Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

So because I choose to work and make money instead of being homeless and starving, that makes me a slave? Lol that's bullshit. Maybe you're not understanding what I'm saying so I'll rephrase....if you're collecting welfare for, let's say 6 months, and haven't found any work....then I think it would be a Benifit to society if you had to volunteer your time for community service in order to continue to receive Benifits.

In many areas no, trash isn't being picked up, nothing's being cleaned up or maintained and the residents don't give a shit. Why? Fuck if I know. Maybe because the residents don't give a shit, and will empty an entire bag of garbage into their own yard 5 min after someone else just cleaned it up.

Plus I'm sure there are plenty of non profit organizations that could use the help. Homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and a plethora of other charity organizations.

 

I repeat....
If this country didn't have so many trashy people, there wouldn't be any trash. Contributing to your own well being isn't slavery, but you can't do a job if there aren't any jobs to be had. And doing any job should pay enough for your well being. What good is having a job if it doesn't pay the bills? And why should anyone profit from the work you do, if you continue to live in poverty? The CEO of Nike makes $13 million a year with a $4.4 million annual bonus. Tiger Woods was paid $200 million to wear a swish on his hat, and the people that make the shoes get fifty cents an hour in China, where the shoes are made. Tiger and the CEO are so trashy it's criminal beyond description.

 

^ I don't see your point?

Well I see a point but I don't see how it relates to what I'm sayin

 

Bal:

My annual retirement income is only a few thousand more than the minimum wage, and about four thousand below what you claim to be the poverty level for a family of four which I am. I do have to file a tax return each year and even pay a small amount of tax, and the income I receive results from having worked, so why should those who receive money from taxes I and others pay not also have to file returns and pay taxes which after deductions would be quite small?

I just happened to have a 2008 tax booklet laying around, and single persons 65 years old or less having a gross income of $8,950 or greater are required to file a return, as are married persons of any age who file separately and have a gross income of $3,500 or more. So minimum wage earners probably do have to file tax returns, although their tax liability is likely quite small or non-existent based on relative deductions, while those who receive government aid alone receive benefits far greater in monetary value without any necessity to file a tax return.

I did not bring up or propose forced labor at all. I only suggested that benefits to able bodied persons should be provided as a result of an equivalent value of labor, which could be refused in lieu of receiving the benefits sought. About the only thing free in life is the air we breathe, and aside from that everything else is available to us as a result of the labor of someone else, which we in turn acquire through the exchange of our own labor in an amount we find acceptable, or do without.

Social programs should be designed in a way that provides temporary relief when and where needed, not a way of life for those who refuse to accept personal responsibility.

If you're worried about slavery, the simple solution is to just eliminate all your needs and wants provided by others and provide them on your own. You seem to have no problem enslaving all those who produce the needs and wants as the means of providing to those who are unwilling to participate in the productive area of their societies.

 

How is that different from forcing those who work to pay taxes based upon their work against their will? Is that not also a form of slavery? Of course in their case they have something the government can take from them, and if they refuse to pay we know what happens to them. It would appear that refusing to work is the only way to avoid government persecution and instead receive government aid.

 

Individual:

You did not answer the question. I asked why a full employment strategy is absent from US economic policy. Balbus is correct about your evasiveness.

Why do you post?

 

But I did, "In my opinion, the unemployed provides politicians a voting block who can more easily be manipulated into supporting government growth in the area of social programs which provides them with taxpayer funded jobs in which to place and repay some of their loyal supporters." which is WHY, although you may disagree.

So please tell us why YOU think a "full employment strategy is absent from U.S. economic policy. You earlier posted that "we" both agree that one is absent, and intentionally so, in which I gave my opinion as to why as shown above once again, so I assume you disagree with my opinion while evasively declining to present your own opinion or attempt to point out where you disagree with my opinion.

And more to the point, is there a clearly defined U.S. economic policy?

If you feel I'm being evasive, then why do you respond to me?

Why do YOU post?

 

Your answer I feel is evasive because it does not address the question-- which asks about the absence of a full employment strategy. The subject of your answer is about "the unemployed." How is that not evasive?

I’ll quote what I previously said:

Yes. The clearly defined US economic policy for the last thirty years:

Free Trade, Globalization
Deregulation of Markets
Transfer of State ownership to Private ownership

My bad.

I post because I enjoy it. I enjoy hearing views and interacting with people from all over the globe.

I guess I try to comprehend the views of others, but you seem to say something and then do a 180. It almost seems like you speak your mind then when someone calls you on it you go back to a predefined script.

 

He addressed your question clearly and honestly. Just because you can't understand doesn't mean he didn't answer you

 

I honestly don't understand how that addresses the question. Please enlighten me and I'll listen.

 

I honestly don't understand how Individual's answer addresses the question. Please enlighten me and I'll listen.

 

heres something that baffled me. About a year ago I Had to start going to the food bank because my social security only brought in enough for my immediate bills. I offered myself to do part time work helping out around the facility. They said there was a conflict of interest if I did so and would not allow me to help. Thankfully I found a part time job I could do and stopped using the food bank.

 

:

He is saying that it isn't benificial for the "powers that be" to empower the poor. By keeping them dependant, they become more easily controlled. The politicians don't want to install a system that could turn the poor against them. Individual is saying their votes are easily attained when they are dependant on the governments aid.

 

Good question. I wish i knew the answer. Maybe it has to do with states rights and the fed. govt. cant tell states what to do. I think another reason why theres no good direction or plan to get people out of poverty is because there will always be a segment of the population that is unable to be fully independent. Reasons such as health problems, handicap, etc. They will be permently welfare dependent. Other reasons are some people cannot achieve education. They cannot graduate high school or get a GED. There intellect or IQ will keep them at minumum paying jobs. That along with multiple children and they cant afford child care and transportation. There income will make them lose state benfits like rent, healthcare, foodstamps.
So, in my opinion minumum wage is to low to be an incentive for people to work. Working will put them deeper into poverty. The cost of living and raising a family is to expensive and the dollor doesnt have the purchasing power it used to. Minumum wage has not kept up with inflation. The old union factory jobs that hardly required a high school diploma have been offshored. Those jobs were a way out of poverty for many generations of people.
So they are damned if they work and damned to a life of poverty if they stay on welfare.
On the other side of the coin, in the government and the corporations agendas, this segment of the population, the 14.1% in poverty, will be consumers. Thats a lot of market share. And many of the welfare kids will join the military. Many of the population in poverty will succemb to crime, addiction and social problems and will keep social workers, law enforcemnt and the prison industry employed. They are used and abused and dont have a lobby to pursuade lawmakers to work for their interest to make or change laws.

 

The "powers that be" want powerless poor.

Government wants control of poor dependent people.

Politicians seek to maintain control of the poor.

Government aid for the poor equals votes.

Yeah you know obsessed those politicians can get fighting for the votes of those poor people...

We are talking about the US government right?

 

A lot of food banks are privately run by (for instance) churches and missions. They can make up whatever wacky rules they want for the most part.

Kudos for volunteering. :2thumbsup:

 

Exactly, the Democrats promise the hoodrats their benefits and scare them by saying the Republicans will take away the benefits. Never mind that the Republicans are trying to boost the economy so those people can get jobs and get their own way out of poverty. But so long as the government gives people free cell phones, section 8 housing, food stamps, welfare, etc etc those people are going to continue to vote Democrat, the Democrats will return to power and continue to fuck up the economy.

I love how Hoyer, Pelosi, et al say that the food stamps are one of the most stimulating things in the economy. What a bunch of bullshit.

 

Your point of view forgets that people can start out low and work themselves up, go back to school, work hard, get a promotion, etc. if their is a good economy and a conservative government that allows all that to happen.

 

Even though I'm a libertarian, and I don't support endless welfare/warfare. I still think 15 trillion dollars that Bernanke printed out and gave away to Banks, should've went back to the taxpayer. Sure, poverty wouldn't be "affected," but the people would have money, thereof, creating more demand in the free market. (Not to mention those rich pricks like Obama,Bernanke and, David Rockefeller, can't take our money if it's already spent on welfare!!)

 

^ The federal reserve cannot even account for a sum of money equal to $30,000 per every man, woman and child in this country.

But that's another thread