Feds spend MORE ON POVERITY than what workers earn.

[chedlin 0]

I would like to see the numbers broken down. I suspect Medicaid is a large driver of this. There will be a portion of this group with very large medical expenses that can skew the whole argument.

My understanding is that medicaid can kick in for a premature infant even when the family has insurance and a 6 figure income. If the medical care runs several million it is going to horribly skew any statistics.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I find it pretty laughable that left wingers like you think the founding fathers envisioned this country turning into a giant welfare state when they wrote the Constitution.

I find it laughable that neither Democrats nor Republicans mind welfare when it goes to companies.

American soldiers aren't so incompetent that they need 5X the resources of the second place country, 10X the second place in NATO, or 30X the nearest first world country with the same landmass and border length to defend us.

OTOH, maybe companies like Lockheed-Martin are so incompetent that they do need the public assistance to survive in what would otherwise be closer to a capitalist country.

I agree. I dislike welfare whether its for corporations or individuals. I have no problem with temporary assistance in the form of a loan when things go wobbly. But I am opposed to government intervention as an ongoing social program.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you have a real-world proposal? I.e. one that can actually be implemented. A one-person eugenics army isn't going to last very long.

Personally, I'd be for babies being born sterile, and they have to pass some sort of qualification to have their fertility turned on. China has been working on the one-child thing for awhile (of course, rich people get to have more) -- maybe we should emulate them?

In the real world, 1/2 of the people are of below-average intelligence. At least 1/2 of them are of significantly below-average intelligence. Low-skilled jobs are, in fact, what many of them are capable of. Which means that there are fewer starter jobs for the more intelligent.

But it is what it is. You can only really work with reality.

Wendy P.

More attention needs to be devoted to small business as they are the job creators. Instead there's soooo much support for the multi-national corps as wall street needs to continue selling stock. They want to end non-stock firms and have all profits go to stock companies and what few employees there are, will work for stock firms. If you've noticed even the worst urban areas are being revitalized by stock firms. Mom, pop firms, are going away. They can't compete. Look at farming--they all sold out to ADM. Just look at walmart check out.... so few people there, that took so many jobs away from the local economy. An economy based on people buying stuff, where the distribution model changed. Dist via many people, to just a few. Internet sales haven't helped.

Stock firms and wall street rule the roost. It's up to them to solve the problem and I suspect that when people can no longer buy stocks or refuse to do so, we might return to entranpraneurship and small business. if that is even possible with the current distribution and buying trends.

Selling stock is a tiny part of where a bank makes their money. it is an after thought. The money is made in banking ie making loans and building companies up to go public. Bankers love small companies because they are the one's who need loans to become medium companies, who then want to go public. There are countless stories of small companies growing into giant public ones. Walmart is a perfect example. Every banker in the world is looking for the next Walmart. Small commercial banks create small business. Then Inv Bankers loan money to create medium and large companies. Bankers love small companies, it is the blood of the business.

Commissions on stocks trades in the retail sector, what you are speaking of, is tiny. So small that the most profitable Inv banks dont even have retail. GSCO for example. At the institutional level, research and trading exist solely to get more banking business. I know, because i do it for a living. the bankers run the show, stock trading is a side show. Equity traders are the blue collar of the business. Retail stock sales, which is different and what you described, is tiny and not a focus of any brokerage or bank. Its not 1970. there is no revenue is it. stock commissions are fraction of a cent. .0045 per share, is a fair rate.

What is a "stock firm". you really should stop making up your own terms. do your "admen" work there and are they in charge of pushing "front end paper"? There are plenty of ways to describe a bank or brokerage, which are different fyi. you are hard to take serious when you make up your own names for already existing entities.

Here comes the banker Weekender:

We're not talking about banks. We're talking about the Gov't spending more money on Welfare than what people earn. But since you've said selling stocks is only a tiny portion of what Banks do I just wonder what most important to banks.... OH I KNOW... Laundering Cartel Drug money UNABAITED. FREE PASS to do what they want.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/elizabeth-warren-bust-banks-that-launder-drug-money-88565.html

With with the banks steal and what the poor cost us, no wonder middle class is so squeezed.

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you have a real-world proposal? I.e. one that can actually be implemented. A one-person eugenics army isn't going to last very long.

Personally, I'd be for babies being born sterile, and they have to pass some sort of qualification to have their fertility turned on. China has been working on the one-child thing for awhile (of course, rich people get to have more) -- maybe we should emulate them?

In the real world, 1/2 of the people are of below-average intelligence. At least 1/2 of them are of significantly below-average intelligence. Low-skilled jobs are, in fact, what many of them are capable of. Which means that there are fewer starter jobs for the more intelligent.

But it is what it is. You can only really work with reality.

Wendy P.

More attention needs to be devoted to small business as they are the job creators. Instead there's soooo much support for the multi-national corps as wall street needs to continue selling stock. They want to end non-stock firms and have all profits go to stock companies and what few employees there are, will work for stock firms. If you've noticed even the worst urban areas are being revitalized by stock firms. Mom, pop firms, are going away. They can't compete. Look at farming--they all sold out to ADM. Just look at walmart check out.... so few people there, that took so many jobs away from the local economy. An economy based on people buying stuff, where the distribution model changed. Dist via many people, to just a few. Internet sales haven't helped.

Stock firms and wall street rule the roost. It's up to them to solve the problem and I suspect that when people can no longer buy stocks or refuse to do so, we might return to entranpraneurship and small business. if that is even possible with the current distribution and buying trends.

Selling stock is a tiny part of where a bank makes their money. it is an after thought. The money is made in banking ie making loans and building companies up to go public. Bankers love small companies because they are the one's who need loans to become medium companies, who then want to go public. There are countless stories of small companies growing into giant public ones. Walmart is a perfect example. Every banker in the world is looking for the next Walmart. Small commercial banks create small business. Then Inv Bankers loan money to create medium and large companies. Bankers love small companies, it is the blood of the business.

Commissions on stocks trades in the retail sector, what you are speaking of, is tiny. So small that the most profitable Inv banks dont even have retail. GSCO for example. At the institutional level, research and trading exist solely to get more banking business. I know, because i do it for a living. the bankers run the show, stock trading is a side show. Equity traders are the blue collar of the business. Retail stock sales, which is different and what you described, is tiny and not a focus of any brokerage or bank. Its not 1970. there is no revenue is it. stock commissions are fraction of a cent. .0045 per share, is a fair rate.

What is a "stock firm". you really should stop making up your own terms. do your "admen" work there and are they in charge of pushing "front end paper"? There are plenty of ways to describe a bank or brokerage, which are different fyi. you are hard to take serious when you make up your own names for already existing entities.

Here comes the banker Weekender:

We're not talking about banks. We're talking about the Gov't spending more money on Welfare than what people earn. But since you've said selling stocks is only a tiny portion of what Banks do I just wonder what most important to banks.... OH I KNOW... Laundering Cartel Drug money UNABAITED. FREE PASS to do what they want.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/elizabeth-warren-bust-banks-that-launder-drug-money-88565.html

With with the banks steal and what the poor cost us, no wonder middle class is so squeezed.

we are talking about banks because that was exactly what your post addressed. perhaps you should read your own posts. you called them "stock firms", an imaginary term that you created for the banks and brokerages but clear to all what you meant.

i addressed your post that clearly implied that banks do not care about small business and only want to make secondary stock sales. i do not agree and explained plainly why, based on common economic sense and my 20 years experience as an equity trader for banks.

your most recent post has nothing to do with yours or my last post. you can attack me all you want but it does not change the fact you do not know what your talking about.

My goal is to point out how little you understand of the topic your discussing so others do not repeat it and look as foolish as you. thank you for making it easy

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[Bertt 0]

That's poverty, not poverity. I blame the lack of spelling education in our schools. If that was a typo, I blame the lack of typing education in our schools.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

That's poverty, not poverity. I blame the lack of spelling education in our schools. If that was a typo, I blame the lack of typing education in our schools.

Typing education? Typing skill and ability to spell are two distinctly different ideas. Additionally, just because you can type does not mean that you can spell. Then there is copy editing, a different idea with its own set of skills involving both typing skills and ability to spell correctly.

Please let me know if I've made any spelling errors as I'm not copy editing this statement.

That said, perhaps the author spelled poverty as "poverity" [sic] due to having a disability, not based on typing skill or inability to spell correctly which has nothing to do with any education received in keyboard use, or spelling principles.

Can we now conclude any more discussion about poh, verty as if you are impoverished yohs is pohwah. no whata mean. Poh

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

no whata mean.

Of course we do. Always have.

[Kennedy 0]

I think this would've been a much more useful thread if we focused on government rather than the benefits recipient. That's what the article is saying: not that "welfare queens" and "lazy parasites" are out there, but that when you add up all the bureaucracy it amounts to nothing but waste. There clearly is enough money to pay every unemployed person more than most of us make. The issue is that government has decided that it is going to run the program, and just HAS to take a shitload of that money to fund itself, and voila, they need more money and more people to push paper. Then they need more money and more people to push paper. Then they need more money and more people to push paper. Then they need more money and more people to push paper. Then they need more money and more people to push paper. Then they need more money and more people to push paper. Et cetera ad debtor ad greecem.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*