Alternatives to Welfare

I am genuinely interested in an alternative to the welfare system, and I mean real solutions.

Saying things like "get a job" don't cut it when there aren't enough jobs to go around as it is right now; it also doesn't cut it when a good chunk of the jobs being created are barely above minimum wage.

There are people who were solidly middle class and have skills that are falling into poverty because of sudden catastrophes or job loss.

If you want to cut out the welfare system, okay, but give me some solid solutions instead of just generic boiler plate answers.

The top 1% should be exiled and their wealth distributed amongst ourselves.

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck


Move to a place where there are jobs and get a job.

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck


This is exactly what happened to my husband 4 years ago. He went from a managerial position as an IT director making $120K per year, to being let go and replaced with somebody from India who would do it for $30K per year. It wasn't that he couldn't find a job, it was just that they wanted to pay him like he was just out of college.

So he cashed in some inheritance property and started day trading stocks. I was not only dead-set against this plan, but was deathly afraid that he would lose all his money. He did. Cashed in some more property, and learned some valuable lessons about how crooked and rigged the whole stock market is.

It is not for the faint of heart, and one has to have a good, logical mind that sees patterns in a bunch of squiggly lines (known as Bollinger Bands). Thankfully, he has gotten good at it and we survive now on what he squeezes out of that rigged circus on Wall Street.

Trading on the regular stock market through entities like Scottrade or Ameritrade require a basic minimum of $25,000, something that most people cannot come up with.

HOWEVER...If you are intrepid, patient, observant, and just downright lucky, you can start trading on the Foreign Exchange (known as FOREX) for a mere $250 to start. They offer a practice "play" account in which you can see how you do real-time in the FOREX market, and if you seem to have a knack for it, you can open up an account. The rule is, at least 3 months of winning more than losing, and then try to go for it.

www.forex.com...

fxtrade.oanda.com...

www.fxcm.com...

This one gives you several to choose from:

www.forexfraud.com...

My nephew is having trouble finding work, so he's been playing with FOREX, and has done fairly well. If you have time, it is an interesting diversion, and at the very least, a challenging game for the logical minded folks out there.

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
The top 1% should be exiled and their wealth distributed amongst ourselves.

And when they take their companies and all the jobs with them, what then? This is why the "take from the rich" mentality fails.

Bizarre.

You've already largely answered your own questoin.

1. Take an axe to that vile "minimum unemployment law" which is euphamistically termed "minimum wage" It is a wicked and evil restricting that has put millions out of work and is decimating Western industry.
2. Cut spending on junk like space stations, rockets to Mars, opera houses etc.. (An London Evening Standard survey found that in every city where there is an opera house, the Government subsidy for a opera ticket was always at least ELEVEN times that given to the homeless dude sleeping on the steps the opera guy has to step over to get to his seat.
3. Float schools as private enterprises and charities.
4. By shutting down welfare, it should be possible to slash taxes.
5. Sell off all that Government junk like useless unproductive land etc like land down the sides of canals, residential buildings held in case the Second World War breaks out again, universities and New Jersey. Use the proceeds to slash taxes again.
6. Sell off useless junk military kit. No-one uses 1980's tanks any more. I'm sure Israel would be happy to cough up the dollars ifthey're getting no more military aid from the US.
7. Allow people without a driving licence to buy an alternative licence that PROHIBITS them from driving, but does allow them to grow, sell and use cannabis. Do not issue to the incorporatied and slap a big fat duy on the product. Permit the formation of a Weed Exchange, where cannabis can be traded just like coffee and cocoa.

reply to post by JoshF


Brilliant. Now if I don't have the money to feed myself or keep a roof over my head, how in God's name am I going to just up and move?

I think they should end all government handouts for everyone.

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
The top 1% should be exiled and their wealth distributed amongst ourselves.

LOL.



while that might work for a while, it isn't exactly the right thing to do.


there ARE good rich people, but sadly lots of them are bad.

BUT! my point is that the bad ones, are the ones that are in charge of all these laws you see being passed without a single person or free individual EVER voting a single LALALAING time for it!

like sopa and pipa and acta!

and the FDA trying to make stem cells FULL of bureaucracy and illegality when they could help so many people ( by taking stem cells from their own bodies! )

the government and the FDA, they are rich! but they are bad because of what they do with their power!!!!


every day they wake up and say " how can i maintain my power and control over everyone today "

thats all they live for. we are a game to them.

Originally posted by JoshF
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck

 

Move to a place where there are jobs and get a job.

let's say I have a job and my wife doesn't....so we move because she accepts a job...where does that leave me?

Many times moving isn't feasible....besides, who pays for the move when funds are lacking?

Way to think outside the box though.

Originally posted by JoshF

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
The top 1% should be exiled and their wealth distributed amongst ourselves.

And when they take their companies and all the jobs with them, what then? This is why the "take from the rich" mentality fails.

Then we ban the import of those companies products and let an upstart company fill the niche...a company that is American...American in it's materials, American in it's products and American in it's workforce.

Originally posted by Muttley2012

Originally posted by JoshF

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
The top 1% should be exiled and their wealth distributed amongst ourselves.

And when they take their companies and all the jobs with them, what then? This is why the "take from the rich" mentality fails.

Then we ban the import of those companies products and let an upstart company fill the niche...a company that is American...American in it's materials, American in it's products and American in it's workforce.

And then what? Once they get rich kick them out and start over again?

Originally posted by JoshF

Originally posted by Muttley2012

Originally posted by JoshF

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
The top 1% should be exiled and their wealth distributed amongst ourselves.

And when they take their companies and all the jobs with them, what then? This is why the "take from the rich" mentality fails.

Then we ban the import of those companies products and let an upstart company fill the niche...a company that is American...American in it's materials, American in it's products and American in it's workforce.

And then what? Once they get rich kick them out and start over again?

Ummm, sorry for not clarifying...I was speaking in terms of the companies that have already "kicked themselves out" by exporting jobs. Looking back, I suppose I should not have directed my outburst at you. Sorry!

Just admit that it's easier and more convenient for you to take other peoples money than to suck it up and take a crappy job. 7 dollars and hour is more than zero dollars an hour.

That's how you solves the welfare problem, eliminate it completely. Let people start remembering how to fix their own problems than get government subsidies.

There are a plethora of ordinances, statutes and regulatory schemes from local towns and cities, to counties, states, and the federal government sot that so ridiculously restrain free enterprise that even if a "welfare" state were necessary, it is, quite simply, unsustainable under the heavily regulated market paradigm. These regulatory schemes have become so ridiculous that your children cannot put up a lemonade stand and sell their product without cold hearted and cruel city officials coercing those children into licensing schemes that can be so cost prohibitive that it doesn't make any business sense to do business selling lemonade.

The strongest alternative to "welfare", which is a euphemism used to describe state or federal sponsored plunder to fund their redistribution programs, is a genuinely free and unregulated market.

The problem with a free and unregulated market is corporatism.

Corporations can and do do good things and have been an integral part of humanities upward surge. However, a corporation is, by legal definition, a fictitious entity that seeks permission from the state to exist. This symbiotic relationship between government and business in the form of a corporation, or even a "non-profit" organization, begins with regulation and demands constant regulation.

One can not be a purist in advocating free market principles. The genuine value and worth a corporation can bring to the table is a paradigm worth understanding and allowing to continue. Allowed because without their charter of incorporation there is no allowance to exist. This is the important thing to consider when considering free and unregulated markets.

It is not possible for a corporation to operate under free market principles. This does not mean, however, that individuals in business for themselves in order to earn the necessary income needed to survive, flourish and prosper, need permission from any state to do so. Earning a living is a right not a privilege. Being chartered for incorporation is a privilege not a right.

The reason for many, if not all, licensing schemes, is so that city, towns, counties, states, and nations, can lawfully and legally expand their tax base. Once you enter into a licensing scheme with government you are surrendering any sovereignty and acquiescing to all rules and regulations that come with the privilege of holding a license. It is far easier to tax a licensed business than it is an unlicensed business.

The state, and even the federal government can have compelling arguments as to why certain professions, or actions should be licensed. Failing any compelling argument that points to a genuine risk for others, licensing is dubious at best, and criminal at worst. A license, by legal definition, is permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal to do. Earning a living may have come to a point where it is "illegal" to do, and only by obtaining permission to do so via a license may one earn a living, but such "legality" is wholly unlawful. No one can lawfully force someone to surrender their right earn a living so they may be granted permission to do so.

So, here we have two paradigms mashed together to form what so many like to refer to as the "free market" or "capitalism". These two paradigms are corporatism, and free and unregulated markets. Both can and should operate parallel to each other, but both can not be compatible. If by allowing corporations to exist this means that in fairness to the "persons" called corporations who are heavily regulated that individuals - also defined by Congress as "persons" - must also acquiesce to regulatory schemes then what we have is not a free market, or capitalism, but instead corporatism or oligopolism.

Individuals do not, and should not, acquiesce to bogus definitions of "person". If there is a compelling argument as to why an artist should be licensed then sensible people the world over will recognize that and act accordingly. There is, of course, no compelling argument that I know of that would demand the prohibition and then subsequent licensing of art. I use this absurdity only to make clear the distinctions of those who have no reasonable, and certainly no sensible reason to acquiesce to licensing schemes and all the taxes and regulations that follow. However, that artist who wants to incorporate, now has a very clear and compelling reason to be regulated and taxed.

There is just not enough room in one post, and yet to those who understand, it is quite obvious that a strong state or nation is built upon the amount of people who can flourish and prosper. "Welfare" as is meant here is not flourishing and prospering. People have a much better chance of flourishing and prospering in a free market, and when free markets exist, ironically those vaunted jobs so many want today will start re-appearing and when the demand for employees becomes greater than the demand for employment, so rises wages