"You are imagining things or lying. Read the doctored BLS statistics or straight scoop from www.shadowstats.com, both clearly show growth only in service jobs. Doesn't mean there aren't higher paying jobs, only that those sectors are not growing. Get it?"
Not really. If you go to the BLS website, the largest job growth is predicted to be in the area of healthcare and social services, which are expected to provide just under triple what the next highest segment is, professional, technical, and scientific services. Next is educational. Under that is retail trade, where you finally see where unskilled labor might fit in. note that many services-related industries rely on skilled labor, as well as low or unskilled workers. A salesperson at GAP doesn't need much training. Selling Learjets or commercial real estate probably does. The former will be low paying jobs, the latter, high paying.
Please tell us about these after school employers, who are they?
Employers who pay minimum wage. Fast food eateries, things like that.
"It sounds nice and all but living in a delusion that the state of our economy is like 1975 just isn't real!"
Half of the minimum wage earners out there are under age 25. So again, unless you think that each and every person deserves to earn a living wage, being forced to pay a high school or college kid $15 an hour probably doesn't make much sense. And you are going to have a hard time making that argument to the people, read consumers, who will have to cover the bill. But it would be nice. If you're a sixteen year old living at home while making $15 an hour, you could by yourself a damn nice car and still have money to go play.
"Just because they are locally funded does not mean they are not still socialistic in nature."
That's true, but programs funded at the local level are inevitably going to be more responsive to local needs. In my opinion, the best course of action we could take as a nation would ve to massively defund the federal government and let the state decide for themselves what's important. if California wanted to provide free healthcare and an expansive income for non-earners, cool. They coudl do it. Right now the state ships out more money than it takes in anyway. And if Montana wanted to abolish any form of public benefit, they could do that as well. responsiveness to local needs, as opposed to a cookie cutter approach where each state is expected to bnehave exactly as the next.
"I will gladly explain to you how helping the poor is equally beneficial to all members of society if you explain to me how the military benefits (equally) a poor homeless man or woman on the street(who may even be a vet) struggling just to get enough food to survive the day and find a warm place to sleep tonight."
Is a Kh-101 launched from a Russian bomber going to discriminate between the rich person and the poor person? Nope. Both will be equally dead.
"Explain to me why we should be funding the trillions to the military, and how the military is beneficial to the majority members of our society."
Please see above^^