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.

 

110,000,000 (Million) People On Welfare In The US

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Walmart employs 1.4 million people.
So maybe 750k?




posted on May, 11 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

There's rich irony in that! I'm sure you recall hearing Clinton as President talking about the need for "an engine of economic recovery". He found it by looking to England where changes in regulations had made it possible for the Banking and Financial industries to become the largest and most profitable sectors of their economy.

So.........Clinton pushed through banking reforms that made it possible for the banks to engage in the hugely profitable speculation schemes, (derivatives) that contributed to the 2007 Financial crises. I don't attempt to lay blame at anyone's feet for the "Great Recession"........too many had a hand in it, not the least of which was GW Bush for his disastrous and financially ruinous invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. And so we sit here today on what, 17 Trillion in Debt?



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: 727Sky

Those are staggering statistics. I honestly find them hard to believe, but even more difficult to fathom. It seems we are looking at Depression era numbers here.

And this at a time when unemployment is said to be at 5%?
Of course, there's alternate ways to calculate unemployment: www.shadowstats.com...

Imagine what the fall out would be if we had another "Great Recession".

Bill Clinton is out on the campaign trail saying that we have never recovered from the recession that began in December of 2007.
He is blaming Obama.
Obama blamed Bush, but then tried to push our economy as a thriving one.


Clinton should take responsibility for signing and championing NAFTA



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Unfortunately the US (and other countries) have not confronted the elephant in the room and nothing is being done to prevent the haemorrhaging of local economies.

I've said this plenty of times in the past but I don't think people get it. I'll try again though...

Imagine you have a community of maybe ten thousand people. You have probably 500 small businesses serving that community. Then a Walmart or a Target opens up and at least 50% of those small businesses close as a result of it.

People think they're getting a good deal, because the prices are lower. In reality, they're employing fewer people than the small businesses they shut down, they're probably paying those employees far less money too, and they're paying their American suppliers less for the products because the manufacturer or farmer has no choice but to agree to a contract with Walmart or Target to be able to stay in business.

Now, all of this on the face of it might not be too bad, if that corporation wasn't funnelling money OUT of that community into a centralized pool - usually offshore to avoid paying taxes too.

Those smaller businesses were hiring local people, paying them money from their profits, which were then recycling through the community in an almost constant flow which might shift up or down slightly depending on the week or month and the money coming into and going out of that community.

But now, with that corporation in there funnelling money out of the community into its bank accounts, paying less to the local employees, and them spending it again with that corporation, you end up with less and less money in that community.

People desperately need to start supporting smaller local businesses and stop supporting these massive corporations. Until measures are in place to force these corporations to bank locally and keep money in these communities it's only going to get worse.

edit on 11-5-2016 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: 727Sky

Those are staggering statistics. I honestly find them hard to believe, but even more difficult to fathom. It seems we are looking at Depression era numbers here.

And this at a time when unemployment is said to be at 5%?
Of course, there's alternate ways to calculate unemployment: www.shadowstats.com...

Imagine what the fall out would be if we had another "Great Recession".

Bill Clinton is out on the campaign trail saying that we have never recovered from the recession that began in December of 2007.
He is blaming Obama.
Obama blamed Bush, but then tried to push our economy as a thriving one.



Clinton should take responsibility for signing and championing NAFTA
And Hillary!
Although she denies it now, she was caught on tape supporting it.
edit on b000000312016-05-11T08:14:03-05:0008America/ChicagoWed, 11 May 2016 08:14:03 -0500800000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: butcherguy

There's rich irony in that! I'm sure you recall hearing Clinton as President talking about the need for "an engine of economic recovery". He found it by looking to England where changes in regulations had made it possible for the Banking and Financial industries to become the largest and most profitable sectors of their economy.

So.........Clinton pushed through banking reforms that made it possible for the banks to engage in the hugely profitable speculation schemes, (derivatives) that contributed to the 2007 Financial crises. I don't attempt to lay blame at anyone's feet for the "Great Recession"........too many had a hand in it, not the least of which was GW Bush for his disastrous and financially ruinous invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. And so we sit here today on what, 17 Trillion in Debt?

They all seem to be talented at taking credit for anything good, while blaming for anything bad.
They work together.
I will join follow suit and blame them for everything bad.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I checked out a fast food place yesterday- it had been a while.

The food that I lived off of through college has all doubled in price, but the kids making it are getting paid the same.

My electric bills have always been a bit on the high side from the equipment I run, but 150 is becoming the norm- five years ago, that norm was 75.

I spend a small fortune on groceries, but it's plausible that's just because I buy expensive food these days... but I suspect the cheap food isn't as cheap as it used to be.


This is inflation- the generation in the US that's retiring now started the hyperinflation trend and averaged huge pay increases and profits from property sales. They never died off, though- the generations below them never inherited any of that wealth. Most of the money that wasn't taken to the banksters was gobbled up by huge corporations. What escaped is sitting in banks belonging to the few rich, rather than moving around.

Debt based money doesn't work- but it fails much harder if it's locked away.

It has to, and will, collapse in on itself.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy


The reason politicians try so hard to get

re-elected is that they would hate to try to make

a living under the laws they've passed.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   
The welfare situation here in the uk is in a similar state, part of the reason for this is

Back in the early 21c a new benefit payment was started, working tax credit. It was supposed to suppliment earnings for those on low wages, to help ensure financial security for families. This benefit is means tested, to ensure it helps those who need it the most. (according to the government)

I claimed this myself for a time, earning £15,000 pa part time, three teenage children and single (no child care needed as part time work). Bless the labour government for donating £800 every four weeks into my household account.

A member of my family was married with a detached house and four young children, he earnt £40,000 pa (with overtime) his wife was a stay at home mum. The government felt that they needed another £500 every four weeks too.

In my opinion working tax credits played a large part in creating our present economic situation as the government in their wisdom decided that although tax credits were means tested, child support payments from an absent parent were to be disregared when calculating benefit payments. This seemed like a great idea for those on low wages who received £25 per week child support, however it created a huge problem in society.

Just supposing a female on minimum wage chose to fall pregnant by a guy earning £40,000 pa she would be given a home, be able to claim tax credits based on her low income, maximising her monthly income then gain something in the region of maybe £7,000 pa child support, taking her total income up from maybe £15,000 pa to £22,000 pa. That doesn't seem like an excessive income however if you then consider that the same women had three children by three men who all earned £40,0000 pa, her total income from child support alone would be £21,000 pa, her benefit entitlement would go up too, so her low wage could potentially go up (with the help of tax credits) to £20,000 pa. In total earning £41,000 for being a part time shop worker with three children whos fathers happened to be hard working and motivated.

Once the rules governing this benefit were worked out by the general public, the amount of single parent women having breast implants, expensive cars and all inclusive holidays abroad shot up.

While this was happening, the big companies cottoned on, they took advantage of the welfare situation that topped up low wages, employing many more part time staff (cheaper taxes etc). The profits shot up, the shareholders became wealthier so those with enough wealth to invest grew wealthier, those whose who claimed benefits grew wealthier. (The only group that lost out was those who earnt too much to claim anything, but not enough to be able to afford to make good size investments)

This ensured that the unskilled and poorly educated people were doing well in life, so encouraging them to have some faith in our governments, trusting the system, those with inherited wealth, family connections etc were the government enjoying the privilages of the system, leaving the average person who didn't/couldn't use financial loop holes working hard, paying huge amounts of taxes wondering why they were worse of than those who were lacking personal dignity and pride.

The point of me explaning all of this is that in a very generalised way it shows how the powers that be have manipulated the economic situation to their advantage in every way. We now have a situation where much more money is in the hands of the sheeple, they spend it on cosmetic surgery, holidays, flat screens, tablets, laptops, mobile phones, pre-prepared food full of unhealthy junk, packed in unhealthy junk and with far less nutritional value than food used to hold. These people are spending money that doesn't exist, on things society shouldn't value, drinking in the propaganda from main stream media all the while dumbing themselves down, becoming even more enslaved to a consumerist society, the profits of which flow upwards and stay there.

(To me this seems to go against the laws of nature, as far as im aware, the only thing on our plant that naturally flows upwards is hot air!)

At this present moment, our government has cut right back on benefit entitlement due to balloning costs. Out of all those that were entitled to claim a few years back, the only people who are sailing through austerity are those with the large child support payments.

We too now have a huge % of our population claiming something from the government, (far more that the numbers given for unemployment benefit) Many of those who grew up with this welfare system seem to have a sense of entitlement, believing that the tax payer should enable them to have a decent standard of living, they seem to be missing the necessary skills and/or motivation to make financial changes themselves. (a single parent with a mortgage, a part time job and five children once told me that she had never resorted to claiming benefits. The large amount of tax credits she received were not in her mind welfare benefits, this boggled my mind)

Sorry for waffling on, this is something that really gets me wound up, todays society has successfully created a generation of people that have a huge sense of entitlement (think the young newly weds who expect to buy a new home, while having holidays aboard, a decent car and a social life, compare that to the newly weds of earlier times who saved hard and went without for years to save for a home while bringing up children)

This subsection of society took huges amounts of money from our government, funnelled it back to those who run our government, the very people who can afford tax avoidance advice.

So taking this to an extreme, when our country hit its financial limit in terms of expenditure, the rug was pulled away from under those who benefited the most, leaving a large % of this group intellectually dumbed down with a sense of
entitlement, creating a group of people that it no longer benefited the government to have around.

I expect that slowly but surely people from this group will either adapt mentally to the new conditions or die out.
Leaving those with useful skills, motivation and intelligence to rebuild our economy. Once it is rebuilt, when the poor are again useful as a "money laundering service" they will be encouraged to develop a sense of entitlement yet again, with the ultimate aim of funnelling the income of the hardworking up to those with status and privilage.

Perfect system! I suspect this is happening in many first world countries, including the us. Perhaps someone can tell me if they see similarities in the way america runs its welfare system?

Apologies for the length of this, I hope at least one person can make sense of my thoughs.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
How many of those 110 million are Walmart workers?



I wouldnt blame walmart itself.

I would ask why are there not many jobs between Banker/CEO and minimum wage burger flipper/shelf stacker. And what is the government doing to help create the middle jobs?



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   


Though one has to bear in mind in most of these cases it’s not really the individuals fault but rather the system that has trapped them into this mess.
a reply to: crazyewok

Why must one bear in mind that which you state?

Take "Lobster Surfer Dude" who was on several MSM interview showing his lifestyle of living in Ca,, taking turns in crashing at his pal's homes, surfing every moment he can, and using Food Stamps and his $200 a month stipend on lobster and other luxury items at a supermarket.
He just knows his band will make him a rockstar one day!
He loves the life he has with his free money....How is he trapped?



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: NewzNose

Of course there are those that abuse the system!

That is going to happen and those that do should be locked away for a very very very long time doing hard labour.


But not ALL welfare recipients are fraudsters, babymommers and work shy. Those that are should be punnished.

And no im not saying its right to have a large welfare state either.

People should if able bodied work.
But work needs to PAY. It needs to pay enough to live on.

More middle income jobs need to be created.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

My wife does the grocery shopping and if I go with I go to electronics (I need an intervention). One day I walked with her while she was shopping and I was in shock. A pound of ground beef was five dollars.




posted on May, 11 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Government has created too many perverse incentives that encourages people to be on welfare of any kind...

Notice government brags about how many people are on food stamps as if that is something to be proud of. The measuring stick should be how many people are not on food stamps. The goal is to reduce people needing food stamps and other benefits, not increase the roles.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: 727Sky

Could you imagine finding jobs for all those people, it clearly shows that there isn't enough jobs to support the entire populace of the US, and there will always be big time unemployment.

I'm not sure if you can receive welfare, and have a job on the side.


A lot of welfare actually requires that you work. For example, people working as many hours as they can at Wal-Mart are given welfare by the government to subsidise their low pay. Some people think that the welfare is actually enabling Wal-Mart to pay their employees less.
edit on 11amWed, 11 May 2016 09:34:33 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
"Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction. What is true  —  and the reason that a lot of Americans feel anxious  —  is that the economy has been changing in profound ways, changes that started long before the Great Recession hit and haven’t let up."

- Barack Obama Jan 2016



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Cost of living is rising higher than my putrid annual 2%-3% raise i get every year. In the last several years we don't even know if we will be able to get a raise.

I have no problem people who deserve to be helped. I think some mandates need to be set in order to receive welfare.

1). Mandatory drug tests. I know there was a study recently that said that would actually cost more money to do but I don't care. It's worth it imo.

2). Those on any form of welfare must volunteer work X amount of hours per week/month. Now those unable to work due to medical issues would be exempt.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Those numbers are not surprising given that we subsidize poverty so much.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
That sure is a lot of Democrats!

signed,
Republicans



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
My electric bill was 144$ last month with absolutely no time running AC or heat. In the summer months, it would be anywhere from 220 to 280$ dollars. Gas bill was 60$ last month. Water bill is always over 100$. This without having a sprinkler system. 80$ for Internet. It is a freaking sham.

Break it down even more? There is a 40$ "grid access" fee for electricity each month. About 40% of the gas bill each month is an "access charge." There is even a 30$ "access" fee on the water bill at least each month.

Where do I live for these outrageous access fees? In the Suburbs of a city with a population over 500,000. It is an absolute joke. My home is built into the grid, etc etc, already correct?

On another note, i do not buy these numbers. Too high not too low. A year ago after my accident I applied for absolutely every form of welfare available in my state for somebody with a home of three and an income below 1500$ a month. Do you know what I qualified for? Free pre school at 2 locations in the entire city. Food stamps for 3 months. Denied for everything else. Everything.

I dont believe these numbers for a second.

Yes i did get a tax credit at the end of the year. But so did my buddy who is serving in the Army. And he got double said tax credit. 2 kids. This on top of housing allowance.

And a yearly tax return credit does not help nearly as much as a monthly amount. Yeah yeah yeah. Budget better. Or have to spend it all on your car when it craps out because you have it. = reality
edit on 11-5-2016 by lightedhype because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-5-2016 by lightedhype because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join