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

a reply to: theantediluvian

RIch people don't 'owe' society jack snip.

They never have.

People are 'owed' what they earn.

That's it.

They sure the hell are not 'entitled' to what someone else has.



People need to stop whining about what they don't have, and take a good look at what they DO have.

at least the rich have gotten richer, leaving less for the rest of us.

median wages down, wages for the top never been higher.

what the article doesnt say is how many on welfare actually have jobs. the answer is around 75%.

so you have a job, but not enough to buy food. nice. your boss on the other hand makes a years wage in one day.

stinks to be you.

a reply to: neo96

So other folks have it rough, which totally negates any hardship that we might have in our lives. That makes a ton of sense.

Oh, how I wish you'd take your own advice from time to time.

a reply to: Monger


Oh how I wish some people would come up with an original argument for once.

Life hasn't ever been fair. it will never be easy.

Anyone saying it should be is just taking advantage of people.

The 'State'.

The 'Government'.

Does not exist for pay for the materialistic WANTS of the masses by robbing from the haves, and giving to the 'have nots' so they can have more 'stuff'.

This thread, this site, the internet, and the leisure time to spend here are all products of Capitalism.

More specifically the Industrial Revolution, which happened because business was almost completely unregulated, and the money system was independent of elitist, plutocratic, collectivist-enabled finagling.

Every thinking person (except for hard wired, socialistic DNA types) knew that the welfare state's central planning mindset would lead to economic stagnation and worse. Rome comes to mind, and we have the example of the USSR's collapse as well.

But Congress did it anyway.

We could still have the Industrial Revolution Squared, after which no one would need to work more than one day per week and still have everything the richest man/woman in the world has now.

Which emperor had air-conditioning, TV, internet or a car in 1800?

a reply to: Mirthful Me

I like how the article you sourced differentiated between welfare and "non means-tested" sources of income like SSI.

I agree with you about there being a lot of people on these assistance programs. However, the fact remains that our country is set up so that people have to be on them, or so that if they get on them, it is nearly impossible to get off.

How does someone find a job who has been out of the work force for a few years while surviving on government assistance?

I think there needs to be a safety net in place, but one that functions differently than the one that we have, a safety net that focuses on empowering people by helping them get out into the work force, overcoming their barriers and creating jobs.

Some people on government assistance do need the assistance because of the way the system is set up, maybe because of the way the information they get about what they can or cannot do in their situation is worded.

But in the end, they don't all like being on assistance. I know plenty who would love to be able to support themselves if they knew how / had the option.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

That's a wonderful story and a drastic oversimplification but how else could you come up with such a linear explanation of the modern world as: capitalism -> Industrial revolution -> The Internet

Capitalism is just one part of the context of the Industrial Revolution. Where would capitalism be without globalization and globalization without colonization? There'd have been no Industrial Revolution(s) (if you even favor using the label) without the Scientific Revolution or all the advancements it spawned (metallurgy, steam power, chemistry etc etc). Of course there's no Scientific Revolution OR capitalism without the Enlightenment.

You could also say that a decline in religiosity gave rise to the Internet, that's perhaps a more true statement. I get it though — 19th century America being the closest example of pure laissez-faire capitalism, you want to ascribe what you see as the benefits to American society as being directly dependent upon it.

However, you can't prove:

1. That the Industrial Revolution would have been been any more or less transformative under a modern mixed economy. (or a completely non-capitalist system for that matter).

2. That without the social changes occurring during and after the Industrial Revolution, that it would have ever led to an appreciable increase in the standard of living for the average person let alone our modern lifestyle, including the Internet.

Who knows we could have all ended up company slaves living in company houses in company towns and working for company scrip to spend at the company store?

a reply to: neo96

Society doesn't owe RICH PEOPLE JACK S# EITHER. If society changed tomorrow so that any income over X amount is taxed at Y rate, that's not somehow unfair. There is no money, there is no economy, there are no employers or employees, there is no wealth or accumulation of wealth, and there are no RICH PEOPLE, without society. That's what you don't get — no matter how much or little rich people manage to acquire, they are better off than they would be without society.

Ridiculous infographic with "YOU ARE MORE BLESSED" in the middle. Thank God for RICH PEOPLE! PRAISE JESUS! I should make one for the super wealthy:

"No matter how unjust you think taxes are, remember that without other people, you wouldn't have anything that you couldn't achieve BY YOURSELF"

"You're enjoying a standard of living higher than 99.99999% of people have ever enjoyed, EVER — its okay to not F over the people that do the labor that makes your wealth possible, just to add an extra billion!"

"You're not more important than anyone else because you can buy politicians!"

"You inherited money, that doesn't make you a better person than somebody who did not!"

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Semicollegiate

That's a wonderful story and a drastic oversimplification but how else could you come up with such a linear explanation of the modern world as: capitalism -> Industrial revolution -> The Internet

Capitalism is just one part of the context of the Industrial Revolution. Where would capitalism be without globalization and globalization without colonization? There'd have been no Industrial Revolution(s) (if you even favor using the label) without the Scientific Revolution or all the advancements it spawned (metallurgy, steam power, chemistry etc etc). Of course there's no Scientific Revolution OR capitalism without the Enlightenment.

You could also say that a decline in religiosity gave rise to the Internet, that's perhaps a more true statement. I get it though — 19th century America being the closest example of pure laissez-faire capitalism, you want to ascribe what you see as the benefits to American society as being directly dependent upon it.

However, you can't prove:

1. That the Industrial Revolution would have been been any more or less transformative under a modern mixed economy. (or a completely non-capitalist system for that matter).

2. That without the social changes occurring during and after the Industrial Revolution, that it would have ever led to an appreciable increase in the standard of living for the average person let alone our modern lifestyle, including the Internet.

Who knows we could have all ended up company slaves living in company houses in company towns and working for company scrip to spend at the company store?

The Industrial Revolution happened. No government bureaucracies invented or built any of it. The burden of proof is on the socialists who take for granted everything that free will has done.

With the attitude we have today, only "Thermonauts" would be riding trains, and no cars would have been invented.

Passengers were astounded at first to exceed 15 miles per hour; alarmists expressed fear that the human body could not withstand such velocities, and some men took out pencil and paper and wrote coherent sentences as they whizzed along to prove that the brain could function at speeds near 20 miles per hour.
history.howstuffworks.com...

Your social change (collectivism) lead to the War Between the States and then World War I and then the Influenza. What was worse than that?

Something has to exist before the government can control it, socialism has made nothing but theft.

Days off come from increased productivity. Not from written or spoken political words.

a reply to: darkbake

True.

As I write this and everyone in this thread points fingers and hollers about greed, I am facing eviction. I am disabled and depend on SSI and food stamps and Medicaid. I don't have enough to cover rent sometimes. Why is that? Cause I sometimes need to buy things like toilet paper and soap. Medicaid got messed up and I had to pay out of pocket for meds for two months and shortened my rent and it has now cost me my apartment, my safety and belongings. The only affordable apartment in my area. My light bill and internet bill are all I have aside from rent. I have been doing all I can to try and bring in a little extra money but time wasn't kind to me. My disability isn't kind to me. I have big dreams but they fail hard when you don't have any extra money to work with. I have less than a month and no hope. The amount I owe is too great and I've exhausted options. I'm terrified. I'm devastated. I'm a single woman and I've got no children. I'm not a junkie crackhead. What's wrong with me? I'm only a human being.

Right?

Yet reading this thread just reinforces how much of a piece of crap I am as a human because of this. It doesn't matter what I do or say, I am some sort of worthless pile of garbage who wants to sit on her ass and do nothing and expect a handout. That is all I hear lately. It's starting to make me feel like its true. Maybe I am a nobody. Maybe I'm just better off dead? Then I can't mooch off the government! Sounds like it would make a lot of people happy to not have to pay into my worthless life anymore. I just *thought* I could contribute to society and BE a REAL person. Nope. It was all a scam.

Maybe you all don't want to hear this. I'm sorry. But when everyone is so busy pointing fingers and making assumptions on how people are, maybe it was time the people who are suffering speak up with their truth of what it is like. Everyone is different. Know that much.

I'm sure it feels good to know you can pull up your bootstraps and be a self made billionaire. I only can dream of such things. Though, If I was, I'd sure as hell do everything I could with my resources to make life better for people no matter what their situation. At least make someone happier. Not look down my nose at people and call them lazy moochers. I'd want to see actual proof of such and not just an assumption based on whatever.

People can call me whatever, I've heard it before...

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.

Oh they try just business see that boost of payment and then turn around and charge everyone else. For every 50c raise you get they have to pay a dollar. Spo they turn around and increase the prices on everything because they can making your raise worth less then what you would have gotten had you not had the increase.

a reply to: rbkruspe

I'm so sorry to hear about your situation...I'm sending you the best energy I can summon up, and will ask and pray and meditate on a solution. There is one somewhere, so at all times....keep your chin up.

Much love


Cait xxx

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.

Iraq War cost about $170 billion a year. Means tested programs are $1 TRILLION a year. That doesn't include Medicare.
budget.house.gov...

When you say the welfare state has won for now which welfare are you talking about? individual welfare or corporate welfare?

You do know about corporate welfare don't you? I take it you are just as well informed about corporate welfare as you are about welfare for individuals are you not?

I'm also sure you are aware of just how much your taxes are spent on corporate welfare i,e the banks in 2010, compared to how much is spent on welfare for individuals, I take it.

meanwhile in a high class pub in washington politicians from both the dem party and repubs meet to rehearse their lines before the next day's performance!
in case you haven't noticed (can't see really how anyone can not!) we are watching a political performance stages just for our viewing!

but well here is something that should make most even sicker of the play!

www.breitbart.com...

as far as the poor giving up their phone to make ends meet on their low pay wages... are employers willing to give up on the idea that they should have a phone so they can be called in at a moment's notice?

and even if the poor gave up all those luxuries, would they still make enough to cover just the basics??

and well if your poor neighbor finds that he can't do you mind if he brings in some chickens and roosters, maybe a cow onto his apt patio?

this isn't gonna stop till the 99% of the one percent finds themselves in the same position as those poor I bet! the top cats are fighting it out till it's the last man standing!

a reply to: neo96

trying to think just where did all that money that should be in the social security fund go??
it certainly didn't all go out to the recipients of the programs it was running a surplus for most of it's life and only recently started running deficits. should be plenty of money in it right???

so where is it? what happened??
well for one thing I am about willing to bet that your school didn't have a lunchroom where the ceiling was slowly caving in. If you're overweight you should try it having dust and pieces of the ceiling falling into your food is a great way to lose your appitite!!
but well the gov't had all this surplus money in the fund and I am willing to bet that some of it went to build those new schools that were built in t he 70's so you didn't have to endure that!
and where in hades name do you think all these new shopping centers and malls came from? where did the funds come from for those "revitalization programs"?
then there's the issue of losing the tax base for social security because the wages were either stagnant or falling, the good jobs were being lost, and all that extra money that the highest incomes are earning are not taxable when it comes to social security. over the past few decades more and more money has been moved from the taxable side of the equation to the untaxable.
so now that we are running a deficit we are hearing the griping?? wasn't much griping when the thing was a cash cow though. the federal gov't owes the fund lots and lots of money! and well most of us more than likely will need that money when the banking system finally dies and they raid your IRAs and bank accounts to settle their books!

a reply to: Mirthful Me

$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)

$5.2 billion distributed between a few people, compared to $78 billion distributed between millions.

It most certainly isn't 'chump change'.

I wouldn't argue that CEO's and the like are entitled to be paid more, what I don't understand or agree with is that they are paid so vastly much more. I wouldn't begrudge them one red cent of what they are paid if their employees were paid enough to fund an acceptable standard of living. But this isn't the case. It seems like the CEO's resent having to pay anyone anything, and would prefer to pay no wages at all if/when they can get away with it. And we now find that many ARE getting away with it by participating in workfare, so now you have working people not only being paid taxpayer money in top-up benefits, but now you have unemployed 'working' (workfare) people on FULL benefits.

Pay workers enough to provide a decent living and they won't need to be a burden on the taxpayer, welfare expenditure will be much less. Isn't that what everyone wants here, to stop people relying on taxpayer hand-outs?

If CEO's paid better wagers they would still have much more than the lower paid, but their workers could sign off benefits and not only pay their own way but they would also be PAYING TAXES, and then government would have more of your money to spend on its wars and corruption - WAHOO - everyone would be happy.

originally posted by: Mirthful Me
Most of the replies in this thread are unsubstantiated drivel, devoid of credibility or sourced with progressive websites that are channeling Karl Marx...

Unbelievable.....

originally posted by: blupblup

Unbelievable.....

My point... Exactly...

a reply to: Mirthful Me

OK to clarify I meant your nonsense is unbelievable.