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.

 

Feds: Too few Americans ‘turn to government for assistance’

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
The United States is a corp and wants to raise revenue.

what corporation wouldnt?




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


By large building you must be talking about the holes in walls that most welfare offices are.... Some without bathrooms ( I know I've worked in them.. Construction) and the three or four office people talking to assistees.

Once again that helps the working tax payer how?
edit on 28-8-2012 by W3RLIED2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

I think the Marxists would love to see 100% assistance.


And I would disagree. That is what the Liberals would want, Marxists want worker ownership, not government handouts.

Don't confuse socialists with liberals. The original liberals came from the ranks of the middle and upper class conservatives, not the socialists. Liberals support capitalism with a social safety net. They do not support worker ownership. Socialism came from the working class.


"Liberalism is not socialism and never will be", Winston Churchill, 1908 as the Liberal Party candidate for Dundee.


Churchill was a conservative of the British aristocracy, his father was Lord Churchill.

If you want more government hand-outs then you are probably a liberal, to be a socialists, or Marxist, then you must support worker ownership, not a state system with a social safety net. Liberal is big government, socialism can be no government.


"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin


And is ultimately state free, even Marxism. The state under Marxism is temporary, not a permanent totalitarian state. Known as the transition period, to move from capitalist to socialist production.


Jump to: navigation, search

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.


Free association (communism and anarchism)


edit on 8/28/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
It bears mentioning here that in the mid nineties I was managing a big box electronics chain and one of the employees I hired was a former DFACS employee.

One day I took it upon myself to ask him why he'd leave a cushy office job with government benefits to come work in retail for chicken scratch. He replied "Boredom". When I inquired further he told me that he spent all day, every day, surfing the 'Net from work and that he only saw clients once or twice a month.

Shocked at this I asked if he'd been gaming the system there, or if that was normal. He laughed and said that most people there were like that - the culture was that "clients were bad" and "to be avoided at all costs". He said 99% of his gig was automated and that he basically served no purpose at all in the big picture.

Maybe these types of obvious waste are part of what's being addressed with this website... getting rid of unnecessary and redundant employees who don't really serve any purpose. Web domains are much cheaper and easy to manage than is a overgrown system of non-productive employees.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 




By large building you must be talking about the holes in walls that most welfare offices are.... Some without bathrooms ( I know I've worked in them.. Construction) and the three or four office people talking to assistees.

Once again that helps the working tax payer how?


You are avoiding the real meat of the issue.

Why is it that all corporations, small business' and other organizations use web-based resources to save money and streamline their processes but we think it is somehow bad for the government to do the same?

Why are you not saying the same thing about the DMV, the IRS, the Office of Internal Records or a myriad of other government services?

This entire issue is not about saving taxpayer money at all. This is about demonizing people in need. Because if you applied the same criteria to all government operations you would be complaining about a lot more than just this website.

It saves money by not having to physically deal with people face to face. A computer does all the work!

Isn't this what you would want?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


But then you'd be complaining about all the unemployed government workers collecting welfare lol.

Government workers are not the problem. People on welfare are not the problem.

The problem is the lack of access to the means of production. Because a minority class of people have a monopoly on the means to produce, leaving the majority to rely on them to hand out "jobs".

That minority class does not operate their economic system based on peoples needs, it is operated simply to make that minority the privileged class they are (surplus value, profit, from labour exploitation). When production no longer benefits them they remove their contribution to the economy, leaving workers with no way to produce for their needs (laid off, no money, access to the means to produce denied).

Our whole economic problems stems from the need of capitalism ("private owners") to make profit, and the continuous expanding of markets it takes. A cut throat economic system that leaves more people in poverty than it makes wealthy.


edit on 8/28/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


That's not at all what I want. Personal responsibility for starters. The take take take attitude leaves a serious tab for the next generation... And the one or two after that to pick up.

I for one don't want to have to explain to any future children or grandchildren that we are the reason they are completely effed. If you want to talk about the meat of the issue it comes down to a matter of honesty. Do want free money that comes at a higher price for us all? Do you understand the simple fact that for every handout the government gives someone the American taxpayer will be responsible for it threefold or more? Tenfold? Get with it!

The freebies are a major part of the problem. I'm not going to sit here and say people don't deserve help. Many people do. What I am not going to do is advocate welfare for more people when there are way to many taking advantage of that system already. To the detriment of the rest of us who decide we don't want hand outs only an honest wage and a god damn chance.

America wasn't founded on handouts. It was founded on sweat and blood and doing things the hard way.

I hear china has a great welfare plan.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I cannot argue with a single word of what you said! Kudos.

Generally speaking I still think that streamlining social services is a step towards making them as efficient as possible and helps to remove the folks who abuse the system ( the days of getting four welfare checks at the same address are behind us now that computers can cross reference these things ). No matter what social constructs are in place - or are overcome - efficiency still is good policy!


~Heff



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
If they wanted more people on federal "help", why don't they make it easier to get it?

A single male can't qualify for much of the "help" that the government has to offer, but a single woman with a child can qualify much easier. and the more children the more help you get.

Plus, not to mention, giving more help? Some people on food stamps only get $150 a month, and that doesn't really go all that far. Why not give $300 a month?

This complaining about less people on government is fruitless and won't accomplish anything unless they change things and create more jobs and end a lot of the paperwork for getting help.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


These jobs you speak of... Who "creates" them?

Businesses or government?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 


Contrary to popular belief, the wealthy, who are the government.

The popular belief being that the wealthy do not create jobs at all, which I personally consider a lie.

About a big as a lie when Obama said you didn't build that.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 


I say it's better to hire five people to change a lightbulb than it is to give one an exclusive contract and the wages of all five for doing the same job.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadeWolf
 


That's super efficient thinking.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


So your answer is the wealthy government people.

They create jobs....

Go back to school.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 


I mean no disrespect, but you began your post with "personal responsibility" and ended it with China.....that's propaganda.

They are buzzwords that attempt to disarm any argument that fails to counter it.

You are still failing to see the reality that people need help and government has to fill the void when job creators and religious charity falls short.

People do not want welfare. They would rather have jobs. The people that do not are the exception to the rule and not the mainstream.

So I'd rather explain to my grandchildren that I was willing to help others and that the national debt was the fault of corrupt politicians......not welfare mothers trying to feed their kids.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


You say propaganda, I say blatant sarcasm.

You say buzzword, I say over sensitivity.

Call it what you like. I meant no disrespect either.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 


Fair enough.

That doesn't change the fact that people need help. How do we help these people and keep it economical for the taxpayers?

We automate it as much as we can...which is what this website is doing.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


IMO the whole system needs a massive reformation to determine exactly who deserves aid and who needs to sac up and find a job, even one they hate. Its called real life.

What's happening now is the people who take advantage of the system are in control. Automating the handouts of what is ultimately tax money, is wrong. Or at least not the real problem. The real problem is the staggering amount of people already using this system for a cheap meal ticket, the drug addicts, the gangsters, and the ones who don't want to work. You can't tell me that's innacurate. I have grown up in and still live in a working class neighborhood. By that I mean half of us work, some suck the teet of welfare while peddling drugs and the rest are leaches on society that should just die and rid us of their pestilence.

It's pretty sickening to see people want to give more despite the fact we are literally out of money to give. I don't care if you like it or not. It sure as hell isn't going to fix the problems facing us already.
edit on 28-8-2012 by W3RLIED2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 




What's happening now is the people who take advantage of the system are in control.


Could you provide some evidence to support that theory?



The real problem is the staggering amount of people already using this system for a cheap meal ticket, the drug addicts, the gangsters, and the ones who don't want to work.


Sure there are some people that do not want to work, but they are not the majority by any means.

I can't remember what state it was, but they decided to drug test people that applied for welfare and come to find out less than 6% of the people applying had a substance problem. So I think your assertion is wrong.

And what do you mean by "gangsters"? Are you referring to black people? If so, that statement is just ignorant and in no way means that it is a corrupt system just because they're black.



and the rest are leaches on society that should just die and rid us of their pestilence.


Really....just die?

Once again, an ignorant statement. Why is it that certain members of our society with certain social-political views just want people to die so that they can save a few pennies in taxes?

It seems to me that the real problem is that too many among us have been wronged somehow, had a father that beat them or their mother didn't tell them she loved em. What happened in your life that was so bad that you have to be such a mean, twisted individual?

I feel bad for anyone that cannot see past their own nose and those that have no room for empathy towards their neighbors.

Good luck with that........



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



It's not necessarily about the programs.


Then why do conservatives campaign on stopping all these programs?


It's about the waste and corruption.


Wouldn't it be logical then to work instead on fixing the system so that corruption is less likely to occur?


Too many thieves involved.


Then punish the thieves instead of the Americans who could actually benefit from these programs and get to a place where they would no longer need this assistance. Instead you have the conservative mantra of trying to give more of this money to the military industrial complex (cause we all know that there is absolutely 0 corruption and waste there right?)

Or the libertarian view of "I got mine, screw you, go die if you can't make it."


Take the corruption out of the picture and some of it might actually work without bankrupting the country.


I agree, but that's not what conservatives are campaigning on. They don't want to fix the problems with Obamacare, they want to repeal it completely. They don't want to fix social security, they want to take all that money and give it over to wall street. They don't want to fix medicare/medicaid, they want it gone. This isn't fixing it, this is abolishing it.

There's a whole world of difference between abolishing a beneficial program that helps people who genuinely need it, and fixing a program that can work more efficiently and better for the betterment of those that truly deserve and need the help.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join