It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Trump and the Coming Shocker

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

+7 more 
posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 11:44 AM
a reply to: enlightenedservant

1. I would rather have my tax dollars under my control, as in lower taxes. I do not mind paying for good roads, good schools, good police services, etc. I do mind being forced to pay for charities someone else wants me to pay for. I am quite capable of self-determination in my charitable contributions.

2. The idea, as I (and I believe millions of othe Americans) understand it, is not to completely remove welfare, but to make it more of a mark of failure than a status quo acceptance. And yes, that means jobs must be created again, so the vast majority have a route to success. I believe reduction in welfare must be achieved, but incrementally as the economy allows. I would adamantly oppose a sudden removal of all welfare programs, as I believe most would.

3. I completely oppose 'corporate welfare' in all forms. That includes the bailouts of 2008. Corporations are not people, and do not need assistance to prevent human suffering and potential loss of life like people sometimes do. I could support loan and startup assistance programs as an alternative to welfare, as long as these are assistance and not charity and are solely targeted at small business startup/expansion.


posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 11:45 AM
a reply to: Caver78

I remember thinking how smart those kids were that went to shop class ... and maybe ... went on to tech school.

But, school taught us what we needed to know back then. School wasn't a waste of time. You studied. You learned. Or failed a grade and lived with your shame.

Now ... they teach Common Core. What a friggin' joke. Anyone with a discerning eye can tell you that school has dissolved into something really really hard to define. Why I can surely see, is that the State is slowly taking our kids away from parents and making them solely dependent on the State.

Let's hope Trump's got an eye on this problem too ... but, this is an issue separate from the broke-dick Welfare System.

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 11:48 AM
a reply to: GraffikPleasure

It seems that most of the job deficiencies are in rural America. A large swath of anger from that demographic this election season. How can they believe manufacturing is coming back and say that to their kids?

I like the idea of individual sustainability within a small community. I think civilizations centered around large cities are where poverty stems from. Thomas Paine.

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 11:52 AM

originally posted by: CB328

Those are our Income Tax dollars people. Wasted on the lazy and the shiffless

Tax dollars supporting our own people are not nearly as wasteful as all the tax dollars that go to corporate welfare, Israel, etc.

I'd normally find a reason to disagree with you on principle ... but I fully agree with you on this point. Neither program can be dissolved fast enough to suit me. But the one at home has gotta go. It has been abused. It needs to be abolished ... not fixed ... not re-built from the ashes. Once it's dead and buried, we can look at the 'conception' of another solution that cannot be undermined by the greedy or slimy politicians.

Maybe a law that says something like: "If any politician makes any political moves on this law ... it will be Sunset immediately in that Politician's name ... and people must go hungry until a new solution can be conceived.

ETA: I guess what I'm trying to say is that if we have a Welfare Program ... it should never be able to be used as a political tool.

edit on 522017 by Snarl because: ETA

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:00 PM
a reply to: Snarl

I was actually talking to a guy earlier today about how there's just no way we won't be seeing cuts to at least some welfare programs soon, and I think it's about time.

I have been on the bottom of the barrel for awhile now and I do not get any welfare at all.
But get this - out of those who I do see getting it (most who do not need it), the vast majority abuse it.

For example almost everyone in the homeless community that gets foodstamps actually sells their food stamps 2$:1$ to criminal grocers and then turns around and buys booze or cigs or drugs with that $.

So who is profiting there? Drug dealers, beer companies, cig companies, and the grocers who swap 1 actual $ for 2 in food stamp $ (then rob the government).

And the administrative agencies that give out foodstamps actually know about these things specifically and do not do anything about it. Surprising huh? They must be profiting too somehow and are willing to turn a blind eye.

Anyways, I'd love to see some major cuts in welfare across the board, especially to anyone who has been on it for more than 24 months. It's time.

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:02 PM
a reply to: Snarl

I think you are looking back on the 50s through halcyon glasses, kinda like Norman Rockwell images. First of all, the economy was vibrant because the rest of industrialized world had been bombed to shreds in the war leaving the US production facilities the only ones in the world. This lead to jobs and jobs and jobs.

And the people had just fought a foreign war to save the world with many of the women working in those very plants that supplied it. Everyone was unified because of the war effort. And what was society like? Was there diversity? No

Back then things were regimented like in the army. Top down, everybody having the same kinds of accepted hair cuts everyone wearing the same kinds of clothes and shoes. Few beards because that was not the military image.

Just like in the army a man who was a private took orders from everyone else and shut up if he didn't like it. A guy who was like a corporal took orders and passed them down. Regimentation.

The production industry that had produced and produced for the war, continued to produce for over seas and at home. But here at home all of that production capacity far out stripped the peoples desire to consume and so the advertising industry took over creating a 'keep up with the Jones' mentality. Consume Consume.

And the boogieman had changed from Hitler to the USSR. Kept that war machine going, keep the fear of a common enemy going to keep the citizenry in fear.

And those 'frikken hippies' you mention. Much of what the original hippies were about was opening things up and getting away from the regimentation of the 50s, of experiments in freedom and challenging that current world order.

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:02 PM
a reply to: GraffikPleasure

I don't know the answer now. I know that the massive infrastructure signed by Eisenhower raised my family a notch. We bought an Admiral black and white and was uptown.

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:08 PM
He has to create the jobs he promised first.

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:15 PM
I remember a lot of what the opening post is talking about Snarl.

Radio played "consciousness heightening" music,
to reach people,
show them dreams of a better future,
and to help them let go.

Here is one.
It is not often that we find a song from 1972 with 10,577,422 views.
It must still be lodged in the collective subconscious.

The lyrics are pure welfare.

But what you are advocating, or . . . should I say warning about, . . . maybe predicting(?) is more akin to the music that died. It's still there, but people said "disco sucks" and it died in popularity.

How is disco like your message of a return to family, values, and self reliance?

Maxine Nightingale says we gotta get "Right Back to where we Started From."

Great song.
Much better message than the first one.
But I don't know.
With only 317,104 views it is going to be a hard sell.

Could I suggest that you make a new thread
with a message that is closer to a synthesis of the two perspectives?

Something closer to the "Open CONDOM store" song.

People seem to respond to life-style messages, my-style, your-style, their-style, our-style, what ever; and
with 2,755,266,263 views (almost 3 billion), it is an easier sell.

Mike Grouchy

edit on 5-2-2017 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:15 PM

originally posted by: MOMof3
Not many people in the 50s and 60s needed welfare.The jobs were plentiful. And you could afford housing, food, medical on one income. And because of modern medicine, people with disabilities live longer now.

...and there were pensions...
edit on 5-2-2017 by Mike.Ockizard because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:16 PM

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
I think you are looking back on the 50s through halcyon glasses

You didn't seem to remember it much differently.

And those 'frikken hippies' you mention. Much of what the original hippies were about was opening things up and getting away from the regimentation of the 50s, of experiments in freedom and challenging that current world order.

I grew up on a farm. Caught one of those up close to the house chasing chickens. I gave him reasons to never leave the sight of the highway again. -heh heh-

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:22 PM
I really hope that we do see some welfare reform - to stop the cycle of families being raised to think that this is the normal way to survive.

I am willing to have my taxes used for some things to help the poor - things that make sense.

School lunches provided for those that can not afford it is a good use of money.
This is income based, and we can be sure that it directly helps the kids, and is not traded for drugs, like food stamps might be.
I think breakfast and dinner for the kids at school would be fine too.

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:25 PM

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

Mike Grouchy


I can't let your response go by with just a star. Thanks for taking the time to drop by.

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:27 PM
a reply to: BlueAjah

While I normally agree with your opinions ... this time I cannot.

Is what you're suggesting not merely a redistribution of the re-distribution?

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:29 PM
a reply to: Snarl

You nailed it there.
When I graduated from high school was a time when you did not have to worry about finding a job if you were not going to college.
There were jobs in manufacturing that provided wages to support a family.
There were also tech schools where you could learn a trade, even if you did not take shop in high school.

Young people today do not have any idea what it could be like when jobs were plentiful.
If you did not like a job, you could leave and find another one. Employers competed for good workers.
It was not terrifying to lose a job like it is today.

The deficit of jobs has been one of the biggest contributors to the welfare epidemic.
Manufacturers have been shutting down and moving overseas for the last few decades, and it is killing us.

I think that Trump's plan to provide more jobs will tremendously help this problem, as long as people can be encouraged to get out there and work.
The reduction in manufacturing in our country has hurt lower income people.
Some people can not afford college, or are just not cut out for college.

If there are enough jobs, then welfare might fix itself.
If we bring jobs back and lazy people still prefer welfare, then that is the time to start cutting benefits.
But jobs need to come first.

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:31 PM
a reply to: Snarl

I see what you mean.
But I have a soft spot for hungry kids.
I can't let that happen

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:36 PM
a reply to: Snarl

I don't subscribe to labels like hippies and bureaucrats but I do agree things were different back then. There are sometimes hippies that serve a good cause and some that don't. Same for Bureaucrats.

As for welfare, agree that there is waste but... we are in a different economic climate where a "fair wage" isn't really enough to get by. Teenage pregnancy is much higher and divorce rates are through the roof. I think welfare is a logical response to the end result but not the source of the problem.

The source, I feel, is human greed. Greed breeds all of the issues we have in our system of government/society. It breeds laziness for those who get free money and thus don't see the need to get a job. It breed so called hippies who recognize the flaws in the system and rebel against it. It breeds people that are out of touch with what's really going on because they are much to busy making money, raising kids and dealing with day to day issue to really pay attention.

I don't have the answers to getting rid of greed or replacing the system in place, I just see it festering, rotting from within and on the brink of collapse.

It is reasonable to have a "safety net" in a system like ours as there are those that need it. I'm talking about people who strive to be independent but for no fault of their own end up homeless, hungry and/or sick.

I don't hear any politicians that have a real plan to make the system better. If I am wrong and there is a better plan, I'm all ears.

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:05 PM
a reply to: Caver78

I agree completely. There's more to fixing problems than just "this sucks so let's eliminate it". We actually have to address the underlying issues or else the problems will just keep returning.

We could even start by having K-12 schools teach more entrepreneur skills, basic investment skills, and even details on credit & debt. Because too often, we end up with high school graduates who know nothing about credit and wind up deep in credit card debt.

And of course there needs to be real job training like you mentioned. There are so many ways we can start fixing the underlying issues. And if we can do that, there would be no need for most social safety net programs because they wouldn't be needed anymore.

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:09 PM
a reply to: Snarl

Don't get me started on the education system. I''m exponentially dumber than my parents who in the 40's and 50's actually received an education. By my time it was open classrooms and ridiculous electives. NO critical thinking skills were taught. Forget latin, forget classic literature....
Just feel good stuff and "new Math". It's been downhill for my kids and I'm terrified my grandkids are going to be just walking meatsacks of dumb. We are supplementing the G-kids schooling with stuff at home they won't get in school but I believe I flipped my # when they decided to stop cursive writing.

Anyhow what I meant was more that kids from socioeconomically deprived families don't have anything to teach their kids. Those skills were lost. Now a few generations into it it's kids "sort of" raising kids and the social needs are much more than just money.

BlueAja I totally agree feeding kids is essential. Not garbage food but teaching them what a balanced meal even looks like. I was taught from a tot that it's a meat, a veggie and a were free in my home to not eat the carb but my folks worked hard to get any meat on the table and it was "wooden spoon" time if you refused the veggie. Fruit was for snacks or breakfast. Trust me when I say getting a strawberry or melon instead of another orange or grapes was PARTY TIME!!!!

But this is all part of what needs addressed with generational families coming back into society. Dinner isn't chips and a hot dog, learning to balance a checkbook, workplace norms,daily routines and time management, all this and so much more is what's missing. Just telling someone to get a job is the tip of a very large iceberg!

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:10 PM
a reply to: TheRedneck

1. If they're going to tax me anyway, I'd rather it help citizens who need it than be used to fund more wars. But I see your point here.

2. But what happens when there's a major economic crisis? Would the social safety net's programs also increase drastically in order to handle the flood of new foreclosures, bankruptcies, etc? I ask this because I've personally lived through 3 "once in a lifetime" financial crises, and I fully expect several more before I die.

3. We're in agreement with this one.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in