Welfare for everyone is the only ANSWER for USA.. here is why

reply to post by HanzHenry

My ignorance?.. YOUR ignorance..

read it again junior, i said ARROGANCE and there is a difference.

it's been ESOL since i was first certified back in the 80s.
you foreign types sure do favor short cuts, don't ya?

any chance you could get back on topic ??
which btw, isn't second languages.

promote vs provide ... prove it, otherwise you are just full of something and it isn't intelligence.

ETA -- hmmm, i guess i did mention your ignorance as well, but it is what it is.

feel free to apologize for your ignorance at any time

although, it is your arrogance that has stalled your thread.

aside from the fact that your suggested ANSWER is bullocks, your refusal to discuss the details should bring a rapid halt to any further discussion in this particular topic.
much like the 'provide vs promote' aspect ... good luck with that.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by HanzHenry

 

My ignorance?.. YOUR ignorance..

read it again junior, i said ARROGANCE and there is a difference.

it's been ESOL since i was first certified back in the 80s.
you foreign types sure do favor short cuts, don't ya?

any chance you could get back on topic ??
which btw, isn't second languages.

promote vs provide ... prove it, otherwise you are just full of something and it isn't intelligence.

ETA -- hmmm, i guess i did mention your ignorance as well, but it is what it is.

feel free to apologize for your ignorance at any time

although, it is your arrogance that has stalled your thread.

aside from the fact that your suggested ANSWER is bullocks, your refusal to discuss the details should bring a rapid halt to any further discussion in this particular topic.
much like the 'provide vs promote' aspect ... good luck with that.

edit on 21-8-2013 by Honor93 because: ETA

this is SOO stupid.. and I am not your junior..

Until YOU have served your country honorably, been injured in the line of duty saving others lives.. then YOU GET NO RESPECT!!

My mother, who is a GRANDMA, spent 3 years at Bagram.. so don't try the "mother" card..

Secondly.. I stated ESL.. then you come in and sidebust.. thinking I said something inaccurate..

1. YOU stated it wasn't called ESL..
2. I clearly SHOW that it IS.. NATIONWIDE
3. I -----> never

reply to post by Honor93


what details?

please, what details have I not addressed?


There are pages of my submissions. None have been addressed. I even provided definitions of words used in actual documents. There is argument over the definition of words in MERRIAM -WEBSTER..

go argue with dictionary authors if you don't like their books!

Promote ( for the provision of) the general welfare.

Instead of arguing the definition of words, try to develop a better understanding of how they change meanings when strung together in a certain order.

To promote is to use one's influence to provide a certain result for a certain party.

It isn't much of a stretch to make the observation that the U.S. government doesn't follow the guidelines / limitations placed on itself by the Constitution of the United States by the founders of the country, who were fully aware of how things work.

All one must do is read court transcripts to realize how much time and resources are wasted arguing definitions of terms.

The governments of the world promote their own endless party, and when they are done partying they retire wealthy people. Competition does not make things better for any party other than the owner of the team, both teams are owned by the same people.

These arguments of terms are why nothing ever changes, and it was the same before the Constitution was created. It is pretty obvious the Constitution no longer creates any real force of law, or many of the laws we are forced by violence to follow would not exist.

promoting general welfare.

once one understands the true definitions, and puts them together, its so obvious,

but as you say, many argue definitions of words.. ONLY as a means to get what they want!


what a waste.. we are on what page of this thread and none have provided a SINGLE shred to dispute my premise?


unreal.. and the whole ESL thing.. was that just to divert the topic? like people can't read what they type?

maybe, others will get it.. these welfare haters are also DICTIONARY haters

reply to post by HanzHenry

I come to ATS frequently and don't have any comments to make on many threads because so many just turn into a venue where people can insult one another and argue without fearing someone coming in and popping them in the nose for being dicks.

Many people use the internet as a nice safe and remote way to make it obvious what's wrong with society without consequences or fear of retaliation.

reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner


I must admit, I have a goal... to share ideas that have validity which will be a betterment to society.

This world is a place I won't be someday, yet my daughters will endure. All I want out of life is knowing I did EVERYTHING in my power to leave it better than I found it.

For everyone, not just my kids. Not just MY family... the utter selfishness and close minded, short sighted mentality.

"I just worry about MY family?" people like that ... grrrhh

Its kinda weird how quickly the Original Post turned into arguments unrelated to the original idea. I guess the internet shills earned their wages on this one. HanzHenry & MyHappyDogShiner have made some points that all of us should be pondering, in regards to the future of a "code and policy heavy" America, that will soon have people living in it whom can no longer afford to abide by those codes and policies. There is a topic right now about the city of Columbia, South Carolina Criminalizing Homelessness:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It certainly fits into everything I pointed out which was also dismiss by the shills:

Up to the 1940's a person could get just about any job with ONLY an 8th grade education, but today you need a BA or Masters for entry level.

Why?

Because the government and big corporations figured out a long time ago that populations would certainly increase over time, but at the same time the availability and creation of jobs would not expand to meet the population growth. There is a reason they don't want people dropping out of high school and are then encouraged to attend junior college, then a 4 year university and finally a Masters degree or PhD because it DECREASES the amount of people looking for full-time employment at the SAME TIME, chasing after jobs in a market that CANNOT provide employment for everyone willing to work.

Look at it this way, when people could get a job with an 8th grade education they went out and did it (opportunity cost). Then jobs got scarcer and the minimum requirement for employment became a high school diploma, adding 4 more years of people NOT Looking for jobs within their cohort. Then jobs got even scarcer and the minimum became a 2 or 4 year degree, adding an additional 2-4 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort, on top of the previous 4 years of high school, . Now jobs are really scarce and may require a Masters or PHD, adding an additional 2-7 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort, on top of 4 years of high school and a 4 year undergrad degree.

Basically the way the economy has been structured TODAY, we are looking at young people within their cohort whom are NOT looking for full-time, career type, employment for 6-15 YEARS while they finish school!!!

This has been done ON PURPOSE to keep the number people seeking employment ARTIFICIALLY lower. In the 1920's, before the depression, after 8th grade everyone whom was able to, went out to look for work and usually found it, that's simply NOT possible today under any circumstances. What some of you seem to be missing with HanzHenry analysis is that WELFARE availability will add another 1-3 years of people "within a cohort" to the growing number of people "not seeking employment", in order to continue to mask the illusion that jobs are available. So if someone gets a graduate degree and at some point collects 1-3 years of welfare of some kind, that's ONE less person competing for scarce jobs. The extra years of welfare then function in the exact same way to the larger economy as the increased minimum education levels do now for employment. The goal of government and corporations at this time is to decrease the number of able-bodied applicants out on the job market at the same time. This focus is especially on those under 30 years of age because they are simultaneously trying to get as many people as possible "to die of old age" before they become eligible for social security or medicare

As HanzHenry has said, this cohort of people not pursuing full-time employment also includes those in Prison, Government pensioners and the disabled on government assistance. If every able bodied person needed to go out and "get a job", RIGHT NOW, as many here suggest we would all be making 0.25 cents a day, TOPS!

Here's a little history lesson for those whom don't seem to know much about how "the owners of capital" have run most western societies through the ages. Guess when the largest "recorded" wage increase happened in history for, non-land owing, wage-laborers, post the introduction of fiat currency?

Any ideas?

I'll tell you, it was after the Black Death Pandemic in the 14th century.

How is that possible? Because "the owners of capital" post-black-death-pandemic still needed wage-laborers day-to-day. But at the time there was a HUGE shortage of able bodied people. So, in order for ANY work to get done "the owners of capital" had to pay them more, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. This principle is still at work today, when you take the time to recognize that portions of the population are actively discouraged from participating in the full-time labor market. This is easily done, by throwing people in prison, forcing them to attend formal school longer and allowing more people to claim themselves as disabled. The next obvious step for government to further reduce the number of people participating in the full-time labor market is to allow them easier access to welfare. I'm not going to go into the specific economic theory, but this above noted cohort of non-participants in the work force helps keeps wages artificially stable. If they all entered the jobs the market simultaneously wages would crash just as they had, BEFORE the Black Death Pandemic in the 14th century.

I can explain why we are forced to use money. Its because of codes and ordinances, PERIOD. See the post about the city Columbia, South Carolina Criminalizing Homelessness if you want an idea of how we can be forced to do anything the government or big corps want due to a lack of fiat money to buy your way out of an ordinance:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If any of you think you can just "barter & trade" you way out the economy with the HUGE AMOUNT of laws and regulations on the books in the USA, you are fooling yourself. Short term anything is possible, but if "barter & trade" was picked up among the general population, you better be ready because the government would come after you the same way they did with the "raw milk co-op" raids. America is not India or China, in those places "shanty towns" are essentially legal, no running water necessary, so people barter, beg and earn wages/food/shelter by any means possible. The societies of India and China recognize that not everyone can be employed though fiat currency style employment and only earn a hand to mouth existence. This makes adherence to a majority of "civilized/modern ordinances" impossible. So they turn a blind eye to "code and policy violations".

This not possible in the USA, in some cities a maximum of 1 unrelated person is allowed per rented room, you need an address to be gainfully employed for fiat currency payments, you will also need a drivers license and a checking account. Essentially our laws have not caught up with the reality of the economy. We have laws that people eventually will not able to AFFORD to follow and in the above example they will just throw you in a "shelter" that you are never "legally" allowed to leave. Any government on earth, no matter how willing, can't successfully criminalize a large segment of their population. We also know our government does not have the will to repeal laws, which if done, could alleviate the need of low income populations to spend what little money they have on "code compliance". So what will happen when 50%+ of you population is in violation of building codes, living in shanty towns and 10 people to an apartment? My personal opinion is that the Government will not let it get that far, BUT at the same time they will NOT adopt the kinds of polices that help China and India deal with a large underclass populations, incapable of paying the fees associated with "code compliance".

If we take my observations above seriously it becomes pretty easy to see the only choice Government and Big Business will have when these conditions eventually arise will be the expansion of welfare.

Originally posted by boohoo
Its kinda weird how quickly the Original Post turned into arguments unrelated to the original idea. I guess the internet shills earned their wages on this one. HanzHenry & MyHappyDogShiner have made some points that all of us should be pondering, in regards to the future of a "code and policy heavy" America, that will soon have people living in it whom can no longer afford to abide by those codes and policies. There is a topic right now about the city of Columbia, South Carolina Criminalizing Homelessness:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It certainly fits into everything I pointed out which was also dismiss by the shills:

Up to the 1940's a person could get just about any job with ONLY an 8th grade education, but today you need a BA or Masters for entry level.

Why?

Because the government and big corporations figured out a long time ago that populations would certainly increase over time, but at the same time the availability and creation of jobs would not expand to meet the population growth. There is a reason they don't want people dropping out of high school and are then encouraged to attend junior college, then a 4 year university and finally a Masters degree or PhD because it DECREASES the amount of people looking for full-time employment at the SAME TIME, chasing after jobs in a market that CANNOT provide employment for everyone willing to work.

Look at it this way, when people could get a job with an 8th grade education they went out and did it (opportunity cost). Then jobs got scarcer and the minimum requirement for employment became a high school diploma, adding 4 more years of people NOT Looking for jobs within their cohort. Then jobs got even scarcer and the minimum became a 2 or 4 year degree, adding an additional 2-4 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort, on top of the previous 4 years of high school, . Now jobs are really scarce and may require a Masters or PHD, adding an additional 2-7 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort, on top of 4 years of high school and a 4 year undergrad degree.

Basically the way the economy has been structured TODAY, we are looking at young people within their cohort whom are NOT looking for full-time, career type, employment for 6-15 YEARS while they finish school!!!

This has been done ON PURPOSE to keep the number people seeking employment ARTIFICIALLY lower. In the 1920's, before the depression, after 8th grade everyone whom was able to, went out to look for work and usually found it, that's simply NOT possible today under any circumstances. What some of you seem to be missing with HanzHenry analysis is that WELFARE availability will add another 1-3 years of people "within a cohort" to the growing number of people "not seeking employment", in order to continue to mask the illusion that jobs are available. So if someone gets a graduate degree and at some point collects 1-3 years of welfare of some kind, that's ONE less person competing for scarce jobs. The extra years of welfare then function in the exact same way to the larger economy as the increased minimum education levels do now for employment. The goal of government and corporations at this time is to decrease the number of able-bodied applicants out on the job market at the same time. This focus is especially on those under 30 years of age because they are simultaneously trying to get as many people as possible "to die of old age" before they become eligible for social security or medicare

As HanzHenry has said, this cohort of people not pursuing full-time employment also includes those in Prison, Government pensioners and the disabled on government assistance. If every able bodied person needed to go out and "get a job", RIGHT NOW, as many here suggest we would all be making 0.25 cents a day, TOPS!

edit on 22-8-2013 by boohoo because: (no reason given)

its ridiculous. If I don't address their bleeting nonsense, they will derail this completely. Just like that whole ESL thing..

Maddening because people allow social programming, greed, selfishness, and brainwashing interfere with common sense and an actual understanding ot

WORDS... As by what they actually mean by referencing a dictionary!! Someone then comes up with the idea to use a thesaurus ffs!

It is a mental glitch... Supply and Demand.. isn't exactly physics... all understand it, and yet don't really..

buy low (workers), and sell high (personal gain).

when the market is flooded and people are truly desperate worse than now, I envision those few with good jobs getting taken out on their way home .......just to open up a job.


HR managers are ALREADY taking bribes from well-off baby boomers to hire "their" kid for the job.

If you were upper middle class with a loser spoiled kid, and the county had openings for those with a B.A. degree for $46,000/yr.
And, they are unemployed with huge student debt-- living at home, costing your household money,
wouldn't you take $10,000 and bribe someone in HR?

This IS HAPPENING now more than ever

for a pretty accurate glimpse at our future

this film to me seems spot on. and yes, the dvd cover looks lame, but the movie is really good.

I mean REAL ACCURATE.

Another issue is automation, and yet another is student debt, getting a masters costs money which most students have to take out loans to get. Last time I checked, if one doesn't have a job guaranteed to repay a loan for education, it's a bit too risky to go into debt for that education. I guess they don't teach that in school, at least not in a way the young can understand, must be some mysterious kind of new math or something.

Can you say "Taking Advantage"?.

....Same as young people who think they have the world by the sac think there's no way I'm gonna die when I go in the military, taken advantage of again, yup.

boohoo has some good points about the establishment trying to keep people out of the workforce, I never really looked into those aspects of it. But as far as student debt goes it certainly does figure into the things I see happening out here, and boohoo's theory on it, aside from the rumor I read awhile back that some poser in charge brought up raising the retirement age....

Really though, there needs to be some serious consideration that maybe the current system has run it's course, and maybe this society needs to grow up and stop acting like vicious little bullies on the playground, like many do.

reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner


I agree with Boohoo mostly also.

Only, I think the 8th grade to HS job preference was his "way"

But the part when I comes to college, to me that part is done primarily to SADDLE younger people with the debt obligations of an older group far larger then theirselves, and fattened on 50 years of prosperity.

The baby boomers were promised the world and its kitchen sink.. Since they are the largest voting block, no new taxes to support their aging Rx drug riddled bodies. SO, the boomers will, when old and feeble, shaft the younger people royally. Because we wont have a future, and the boomers are STEALING the NOW.. even though they HAD THEIR NOW..
so, the young are gonna be paying the govt in loans, instead of taxes.

which is FAR WORSE..

reply to post by HanzHenry

hahahahaha, aren't you funny, junior.
respect is earned and you have a long way to go.

granny here too junior, that's why you're still a junior and always will be to me.

2 kids serving now, one 12+yrs and another approaching 6 ... what you got that i haven't done already ?

apparently you're still stuck on stupid cause this thread isn't about chest thumping but you keep on keepin' on ... maybe one day you'll actually have a chest to thump.

no, you didn't but you can think you did.

offer some facts and i'd be happy to refute them.
i certainly can't refute what doesn't exist.

so, if that's all you have, enjoy your delerium.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by HanzHenry

 

hahahahaha, aren't you funny, junior.
respect is earned and you have a long way to go.

granny here too junior, that's why you're still a junior and always will be to me.

2 kids serving now, one 12+yrs and another approaching 6 ... what you got that i haven't done already ?

apparently you're still stuck on stupid cause this thread isn't about chest thumping but you keep on keepin' on ... maybe one day you'll actually have a chest to thump.

no, you didn't but you can think you did.

offer some facts and i'd be happy to refute them.
i certainly can't refute what doesn't exist.

so, if that's all you have, enjoy your delerium.

DID YOU...yourself serve... patting yourself on the back for someone else's achievements is childish.

this thread was about WELFARE... not arguing over an abbreviation for ESL! which is all you have,

still, shilling and trolling away with nothing valid, coherent, or intelligent to debate regarding the topic..

Only that you are irritated about my demeanor? and my 'tude is kosher btw, to the point of MANIC FANATIC trying ANYTHING at all to corner me on..

GOOD LUCK on that. the words typed are read by quite a few others.. just keep it up..

there goes credibility...

reply to post by Honor93


this thread is being approached appropriately by most readers. As evident in our posts. even most that disagree have something to add.

you seem to want only to distract this into a petty shouting match over nothing. I will do what I should have done awhile back.

Ignore you. don't feed into it.

Don't have hate, animosity, or even dislike for you. I don't know you, and vice versa. But the integrity of the topic should be discussed.

reply to post by boohoo

what a bunch of tripe.
you can have your 1940s slave labor and 8th grade baloney.
what has changed is the loss of our manufacturing base, plain and simple.

what's really funny is that you folks don't even realize that there was NO SUCH THING as institutional welfare until the 1950s, post-war and sold as an acceptable level of assistance for the women and children who were fatherless, thanks to the war.

once you get a grasp of the real history and the language, maybe then you'll have a clue.
until then, carry on with your tripe and trivial nonsense.
about the only thing that adds up to is a total lapse of comprehension.

fyi, many ppl created their own jobs and learned new trades via apprenticeships, not formal education.

formal education was for those who didn't want to get their hands dirty and preferred ordering others to do their dirty work.

bartering and trade is what built this country and it is what will save it, not fiat finance, not formal education and certainly not more welfare.

fyi, only commercial drivers require licenses.
the right of locomotion is enshrined in the Constitution and cannot be rendered a privilege by any other authority.

welfare was designed for those who were unable to provide for themselves, not unwilling. over the past 40yrs or so, much like Congress, ppl figured out how to milk the system and have been doing so for generations.

welfare does need to re-worked but certainly not expanded.
ppl need to get off their duffs, put down their crystal goblets, toss the toys and get busy, instead of getting lazy.

when those who can, do ... much gets accomplished.
when those who can but choose not to, yet, continue reproducing anyway, all they are capable of teaching is what they know ... being lazy.

if we consider history as it is instead of what we wish it was, (hint, hint) yet again, the responsibility falls on our shoulders, not the government.

reply to post by HanzHenry

DID YOU...yourself serve

what does that matter ?
i signed with the Marines but didn't serve a day.

patting yourself on the back for someone else's achievements is childish

just following your lead

[color=amber]My mother, who is a GRANDMA, spent 3 years at Bagram

i left ESOL several posts ago, why are you harping on it ?
i've been ESOL certified since before you were born apparently.
geeeez, my youngest is probably older than you

still, shilling and trolling away with nothing valid, coherent, or intelligent to debate regarding the topic

again, it seems i'm just following your lead

credibility on a conspiracy site , now that's ripe
if it's credibility you seek, you might want to try another site all together.
then again, maybe your vision of expanded welfare wouldn't be tolerated on sites considered 'credible'.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by HanzHenry

 

DID YOU...yourself serve

what does that matter ?
i signed with the Marines but didn't serve a day.

patting yourself on the back for someone else's achievements is childish

just following your lead

[color=amber]My mother, who is a GRANDMA, spent 3 years at Bagram

i left ESOL several posts ago, why are you harping on it ?
i've been ESOL certified since before you were born apparently.
geeeez, my youngest is probably older than you

still, shilling and trolling away with nothing valid, coherent, or intelligent to debate regarding the topic

again, it seems i'm just following your lead

credibility on a conspiracy site

, now that's ripe

if it's credibility you seek, you might want to try another site all together.
then again, maybe your vision of expanded welfare wouldn't be tolerated on sites considered 'credible'.

you don't pay close enough attention.. I DID SERVE 2 TOURS. US MARINE honorable discharge (RE-1code)

credibility, so you admit to not being genuine or forthright? trolling by admission.., carry on then

Originally posted by HanzHenry
reply to post by Honor93

 

this thread is being approached appropriately by most readers. As evident in our posts. even most that disagree have something to add.

you seem to want only to distract this into a petty shouting match over nothing. I will do what I should have done awhile back.

Ignore you. don't feed into it.

Don't have hate, animosity, or even dislike for you. I don't know you, and vice versa. But the integrity of the topic should be discussed.

did you know that your continual personal attacks are a direct violation of the T&Cs of this site ? you don't value your membership much, do ya ?

integrity of a topic ?? better get out your dictionary again, friend
here, i'll help ya along ... integrity - there's even a 'learner's' link if needed.