Welfare and Immigration Stats

It has been said recently that the number of immigrants leaving the country is greater than the number of those seeking refuge currently. Is that true?

It has been said that coorprate welfare is greater than social walefare. Is that true?

It is said that the federal reserve is not federal but that it is a entinity seperate of gov. and that we just print the money we need based on false economics. Is that true?

Do you think it would be possible for america to take care of even more people while even more people do not work?

I think we can handle the whole of mankind by finding the right balance. Bottom line some have a desire to work and prosper that goes beyond money and some are here just to do other things. It is just conditioning that makes us not understand that a highly functional society living up to their job desires can be found and that greed and the feeling that some are not deserving gets in our way. It would be possible for 1000 people to keep 1000000 fed. Desire to work and create and help does not stem from money like we believe it does.

a reply to: deadeyedick

IMO I think you should answer the very questions you post. If you want a conversation then we need your opinion too.

IDK how many immigrants have been leaving the country, but I am sure some one will come along with a stat to show that is not the case and that we are being invaded.

I do agree what corporate welfare is destroying this country and every one focuses on the social aspect of it when the companies are doing the same thing and are part of the reason that the border will never get secured. They make to much money from the breaks they get from it.

The federal reserve is absolutely a separate entity, there is no question about it and they just print money and they loan that to the gov and charge interest on it. Another huge problem that gets over looked, well except in geremany

Sure it is possible, cut the spending on the war on drugs and start a war on poverty and but the same amount of money into it and I bet that puts a dent into it

a reply to: Sremmos80 ok i edited the post so now people can jump on my views instead of the questions i posed. i'm in agreement with your view. the reason i did not post some poll is because both sides have their own data. We are at a time that someone needs to stand up and connect all the dots worldwide.

>>
Do you think it would be possible for america to take care of even more people while even more people do not work?
>>

Think about it that way:

WHO are the ones who *currently* have the task to "take care" of people, eg. by giving them work....and/or by giving them health insurance?

With the exception of some halfa$$ and and failed attempts by your gvt (see: Obamacare), this is still MAINLY the "task" of your corporates. Since the US is not a welfare nation respective your social system is *extremely* under-developed.

However, as long as those responsibilities ONLY are with the corporates/employer you will have a big problem. Because those are not welfare organizations whose "duty" it is to create work for anyone and to pay for their healthcare, they work FOR PROFIT. (Whether you get work and possibly even health insurance from an employer is merely a result of that a company is running profitable, it's obviously way down on the list of priorities and merely an added benefit/bonus.)

And no, I don't think that "America" is ready to take care of even more people as long as companies/corporates are unregulated.

I also don't think that forcefully trying to emulate an European-style "social democracy" as you try to do currently will not work AS LONG as other critical issues are not solved, like outsourcing and abroad manufacturing.

California is a great place to look to see where the "limit" that tax paying individuals (citizens with jobs) can support those claiming benefits of those taxes (citizens without jobs and illegal residents with or without jobs).

Right now, California has about 12% of the country's population. However, about 34% of the country's entire welfare recipients reside in California. Municipalities and state funded institutions like hospitals are right on the precipice of bankruptcy.

Amnesty isn't a solution, economically, because it would require all of the illegal residents with jobs to start paying taxes on their income. Their income would also be subject to minimum wage laws. Combine those two requirements, and they would instantly be priced out of the labor pool for the jobs they currently have and not only add to the unemployment statistic, but also add to the tax burden by increasing the welfare population statistic. The only place these jobs could feasibly go in a short period of time would be to NEW illegal residents who weren't there for amnesty. It would be instant economic catastrophe, and a negative feedback loop. Being an economics major in college, I don't say this lightly.

Texas would be in a similar situation, however, the Texas state constitution forbids the state government from deficit spending, which is a major reason why the state is still very strong economically. The amnesty proposition would have similar disastrous effects, however.

Edit: Sources:

media.utsandiego.com...

www.utsandiego.com...

Corporate welfare is certainly a pair of golden shackles. It's almost a reintroduction of the serf/manor system. Where serfs were bound to the land, either economically, or legally, the supposed benefits of being tied to the land were things like protection, use of roads, use of the lord's property for various things. Sounds a lot like corporate benefits doesn't it?

The difference between corporate welfare and social welfare is that corporate welfare is a choice, an arrangement between an employee or contractor and their employer. The entire transaction, both monetarily and otherwise, is deliberate, considered, and of free will. Are there pressures to partake? Absolutely, but regardless of these pressures, it is still a choice. Social welfare isn't a choice. You can't not pay your taxes. I think limited welfare is a necessity of a successful formula for society, but I think things in the US, and other places in the world, have gone too far.

a reply to: Galvatron Cali is not a great example because of the droughts and decline of morals. However i get your point. There are other reasons it is not working there but in the end the money is all fake. The majority of jobs are fake and the taxes paid do not mean anything overall except that the whole model is a failure. Sure we could have a select few prospering but the goal should be for everyone to prosper in their own way. The numbers lie.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
It has been said recently that the number of immigrants leaving the country is greater than the number of those seeking refuge currently. Is that true?

NO since Obama took office the way they count deportations has been changed if you turn someone back before entering it is now counted as a deportation.

It has been said that coorprate welfare is greater than social walefare. Is that true?

No 2/3 of the Federal budget is mandatory for entitlement programs. Source

It is said that the federal reserve is not federal but that it is a entinity seperate of gov. and that we just print the money we need based on false economics. Is that true?

The Federal Reserve is a private concern authorized by congress in 1913. The economics aren't false the money is, there is no gold standard. It's only good because they say so.

Do you think it would be possible for america to take care of even more people while even more people do not work?

Not until you get the other half of the tax paying population to work to pay for the half that doesn't work and the ones you want to allow in.

I think we can handle the whole of mankind by finding the right balance. Bottom line some have a desire to work and prosper that goes beyond money and some are here just to do other things. It is just conditioning that makes us not understand that a highly functional society living up to their job desires can be found and that greed and the feeling that some are not deserving gets in our way. It would be possible for 1000 people to keep 1000000 fed. Desire to work and create and help does not stem from money like we believe it does.

Thats a 100 to 1 ratio and right now pure fantasy, the government controls farming and farm production. Besides will you want to work to take care of 100 people I think not.

A lot of people don't believe corporate welfare exists because the man on the TV has not told them so.

Try getting a politician, radio joc or social commentator to talk about corporate welfare and see what happens

Try to get the mainstream media to talk about corporate welfare and see what happens.

send emails to journalists about corporate welfare and see what happens

Most of all, try talking to those who criticize those who are out of work and watch their eyes tell you, 'I never thought of that before.'

originally posted by: learnatic
A lot of people don't believe corporate welfare exists because the man on the TV has not told them so.

A lot of people believe welfare is good because the man on TV told them so. If that doesn't work the government will run ads

Try getting a politician, radio joc or social commentator to talk about corporate welfare and see what happens

Try getting a politician to stop welfare abusers, or reduce welfare cost. Need a Obama phone?

Try to get the mainstream media to talk about corporate welfare and see what happens.

Try to get the main stream media to tell the truth about welfare abuse.

send emails to journalists about corporate welfare and see what happens.

Send emails to anyone, journalist, government or anyone in media about welfare abuse and see what happens.


Most of all, try talking to those who criticize those who are out of work and watch their eyes tell you, 'I never thought of that before.'

Try to talk to those who criticize there isn't enough long term unemployment money and ask how many jobs programs there really are.