advocated by Silicon Valley executives who envision a future economy with very low employment but abundant consumption of technology products funded through government handouts, which critics have described as “serfdom without the work.”
This is far more radical. It a guarantee that the government will provide economic security to those who are unwilling to work. Presumably, this includes not just income but also healthcare, childcare, higher education, housing, transportation, and retirement benefits.