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

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Your heart is in the right place but the root of those problems that you mentioned is government. Corporations have gained their current omnipotent state through corporate welfare, and legislation that unfairly benefited certain corporations more than others.

I also agree that our tax system is fundamentally flawed. How about a tax system that has no loopholes? Tax reform NEEDS to happen. I totally agree.

As far as "starving" their workers go, how many of those workers do you think own luxuries like cable television, a smart phone, and internet? I grew up in an impoverished household, led by a single mother who didn't even graduate high school. You CAN, despite popular belief, live on a low wage (minimum wage is another topic in itself) without starving, as long as you are willing to give up your iPhone.

Tangible assets include businesses, real estate, factory equipment, etc.

a reply to: xuenchen

Lots of shattered Progressive dreams lately.

I am going to respond with what you always use in your uber-conservative Obama-hate threads:



You lose.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Mirthful Me

I take issue with your source. It threw veteran's benefits in there. Veteran's benefits are earned through the soldier's enlistment and are owed to the person. It's not a benefit it's a damn obligation!

Speaking as a disabled vet, I have to agree with Mirthful Me. Yes, veteran's benefits are EARNED through service, but, these benefits can and are manipulated by politicians in order to influence the beneficiaries votes. Organizations like the VFW and American Legion are complicit in aiding this.

This usually means non-functioning cities, having welfare but not workfare, where getting welfare is the work because the locals aren't getting a real income.

The cities that have the biggest welfare and drug class also have the cop plantations, or gangs with drug dealers, prostitution, and other crimes, which are the criminal organizations greasing the government, and government employees working to make sure the crime isn't witnessed or brought to trial for justice. People are on welfare because their regular work gets interrupted by organized crime, which makes it too expensive to fight in court, as the lawyers have a working relationship with the criminals.

Wanting what some other guy has in his bank account, thinking you'll just pirate that cash and save the planet's woes, dream on. Success through hard work in high morality work is cost-prohibitive on the government's standards. I think about one of the richest families in town, they have millions, and are in organized crime, and because of their money they can supplement government choices. It's cost prohibitive in court to fight their corruption, mostly because of the hospital bills you'd get for trying. So their friends can break that girl's nose, sell their pills to the college, and affluenza saves their day, and cops look the other way, even deny citizens police reports, and let their "good 'ol boys" through.

People worship wealth, they think it brings super ethical standards to a society, repairs all the woes, pays all the bills. Wrong. People are poor for a reason. Mostly these days because they don't dare break the law.

a reply to: Pants3204

Your heart is in the right place but the root of those problems that you mentioned is government.

No - it's actually the corporate LOBBYING and OWNERSHIP of the government - and the obstructionist GOP who balks and throws tantrums in defense of the wealthy elite - that are the culprits.

Get rid of lobbying, and put regular people on Capitol Hill....
not old-money cronies.

Corporations are NOT PEOPLE.
Thanks, though, for your civility.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

You think this is a progressive thing?

I don't "think" it is, I "Know" it is.

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?

All because of Progressive Ideals.
Low wages are the result of "people" willing to work low and keep their own standards low.
Corporations on the National and International levels are Progressive models.
Small independent businesses are not in the Progressive model.
The Founding Fathers said so right?




Study the 10-Planks of Marx.

a reply to: Pants3204

Do you think the cost of living is still the same as when you were a kid? Let's pull out the handy-dandy calculator.

The minimum wage is $7.25 at the federal level. If a person works 40 hours a week, which in that sort of low-paying job they are not, they would make $1160 a month.

I don't know about where you live, but in my area an apartment that is not in the ghetto is around $800 or higher. If we assume they spend $800 on a place to live, that leaves them $360 for everything else.

Does that seem reasonable?

originally posted by: blupblup

originally posted by: jrod
Yet the balance of wealth is clearly the other way. The vast majority of wealth is controlled by very small number of people.

I do believe an strong argument can be made that this inequality of wealth is forcing more people to rely on welfare. We (the US) live in a society where one can work a full-time job and still be eligible for welfare benefits based on income.

Blaming poor people for the inequality of wealth is exactly what the puppet masters want YOU to do!

Exactly.... there is a reason that so many need assistance, and it's because of those at the TOP.
Not because of some sense of entitlement or some "Hand-out" mentality as many people like to try and spin it.

ETA:

I'm so glad everyone called the OP on their BS.

Please explain this to me. Let's say a CEO earns 10 million a year in pay/benefits instead of 35 million. How does that affect the 47 million people on food stamps? Does that 25 million somehow go to the government and get handed out to the poor? I can't see it having any impact whatsoever. What is the thought rational (if there is even one) behind this thinking?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Again, you mirror my exact message, but ignore the substance of it.

The lobbying and ownership of government wouldn't happen in a government that didn't favor one corporation over another.

Why do you have to revert to your party lines to defend your position? These are ubiquitous (or should be, at least) American ideals. You aren't doing yourself any favors by clinging to one half of the problem (the other half being popular Republicanism).

You are attacking the GOP for bending to corporate interests, but under the Obama administration, the EPA has come under complete ownership and control of non-government entities. The Department of Agriculture is almost entirely directed by Monsanto and a small group of corporate giants. These problems aren't exclusive to a single faction, they are promoted by BOTH factions.

Wake up people, the problem isn't the other side, it's BOTH sides.

originally posted by: intrepid

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.

I will wait for LeatherNLace to offer a rebuttal of substance.

The original claim lies there, not with me.

I simply disagree with the original claim by offering the same unsubstantiated response.

When it's my turn, I will take my turn.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: intrepid

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.

I will wait for LeatherNLace to offer a rebuttal of substance.

The original claim lies there, not with me.

I simply disagree with the original claim by offering the same unsubstantiated response.

When it's my turn, I will take my turn.

In other words you have nothing to back up your statement. Got it.

a reply to: Pants3204

Why do you have to revert to your party lines to defend your position?

I don't have a "party line" - or a "party".

I do my homework, and I see what is happening. The reason people need government assistance is because there are TOO FEW decent-wage jobs. The reason EMPLOYED people need it is because the corporations are short-changing them, and they can't get by on the wages provided.

Yeah, My Heart is where I reside - not in a "party" or on their "line."

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: xuenchen

Lots of shattered Progressive dreams lately.

I am going to respond with what you always use in your uber-conservative Obama-hate threads:

That's the spirit !!

originally posted by: buster2010
This is what happens when you allow the elite to buy the government and then create conditions that allows them to profit off the poor. Capitalism is what caused this mess not Socialism. Seeing how the minimum wage has been virtually stagnant since the 80's and has not even kept up with the standard of living increases it is no surprise that more people are on government aid in one way or another. Companies keep crying we can't afford to pay workers more while upper management wages keep going through the roof. But as usual you will have people blaming the poor for this and say nothing about those who profit from it.

I think both the rich and the poor are at fault, not capitalism or socialism, per se.

You're right that the rich have caused many in the middle class to become poor via stagnant wages except for themselves at the very top, but by the same token, the socialist-welfare-handout-gimmefreebiesmywholelife- mindset is even more dangerous, because that mindset is occupied by a much larger proportion of the populace now, and that proportion of the populace might start looking at the middle class as "the filthy rich" and the middle class just wants to be left the hell alone, from both the welfare state socialists and the 1%er capitalists.

Both the rich and the poor better watch their arses if both groups keep pissing all over the vast middle class (which I do admit is shrinking considerably, due to stagnant wages (capitalism) AND high taxes/regulations (socialism) which cause businesses and manufacturers to seek greener pastures, thus reducing the need for American workers.

Lets get one thing straight though. No one EVER started a business so he could try to employ as many people as he possibly could. EVER. No one ever does that. They start businesses to make money and make a living to pay for their family and their family's stuff. They didn't risk time, education, effort, investment, just to pay some damn burger flipper 15 bucks an hour because he thinks he should get that much. You want a burger flipper to make 15 bucks an hour? Enjoy your 12 dollar Big Mac.

You want manufacturing jobs to come back to America? Elect politicians that lower the cost of doing business and incentivize businesses/manufacturers to stay in the US via competitive tax rates/regulations.

But yes, the middle class is getting squeezed and it's the greedy and the layabouts doing it to them, and after awhile, BOOM, the proles will have had enough of both.

a reply to: xuenchen

I am laughing AT YOU, not "with you", dude.

a reply to: xuenchen

I see the problem here. You confuse Marxism with progressivism.

How sad.

originally posted by: jrod


Blaming poor people for the inequality of wealth is exactly what the puppet masters want YOU to do!

What about laying the blame on wealthy people because too many people today don't try to better themselves and fight for a higher station in life. There will always be poor people and rich people and ones in the middle somewhere.

It's easy to work a menial job and have a high school diploma and complain that you just cant get ahead.

Some people work 2 jobs AND go to college to better themselves so they cam move up. You will never be a Steve jobs or a millionaire but you can live comfortably.

Working 40 hours a week at McDonald's and watching Jerry Springer won't get you ahead and complaining that life isn't fair and blaming rich people won't change it.

I started out working at Taco Bell way back in the day and learned skills in many different areas and kept moving up in jobs, Better pay and benefits. I only have a GED because I was hit by a drunk driver my senior year of high school and never graduated. Got the GED and kept working my way up.

I am not "rich" by anyone's standards but I make pretty good money and have good benefits along with I own 2 houses (one rental) and 2 newish vehicles and toys (ATV's, a boat and an RV)

I am not the brightest Crayon in the box but I worked hard at it and it paid off. Sometimes working 3 jobs.
I also divorced my wife and took full custody of my kids and raised them alone from when they were 5 & 3 years old.

It CAN be done, you just have to do it.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Pants3204

Why do you have to revert to your party lines to defend your position?

I don't have a "party line" - or a "party".

I do my homework, and I see what is happening. The reason people need government assistance is because there are TOO FEW decent-wage jobs. The reason EMPLOYED people need it is because the corporations are short-changing them, and they can't get by on the wages provided.

Yeah, My Heart is where I reside - not in a "party" or on their "line."

Yet you single out the GOP as pandering to corporate elites, and keeping the little man down.

Everything you are saying about the plight of the lowest class in this country is true. Your reasoning for what has caused it and your solutions to it are misguided. I think we can agree to disagree.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
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.

This is the kind of ignorance that perpetrates this travesty that is upon us... What do you think one of these CEO's make? What do you think their bonuses are?

It's not much compared to the cost of "food stamps."

The CEOs of America's 500 biggest companies got a collective pay raise of 16% last year earning total compensation of $5.2 billion. That's an average $10.5 million apiece. Exercised stock options and vested stock awards account for 60% of total pay for this group of 500 firms. Those components of compensation is the reason these CEOs are on list of highest-paid.

...

John Hammergren of McKesson

One-year total compensation ($MIL): $131.2
The highest-paid CEO on this year's report has been CEO of McKesson, a Calif.-based medical supply company, for 13 years. The bulk of 2011 pay came from cashed out stock options with his salary and bonus remaining flat from a year ago. MCK stock was up 20% in fiscal year ending Mar. 31, 2011.

www.forbes.com...

$5.2 billion total for the 500 biggest companies, and $131.2 million for the highest paid individual... Sounds like a lot?

Nope.

In fiscal year 2011, federal expenditures for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps)—$78 billion—and participation in the program were the highest they have ever been. In an average month that year, about one in seven U.S. residents received SNAP benefits.

www.cbo.gov...

$78 billion? Sure sounds like that is a greater sum than $5.2 billion, 131.2 million, and certainly more than a couple bonuses... Even to someone encumbered by a public education?

CEO compensation in total is chump change compared to "food stamps" (SNAP)

Perhaps that will "snap" you out of your misguided bliss...

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: xuenchen

I am laughing AT YOU, not "with you", dude.

Thank You so much.