Citizens Receiving Food Aid from Federal Gov't Now Outnumber Full-Time Private Sector Workers

reply to post by Tazkven


I agree that both parties are to blame.

I'll also caveat that it started long before Obama.

THE SOLUTION, however, does not rest with providing MORE money to the government, MORE power to the government, MORE controlling authority to the government.

Government IS the problem, NOT the solution.

We need to look at solutions that don't include government regulation, government interference.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by beezzer

 

Your response would be for the government to step in and raise minimum wage?

My response would be that maybe employers should take a page from Henry Ford and pay employees a living wage. It would help the economy and promote business.

But that would increase prices, raise unemployment,. . . . that old song and dance.

Now one thing government COULD do is impose a tax holliday for two years.

(Since deficits don't matter)

Give businesses more capital to pay their employees, expand their business, hire more people. . . .

Naaaaa. That would only decrease the dependence of people relying on government.

A tax holiday when many companies pay virtually no taxes at all yeah that makes sense. If you were to do a little checking you will find that the profits for these companies just keep going up while the workers pay scale has been virtually the same since the 80"s.

It's the same old song and dance the upper management and owners take all the profits and the people have to live on what little scraps they are given even if that isn't a livable wage.

reply to post by beezzer


Agreed to a point, I am not ready to go full Libertarian yet. The whole Free Trade thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth, as I explained in my last post. At least until the whole world has the same cost of living expenses and quality of life.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Just think how much worse things will get once 0bamacare is up and running.

"Wheeeeeee!!!!" says the Progressive, down the slide to hell and more Govt control.

Well, this looked a little sensationalized so i read the document. No where does it say that 101 million people are receiving some kind of food subsidiary from the government. The number of around $114 billion in total cost yes.

A figure that the author pulls out his rear.

Originally posted by cenpuppie
Well, this looked a little sensationalized so i read the document. No where does it say that 101 million people are receiving some kind of food subsidiary from the government. The number of around $114 billion in total cost yes.

A figure that the author pulls out his rear.

Actually the numbers are very accurate as described, just takes a little math on your part to add the individual numbers together of the 15 programs as the author did. It is all there in black and white and accounted for.

SNAP - 46.7 million
National School Lunch Program - 32 million
School Breakfast - 10.6 million
WIC - 8.9 million
Child and Adult Care - 3.3 million

Total = 101.5 million (I even left out programs, these are just the major ones)

Let's just face the fact, that no matter who is in charge right now, the economy does suck, and people that have never had to have some kind of assistance, are having to now, just to survive. Unfortunately, this is happening to friends right now, with no end in site.

And for those of you hating on small business, I don't know what small business you've worked for, but that isn't the case in our town, for the most part. The only jags in town are owned by the lawyers and one dentist. The owners of the company I work for both drive pick up trucks for pete's sake! I guess we are just lucky then, that they both actually worry more about keeping good employees, by paying us a nice wage, and putting money back into the company to keep it running. And since I do the payroll taxes and help with the regular taxes, I can tell you, we pay a heck of a lot.

Originally posted by Tazkven

Originally posted by beezzer
But that would increase prices, raise unemployment,. . . . that old song and dance.

What?

What do you base that on?
Lets look at some facts here,

We will start in 1979, concentrating on the prices of goods.

To 1999,

Now today

2013

Gallon of Gas - $3.56
Dozen eggs - $2.50
Gallon of Milk - $3.44
First Class Stamp - $0.46

Now lets take a look at wages from 1979

It is obvious that over the past 3 decades wages have stagnated yet the cost of living and the average income of the top 5% and company profits continue to climb.

Another obvious point here is climbing wages would not increase prices, raise unemployment etc, they have done that WITH Stagnated wages.

The minimum wage would be at $22 An Hour if it had kept up with productivity, sure the top 5% would make less money and the wage inequality gap would shrink back to the levels it was decades ago.

This is why the middle class is shrinking and the economy is struggling.

You want an economic stimulus program that will work? Pay people a fair wage watch the middle class grow, the economy get strong and people get off welfare. Or be a greedy business owner and contribute to the slow death of this country.

Follow the Costco example.

Great post. Interesting how beezzer and other people who like to make excuses for the private sector's looting of this populace ignore facts and figures like this which flush their argument that supports companies paying out non liveable wages into the toilet.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by beezzer

 

This administration has actually lowered taxes, & kept the Bush era tax cuts.

www.factcheck.org...

Really? Wow. I thought those ended for people making over 200K a year. I must have been wrong. My bad.

I have no idea where you keep getting that Obama has raised taxes

As for the unemployment problem, why not take a look at Republicans who have purposely stalled and delayed any recovery efforts by the left in order to make sure this president fails.

www.cnn.com...
www.policymic.com...

edit on 10-7-2013 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)

Blame the minority party in the senate, you mean? Recovery efforts? More like increasing size/scope of government, but whatever gets you through the day I suppose.

increasing size of government...wrong again there beezzer....
www.huffingtonpost.com...
actual facts are your friend

I don't know if its only me, but there's something that really grinds my gears when going to the grocery store. I work 40+ hours a week and have paid my way through college with hard work and determination. I go to the grocery store and buy groceries for my family. I've got my buggy about 1/3 full of stuff to get us through the week. That little bit is usually over $100. The couple in front of me has 2 buggies overflowing with everything I wish I could afford, along with 4 kids running around not being paid attention to. I watch as this lady slides her EBT card and then the cashier tells her "that will be 14 dollars", I guess she had to buy soap and other stuff that wasn't food.

I see this time and time again and somehow I'm supposed to continue going to work and trying to better myself. For what? What's the point? It seems that it may be better to just quit working and produce as many kids as possible.

It's hard for me to feel sorry for anyone who makes a career out of abusing the system.

/end rant

MOTF!

Originally posted by SpaDe_

Originally posted by cenpuppie
Well, this looked a little sensationalized so i read the document. No where does it say that 101 million people are receiving some kind of food subsidiary from the government. The number of around $114 billion in total cost yes.

A figure that the author pulls out his rear.

Actually the numbers are very accurate as described, just takes a little math on your part to add the individual numbers together of the 15 programs as the author did. It is all there in black and white and accounted for.

SNAP - 46.7 million
National School Lunch Program - 32 million
School Breakfast - 10.6 million
WIC - 8.9 million
Child and Adult Care - 3.3 million

Total = 101.5 million (I even left out programs, these are just the major ones)

c'mon...think just a little bit
don't you think that a child getting a "school breakfast" is also getting on a "national lunch program" and "SNAP" and "child and adult care".....these are not 101.5 million individual people!!!!

reply to post by supremecommander


I'm not sure this graph really explains much of anything. The reason that productivity has increased over the past 30 years is because of computers, automation and the increased use of process controls like six sigma.

Wages have mostly stayed stagnant and not kept pace with inflation because the minimum wage isn't pegged to the inflation rate plus we've turned largely into a service economy, which are generally lower paying jobs than the manufacturing jobs we've been bleeding for the past few decades.

I'm on the fence about the 1%. Traditionally, the majority of their income comes from investments, so obviously when the market goes up, so does their income and wealth. I also agree with Beezer that we shouldn't penalize success. So what if someone is in the 1%. Almost everyone in this country has the same opportunities and can attain whatever level of success they work hard to achieve.

Lastly I agree that both parties are to blame, but overall, the worsening certainly appears to have escalated during the Obama administration, and I have a feeling will accelerate even more over his next 3 1/2 years.

reply to post by Cabin

I do not get why people see others on welfare as people leeching off the government. I have seen posts showing despise towards such actions, implying that the posters would never use such options, rather live in street than leech off the government.

I have said it before, I'll say it again here. I work in a grocery store and I see a LOT of the people using food stamps have really nice clothes and jewelry and sometimes I see their cars are decent too. I also see them pay for a bunch of garbage with their "assistance" then also buy a good amount of beer and cigarettes with the cash they have. I think if there is room for all that, then there is some room for them to take care of themselves instead of using taxpayer money. I go without a lot of things so I can afford the necessities. The reason some people see it as leeching off the government is because of people like I just described.

Believe me, please, when I say, it happens so often that when I see someone buying healthy food and using coupons to bring the bill down, I am surprised and very pleased when I see THESE people coming through my checkout line!

I was going to write a long post explaining things as I see them, but it would have been things most of you already know.

There are a lot of things wrong with the way this country works, and they were wrong for way longer than Obama has been in office, he just gets the blame for a mess that has been waiting to happen for about a half century.

The laws regarding fair labor and compensation, which our ancestors fought for are being struck down by legislation financed and lobbied to congress by business and corporate interests, for the sake of more profits, it matters not whether this is fair, only profits matter.

The banking system was hijacked by the federal reserve way back around the time that fair labor laws and unions began to take hold, the central bank responded with war and depression, laws were written (Glass-Steagall ) to control the bank and the gaming parlor (wall street) which caused the first depression, from causing a second depression.

Things hummed along fairly smoothly, then some lawyers got the idea to rescind some laws because they were supposedly not needed anymore, everyone was playing nice, and they KNEW everyone was playing nice only because of those laws, but they weaseled around that and rescinded the Glass-Steagall legislation during the Clinton administration, setting wall street free to pull the same old shenanigans it had pulled which caused the first depression.

During this time frame (1819-Present), Corporations and Big Business have been lobbying and getting legislation passed to make it easier for them to profit unfairly for supplying the necessities of life for a growing segment of the population...

Both Bush administrations gamed the system through the lack of banking regulations to enrich themselves and their cronies at the expense of the people while the people enjoyed mindless entertainment presented to them by the corporate, Bernaysian brainwashing apparatus media.

Obama inherited a system set to fail, not to say he isn't gaming it himself for his cronies.

And for those of you who think it would be good to eliminate food subsidies, those farmers aren't going to work for nothing any more than you would.

Elimination of social programs would completely collapse the entire economy in short order.

There are better ways of doing things, but the guys with the moneybags and the lawyers and the politicians in their pockets like things the way they are.

We are being reduced to old-time surfs, and we ignorantly accept it.

Anyway.....

reply to post by jimmyx


*sigh*. Growing Govt doesn't just mean more workers on the Govt wage.
Govt itself has grown, to infect almost every aspect of life.

While the article you provided states one thing, like Govt workers being cut, it doesn't really go into all of the new Govt positions that are due to open for 0bamacarea alone.

Your love affair of Bigger Govt is truly disgusting and blinds you to the truth, as opposes to what common sense shows as fact.

reply to post by peter_kandra

I am a Union Maintenance Journeyman for a company that incorporates Six Sigma, you may have heard of them General Electric, we also use a process called Lean to increase our workers productivity. We make more with less people, less waste and less moves to manufacture a completed product. We use no automated robots in the process. All Union blood and sweat creating a quality Union product made in the U.S.A. We have taken products back from Mexico and China to be built right here in Louisville, Ky. Your damn right I am proud of that.

I make a good living and it would be easy for me to keep on keeping on, I feel like I am in a bubble almost, uneffected by the majority of issues most deal with but if I ignore the issues we face as a country because I am unaffected that would make me no better, in my eyes, than those who take advantage of the less fortunate.

I said that to say this ...

The graph I showed was to show stagnated wages over a period of time but the productivity line was just a bonus, it is not because of computers or robots our productivity has increased but because of improved work flow, better training and more intelligently well laid out, ergonomic production lines. We as a country can be competitive and still pay people fairly and provide everyone a better quality of life, regardless of their position on the totem pole.

There are models of successful service jobs paying fair wages. Costco being one, paying employees after five years $19.50 an hour and also giving a bonus of more than $2,000 every six months.

By comparison Wal-Mart pays employees after 5 years $12.50 an hour.

“Instead of minimizing wages, we know it’s a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty,”

Having more knowledgeable employees results in better sales, Costco averages $814 in sales per square foot, while Sam's Club makes just $586 per square foot.

"Look at people as an investment and hire the best you can possibly afford,"

"Stretch to your limit to keep them excited about coming to work ... then watch as they actually perform."

Low paid employees like those at Wal-Mart are the ones using welfare to supplement their income to survive, it has to be degrading and embarrassing not to mention it is costing tax payers money.

The CEO of Wal-Mart makes more per hour than his employees do yearly, Michael Duke's $35 million salary, when converted to an hourly wage, is $16,826.92. Employees paid $8.75 an hour would gross $13,650 a year.

That is greed my friend not "investments", how can you possibly defend this?

If Costco can pay people fairly and keep them off of welfare why can't other companies?

The answer is simple, greed and that greed is what is killing this country.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Tazkven

 

I agree that both parties are to blame.

I'll also caveat that it started long before Obama.

THE SOLUTION, however, does not rest with providing MORE money to the government, MORE power to the government, MORE controlling authority to the government.

Government IS the problem, NOT the solution.

Government is both the problem and the solution.

We now suck at economic mobility...the opportunity to work hard and change your economic fate...there is less opportunity to do that. Rising costs of college, shrinking manufacturing sector, dissappearing middle class.

"we are actually a less mobile society than many other nations, including Canada, France, Germany and most Scandinavian countries. This challenges the notion of America as the land of opportunity."

en.wikipedia.org...

That combined with dramatic increasing disparities in income distribution...the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class disappears.





This is a direct result of tax policy driven by psuedo-corruption...where the middle class pays the bulk of the taxes and the wealthy get rewarded proportionally for how much money they have...rich..richer...

The game is rigged and everyone but the wealthiest suffer.

reply to post by HauntWok

My response would be that maybe employers should take a page from Henry Ford and pay employees a living wage.

Seriously?

That living wage BUILLCRAP is exactly why there are 100 million people on government food assistance.

reply to post by HauntWok

How about not relying on the government for the solution and instead rely on the private sector for the solution?

Then there is no reason for welfare programs at all.

reply to post by Tazkven


It's more than just "greed". Walmart pays those employees that amount because that is what the current market will bear. If the economy was good, people would find jobs elsewhere and Walmart would have to raise wages just to keep people.

It's a buyers market right now for low wage employers in America because the economy stinks so much.

We can point fingers all day long at companies like Walmart, but they are in the business to make a profit and survive.

The fact is, government controls the regulations, the laws, the rules that companies live by. Government interference into the housing market, the medical market have done more harm for the entire economy than any "greedy" company.

In my humble opinion.