Unemployment ranges by state, but most fall into the $350-375 range.  So $400 would be welcome by those who are unemployed.  It would also remove their incentive to find a job.

I don't think the government can ever "solve" unemployment.  It's not a legislative problem.  It's an attitude (right of entitlement) problem.

Even now, during the recession, my local newspaper is FULL of job offerings every single week.  Why do they go unfilled?  Many businesses are looking for workers.  Businesses that are not glamorous and require actual physical labor.

The general mindset is..."WHY would I shovel snow, mow grass, work fast food, (ie do something I consider beneath me, or that is too hard) when I can make more money sitting home collecting unemployment?"

No amount of handouts are enough. 

They should stop.

If you don't work, you don't eat.

Simple.

And watch people flock back into the work force.

Sure you can solve unemployment, you just have to realize that the CAUSE of unemployment is the government paying people not to work. My plan is to solve "being paid to not work".

If you are a liberal you don't believe that government handouts are the cause of unemployment, you believe that some people simply cannot find a job no matter how hard they try, even though they are willing to work minimum wage doing physical labor... (this isn't true, but it is what they CLAIM to believe; they obviously lie, they just want government sanctioned theft)

Anyways, IF this IS a real situation, then my plan solves it as well. That is the genius of the plan, it does not hinge on me being right... it works regardless of who is right.

This sums up the first half of my plan. The other half addresses the possibility that I am wrong and liberals are right (about what they claim, not their true evil motives)... It solves that issue with minimal cost (if we conservatives are right, then it will cost 0 dollars, if we are wrong, it will cost a little most... the more wrong we are, the more it will cost... but it will be significantly LESS then the current cost even on a worst case scenario). It does all that without compromising the first half of the plan.

Government provides several mechanisms to ensure that some people eat without working, social welfare is only one of them.

Land ownership comes to mind.

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water.  The Government did not GIVE the land (at least in modern times) to people.  Poeple BOUGHT the land with money they EARNED - they then used the land to earn more money.  Indeed, land titlement and ownership is the source of bringing a society out of poverty and start it on the road to economic health.  It is the ability to use the land - both as a source of income and a guarantee of loans - that allow entrepreneurs to create new busines and thrive.  Without it, the people are confined to merely getting by as they are forced to consume their capital.

No, land ownership is not social welfare.  It is the fruits of work (leaving inheritance out of this), and as such is like any other asset - you earned it - you can use it as you see fit.  Government only protects the rights of the title holder.

I think the real question here is....if you think you own it, and the constitution supports your assertion, are you in fact the land owner?  lol

I can think of two schools of thought on this topic...probably more, but these are the two I hear most often.

1.  The land belongs to the country/government and you are "allowed" to own it.  You must pay anytime there is a transaction on the land (fees, licenses, etc), or if you wish to sell certain rights...(mineral, building, etc).  But the whole premise is that the gov owned it first, so we're really just "leasing" it.  Therefore, if the "government" needs your land to build a parking garage....well, so sorry...time for you to move on.  Also the gov. has jurisdiction over your property, ie zoning etc.

2.  The land belongs to the landowner.  Period.  Bought and paid for, the government (and any other unwelcome visitor) best not tread on private property lest there be retribution.  Before the United States was a sovereign country, there was land ownership, and will be long after it is gone. 

I side with land owners.  Property rights are a cornerstone philosophy in the US.  I think that is why some people believe the government really "owns" our land because it made such a show of selling it to citizens in the beginning.

But, if the US government implodes  tomorrow and is no longer in existence as I know it next month, my land is still mine.  It is there, I occupy it (or have someone occupy it).  No one will take it without a fight.  Granted, I may lose, but the philosophy doesn't change. 

Owning land is something any person in America can have with a little work.  And to be honest, it doesn't even have to be hard work.  Land if fairly cheap right now in most places.  

Unemployment trap. Social wage deals with both. The social wage would massively enhance incentives to find work. All earnings would be a plus.. no claw back.

Land is not created by man and thus cannot be owned by man, is what I think.

Freedom includes the right to walk where I want. If a government takes that right away and imposes monopolies, it better be because it's better for everyone (and it is), but it cannot be because somebody has the alleged "right" to take away my natural freedom.

Land ownership is a government-created monopoly and those that make money from it, for example when land gets more valuable because the population increases or because other people have with their labour made the location more viable, those that make money from it receive that money without work, just like social welfare recipients. I don't consider them any better.

http://www.henrygeorge.org/archimedes.htm

It doesn't matter how much or little work one has to invest to buy land, a government-granted monopoly is a government-granted monopoly.

That sounds like that fake business out of thin air (literally)... carbon credits. Put a price tag on anything, real or imagined, and force people to have a need for it, real or imagined, and wa la, instant payments by many and riches for the few.

Yes, that's what it is.

The difference is only that for land in the current system we have private ownership of the carbon output (rather than state control of it) and that the need for land is quite real (whereas carbon credits are an invention).

But the instant payments by many and riches for the few angle is there. That's the idea of land ownership of course.

Otherwise society would have developed such that everyone uses the land they need and there would never be rent payments by a user of land to an owner of land who contributes nothing to production.

Gold is not created by man and cannot be owned by man.  Food is not created (cultivated is not created), so cannot be owned by man.  While you are entitled to your thought, you are wrong.  It is not the creation of something that gives it value - it is the use of it that gives it value.  And the use often comes at a cost - a cost that man has to pay in order to reap the rewards.  I would suggest you read Hernado de Soto on why 3rd world countries cannot escape the poverty cycle.  It is not from some mush headed nut brain in an ivory university, but from someone with his boots on the ground.

Sorry, the government cannot indeed restrict you, but society can.  Your right ends where my nose begins, yet your universal condemnation of my nose indicates that there is no restriction on you. That would be the case if you lived alone in your own world, but you have to step where I step, so you do  not have the right to step on my toes.

No, it is not a monopoly. Except in totalitarian countries.  My land is not your land, is not my neighbors land, is not my sisters or brothers land.  It is not a monopoly.  It is however a government created RIGHT.  In that you would be correct.

Correct.  However, when my stocks go up and my wealth increases, the same thing happens.  Why did I thrive on Ford stock and you died on GM?  Luck?  Intelligent investing (that is what you are talking about)?  Does not matter.  You seem to think that life has to be fair for everyone.  And that is your error.  Life is not fair.  However, life would be even more unfair should the labors of your work (as you seem want to throw the baby out with the bathwater) if all the fruits of your labor were not yours to enjoy, but available for anyone to trample.  Without property rights, you have no rights to anything you earn!  For in the end, our wealth comes down to what we own - and you just took that away.

Your problem is your basic premise is flawed.  it is not a government granted monopoly.  It is a government granted right.

From each according to  his ability to each according to his needs.  Paraphrased well enough?

And we do not have to go into a doctoral thesis to see how wrong that is, not in theory, but in practice.  it has always failed and will always fail.  man is not altruistic.

Man produces goods using raw materials. The produced goods are the property of the producer (barring other arrangements between individuals).

But the raw materials are everyone's to use (barring government-imposed monopolies).

Land ownership is a monopoly. There is a finite amount of land at any given place and all of it is owned. That's why you get monopoly prices for land. Rents go up because demand rises while supply doesn't change. That's the symptom of a monopoly.

If it were a right, everyone would own land.

You can argue that everyone can own land, but I will tell you that it is not true. I can only own land by permission of someone who is an existing owner of land. Thus land ownership is not a right because existing land owners can stop me from owning land.

Free speech is a right. And people who are already talking cannot prevent me from adding my voice.

Breathing is a right. And other people certainly must not take away this right from me or attempt to stop me from breathing.

But land ownership is very obviously not a right. It contradicts itself. Once the first nomad claims ownership of a piece of land, he is taking away the other nomads' right to walk on that land and, ironically, to own that land.

This is not the case with produced goods like stone carvings (other people can create their own stone carvings) or apples (other people can find their own apples).

If land ownership were a right, people could not own land, because land can only be owned by declaring that other people can't own the same piece of land. That's a monopoly, like a patent. It's a privilege, not a right.

Did your family operate and succeed using another strategy?

A piece of land is nothing - until someone produces something with it - with the sweat of his brow.  You want land?  I can sell you land (legally) at 8 cents an acre!  Not under water and it is usable - in the middle of the Mojave desert!  However a plot next door that is irrigated will go for thousands per acre - because it will now produce food.

You are using tunnel vision and do not see how wrong you are.  Again, it is not a government monopoly.  It is a government right.  It is not finite except in the sense that everything on earth is finite.  Land is constantly being created and lost - by nature.

Beyond those facts, land is also the basis of capitalism.  Like I said, it is not the perfect system in theory (socialism is), but it is the best there is in practice.

NO.  Life is a natural RIGHT - yet you are not required to live it (suicide is painless).  Do not confuse the 2, but you would be wrong in either case.  Just because you have a right does not mean you have to exercise it.

Yes, in the US it is a government granted right (and unfortunately no where else).  But you do not have to exercise it. And just because I own land does not prevent you from owning land.  Like I said, I know where you can buy it for 8 cents an acre.

Breathing is not a right.  it is a biological function of life.

it is very much a right.  Again, having a right does not mandate you EXERCISE it.

You are not free to speak your mind in MY house.  So that would mean speech is not a right. Yet it is.  Just because private individuals can limit your activities in places does not preclude it from being a right.