50% of all households in America getting some type of welfare

caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com...-149 5208

A lot of people are down on there luck in todays economy. Some refuse to work and I really don't blame them. Who wants to work for practically nothing?

I have an idea lets keep electing rich greedy buisness men to run the country. I'm sure they have the average Americans best interest at heart right?

Scary thoughts. That means that half of households are at or very near the poverty line, which isn't really all that much.

They ask what it means in the link. What it means is that the only thing keeping America from becoming a 3rd world country pretty much overnight is that safety net system. It's scary when you consider that our safety net system is actually not all that great when compared to many industrialized countries.

Originally posted by wantsome
I have an idea lets keep electing rich greedy buisness men to run the country. I'm sure they have the average Americans best interest at heart right?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again, and expecting different results. Einstein.

What Einstein said.

We'd like to assume that if your getting some type of welfare, then your not well off, your poverty stricken. This is not the case, there are so many loopholes, I think it is actually a very small % of people who actually NEED help, not WANT it because they screwed up their lives.

Originally posted by andersensrm
We'd like to assume that if your getting some type of welfare, then your not well off, your poverty stricken. This is not the case, there are so many loopholes, I think it is actually a very small % of people who actually NEED help, not WANT it because they screwed up their lives.

Citations or is it the perpetual echo of Reagan's mythical welfare queen

reply to post by wantsome


And this post has America's best interest at heart? In what way? What is your plan???

You know - if employment is at 20% - that means 80% of us have jobs - either corporate created or created by ourselves. Yes, us, the self-employed individuals.

As inflamatory as your post is, I am not really sure what the point is that you are trying to make. Hate the rich? Hate the down and out?? Or just hate everyone for what they have because "I" don't have it?

I am not one of the 50% on "benefits" nor did I care to be. That's why when I found myself unemployed, I created my own business and never looked back.

Maybe some people just need to work for it.

Originally posted by IceFlower
reply to post by wantsome

 

And this post has America's best interest at heart? In what way? What is your plan???

You know - if employment is at 20% - that means 80% of us have jobs - either corporate created or created by ourselves. Yes, us, the self-employed individuals.

As inflamatory as your post is, I am not really sure what the point is that you are trying to make. Hate the rich? Hate the down and out?? Or just hate everyone for what they have because "I" don't have it?

I am not one of the 50% on "benefits" nor did I care to be. That's why when I found myself unemployed, I created my own business and never looked back.

Maybe some people just need to work for it.

edit on 8-2-2012 by IceFlower because: correct %

Well shame on you for being realistic.

In America, you don't have to work, only if you want to, and this is fine, but if you don't take care of yourself you shouldn't expect anyone else to, and soon thats the way it will be.

reply to post by wantsome

Some refuse to work and I really don't blame them.

Really? Then who should we blame for someone refusing to work? The government? Not being able to find work, and refusing to work are two VERY different things. If you are down on your luck and cannot find a job then at least you are trying to be a productive member of society. Those are the people who deserve the help. Those who are legitimately attempting and actively trying to be a productive member of society but cannot because of the economy.

Those who REFUSE to work deserve nothing.

Who wants to work for practically nothing?

Everyone has to start somewhere. Even if that is in a job that pays little at first. A little hard work and perserverance leads to promotion or better job opportunities which lead to better pay.

The Federal minimum wage is $7.25 and hour. Yes, I understand that that seems meager. But, that is the federally mandated MINIMUM. If you visit the Department of Labor website, you will see that many states have state legislation which sets their minimum wage ABOVE federal minimum wage.

Many jobs pay above the federal or state mandated minimum wage anyway. Also, if you work at say a candy store as a 15 year old, $7.25 an hour is plenty of money.

At first, one may not be able to live how they want, but one can make a living. It is a trajedy that so many Americans have worked so hard before us to give us the opportunity to live the way we do just to have recent generations expect, no, demand to be GIVEN a lavish lifestyle that they feel they are ENTITLED to.

Everything takes hard work, education, learning a trade and perserverance. There are those out there that, like you say, REFUSE to work. And we should have no pity for them. Those are the ones that see others with things like houses and cars and televisions and DEMAND they have those things as well without contributing anything. Poverty in the United States is no comparison to poverty anywhere else.

I have an idea lets keep electing rich greedy buisness men to run the country. I'm sure they have the average Americans best interest at heart right?

Actually, let me fact check this for you.

In this article, it says the contrary.

According to CQ Today, in the 112th Congress, law is the dominantly declared profession of
Senators, followed by public service/politics, then business...

It then goes on to say...

for Representatives, business is first,
followed by public service/politics, then law

If we take this into consideration with the fact that President Obama and Vice President Biden were BOTH Attorneys in prior occupation, it would seem that if we had an occupation which we could place blame it would be on the LAWYERS.

But attempting to place blame seems ridiculous when we are talking about anyone who REFUSES to work.

reply to post by andersensrm


As it should be.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


I would give this post 1000 stars if I could.

Very well said.

Bravo!

When I say lets keep electing greedy rich buisness men I'm refering to the people at the top that want more for theirselves and less for everyone else. I'm talking about the people that keep sending jobs overseas. There are over a billion cell phones in the world and not one of them was made in the united states.

When I said I don't blame people for not working I'm talking about the people on unemployment that lost good paying jobs. I don't blame them for sitting on thier rear and collecting unemployment when the next job they get pays substantially less. I'm talking about the people forced to work at Walmart and spend half their pay on driving just to get there.

People are fed up and I don't blame them one bit for taking advantage to whats out there. The whole idea that you get what you put into capitalism is a farse. For lots of people the Amerian dream is dead. We've been sold out so those at the top can increase thier bottom line.

There's a world of difference between "welfare" and "government assistance". The figure is so ridiculously high because they include those receiving social security and unemployment benefits. Those are both neither welfare or assistance since those collecting also paid in to the system.

Originally posted by wantsome

People are fed up and I don't blame them one bit for taking advantage to whats out there. The whole idea that you get what you put into capitalism is a farse. For lots of people the Amerian dream is dead. We've been sold out so those at the top can increase thier bottom line.

I am at the top of my business and as much as you might find this distasteful, I do wish to increase my bottom line. Know why?

So I can hire employees! Yes, actually get people off government assistance - give them a salary, benefits, vacation, sick days, etc.

If I have employees, then I can enjoy the fruits of my labor (7 day a week, 14+ hours a day) and maybe take a day off.

The American dream is not dead to most, only to you.

reply to post by IceFlower
I said for most it's dead myself I'm doing quite well. Unfortunetly 50% of the American population aren't so lucky.

I'm surprised you'd hire people on welfare shouldn't you be going after illegal imagrants? You know more bang for the buck. I thought that was the American way.

Originally posted by wantsome
caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com...-149 5208

A lot of people are down on there luck in todays economy. Some refuse to work and I really don't blame them. Who wants to work for practically nothing?

I have an idea lets keep electing rich greedy buisness men to run the country. I'm sure they have the average Americans best interest at heart right?

Like I told the person who posted this before, social security and medicaire are not welfare. Social security has never cost the US Government one penny and with a few small changes will be fully funded for many many decades. Medicare does cost the government money but mostly because they refuse to negotiate drug prices as any large purchaser would sensibly do.

The biggest problem with both programs is that our politicians have spent all the money and all the programs are left with is owsies.

Unemployment is also not a welfare program as workers pay for this insurance out of their own paychecks.

So if you back out the things that are not welfare, you are looking at about 20% on the dole.

It is still a high number. It is unfortunate that this would be spread as the truth in the first place, and even worse that it was repeated without giving it the proper critical analysis.

reply to post by wantsome


If you think that 50% of households getting some form of welfare is a hard pill to swallow, why don't you take a look-see at corporate welfare statistics. For every dollar we spend on social welfare programs in this country, we spend at least twice that much on Corporate Welfare. These are tax-payer subsidies to some of the most profitable companies in the history of the world.

thinkbynumbers.org...

So now let’s look at the big picture. The final totals are $59 billion, 3 percent of the total federal budget, for regular welfare and $92 billion, 5 percent of the total federal budget, for corporations. So, the government spends roughly 50% more on corporate welfare than it does on these particular public assistance programs.

The following article is quite an eye opener for those who think that social welfare is culprit;
www.eriposte.com...

And here's a little piece from Howard Zinn on the subject;


More current studies show corporate welfare to be at least 3 times that of social welfare but somehow, people in need are continually being portrayed as the scapegoat and the cause of all of America's woes. Please!

If I were driving down the road with a back seat full of money and noticed that every few seconds, a dollar was flying out one rear window while 3 dollars was flying out the other, guess which window I would close first?

I don't know about you but I have a much bigger problem subsidizing corporate CEOs who are awarded annual multi million dollar bonuses, on top of their already ample salaries, than I do extending a helping hand to someone who is truly in need.

Well, I assume my family is part of that 50% as my children are on state health insurance and my 70 year old mom is on SS.

It's been a "lifesaver" for my family.

Get over it peeps, no way on our income could we afford health care for our children and my husbands employment does not provide health insurance.

Years ago we tried and was able to buy the insurance for about 6 months before it intensely became a "do I buy groceries or do I pay the health insurance" issue.

The only thing I can say is I am very thankful for state health insurance for children.

reply to post by Flatfish



But corporate welfare is "ok" don't ya know? They are people too who really are having such a tough time in this economy. (little sarcasm.. I agree with you)

Harm None
Peace

reply to post by wantsome

When I say lets keep electing greedy rich buisness men I'm refering to the people at the top that want more for theirselves and less for everyone else.

This makes no sense. Are you referring to the rich business men who are elected to public office? I thought we already addressed the fact that your attempts to put blame solely on those whose profession was in business before they were elected was baseless.

Or are you referring to the business men at the top of their own companies? These people are not elected in most cases and if they are it is by a board of stockholders and not "us" per say. And these people do not have a direct say over public policy. So again, I do not understand what you are trying to say.

I'm talking about the people that keep sending jobs overseas. There are over a billion cell phones in the world and not one of them was made in the united states.

There would be a rational argument there if you chose to do some research and learn about the subject before crying about how it is so unfair that successful people are successful.

Businesses are able to send jobs overseas due to free trade agreements between countries. They are able to open factories in foreign countries, hire workers at extremely low wages and benefits with unsafe working conditions, export raw materials to those factories and import the finished products of those factories back to the US without paying exorbitant costs of those imports or exports that would have existed without the free trade agreement.

One such agreement is the North American Free Trade Agreement. Guess who signed that? President Clinton. Guess what President Clinton was before he was President. An Attorney not a business man.

When I said I don't blame people for not working I'm talking about the people on unemployment that lost good paying jobs. I don't blame them for sitting on thier rear and collecting unemployment when the next job they get pays substantially less. I'm talking about the people forced to work at Walmart and spend half their pay on driving just to get there.

That is the nature of the free market, private industry and the economy. During a recession or a downturn in business, private companies must cut their workers in order to stay afloat. You seem to focus on the people that were let go during downsizing but you fail to recognize all those that were able to keep their jobs because of such downsizing.

And yes, those who were let go due to downsizing deserve the unemployement insurance that they are afforded by the federal government. Do you even know where unemployment benefits come from? Unemployment benefits come from payroll taxes which are taken from the EMPLOYER. So in essense, the business pays the taxes that are benefited to those who are unemployed.

People are fed up and I don't blame them one bit for taking advantage to whats out there.

No one is blaming the recently unemployed for taking advantage of unemployment benefits. Again, there is a huge difference between those who cannot find work and those who REFUSE to work. Get it straight.

The whole idea that you get what you put into capitalism is a farse. For lots of people the Amerian dream is dead. We've been sold out so those at the top can increase thier bottom line.

Please, make a rational argument on the subject. Stop attempting to take pages out of some Marxist material that you may have read and think for yourself.

Just because there is a problem with the system does not mean tear down the ENTIRE system. It seems that greed is a problem with capitalism. Greed was also the major problem with Socialist and Communist Governments and their economies also. So attack greed. Dont attack those who are successful just because they are successful.

Every business is not, and should not be, a non profit organization. The owners and operators of businesses deserve to make an income off of their businesses too. This means they have to make decisions to maintain the economic viability of said company. Again, you fail to realize that private businesses employ far more people and provide income to far more people then welfare does.

reply to post by wantsome

I'm surprised you'd hire people on welfare shouldn't you be going after illegal imagrants? You know more bang for the buck. I thought that was the American way.

This comment right here proves that you have absolutely no argument and have no idea what you are talking about.

Please, when you find the time to educate yourself on the subject, come back, apologize for the above comment and make a rational arguement.

reply to post by wantsome

I'm surprised you'd hire people on welfare shouldn't you be going after illegal imagrants? You know more bang for the buck. I thought that was the American way.

And to revisit this little snied remark again, there are several reasons why illegal immigrants are being hired over American workers.

Yes, you have the fact that if you hire an illegal you can pay less, demand more and skip on the taxes.

There is also the fact that illigal immigrants are willing to do jobs that American workers now REFUSE to do. Like housekeeping, janitorial work and many other jobs that are completely OPEN to American workers but have no one applying for them because of the type of work. This leads into your comment about those who REFUSE to work. If they were so bad off and wanted to do something about it other than accepting tax dollars from other people, they would roll up their sleeves and take one of those "undesireable" jobs that are occupied by illegal immigrants.

Instead, they choose to accept free money instead. That is the problem.