It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
South Dakota GOP Candidate Likens Food Stamp Recipients to Animals - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Yep, that accurately describes the sate of affairs in this country — the rich are getting robbed by the poor.
Oh well nothing says they 'care' about their fellow man than by outsourcing to government to rob from the rich to give to the so called needy.
originally posted by: beezzer
I've never been on food stamps.
But if I was, I'd have only myself to blame.
Sure, you can blame a political party, you can blame corporations, you can blame anyone and anything you want.
But food stamps and welfare is not meant to be a lifestyle choice.
For those that see it as a lifestyle choice, then they are willing participants in their own captivity.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
originally posted by: beezzer
I've never been on food stamps.
But if I was, I'd have only myself to blame.
Sure, you can blame a political party, you can blame corporations, you can blame anyone and anything you want.
But food stamps and welfare is not meant to be a lifestyle choice.
For those that see it as a lifestyle choice, then they are willing participants in their own captivity.
Or perhaps you have been a willing participant in your own brainwashing and now you are just another sanctimonious robot promulgating a falsely held belief?
Do you assume that everyone who struggles is lacking motivation? I've never collected food stamps either, I don't see what that has to do with somebody else. I've never had my house burn down, should I blame fire victims for the need for fire departments?
Are you oblivious to increasing income inequality and the vanishing middle class? The decimation of the manufacturing sector? The jobs lost to automation and computerization? How about that whole recession thing? There are tens of millions of working people, people who HAVE JOBS, collecting food stamps. What do you suggest?
I'd love for you to explain how you've arrived at your point of view.
Obviously you didn't read my post.
Apologies because, unlike some, I don't read and parrot from a pre-determined progressive script.
originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: theantediluvian
I don't know why some would accept/adopt welfare as a lifestyle choice.
Are you saying than none do?
originally posted by: theantediluvian
originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: theantediluvian
I don't know why some would accept/adopt welfare as a lifestyle choice.
Are you saying than none do?
Of course not. That would be ridiculous. In my opinion, the real question is whether those people constitute a large enough percentage of recipients to warrant your comments or if you're placing a disproportionate emphasis on abuse?
Yep, that accurately describes the sate of affairs in this country — the rich are getting robbed by the poor.
You may need to remove the gas mask because your brain is not getting an adequate supply of oxygen.
The American republic has endured for well over two centuries, but over the past 50 years, the apparatus of American governance has undergone a radical transformation. In some basic respects—its scale, its preoccupations, even many of its purposes—the U.S. government today would be scarcely recognizable to Franklin D. Roosevelt, much less to Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson.
The growth of entitlement payments over the past half-century has been breathtaking. In 1960, U.S. government transfers to individuals totaled about $24 billion in current dollars, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. By 2010 that total was almost 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation and population growth, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown 727% over the past half-century, rising at an average rate of about 4% a year
In 2010 alone, government at all levels oversaw a transfer of over $2.2 trillion in money, goods and services. The burden of these entitlements came to slightly more than $7,200 for every person in America. Scaled against a notional family of four, the average entitlements burden for that year alone approached $29,000.
You might think that if you’re on food stamps, big banks won’t be very interested in you. What could they possibly want with someone who’s struggling just to put food on the table? But it turns out that you’re actually part of a profitable business for big bank JPMorgan. While the money to pay for the stamps comes from the government, the technology to access it lies in private hands. Food stamps used to be literally stamps — that is, pieces of paper — but in this day and age paper is so old fashioned. Now you get your food stamps with a debit card, and JPMorgan knows all about creating plastic credit products.
NBC2's investigators discovered people are getting government assistance money from ATMs inside liquor stores, strip clubs and even a dog racing track. NBC2 found out how it's happening and why the state isn't doing anything about it.
originally posted by: beezzer
originally posted by: theantediluvian
originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: theantediluvian
I don't know why some would accept/adopt welfare as a lifestyle choice.
Are you saying than none do?
Of course not. That would be ridiculous. In my opinion, the real question is whether those people constitute a large enough percentage of recipients to warrant your comments or if you're placing a disproportionate emphasis on abuse?
I could give a shirt!
Do you have numbers to support your assertions?
By one measure, U.S. income inequality is the highest it’s been since 1928. In 1982, the highest-earning 1% of families received 10.8% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90% received 64.7%, according to research by UC-Berkeley professor Emmanuel Saez. Three decades later, according to Saez’ preliminary estimates for 2012, the top 1% received 22.5% of pretax income, while the bottom 90%’s share had fallen to 49.6%.
Wealth inequality is even greater than income inequality. NYU economist Edward Wolff has found that, while the highest-earning fifth of U.S. families earned 59.1% of all income, the richest fifth held 88.9% of all wealth.
Before accounting for taxes and transfers, the U.S. ranked 10th in income inequality; among the countries with more unequal income distributions were France, the U.K. and Ireland. But after taking taxes and transfers into account, the U.S. had the second-highest level of inequality, behind only Chile.
In the 19th century, new manufacturing technology replaced what was then skilled labor. Somebody writing about the future of innovation then might have said skilled labor is doomed. In the second half of the 20th century, however, software technology took the place of median-salaried office work, which economists like David Autor have called the "hollowing out" of the middle-skilled workforce.
The first wave showed that machines are better at assembling things. The second showed that machines are better at organization things. Now data analytics and self-driving cars suggest they might be better at pattern-recognition and driving. So what are we better at?
The year 1979 may very well have been the year when the middle-class in America had first began it's long decent into oblivion. According to a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report, manufacturing in the U.S. peaked in 1979 when we had over 19.6 million manufacturing jobs in a labor force of 104.6 million. In 1979 manufacturing was 21.6% of all jobs. Now manufacturing is only 9,9% of jobs in America. Today we have 155.8 million in the labor force with 11.8 million workers unemployed. That's because manufacturing has left our shores, and it has been on a downward trend ever since --- with no end in sight.
The overseas relocation of manufacturing work predates by decades the recent wave of services
offshoring.9
Major U.S. companies, initially responding to heightened competition from Japanese
and European multinational corporations, opened facilities abroad during the 1970s and 1980s
that turned out goods formerly produced by comparatively well paid, often unionized U.S. factory
workers (e.g., assembly-line workers in the auto industry).
Taken together, these developments have allowed U.S.-based companies
to increasingly fragment tasks across borders in both manufacturing and information and
business services. Firms no longer just ship goods between countries. They can now also
locate intangible production tasks, such as research, design, management, and IT support
across a number of different countries.14
Relatedly, research suggests that the extension of task fragmentation to service activities accounts
for the greater relative contribution of offshoring to increased wage dispersion (inequality) in the
United States in recent decades.15 Technological change and deunionization appear to have
accounted for relatively more of the so-called polarization of wages16 that occurred during the
1980s and 1990s.
One major factor contributing to income inequality: stagnant wages. For millions of workers, wages have flatlined. Take Caterpillar, long a symbol of American industry: while it reported record profits last year, it insisted on a six-year wage freeze for many of its blue-collar workers.
Wages have fallen to a record low as a share of America’s gross domestic product. Until 1975, wages nearly always accounted for more than 50 percent of the nation’s G.D.P., but last year wages fell to a record low of 43.5 percent. Since 2001, when the wage share was 49 percent, there has been a steep slide.
“We went almost a century where the labor share was pretty stable and we shared prosperity,” says Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard. “What we’re seeing now is very disquieting.” For the great bulk of workers, labor’s shrinking share is even worse than the statistics show, when one considers that a sizable — and growing — chunk of overall wages goes to the top 1 percent: senior corporate executives, Wall Street professionals, Hollywood stars, pop singers and professional athletes. The share of wages going to the top 1 percent climbed to 12.9 percent in 2010, from 7.3 percent in 1979.
The prevailing story that justifies tax cuts for America's entrepreneurs and investors is that the huge pots of gold they take home are supposed to "trickle down" to the middle class and thus benefit everyone.
Unfortunately, that's not the way it actually works.
First, America's companies are currently being managed to share the least possible amount of their income with the employees who help create it. Corporate profit margins are at all-time highs, while wages are at an all-time low.
Second, as Hanauer observes, America's richest entrepreneurs, investors, and companies now have so much money that they can't possibly spend it all. So instead of getting pumped back into the economy, thus creating revenue and wages, this cash just remains in investment accounts.
Hanauer explains why.
Hanauer takes home more than $10 million a year of income. On this income, he says, he pays an 11% tax rate. (Presumably, most of the income is dividends and long-term capital gains, which carry a tax rate of about 20%. And then he probably has some tax shelters that knock the rate down the rest of the way).
With the more than $9 million a year Hanauer keeps, he buys lots of stuff. But, importantly, he doesn't buy as much stuff as would be bought if his $9 million were instead earned by 9,000 Americans each taking home an extra $1,000 a year