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.

 

Under Obamanomics, America Morphs Into Welfare Nation

page: 1
19

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Under Obamanomics, America Morphs Into Welfare Nation

Well it looks like Obama made a statement in 2008 that is coming true.

He said they would "Fundamentally Transform America"

And that he has.

It might be time to re-think a few things.

The next *Leadership* committee might not be so generous !!!!!




Poverty: Any lingering doubts about the deficiencies of Obamanomics can be dispelled with one piece of data: The U.S. has spent $3.7 trillion on welfare in the past five years, with virtually nothing to show for it.

GOP members of the Senate Budget Committee reported that cumulative spending on welfare during the Obama years has been five times greater than what's been spent on transportation, education and NASA — combined.

Maybe that shouldn't be surprising. Obama, after all, promised a "fundamental transformation" of America. He's fulfilled that promise with a vengeance.




Pay attention to this;


The Census Department reported just this week that 49% of the population, or 151 million Americans, got federal aid from at least one program in 2011 — up from 94 million in 2000.




Under Obamanomics, America Morphs Into Welfare Nation


Time to wake up people !!!



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   


Under Obamanomics, America Morphs Into Welfare Nation


What about Clinton's policies that opened trade up with China, getting them into the WTO. Wouldn't that be the turning point? Since millions of jobs ended up there in the ten years following with a massive trade deficit.

Although, one could argue that it's better China pollute the crap out of their country, so much that it's going to be a desolate wasteland in ten years.

Their air doesn't even come close to meeting any standards anywhere else.

They sold out their nation, the politicians here sold out the work force.

Again though, one could argue that it's a good thing, menial labour jobs have been pushed into the pits of cancer ridden villages of China, one could continue to argue this point, by stating how a fundamental shift in a country's workforce, is a painstaking process. Meaning, that since labour jobs have vanished, eventually those people will too.

In turn, their children will have to go to school, create or get jobs that focus on something more than repetitive action.

This could be seen as a good or bad evolution. Hell, there are some countries that have no production at all but a very high per capita GDP.

But forget all this, let's just point fingers.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
We have been a welfare nation for decades. We give welfare to the rich and the corporations they own through subsidies and tax breaks. We give welfare to foreign nations in return some people may profit from the weapons they sell but America in general we gets nothing. The article complains about money being spent on welfare for the poor with nothing to show for it. Would dead people be more to his liking?
edit on 23-10-2013 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 




The Census Department reported just this week that 49% of the population, or 151 million Americans, got federal aid from at least one program in 2011 — up from 94 million in 2000.



And the " New Wave" gains momentum, and without a single one of them aware of how they got there - as complacency is well suited for the ignorant.


There's not enough lube in the world to make this ass ramming any easier to take...





posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   

The U.S., sadly, has become a nation of dependents, and Obamanomics is accelerating the process. With debt at $17 trillion and rising, more than $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and fewer workers to pay for it all we will soon be bankrupt.


Which is why they are so desperate to give all the illegal aliens amnesty. Use them as workers to support the growing entitlement programs and to increase the debt as well as stimulate local spending. Since or economy is based on ever increasing debt more consumers must be brought in to cover their bets.

This is why amnesty is coming regardless of what the people want or do.
They are simply going to change the law.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Instead of starving poor people, lets cut farm subsidies, oil subsidies, and tariffs to price protect the prices our goods bring. Wait if we did that, we would hurt old rich white guys, that can't happen. Republicans are nothing but hypocrits.

Lets cut out fraud, but wait, old rich white guys elected the largest medicare/medicaid fraud convictee the governor of Florida. The Republicans want nothing more than the rich to get richer and the poor to die.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   

BubbaJoe
Instead of starving poor people, lets cut farm subsidies, oil subsidies, and tariffs to price protect the prices our goods bring. Wait if we did that, we would hurt old rich white guys, that can't happen. Republicans are nothing but hypocrits.

Lets cut out fraud, but wait, old rich white guys elected the largest medicare/medicaid fraud convictee the governor of Florida. The Republicans want nothing more than the rich to get richer and the poor to die.



Maybe a sensible idea would be to eliminate some imports and put people back to work.

That alone would cut the welfare in half and increase Federal revenues.

Increasing exports would help too.

And maybe if they do it right, they could stop the endless borrowing.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


But the problem, really, was that Romney wouldn't have been much different. That, and the fact that the economy tanked under Bush's presidency. To be fair, it was a global downturn and not all his fault. This economy was inherited by President Obama. So, if we're honest, where does that leave us. Obamacare, sort of needs to be out of the economic conversation right now, since the effects are an unknown at this point. Not enough real data yet.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
How can that number be so high? Is that even possible?

That's some serious slurping on the teet!

Not much alarms me any more, but... holy crap, do you guys hear sirens?

What do you suppose they'll call them this time around... crumb kitchens?

As far as I know, you can't just sprinkle a little dust into water, and call it soup!

Keep it up, and it's all we'll have left.

If this gets any worse, I'm moving to the country of Texas!



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
With 1/3 America already on public assistance, and growing,

wonder how high that figure can get till it topples over.

I can fathom 2/3 on welfare, and the other third supporting them.

However, what about when US reaches more than 2/3 on welfare, and there is not enuf people living above poverty levels? Who will provide public assistance to 99% of Americans when they are all on welfare?

1% I think not. I think the welfare nation model is where virtually all of Americans are receiving benefits from America's wars and takeovers all over the world by then; making war not love.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   

The Census Department reported just this week that 49% of the population, or 151 million Americans, got federal aid from at least one program in 2011 — up from 94 million in 2000.


I must not understand the meaning of socialism.
At the beginnings of the catastrophe known as Obamacare, the US media, Republicans, etc were obsessed with calling Canada, Europe, and any other country that has medical coverage for their people - socialist.

Welfare is nearly impossible to get in Canada, even when needed, and I don't think we even have a food stamp program. Even our unemployment insurance gets cut off after a few months (never ever goes beyond 52 weeks), and if we make over a certain income, our tax dept. makes us pay it back!

The US has almost half the population receiving government assistance, and even subsidizes rich corporations.

What was it that Obama was mentioning during his campaign?
Wealth redistribution?
Isn't that somewhat socialistic?



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   
More stats from a different source....



This included 82,457,000 people--or 26.9 percent of the population--who lived in households in which one or more people received Medicaid benefits.






Also among the 151,014,000 who received benefits from one or more government programs during that period: 49,901,000 who collected Social Security; 49,073,000 who got food stamps; 46,440,000 on Medicare; 23,228,000 in the Women, Infants and Children program, 20,223,000 getting Supplemental Security Income;13,433,000 who lived in public or subsidized rental housing; 5,098,000 who got unemployment; 3,178,000 who got veterans' benefits; and 364,000 who got railroad retirement benefits.



Census: 49% of Americans Get Gov’t Benefits; 82M in Households on Medicaid





posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Well I'd say that's the way society is going to have to head anyway.

With the increase of mechanization, the working force has pooled out of the the primary and secondary sectors to invest the third. At the beginning of the century I believe that over 60 % of the population worked in the agricultural sector. Nowadays, we're looking at something like 8%. Those jobs had to go somewhere, so they took up residence in the service sector. That is now being mechanized as well, as self-service becomes the new norm.

So in the long run, we're just looking at too few jobs versus too many people for a wage driven economy to fuction any more. I suppose that in a way, the main question here is actually about the social relevance of our economic system as a whole, in relation to recent technological advances.

Should working for a wage be a prerequisite to the social relevence of an individual when all the jobs are being taken over by better, faster, and more cost effecient machines ?



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Wow...you make it sound as if "welfare" is something bad


Someone feels that he doesn't get something he thinks is "entitled to"....or someone is jealous because he thinks that others get something they are not "entitled to"?


Anyway...gratulations to finally understand what Obama is attempting to do, after, what....4 years he's in office now...

I am NOT in the US, but let me just quickly re-cap on top of my head...

- Obamaphone
- "Cash For Clunkers" program
- Obamacare

YES, again, gratulations you finally understand that Obama has an eye on welfare, but that's what you will require when a nation is made bankrupt by corporates, military spending etc... when people don't have money anymore for their own health or even SURVIVAL...while Ahmed in India gets their jobs...yes..this is where you end up: Welfare



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   

xuenchen

Maybe a sensible idea would be to eliminate some imports and put people back to work.

That alone would cut the welfare in half and increase Federal revenues.

Increasing exports would help too.

And maybe if they do it right, they could stop the endless borrowing.



Are you, YOU, personally going from one company to the other (mind you: COMPANY, not the gvt!) and tell the CEOs and presidents to please not to outsource anymore and instead hire domestic people?

I wish you much luck!


(You will hopefully also realize that "decrease imports" would open an entire can of worms, for once it would drive costs for goods up significantly. Oh god...no going to walmart anymore and buying my Levi's "made in China", or my PC from China..or food for the cats (which often also comes from China). Some people can only survive because they buy the cheapest of the cheapest of stuff which, at the moment, happens to be imported from China. So, obviously, there is a little more involved than simply "stopping imports".)

And.."putting people back to work" sounds all great and dandy...but WHO is putting them to work? And what will they produce, and for whom? Any MAJOR corp right now manufactures in Asia or whatever country for a fraction of US pay. So...(again)...you go to whatever corp. and convince them that it's better to hire an US American, say, for $6 or $10 min wage and upwards...as opposed to $0.50 what Ching Chong gets for the same work in China? HOW would you want to do that? What do you think will a company tell you when you propose this?
edit on 42013R000000ThursdayAmerica/Chicago17AMThursdayThursday by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:55 AM
link   
I agree with the posters above, it's more complicated than just blaming a single president. Go to Detroit, for example, and you might see a tumbleweed blowing down the street. Remember when the job loss rate in that industry was at close to a million workers a month? Where did those people go? And the local businesses that relied on those workers and their families- an insane downward domino effect. So what do our elected officials do? Bailout the banks. And that was both dems and republicans. The US is bursting with people that don't contribute to the economy. It's no longer the place where immigrants come to work, but rather to take (I'm generalizing). We cannot sustain any quality of life in this country if we try to take care of all the people with food and healthcare, with reduced income, while supporting military excursions/imperialism abroad. It's time to close our borders, stop subsidizing farmers, and pull out of all the conflicts in the middle east. And that's just for starters.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Did Obama cause the ´08 crisis? It is funny people trying to put all the blame on Obama, yet forgetting the guy came to office during one of the worst economical situations since the Great Depression. Since 08, the economy has been in recovery, but it is far from what it used to be like. Most of the advanced economies are still in recovery. Even here over 4000 miles away the economy has not fully recovered yet, what to speak of the country who got hit the hardest? You seriously expect such economy be fully recovered in 5 years?

The fact that so many people are on welfare only shows that the economy is far from recovered. Unemployment rates might have gone down, but too many are working part time which is hardly enough to live off from. You can not blame the people getting what they paid for (or do you think they should not be neither can you blame Obama for a crisis that was already set off before he came to office. He had no role in setting it off.

Of course, the policies might have been better, although I doubt there is much that could have been done. Usually US solutions during tougher times have been : lower taxes, increase spending. Although the taxes already are incredibly low. Lowering these would lead to bankrupt + during the first year Obama was the president the country recieved 0,5 trillion less income due to many people not having jobs.. Social spending could not be lost as people have paid in beforehand. How would you like when you are paying your insurance policy all the time and when you actually need to use it, it is gone... Also such thing would lead to a real dog-eat-dog society, which is something I wish for no nation in the world.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
The reason welfare budgets have gone up in all of the Western democracies is because of that major financial crash we experienced, remember it? It wiped out peoples savings, investments, and jobs? And resulted in a lot of people needing support from central governments because the economy almost completely collapsed?

Don't go blaming Obama's policies for the 2008 global financial crisis. That was the result of absolutely insane global economic policies that had been pursued for the 8-10 years before that.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   
While I cannot stand the welfare state we have created, it is hardly only Obama's fault. We have had decades of creating a welfare state in this country to the point where everyone from every economic background has their hand in the cookie jar.

The American tax payer cannot afford to provide subsidies for corporations and help people in need at the same time. We cannot afford to hand money out like crazy to foreign governments and expect to keep school lunches. We cannot afford to pay congress and non-essential government bureaucrats exorbitant wages to the tune of 176,000 dollars per year AND pay up their retirement regardless of how long they work, and pay enlisted and officer ranks a cost of living wage.

Obviously something has to give. So far the American tax payer has been doing all the giving, and the leeches have been doing all the taking. Hell, as far as welfare for the poor is concerned, most of that money doesn't even go to the poor. It goes to the bureaucratic nightmare that is the Welfare offices pretty much anywhere you go.

It's all a waste. And it's all a scheme to leech as much wealth off the American people as possible so a few can have another golden elephant in their yards, or another yacht in the harbor.

This country is going broke fast. There is waste everywhere. In the military they talk about cutting soldier pays and benefits, but there are contractors sucking up billions of dollars for doing crap work that is sometimes dangerous from my experience, and there is no accountability. The day of reckoning is fast approaching and we're going to have to make some very tough choices as individuals and as a nation. The status quo cannot continue. We're too deep in debt, we're spending WAY TOO MUCH MONEY, and we're getting dick for it in return.

It's time to end this.
edit on pThu, 24 Oct 2013 10:22:05 -0500201324America/Chicago2013-10-24T10:22:05-05:0031vx10 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
19

log in

join