It's over... The balance has tipped and the welfare state has won... For now...

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Pants3204

Bullcrap. Big steaming pile of it.

Yes, they DO hoard their wealth.
Get with the program.

Not only hoarding but also avoiding taxes and hiding their money off-shore in tax-havens and through questionable schemes.

In other words we are finally and officially a welfare state, the elite has manage to kill the middle class and has converted the nation into a two classes, the welfare class and the filthy rich.

Congratulations America.

a reply to: blupblup

Yep, I edited my post to say so.
Thanks for helping the cause.

originally posted by: Pants3204

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: MentorsRiddle
We need to go back to the sort of capitalistic society our forefathers wanted in which the corporations and banks were very tightly regulated and the minute they pulled some shenanigans.....they were done.

That is not what the founding fathers wanted.

The only regulation required (aside from a few things) is that which is provided by free enterprise. The power of competition is a much more powerful tool than government regulation, which leads to the situation we have today.

Not true.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court’s decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court’s attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the (Dartmouth College v Woodward) ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people’s message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state’s powers over “artificial bodies.”

We fought for independence from the British to not only gain our independence from the government, but also from their banks and corporations. That's why we had a corporate charter system in place to regulate them to the teeth!

Source

Please research this issue and find the real truth.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs


No worries.... there were some threads on here before, I'll check my posts/search see if I can find them.


Yeah here ya go, the poster did 2 threads on it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Mirthful Me

There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established by individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do, when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered. He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed.

-- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice

also:

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

-- Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Robert Morris, 25 Dec. 1783

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I think you are mistaken. The modern United States, and much of the world, is a complete perversion of the principles which made it such a prosperous nation.

Perhaps I have misrepresented my position, I completely agree with the sentiment that income inequality and poverty are pandemics in the modern world. I disagree that more government and more welfare (both corporate, and for the impoverished) is the solution.

As for the "hoarding" of wealth, I think the common perception is that the extremely wealthy dump their money in some offshore account and let it sit, completely sedentary, which is false. If that was true, their fortunes would be dissolving undesirably quickly from the effects of inflation and quantitative easing. Typically if you have amassed great fortune for yourself, it wasn't through losing money. A majority of the wealth of the nation is in tangible assets and financial services, both of which contribute greatly to the general wealth of the country.

a reply to: Mirthful Me

I see little hope of correcting this political malfeasance

Ironically, the majority of these recipients live in the southern, red states. Those folks generally vote Republican and against their own self interest, so I wouldn't give up hope if I were you.

a reply to: blupblup

I actually thought that by now it was common knowledge - but kudos to that poster and his threads.

It reminds me of the insurance commercials, "Did you know that 15 minutes could save you 15%...." "Everybody knows that."

Kind of a thing.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Mirthful Me

There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established by individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do, when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered. He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed.

-- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice

Socialism.

What we need is to take some tips from China. They have a capitalist communist society and their economy is booming. They both can coexist, but it depends on whether or not we can put aside the bias' that we have been fed over the years.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

originally posted by: Mirthful Me

109,631,000 Americans lived in households that received benefits from one or more federally funded "means-tested programs" — also known as welfare — as of the fourth quarter of 2012, according to data released Tuesday by the Census Bureau.

...

When those receiving benefits from non-means-tested federal programs — such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and veterans benefits — were added to those taking welfare benefits, it turned out that 153,323,000 people were getting federal benefits of some type at the end of 2012.

www.cnsnews.com...

There's no doubt that this dependent class has done nothing but increase in size since 2012. The only thing that will end this socialist bloat is it's eventual collapse under it's own weight when there are too few people actually working and producing to tax and prop up this horrific blight. This government hand out dependence may ensure socialist victories over the next few election cycles, but may spell the end of our once great republic.

I see little hope of correcting this political malfeasance and saving this great, no, this extraordinary experiment that was ingeniously crafted and corrupted by graft and misguided largesse... The disease is set to run it's course now that critical mass has been reached..

Anybody buying this garbage? I'm not. 2-3 CEO bonuses could cover food stamps for the whole nation. 1 year of the Iraq war could cover welfare easily. Critical mass? A vast majority of these people are apolitical and don't even vote.

Numbers show the impact.

Can we see what numbers you are talking about?

You know, so we can compare.

Progressive Social/Economics has been here since the late 1800's early 1900's; The Fabians and the early Progressives.

Progressive Economics for decades and the results have the problems getting worse.

Time to re-think I think.

Lots of shattered Progressive dreams lately.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The sad thing is... people really don't know this stuff. Even on ATS you get people arguing and bashing poor, jobless people, claiming that the're stupid, lazy, lack motivation etc, while not even taking into consideration the concerted effort from the elite/super-rich to strip everyone else of all their money and make money off of others misery, get everyone on low-hour, low-pay contracts and generally screw everyone over and accumulate more money.

This stuff doesn't really get reported.... plus Storage Wars is on... ya know, who has time!!??


*rolls eyes*

So let me get this straight. Social welfare = bad. Corporate welfare = Good. Have I got that right?

a reply to: Pants3204

Typically if you have amassed great fortune for yourself, it wasn't through losing money. A majority of the wealth of the nation is in tangible assets and financial services, both of which contribute greatly to the general wealth of the country.

Yes, "financial services" - which is nothing but a legal gambling hall called "wall street" and is ALSO a big steaming pile of orchestrated crap.

The "general wealth" of the country? If consumers can't CONSUME (not even enough food!, let alone invest in the 'stock market') - that is NOT the "general wealth" of the country.

As I said before, I thought this was common knowledge by now. The super-rich are above the law, own the government, do whatever the hell they please with their money, and make "more" by simply clicking on a button. That is NOT WORK.
That is racketeering. They starve their workers (and expect taxpayers to make up the difference), exploit them, and take advantage of EVERY loophole that they can find to avoid paying their FAIR SHARE.

As for "tangible assets" - what are you talking about?
People who hold stock in "Gold" that doesn't even exist?

Perhaps you do need to study the history and reality of this a bit more.
And read some Thomas Paine.

a reply to: xuenchen



You think this is a progressive thing? It has been the out of control capitalist fascists that have created this problem.

Why is it that the corporations get to pay crap wages, increase their prices, lobby the government to pass friendly legislation, the government has to subsidize their work force with welfare because they are paid next to nothing......and then the corporations get to make money providing the systems to disperse the welfare funds?

You are way off my friend.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: xuenchen

You think this is a progressive thing? It has been the out of control capitalist fascists that have created this problem.

Why is it that the corporations get to pay crap wages, increase their prices, lobby the government to pass friendly legislation, the government has to subsidize their work force with welfare because they are paid next to nothing......and then the corporations get to make money providing the systems to disperse the welfare funds?

You are way off my friend.

Amen Brother!!

a reply to: Mirthful Me

Rich people need everyone else, not the other way around. You want to know how the system is really broken? The level of income disparity we are experiencing is unsustainable. How can we justify 5 people (the Walton heirs) having more wealth than the bottom 40% of their countrymen? 6 people worth more than 125 million people?

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
a reply to: Mirthful Me

I see little hope of correcting this political malfeasance

Ironically, the majority of these recipients live in the southern, red states. Those folks generally vote Republican and against their own self interest, so I wouldn't give up hope if I were you.

I disagree about the generalized "Red States".

I think the problem lies in the heavy Democrat voting pockets, many are in "Red States".

Missouri comes to mind.

You need to analyze each voting precinct and compare the "welfare" ratios.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
a reply to: Mirthful Me

I see little hope of correcting this political malfeasance

Ironically, the majority of these recipients live in the southern, red states. Those folks generally vote Republican and against their own self interest, so I wouldn't give up hope if I were you.

I disagree about the generalized "Red States".

I think the problem lies in the heavy Democrat voting pockets, many are in "Red States".

Missouri comes to mind.

You need to analyze each voting precinct and compare the "welfare" ratios.

Statistics please. You'll forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.

You have a very nice little nutshell of a perspective there Mirth.. That philosophy wraps itself up and explains EVERYTHING. Everything of course except, all of the things it leaves out. Increasing population mixed with the vanishing jobs come to mind. Are there lazy bums taking something for nothing? Sure there are. But we gotta see the bums at the TOP who do the same. How is it that it is so easy for some to see the lazy bum sitting on a beat up couch all day and not see the lazy bum sitting in his own yacht smoking Cubans. Neither category can be generalized like you and I have just done.