Feds spend MORE ON POVERITY than what workers earn.

[OHCHUTE 0]

If there is any reason not to work, it's this: make more on poverty than working!

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/07/cash-value-of-welfare-spending-to-households-in-poverty-greater-than-median-household-income/

[Andy9o8 0]

Welfare queens
Anchor babies
Wetbacks
Breeders
Darkies

There, it's done. We can lock the thread now.

[Gravitymaster 0]

"RACIST" There.... now any conversation is shut down.

[OHCHUTE 0]

With threads here like: what's wong with America and who is responsible, perhaps it's the way we spend our money that could be at the root cause of our problems.


"A new analysis of Congressional Research Service data by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that the amount spent on federal means-tested welfare programs, if converted to cash payments and divided among households below the Poverty line, would equal a daily income greater than the median household income in 2011."

[wmw999 2,149]

Will you be helping to put together jobs that the currently-unemployed can do and actually pay for housing and food?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Well, duh...we all know it's the governments responsibility to create jobs. If they shirk that responsibility, then they are clearly obligated to pay for food and housing for the unemployed.

[sfzombie 3]

after reading the article, i am confused as to what you're trying to say. i understood what the article said, however. from my experience, and maybe it's different in other states, but in wv, the people i know who receive food stamps are broke as shit. all of them work, some of them 2 or more jobs, and all of them are barely getting by. i guess the solution for them is to move. and like i said, this is based on knowing upwards of 6 families on food stamps.

http://kitswv.com

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Will you be helping to put together jobs that the currently-unemployed can do and actually pay for housing and food?

Wendy P.

Automation and offshore programs ended local handwork for low paying employment. So bring back hand work. ???? M&M's factory has no workers inside!

You can have your choice: a productive society or one that is not. I don't see much being produced simply supporting people with food and housing. The idea that a majority of working people funding the unemployed is not so good. Unemployment insurance is partly funded by the worker prior to being layed off, in hopes they'll gain other employment. But decades of welfare support isn't working. Octo mom is back on welfare. There's not enough jobs for the amount of workers mainly due to lack of small business and emphasis on corp stock firms who need to show profits so that stocks can be sold.

Also, cost of goods are a factor. There was a time when the bread winning was predominately a man, while the wife stayed home. But women wanted to work, so prices increased as a result. Now, you need two working to maintain a single family house and put kids through college. The single person is further compromised due to cost of goods meant for double income families. Are people any happier. I'm not, I wish I could stay at home with the kids, but wife and I must work!

[wmw999 2,149]

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.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[OHCHUTE 0]

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.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Well, duh...we all know it's the governments responsibility to create jobs. If they shirk that responsibility, then they are clearly obligated to pay for food and housing for the unemployed.

I'm a libertarian and find government food, housing, etc. assistance for the poor and unemployed very reasonable.

The governments are acting on behalf of corporatist interests to artificially increase the price of essentials like housing, food, health care, and education.

With an electoral system (first past the post, private campaign funding that costs $1.7M/year to land $174K/year offices) that prevents changing that (the two viable parties which result from such a system are very close together, and you're not going to outspend enough of the corporatist interests backing those parties) the best the governments can do is mitigate the damage caused by actions taken on behalf of their corporatist interests.

Local governments limit housing density and building rates on behalf of existing land owners to create supply/demand imbalances that drive prices up. The real estate PAC ranked first in contributions to candidates for every election cycle since 1998 (and presumably before - that's as far back as the opensecrets.org data goes) influences the Federal government's actions. Forgiven debt being tax free to the rentier class allows land lords to spend more at low risk and drive up values. The president appoints and senate confirms Federal Reserve governors and chairmen who manipulate interest rates with one goal being to prop up property values. The Government Sponsored Enterprises act to prop up property values through buying, guaranteeing, or under-writing privately issued mortgages that private industry wouldn't touch.

The USDA keeps prices high by paying farmers not to grow food.

The insurance industry is exempt from Federal anti-trust legislation. Since WWII "employer provided" health insurance has been tax-exempt while private insurance is not which has the side effect of getting a majority of insured individuals into more expensive plans than they'd otherwise choose. In high-tax states like California employers would need to spend twice as much on compensation to allow people earning below the Social Security cap to spend the same amount of insurance in private markets, and even if they were willing to do that the vast majority of insured getting their product through work or the government means that private rates are even higher. This makes people who can get employer provided health-insurance a captive market which caters to the least common denominator of employees who just look at the deductible and not the cost/benefit trade-off.

Federal law precluding discharge of student loan debt in bankruptcy allows private lenders to profit from loans students can't really afford based on the jobs they'll qualify for. The feds also don't discriminate on ability to repay. The net result of all that money available for education is college costs increasing at 4X the inflation rate for decades.

That corporatist crap increasing costs far beyond what they'd be in a capitalist free market makes it much harder to fend for yourself and save for periods of under/unemployment since your job has wages like they would be in a capitalist country - limited by the economic value you can provide.

Although we can't fix that corporatism, the governments lessing its impact is less unfair than them only assisting their corporatist masters.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

Will you be helping to put together jobs that the currently-unemployed can do and actually pay for housing and food?

Wendy I understand what you are saying when you are asking people for solutions to the problems they are posting about, and you have been saying it alot.

I agree with you we need a solution, but constantly saying that to everyone that posts a thread highlighting a government problem seems to me like you are saying if you cant fix it dont bitch about it.

Thats like NASA firing someone who found a faulty wire on the space shuttle because he found the issue and reported it but at the time did not have a fix for it. Im sure the person who found it (unless it was his fault it was bad in the first place) would not get harassed by others.


I think in this case half the government is the problem, half is the one reporting the issue, and replacing the whole damn thing is the solution!

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Gravitymaster 0]

I have my copy of the Constitution here in front of me. Can you point out the part that states what you believe is the proper role of government?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I have my copy of the Constitution here in front of me. Can you point out the part that states what you believe is the proper role of government?

(I'm not the one you addressed the Q to, but) It's in the first sentence of the Preamble:

Quote

...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I have my copy of the Constitution here in front of me. Can you point out the part that states what you believe is the proper role of government?

(I'm not the one you addressed the Q to, but) It's in the first sentence of the Preamble:

Quote

...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

There also is a part that states the fed only has powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution and that all other powers are left to the States

The portion you list is one of many lines bastardized by the courts over the years

This thread exposes an example of said bastardization

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

after reading the article, i am confused as to what you're trying to say. i understood what the article said, however. from my experience, and maybe it's different in other states, but in wv, the people i know who receive food stamps are broke as shit. all of them work, some of them 2 or more jobs, and all of them are barely getting by. i guess the solution for them is to move. and like i said, this is based on knowing upwards of 6 families on food stamps.

Some people prefer to keep the image that Ronald Reagan had; The welfare queen pulling up to the welfare office in her Caddie claiming benefits for 20 kids. Reagan was never able to cite any source, but that was part of the Reagan mystique, he sure was great story teller.

The majority of people on food stamps would rather be off them, they would Much rather earn a livable wage. But when it comes to the GOP tossing out red meat to the ditto heads, there's no meat redder than the dark-skinned welfare recipient.

[regulator 0]

The majority of people on food stamps would rather be off them, they would Much rather earn a livable wage. But when it comes to the GOP tossing out red meat to the ditto heads, there's no meat redder than the dark-skinned welfare recipient.

----------------------------------------------
So it seems now all we need is a system that will weed out the recipients and for the half that would like to be self sufficient give them first dibs as jobs in their area. The rest will be given a 60 day notice to find a job or their entitlements will get cut off.

Sounds good to me.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I have my copy of the Constitution here in front of me. Can you point out the part that states what you believe is the proper role of government?

(I'm not the one you addressed the Q to, but) It's in the first sentence of the Preamble:

Quote

...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

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.

[wmw999 2,149]

And some of those people will go ahead and find jobs (as happened in the 1996 welfare reform), but many of those people who were unable (or unwilling) to find work, and are cut off, become the newest criminal class.

So we then catch them, and incarcerate them, at significantly greater cost than we're currently spending on food stamps. Especially since once they have a criminal record, it becomes even harder to find a job.

The best way to cut back on welfare recipients is through easily available free birth control. That will, in fact, highlight the people who are really abusing it will stand out from the people who simply can't afford any entertainment besides sex.

Of course, that displeases people who think that the poor should just go away. They won't. The lower-than-average intelligence people won't go away either. We have to have room for all of them, becaues they're here.

As the economy improves, some of this will become less and less of a problem, but not yet. It's still tough to find a job if you don't have transportation, and even tougher if you don't have a place to live. If there are health problems in the family as well, then you're really screwed.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have my copy of the Constitution here in front of me. Can you point out the part that states what you believe is the proper role of government?

(I'm not the one you addressed the Q to, but) It's in the first sentence of the Preamble:

Quote

...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

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.

Very occasionally I experiment with engaging you in reasonable conversation. Whatever.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I have my copy of the Constitution here in front of me. Can you point out the part that states what you believe is the proper role of government?

I'd be happier if they stuck to what's allowed by the plain English of the US Constitution, although even that is far too permissive for the proper role of government. The founding fathers' likely intent is closer to right although that would be more readily perverted by the courts.

The blanket ability to regulate interstate commerce is too much even without the excesses began with Wickard v. Filburn since a literal interpretation of "regulate" allows rules which disproportionally favor some parties over others.

A literal interpretation of "To coin money, regulate the value thereof" suffers from the same problem. It's not unconstitutional for them to decide my money is going to loose 30% of its value over the next decade which disproportionally benefits those wealthy enough that they don't need a significant fraction of their assets in cash for liquidity in case of emergencies like medical problems or job loss.

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years" doesn't preclude repeating that appropriation each year or spending more than the rest of the world put together on the military with most of that money sent to private for-profit companies.

Of what is in the Constitution I am especially fond of the 10th amendment

Quote

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I'm a pragmatist though. I realize we're never going to have a Federal government limited to what's allowed by the Constitution to say nothing of a leaner beast. Since we're stuck with governments playing improper roles I'm voting/lobbying/pontificating for a government which plays a more livable combination of those roles.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have my copy of the Constitution here in front of me. Can you point out the part that states what you believe is the proper role of government?

(I'm not the one you addressed the Q to, but) It's in the first sentence of the Preamble:

Quote

...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

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.

Very occasionally I experiment with engaging you in reasonable conversation. Whatever.

As I have told you before, don't bother.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

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.

[weekender 0]

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.

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

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.

learned behavior - they could be incompetent and inefficient BECAUSE they get shored up excessively

interesting that we clearly see that giving assistance to an entity makes that entity weak and dependent on the aid and inefficient and greedy - but it's only clear when referencing something other than our pet programs

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants