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.

 

Alternative solutions for Welfare, Social Security, Food stamps

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: onequestion

Sounds great but how does that really address the underlying employment issues? Small businesses need paying customers, paying customers need jobs to make money to pay small businesses for whatever and so on.

IMO, what we're looking at is the predictable product of globalization, advancements in technology (primarily automation) and the shift in the sources of income for the very wealthy (growth of the finance sector, shift to capital gains, etc) and since none of those things are likely to come to an end, we're going to need to get far more creative than helping people to start small businesses because there are only so many rungs on the ladder.

I'd start this discussion with what are we going to do we do about global wage equalization, skyrocketing income inequality, etc.


You've hit the nail squarely on the head, although I'm not sure what tack you're taking on "global wage equalization". As I've repeatedly pointed out, there's simply going to be fewer jobs going forward and that means we've probably maxed out on labor participation rate. Europe and the UK have been facing these same problems for far longer than the US has and I'm not sure they've ever hit upon a workable solution. Surely one solution would be to remove incentives to reproduce, if not punish irresponsible reproduction. Since the dawn of forever, societies have equated possession of a uterus with an unspoken right to employ it. That really needs to change and particularly at the damaged end of the gene pool. We don't need more people, we need more better people and in a country that maintains an open borders, unrestricted immigration policy, paying people on the basis of how many children they have is silly.

The income inequality is a function of globalizing manufacturing and the emphasis in the "new economy" on the financial sector. When Bill Clinton took office, he found himself in a recession and talked about the need to find a new engine of economic recovery. He looked to Britain for solutions and saw they'd de-industrialized and replaced the industries with an emphasis on the financial sector. Banks, Brokerage houses, Finance concerns, etc. blossomed as Clinton removed the restrictions on the banking and finance sectors imposed to remedy the Great Depression of 1929.

One of the major problems facing people today is that the education system is broken and apparently, unfix able. There is a fix to this as used in Europe, but it's not workable in the US because of entrenched interests in the Education Industry, so I don't know that there's any solution to this problem, although...I'm hearing more and more complaints from my Hispanic friends that they don't like the current set up because it doesn't provide a path to good paying jobs for their children who have no interest in College but prefer to pursue careers in the trades. Maybe as they become an ever larger demographic, they can work some much needed changes into the system by demanding education that suits their needs.




posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

By technology I do not mean bloody tv, I mean things like aquaponics and alternate energy.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

Hello Eugenics ...



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

You know that if a person or persons digs really deep they will find they don't need much energy . One of the things I have been thinking about is that we are able to make alcohol relativity cheep .It would be a great source for heat, lights and to even power a pump for water .Of course it might not be a good idea for a alcoholic lol But its these sort of simple solutions that could work in a community for the whole . It's when you start to think global that requires the big picture and that requires big bucks . Not really worth it imo . Let the big boys have their big toy's and let us little fish ,fish :>)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
botched post
edit on 7-2-2015 by Toadmund because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




Small businesses need paying customers, paying customers need jobs to make money to pay small businesses for whatever and so on.


Well be making the funds available for business minded individuals we are putting the money where it belongs, back into the consumers hands. They take those funds buy the equipment and or space they need to run their business and they contribute to the system. By offering them tax incentives we enable them to hire people and further support the local economy which is where the strength of America originally came from.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

Cutting off welfare entirely would not be the disaster that people claim. What did people do prior to welfare? They got off their asses and worked and knew no one was going to pay for their mistakes.


Now they will get off their butts, and then break into your house.
Crime pays when there are not many jobs.
edit on 7-2-2015 by Toadmund because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: onequestion

Workfare.

20 hours a week at the recycle center, daycare, whatever.

At least have some return on the crutch.



Welfare for work eliminates the need for the work they are doing to be done by paid employees.

It also gives the government to much control over the individual we want to go in the opposite direction.

If we want people to create their own business's they need a foundation to do it out of.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1




I once helped a couple get off the welfare system . It didn't require a lot of ingenuity but just helping them find their calling ,so to speak . It worked out great for them and they thanked me many times after for the little push . I also tried to get my family members involved in a joint effort in a business .That was a disaster and really caused more harm then any good . The money I lost was really not the issue but it was the trust that was broken that took it's toll .


Exactly, we dont need to support people we need to enable them.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Toadmund


originally posted by: Edumakated

Cutting off welfare entirely would not be the disaster that people claim. What did people do prior to welfare? They got off their asses and worked and knew no one was going to pay for their mistakes.


Now they will get off their butts, and then break into your house.
Crime pays when there are not many jobs.

Right, that person is fine even though the city around them is burning.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: swanne

You know that if a person or persons digs really deep they will find they don't need much energy . One of the things I have been thinking about is that we are able to make alcohol relativity cheep .It would be a great source for heat, lights and to even power a pump for water .Of course it might not be a good idea for a alcoholic lol But its these sort of simple solutions that could work in a community for the whole . It's when you start to think global that requires the big picture and that requires big bucks . Not really worth it imo . Let the big boys have their big toy's and let us little fish ,fish :>)

What, with subsidised corn?
Until we make fuel from our trash, it will never really be cheap, monetarily or environmentally.

As far as I remember, it costs more to produce ethanol than to produce oil, probably why it is subsidised.

Besides, can you make tires, flip flops, plastics, etc. from booze-a-haul?



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: onequestion

Workfare.

20 hours a week at the recycle center, daycare, whatever.

At least have some return on the crutch.





Welfare for work eliminates the need for the work they are doing to be done by paid employees.

It also gives the government to much control over the individual we want to go in the opposite direction.

If we want people to create their own business's they need a foundation to do it out of.


Oh, there are plenty of jobs (that are not getting done now or not being done in the US) that they can do!

Picking up garbage on the roads, Recycling in the landfill, providing services for the State they are receiving money from. Hell, digging a hole and throwing the dirt in the last hole you dug.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker




Oh, there are plenty of jobs (that are not getting done now or not being done in the US) that they can do!


Your living in a dreamworld buddy. Look at the number of people on food stamps, welfare and social security then look at the bureau of labor statistics and look at how many working age americans are not part of the workforce and out of the people working look at how many of those jobs are service sector. let me give you a hint...

100 million working age americans not working. Thats means 1/3 of the population of the country is not contributing.

69% of the people working are service sector employees. Sorry man but the numbers are real.

Not to mention that even if you do start at the bottom your not getting paid enough to cover your basics for most of the jobs out there due to wage stagnation and inflation or cost of living increase. That means people dont have the social mobility they need to invest time and resources into starting their own businesses which is why the economy is stagnating and or declining.

Its really simple to understand.
edit on 2/7/2015 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Toadmund

It cant compete with oil but it can be produced cheep on a small scale . As far as tires well if you need a tire then you need to buy from someone who makes tires . I don't own a car so have no need for them .I do have a bicycle so I will buy them from the hardware store . Where there is a need there is a way . It's more about what you determine what the need is . Do you need for your wants or want for your needs . That is what community is all about . If I need to hire a car or truck I can . I don't need to own one . My needs are simple and don't require a lot to fulfill that need . Two can live cheaper then one . It only says that a group can do it even cheaper .



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
So I get caught between the idea of responsibility and a persons role within the community. I understand that in order to change your life that you need to understand what your doing wrong and correct that action. I also believe that there are times that no matter what you do you need to seek help from the community.

I don't think our current social programs really help people get on their feet. They are more like support systems. What we need is to enable individuals to create their own business's. Maybe we could create programs that eliminate taxes on small business's and fund small smaller business's for individuals with no resources rather then pay wealth-fare.

This will eliminate the lazyness from the system. We can then help people get what they need to survive themselves and make their own choices.

Why aren't we doing this as a nation for ourselves?

Stronger communities create stronger people. We need to work together and we need to do it in a way that works.


I think your proposal has some flaws in it but I do agree a different approach is needed. Personally I like, in principle, the idea of a minimum guaranteed income that would cover a basic standard of living. The 'incetives' for 'work' would still operate while savings would accrue to society by covering everyone's basic needs in a single (non-cash) system. This idea is predicated on the assumption of universal single payor health care as part of the 'survival' package.

That said, here are the flaws in your proposal:

1) Not everyone, in fact not all that many, are tempermentally suited to running their own business. Nor do they have the skills required socially or economically.

2) You define 'lazyness' as a morally objectionable trait to which I would counter by saying "lets change the system to root out agression". Here you are attempting to demonize a character trait that you don't define - not everyone would define 'lazyness' as you do. Is the artists and writters lazy and unproductive, playing with paints all day or staring at a blank page? Is the video game addict lazy?

3) More about lazyness, perhaps you mean "non-productive' meaning work that you would not consider to be of value.

A minimum guaranteed income would allow people to pursue those activities that inspire and excite them if they didn't mind a very minimal lifestyle which should be their choice. People would not have to live their lives and make decisions based on fear. People that want 'stuff' could still pursue what ever their hearts desire and those whos desires are less material could as well which would benefit society as a whole in numberous ways.

Take fear of poverty out of the equation and you deflate all manner of crime, hatred and agression along with other societal manifestations of fear and the attendent costs.

There's an old SciFi book from the seventies called "The Peter Pan Bag" or somesuch that introduced me to the idea and I believe that the Star Trek federated planets worked on such a basis.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Where do you get the money for minimum guaranteed income?

Once you set that as the floor, how do guarantee that it doesn't get outpriced by the economy?

And what incentives do people have to work beyond the minimum?



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd
Fat chance, but i like your style.

With the billions hoarded by the well to do, to leave us crumbs while we are the ones who fill their wallets.

A guaranteed income, a livable one, is a nice idea, but we are motivated by fear and the TPTB know this, so we keep chugging along with menial jobs that we hate because if we don't we are royally screwed.

I bet they (1%) don't worry much about bills and feeding ones face and having to go to work everyday to barely make ends meet.
We wouldn't work crap jobs if we had a choice to do nothing and do just as well, and they know this.
Hell, i'd take summers off.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: FyreByrd

Where do you get the money for minimum guaranteed income?

Once you set that as the floor, how do guarantee that it doesn't get outpriced by the economy?

And what incentives do people have to work beyond the minimum?



Taxes - on production.

Two ways (and I'm certain there are other possibilites) 1) a more regulated economy or 2) automatic cost of living indexing (as was common in this country during before treacle-down austerity took hold).

The incentives of excitment, accomplishment, helping others, learning, discovery.

Greed is the bases of motives for work - and is only rarely involved in excellence - though financial gain can be a side effect.

I'm only a feeble carrier of this idea...

edit on 7-2-2015 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

So if I produce something, I get punished for it by having some of my reward for having produced it stolen from me? Why would I produce especially as I am guaranteed a minimum level of support in the first place?

Basically you are saying that if I grow tomatoes, I ought to lose one tomato for every five I grow just because I took the time and effort to grow them in the first place. Then I get to watch you distribute those tomatoes to others, some of whom will never bother to try to grow anything because I'm busy growing tomatoes like the sucker I am.

There is no joy in producing something only to watch the fruits of your labor go to someone who could do what you do but they choose not to because they know you will do it for them. That breeds resentment. This is why is also part of Marx that he who does not work shall not eat.

You're advocating all of the supposed perks of Marx without the stick to attempt to keep it in balance.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: FyreByrd

So if I produce something, I get punished for it by having some of my reward for having produced it stolen from me? Why would I produce especially as I am guaranteed a minimum level of support in the first place?

Basically you are saying that if I grow tomatoes, I ought to lose one tomato for every five I grow just because I took the time and effort to grow them in the first place. Then I get to watch you distribute those tomatoes to others, some of whom will never bother to try to grow anything because I'm busy growing tomatoes like the sucker I am.

There is no joy in producing something only to watch the fruits of your labor go to someone who could do what you do but they choose not to because they know you will do it for them. That breeds resentment. This is why is also part of Marx that he who does not work shall not eat.

You're advocating all of the supposed perks of Marx without the stick to attempt to keep it in balance.



That is -- the basic social contract - giving part of what you produce in return for the benefit you receive as part of a community. It has allowed humans to build civiliation.

And again, you seem to really believe that the only motivation any person could have for producing is profit and this after I listed several other motivations for work and care. I didn't work for twenty years to raise my daughter because of greed, I did the work not for payment, but for the joy of it.

You are free to live apart from society if you distain the social contract - perhaps you should. But as long as you are receiving any benefit from the work and production of others - you owe society something of your own produce (we modern folk call that sharing Taxes).

Taxes or other ways of giving to the group can only be considered theft if you receive no benefit from the group - a clearly there is no body using the internet that can say that.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join