Working for Welfare - Its The Future! (Conspiracy)

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Bisman
 


Of course the solution if not government. Your presenting a hypocritical argument.

The issue is weather or not we create a job or force welfare to work for it.

Obviously create a job.

You are a capitalist aren't you?




posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Ya there's really only 2 safe status's which are rich and poor. If you're middle class, that's fine, just don't own any assets. Have all your assets under corporations owned by trusts owned by panamanian barier share corporations or some absolutely crazy thing where no ownership can be tied back to you. What most people do is they own stuff under their own name. You do that and you'll could get screwed big time. I'd avoid that at all cost. The easier way is just don't own any assets but your car. That's it. Just rent, or if you own let the bank own most of it so that way you can walk away from it if you have to. The war is on the middle class, because tptb know there's a lot of coin there owned by a lot of dumb people. So they're using a variety of tactics to steal it from them. If they see you dont' own much then you likely won't be a target. As for me the only thing I'm ever gonna own again is a vehicle and never a new vehicle. You got to read the laws for your state or province. Their all different but there's a point at which the g-v can't come after certain necessity assets. Like a vehicle up to something like 40k dollars is permitted in my province. So they consider that transporation a necessity to find and or stay employed and or do business so they can't steal it from you even if they claim you owe money. But we're living under total tyranny it's such bs. They program you to say you should try and get ahead knowing you'll try, then once you get some stuff they come and steal it using legal tricks and fraud.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


I believe the biggest element of your OP that people should consider is the sustainability of the current paradigm whereby corporations generate profit from excess labor (i.e. capitalism).

Regardless of population trends, if there are less opportunities to add value via labor and new ideas, there are declining discretionary resources for "consumers" to buy stuff. Corporations, essentially being machines, are not strategic. They will accelerate this trend by introducing more hardware and software automation that eliminates the human element. Humans are "high maintenance" for corporations.

If young people can't acquire the resources to mate up and reproduce, the social fabric will disintegrate. IMO, this is the essence of how the Arab Spring started with a single individual in Tunisia.

Marx correctly identified the terminal flaws in capitalism. His experimental solution didn't turn out well, but the problem statement is very much intact. Maybe 90% of people will work for government subsistence and food stamps will be "sponsored" by McDonald's in the future under a fascist system.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
www.dailymail.co.uk...

I don't know if you 'allow this 'kind' of person in the US' but this 'type' seriously take the wee wee out of everyone.

I know a 'young lady' who keeps popping out babies.........she's on her fifth. Her only 'redeeming features' is the children all have the same father though he does not appear on their birth certificate. They are a couple though the state does not know. He lives in a separate flat and does not support his children and the state pays for everything for this woman.

Apart from looking after the children she does nothing to support them financially and is sadly 'up the duff' again and due even more money from the tax payer.

Sickening!



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
www.dailymail.co.uk...

I don't know if you 'allow this 'kind' of person in the US' but this 'type' seriously take the wee wee out of everyone.

I know a 'young lady' who keeps popping out babies.........she's on her fifth. Her only 'redeeming features' is the children all have the same father though he does not appear on their birth certificate. They are a couple though the state does not know. He lives in a separate flat and does not support his children and the state pays for everything for this woman.

Apart from looking after the children she does nothing to support them financially and is sadly 'up the duff' again and due even more money from the tax payer.

Sickening!



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I am collect food stamps and I'd have no problem doing some work or volunteering to keep my benefits. 20 hours a month for $200 in benefits seems fair(so long as it does not interfere with my search for a job or an actual paying job). There are plenty of road ways and parks that need litter collected, I'm sure there are plenty of productive things one can do in order to keep collecting benefits.

I did serve in the Navy in the past and have paid into the SS system, but too many people in the US have not done a productive thing in their life yet manage to collect welfare. That is simply is not fair to those who pay taxes and work for a living. 20 hours a month to collect welfare(free money!) is not a lot to ask for, any able body man or women can do this and if they can't save the tax payers, and the government money and cut them from the payroll!!!!
edit on 11-10-2013 by jrod because: typo



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


You are a prime example for why this is a bad idea. Thanks.

You said you would happily volenteer your time to keep your benefits. Great.

I do t want you to keep your benefits. But hey how about you apply for a part time job to make te same amount of mort from a job created by the same system.

Thanks!!!



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
What jobs can you give to somebody so he earns his welfare? Its gotta be very basic tasks, he wont have that much motivation.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   

onequestion
reply to post by jrod
 


You are a prime example for why this is a bad idea. Thanks.

You said you would happily volenteer your time to keep your benefits. Great.

I do t want you to keep your benefits. But hey how about you apply for a part time job to make te same amount of mort from a job created by the same system.

Thanks!!!


I've only applied for a few hundred jobs over the past couple of years. I've been employed part time and made a little bit of money but not enough.

Jobs simply aren't out there. Wake up and realize that decent paying jobs are tough to find. Thy finding work when you do not have a driver's license and an arrest record!(misdemeanors, it would be easier to find work if i was a felon since some companies get kick backs for hiring felons)

You are what is wrong with this system, I've had too many people try to give me advice, tell me what I need to do, ect.. Almost everyone of them is wrong, too many know it alls, too many don't realize that all it takes a little bad luck and your career will be lost and financially you will be ruined. Loose your job, get arrested over some BS, and tell me what you think about food stamps when you receive them after not having an income for a couple of months!


I am willing to give up my time for my benefits, I've held a tax paying job since I was 15, I paid into the system. People like me show the system works and there is a security blanket if you find misfortune. Too many people never work, never try to better themselves, they just learn how to collect welfare and get handouts and they are the ones taxing the system. I've paid more than my fair share, most haven't.
edit on 11-10-2013 by jrod because: typO+



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Merinda
What jobs can you give to somebody so he earns his welfare? Its gotta be very basic tasks, he wont have that much motivation.


Picking up trash is easy. The motivation will be so he/she will not loose their benefits.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Luckily im am financially sound enough never to have to work for welfare. I agree however it is going this way. One day it may be seen as a penalizable crime if people refuse work for welfare. Then you get shipped to hard labour work prision farm for recalibration.

The big game changer is fusion energy once that is up and running then essentially people should be allowed to have free energy. What the Nwo wants is away of taxing the use of that energy. They will create laws fusion reactors can only be run by Nwo which will immediately circumvent the sovereignty of nations. Then the Nwo will say that personnel access to such energy can only be done under a work credit scheme. What this means is money is replaced with work credits. Therefore you do a certain amount of work a week and you get work credits which allows you to buy some of the energy of the fusion power grid.

All forms of non fusion power will be normally banned, and only useable with special permit. You see this has never been about money, or exploiting a cheap labour market this has always been bout power, the power to control your life.
edit on 11-10-2013 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
People are against technological progress because they fear the lowest skilled will be pushed out of the workforce?? are you freaking kidding me???

Low skilled is now no skilled, end of story. Most jobs could be replaced by tech right now, but it's not economically viable yet. It's coming!

Now, do we transition by readjusting our social structure to compensate for all the free time our species has, or do we kill off the weakest who have no skills to provide? Simple question. It must be addressed soon. Don't flame me for bringing it up, plz.



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 



Your thoughts?


It's a very real situation now. And nothing says it will not be more so in the future. And the funny thing is even the more high paying jobs are basically do nothing jobs or processing the same old paperwork back and forth day in and day out. When even those jobs can be outsourced and by a computer program none the less.

We are also creating a bunch jobs which we give people such as the new markets for a whole large group of unemployed people such as you can see in the TSA or the required welfare which we have now, of which is may help somewhat but the bulk is that it will make certain people very wealthy, and eventually you will be giving people power over you who are just salesmen selling there products and making the rules that you will have to live by, for there benefits and constituents benefits.

And also there are just as many skilled jobs which are nothing but a fancy name and tittle on a paper, as there are actual skilled jobs. And education? Well it seems to have worked out exactly like it was intended to. And you can see by the results, drones and drones, as far as the eye can see.

So yes, you could say that its only a matter of time before all our "progress" really starts catching up with us. I mean, much more so then has now.
edit on 27-10-2013 by galadofwarthethird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   
People have been working for benefits for years now, in NYC at least. If you are unemployed you are sent to a "center" every day, and all they do is give you a newspaper and you sit for hours, then you go home. IF a job comes up then you are sent there, and you never see an actual paycheck, you just get your benefits.

If you are a single parent, then all you have to do is fill out some paperwork and "they" pay for babysitting. I find this troubling, as we all know that benefits, and such are not money per say, but a surplus that is given if you have proof that you need it. Women are required to find a sitter by the time that your child is 3 months old.

I know plenty of parents that have been removed from the system because they couldnt find a babysitter that they were comfortable with for an infant, which IMHO I wouldnt leave anyone with my baby that young, but if you fail to find someone you receive a listing of "approved" babysitters that are also receiving benefits from the state.

And if you know the system, those arent always the greatest homes, as many do this just for the money.

The system is broken, corrupt, and as far as I am concerned is not helping people, but causing more strife then assistance.

Peace, NRE.



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I've come to many of the same realizations as the OP but I have a different conclusion. The thing is, it's just not possible for everyone to work 40 hours per week anymore, and it's going to get worse. Productivity is so high among individuals that all our needs as a society are met with fewer hours. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we'll all benefit.

In 1900 the average workweek was 60 hours/week.
In 1910 it was 57 hours.
In 1920 it was 51 hours.
In 1930 it was 35 hours (due to depression).
In 1940 it was 43 hours.
In 1950 it was 40 hours.

Since then it hasn't been changed despite huge increases in productivity.

We are long overdue for a reduction in our working hours. When the standard is recognized as 30 hours, the economics of what things cost will adjust accordingly and I would argue already are slowly changing. In the future many of our low skill service sector jobs will be no more, it is already happening in asian countries where waiters in restaurants are being phased out in place of robots that cost 1/40 as much. We even see it in the west to a limited degree with self checkouts where 1 cashier can now do the work of 4 or more.

As a society we have two routes we can take here. Either we keep 40 hours/week as the standard and recognize that many will be unemployed/under employed and in need of benefits which creates a huge class of needy poor people or we change the standard work week. In many European countries they have already recognized this and moved to 30 hours/week. It's time for the US to do the same. We all know the real unemployment rate is well over 20% right now, most have been unemployed for so long that they're no longer counted in the statistics. If we do nothing this is going to continue, and within the next 10 years we will be facing a 50%-60% real unemployment rate as jobs are eliminated due to greater efficiencies. With that type of unemployment comes huge increases in crime as people try to maintain some sort of living standard. The only option in my opinion is to reduce the work week.

At this point, I don't even think moving to 30 hours/week is far enough. We have evidence in the service sector of people working 25 hour weeks as the standard. In my opinion that's where we need to move as a society. If everyone works 25 hours, the economics adjust and people will be able to afford to live on that hourly rate.

Not to derail but I actually hold out hope Obamacare ends up forcing the sub 30 hour workweek issue. I know it wasn't written with that in mind, but it may be the catalyst that forces us to make a much needed change.
edit on 27-10-2013 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join