- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Here: from a textbook titled "Social Problems" by Macionis - 4th Edition: on Corporate Welfare.
Just for you . . . because you seem to be the one NOT understanding what IS "corporate Welfare"
(Chapter 10 - pg 268)
(Chapter 10 - pg 271)
Talk about dependency, hunh? It's not just occasional support for a few businesses here and there. It's repeated support for the SAME ONES over and over - and in the same industries.
So - tell me - if corporations are SO large and SO wonderful - why do they fail? Not just once - but twice, three times? Where is their cutoff or capped bailout limit (there is none).
The auto industry RAKES IN Billions every year in self-driving profit through auto and parts sales, etc. But that's NOT ENOUGH for them - they KEEP failing.
Same thing with banks - they KEEP failing.
And that's acceptable to you? Continual bailout for the same bull**** inability to MANAGE their fat-cash-cow business well? Why isn't their profit of Billions every year SUFFICIENT? Why do they KEEP failing?
But - in your mind - if a FAMILY runs into a hard time - they don't deserve ANYTHING at all? No housing assistance, no food, nothing?
Why not - what makes a failing and incapable corporation *so special* but a small group of people *so worthless* to you?
And if you're claiming that these business provide a necessity or employ people - you can suck it - their continual FAILURE is why we have had so many problems in the last century. Their "benefit" seems to outweigh their "good" - and they could care less about the lives they force their chunked employees INTO when they fold and close up shop. So - it doesn't even matter to them, either.
"Voting by Income Level"
The percentage of adult who reported voting in the 2008 president election. A clear pattern is prsent. As income goes up, so does the likelihood of voting.
(chart statistics:
Less than $10,000: 49% voted
10,000-to-19,999: 54% voted
20,000-29,999: 56% voted
30,000-39,999: 62% voted
40,000-49,999: 65% voted
50,000-74,999: 71% voted
75,000-99,999: 76% voted
100,000 and more: 80% voted
so the auto industry doesn't have unions pushing for that
total FAIL on our part It was the UNIONS that pushed for the GM bailout
and who gets hurt the most if a bank fails
and where have i supported bailouts
seems I am not the one with understanding problems
The gap is widening because a significant percentage of people in this country have no work ethic whatsoever, and no money-management plan beyond buying flat screens and XBoxes with every nickel they get their hands on.
1/3 of this country is beyond stupid, lazy, and irresponsible. They bring the averages down across the board.
The gap is widening because a significant percentage of people in this country have no work ethic whatsoever, and no money-management plan beyond buying flat screens and XBoxes with every nickel they get their hands on.
1/3 of this country is beyond stupid, lazy, and irresponsible. They bring the averages down across the board.
I'm new here, but it seems to me that those on the conservative side of things ignore the fact that in our past (i.e. 1950's) we have had very high taxes on the wealthy, and it did nothing to stunt our growth as a nation. In fact, many look back on that era as our "golden age" when America emerged from World War II as prosperous and happy (excluding the threat of nuclear annihilation, of course).
I suppose what I am trying to say is that taxes on the wealthy were much higher than what they are now and yet there seemed to be a general consensus that this was the right thing to do. And I can't help but think that a contributing factor to this was the closer income equality and general prosperity of all Americans.
What? That's a baseless claim.
Well, I mentioned two books.
Is that just one factory or a government rule? If the former then just leave and find another job, otherwise it is worth it.
That's subjective.
So what? Not everyone owns a plane either and those were invented 100 years ago.
Must be nominal wages. $1.75 was worth a lot more back then.
In other words, goods are becoming cheaper.
Unions exist and have existed. It means nothing other than subjetive perception of working conditions.
Because prosperity, not laws, brought an end to child labor.
Children working is better than children starving.
making business costs too high is what causes that
I'm new here, but it seems to me that those on the conservative side of things ignore the fact that in our past (i.e. 1950's) we have had very high taxes on the wealthy, and it did nothing to stunt our growth as a nation.
I think that is BS. It makes those who believe it feel better, seeing themselves in the upper 1/3. But most people have a fine work ethic. Of all our problems related to this gap, this is by far the least.
I'm new here, but it seems to me that those on the conservative side of things ignore the fact that in our past (i.e. 1950's) we have had very high taxes on the wealthy, and it did nothing to stunt our growth as a nation. In fact, many look back on that era as our "golden age" when America emerged from World War II as prosperous and happy (excluding the threat of nuclear annihilation, of course).
I suppose what I am trying to say is that taxes on the wealthy were much higher than what they are now and yet there seemed to be a general consensus that this was the right thing to do. And I can't help but think that a contributing factor to this was the closer income equality and general prosperity of all Americans.
Actually it is a problem. I know you don't have any evidence, but I do.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/91683-work-instability.html
Baseless? So you would argue that those at the beginging of something aren't more likely to reap benefits than those are the end of something? I mean, there was more unexplored land, more resources, less people, more promise, less competition internationally. The time periods are so different, I think you're unwise to blow this off so quickly.
I gave you a couple of timelines, and there is more, to show that this was common and not limited to just one.
So is a lot of what you're arguing.
You're really missing the point.
Sure it was, or more than now. Not sure I would use the words A LOT.
And people less able to afford even them. The product becomes cheaper, and in some ways less quality, and people lose the way to make a good living. great stuff that.
It speaks to the need for unions.
I wouldn't go so either or in my thinking, but as presenting prosperity as the single answer, you're wrong. People fought to end tham and it took laws, regulations, and not just propserity.
Sure. But today they are neither working or starving. Wouldn't you say that is better yet?
You think this is evidence? Not sure it's even evidence let alone proof. If anything it raises the question, but it doesn't settle it.
Oh - so people who are employed FULL time are lazy, irresponsible and stupid?
INCOME means you WORK to EARN IT - you know, a JOB.
INCOME does not necessarily INCLUDE one's WELFARE or their amassed wealth - only a SMALL percentage of the population overall GETS welfare anyway.
Before I became a stay at home Mom I was employed full time, had two kids, and I earned $8.00 an hour. That put me at just over $15,000 a year. I was NOT lazy, NOT stupid, NOT irresponsible. MOST people who struggle financially and are gainfully employed. . . They make ends meet - but don't rake in the dough in excess.
Your thought process is why so many college kids come out of college EXPECTING to have a job just because the got a degree in Liberal Arts.
And what you're referring to is *strictkly income* - not *wealth* - Wealth can amass on it's own once you have it. (Property values increase, stock values increase) - you can be a lazy fat bastard and do nothing your whole life and die wealthier than you were when you inherited it from your Mum.
Some of those high costs can be lowered by significantly lowering the ridiculous compensation for those at or near the top. Start there if you have any real integrity about corporate expenses .
You think this is evidence?
The high taxes on the rich which have resulted in the top 5% paying more federal income taxes and death taxes than the rest of the country combined is what has caused the gap. Not because the taxes are not high enough but because we have subsidized dependence and sloth among millions who now look to the rich and the government to take care of them
Drug addicts are not good workers. Entitlement addicts are rarely ambitious
None of that was pointed at you or folks like you.
I'm saying that there are masses of people who will do anthing they can to avoid working. And we've all worked with the "dead weight" folks, many of which have lost their gravy train during this unemployment downturn.
Good people are hard to find. I will attest to that.
Mind finding evidence to the contrary because you've offered nothing substantial, only empty rhetoric. My post actually had real numbers and historical data. All I've heard from you is baseless speculation.
The high taxes on the rich which have resulted in the top 5% paying more federal income taxes and death taxes than the rest of the country combined is what has caused the gap. Not because the taxes are not high enough but because we have subsidized dependence and sloth among millions who now look to the rich and the government to take care of them
Drug addicts are not good workers. Entitlement addicts are rarely ambitious
So - tax the rich less and it'll somehow narrow the gap?
That makes no sense - the gap is the gap. The gap will always be.
Which is true - of course that's true.
less than 1/3 of those on welfare fall into that category. . .which of the lower quadrile of the populus. And they, like others - if after a few years of being on they don't fix their lives up a bit - they're out of the system. Woosh - gone.
It's such a small percentage of the population I'm not about to let their foul oversights and problems in life guide me to want to end the system.
It was a lot higher before 1993, sure - that's when they reformed the system and seriously limited the number of years they were on support - it doesn't work that way anymore. People expecting a lifetime of handouts are in for a defeat.
Thus - while in - it's essential to take advantage of relocation, outreach and other progrmas geared to provide childcare, education - and those essentials to build a welfare-free life.
That doesn't usher people into the top quadrile, of course - but juts above the poverty line - that's where most people are, right now - even if they've never been on any type of welfare program.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?