OhIsee.Then
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 1,581
- Reaction score
- 277
- Location
- MI and AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Pointing fingers is just fine as long as you are pointing it at the RIGHT people. In order to SOLVE a problem you have to first IDENTIFY the problem. Proclaiming the innocence of the "Welfare Queen" (to include all citizens acting reckless and irresponsible running around with their hands out because its not FAIR) while berating the banks or the feds doesn't address the WHOLE problem. There is a complete mindset change that MUST happen. Feeding one problem while ignoring the other is irresponsible at best and corrupt at least.
Not only did I NOT say the welfare recipient was guiltless but I said they should take or be forced to take responsibility for their lives. But they're not the whole problem either. We're not that far off in agreement about the problem. We can sustain some debt and still function but we can't continue to add too it.
I believe the whole *model* of success has to be redefined because we're entering a new era of unsustainable growth with the current consumer consumption and investment market. The uber rich will have to concede, while the welfare level must slow up and shrink, so the middle can prosper again.
Calling it 'corporate capitalism' makes for a great rallying cry...but its not an accurate term.
Its not 'the WH'...its both houses of congress and the WH and it has been going on for a looooooooong long time.
Which is part of the reason why I think welfare is intentionally designed to create and perpetuate dependence upon the government. The problem you mention could be easily overcome by creating a program that turns welfare recipients (largely high school drop-outs or (occasionally) graduates/GED earners w/no college education or marketable skills) into highly-skilled potential workers for in-demand fields....or a program that doesn't perpetually reward you for having children you can't afford by increasing benefits each time you pop one out.
I'm ok with that position. The problem is...it's not happening nor will it happen as log as politicians continue to excuse, justify, and ultimately, exploit.
You've got to follow the money trail and the name of the game is "get the money". The corporations are simply better at it. They're sitting on $32 trillion of cash in offshore accounts alone, that's not including domestic cash or assets. It's twice the size of the Natl Debt. All they'd have to do is reinfuse a fraction of that cash back into society in the form of more and higher paying jobs, so the middle would grow again and spend. Not only would that create growth but they would get a huge dividend for their investment in the form of profits and increased production.
The economy is like a machine that runs on fuel and the fuel is money. If it doesn't get recirculated the machine runs out and crashes. That's what's happening because everybody is blinded by greedy self interest from the bottom up, though the up has more control of the situation.
I feel like nothing will ever substantially change as long as the re-election rate of Senators and Representatives is over 90%.Really well stated, but what can we do about it? I, personally, feel helpless. If it weren't for the discussion boards, I'd feel completely screwed, but at least here we can inform, educate, whatever and Ol' Don Quixote gets his due. I think all our terrorism is internal and just used to subsidize the greatest Welfare Queen of all, the Military Offense Industry, in all its' many manifestations. Since 9-11, all the terrorists in the Big Media look like they were encouraged, setup, perhaps even, victimized by the FBI. The FBI's specialty seems to be arranging big media events like Meth labs where the FBI supplied the equipment and formulas and organized the bust as the first batch is finished to the tune of maximum TV cameras, or terrorists that some FBI informer encouraged groups by suggesting they could get them bombs, missiles, etc., and again big TV cameras for maximum exposure. Seems like entrapment to me, but what the hell do I know?
Which is part of the reason why I think welfare is intentionally designed to create and perpetuate dependence upon the government. The problem you mention could be easily overcome by creating a program that turns welfare recipients (largely high school drop-outs or (occasionally) graduates/GED earners w/no college education or marketable skills) into highly-skilled potential workers for in-demand fields....or a program that doesn't perpetually reward you for having children you can't afford by increasing benefits each time you pop one out.
"Intentional design" is a strong word. America's welfare system was designed to be non-intrusive because (1) government intrusiveness is uniquely unpopular in the United States and (2) it is assumed the "Protestant work ethic" powers American labor, compelling everyone to become self-sufficient and off welfare as soon as possible. While it is easy for politicians and lower incomes to work in collusion to exploit the system, it certainly was not designed to work that way.
Fact is, the death of the "Protestant work ethic "relates to the general loss of opportunity due to globalism. There is no opportunity, and where there is opportunity, it is so shallow there is basically no benefit to pursuing it. Our education system (1) does not outfit the lower income brackets to be able to participate in the new economy and (2) it is probably impossible to outfit them anyway.
To say "there is no opportunity" is extremely hyperbolic.
There is an average of three million jobs available (most of them incapable of supporting middle class living standards) and upwards fifty million unemployed. And the latter number is based on a working population that is already smaller than a economic superpower should support. The lack of opportunity is pretty straightforward in that context.
This does make it higher than the official numbers, certainly, but exactly how high nobody really knows.You realize 50 million people would equate to 16% unemployment. I assume you argue against the BLS numbers that cite unemployment at 7.8%? Or is using total unemployment (under-employed/given up/expired benefits) just convenient to the argument you're making right now?
Regardless of that, training the under-educated and under-skilled in areas of high demand wouldn't subject them to the same difficulties in finding employment that they experienced while still under-educated and under-employed. We lack available workers in many technical fields...fields with would only require 2-3 years of training (at max) in almost any trade school/community college program.
My solution is feasible. Your hyperbole is dishonest.
This does make it higher than the official numbers, certainly, but exactly how high nobody really knows.
You realize 50 million people would equate to 16% unemployment. I assume you argue against the BLS numbers that cite unemployment at 7.8%? Or is using total unemployment (under-employed/given up/expired benefits) just convenient to the argument you're making right now?
Regardless of that, training the under-educated and under-skilled in areas of high demand wouldn't subject them to the same difficulties in finding employment that they experienced while still under-educated and under-employed. We lack available workers in many technical fields...fields with would only require 2-3 years of training (at max) in almost any trade school/community college program.
My solution is feasible. Your hyperbole is dishonest.
This does make it higher than the official numbers, certainly, but exactly how high nobody really knows.
Far more than 16% of Americans don't work. The estimated total numbers of jobs is less than half our population.
My observations don't relate strongly to the unemployment rate (except that those unemployed are included under the umbrella of fifty million), as not everyone in the working population currently unemployed fits under that statistic, just the people looking for work.
Fifty million includes the tens of millions of welfare dependents who have been out of work too long to count as unemployed under the employment rate: welfare dynasties as conservatives would consider them.
Comparing census projections to the employed and making adjustments for aged, young, and infirm (who would not be expected to work) it is upwards fifty million.
Let me add: I personally know people that used to work at a large corporation that are now officially unemployed. They are cash 'consultants' for small companies that are supporting large corporations. The wife’s have a real, on the record, job at low pay but with benefits. I wonder how much of this is going on. I also know people that have a real on the record job, but occasionally do construction on the weekends for cash.You realize there are 113 million people under 18 and over 62, right? That's 36% of the population.
There are currently about 131 million jobs FILLED. That's 42% of the population.
So we've got let's say 70% of the population accounted for in teenagers that don't "need" jobs, elderly that are at or close to retirement, and people working.
So 30% of working-age citizens aren't working. Among those you have the independently wealthy, the housewives/homemakers (about 26 million women, based on best estimates, which equates to 8% of the total population), and the unemployed seeking work. At BEST, you might be able to say 1/4 of the population needs work and can't find it. But claiming that unemployment is 50% as your above post does is a bit dishonest.
You realize there are 113 million people under 18 and over 62, right? That's 36% of the population.
There are currently about 131 million jobs FILLED. That's 42% of the population.
So we've got let's say 70% of the population accounted for in teenagers that don't "need" jobs, elderly that are at or close to retirement, and people working.
So 30% of working-age citizens aren't working. Among those you have the independently wealthy, the housewives/homemakers (about 26 million women, based on best estimates, which equates to 8% of the total population), and the unemployed seeking work. At BEST, you might be able to say 1/4 of the population needs work and can't find it. But claiming that unemployment is 50% as your above post does is a bit dishonest.
I ain't seen JPMorgan Chase spending any excess monies in my neighborhood.
My only argument here is that, at least the crack "ho" with the 3 kids spends her money in the local economy to her dealer for Meth and her dealer for baby things. She's good for the local economy and JPMorganChase is not.
I don't think you can prove any of this, much less show us the benefit of criminal activity.
I don't think you can prove any of this, much less show us the benefit of criminal activity.
It would appear to me that JPMorganCHASE is the one involved in the larger criminal activity. Didn't they just pay a $75 billion dollar fine to the gov't? Bogus mortgages, LIBOR rates, etc. That fine should reduce my personal tax burden minimally and that is an undeniable benefit. The crack "ho" and her dealer are gonna keep eatin' and feedin' da' babies and that helps my buddy two fingers at the slightly soiled diaper store as well as my buddy "Fingers" McKee, who regularly shares in the crack dealers good fortune by liberating much of his profits in a locally owned and operated back room poker game.
I don't think you can prove any of this, much less show us the benefit of criminal activity.
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?