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

(to post 38)Government caused the problems,as you said,but not as you mean. They caused them initially because they allowed off-shoring to happen in the first place. And fewer regulations would help? C'mon-haven't we seen what the lack of regulations and oversight has done to the economy for most citizens? Think the wall streeters and bankers would have been able to what they have done with proper oversight?

 

Roo:

Capitalism is here to stay, and what I promote is a competitive free market with government regulations only where absolutely needed. We, the American consumers, benefit from the low cost imports which cannot be produced at home affordable to all, so we need to either cut the costs of what we produce in order to compete or find areas where we can compete. If you have some work you need to hire someone to do, and if 2 persons apply with the same qualifications, one who will do the work for 10% of what the other asks, which would you hire to do the work?
Do you propose the U.S. should isolate itself from the rest of the world?

 

Fuck the poor bastards that will do it for 10 % of a decent wage. They need to take control of their own fates and agitate like was done here in the 20th century. Of course the republicans have reversed most of that. It's what they do. That's typical--hire people for as cheap as you possibly can. Never mind a living wage for our citizens.

 

So you're arguing that we need to ruin our country and our people, so that we can compete with china in the game of having a shitty oppressive poor environment with a few very rich people?

WHY do we need to be economically integrated with china? This is like saying that we should put on diapers so that we can play with alphabet blocks with other people wearing diapers..... it's a game we don't need to play with consequences we don't need to accept.

It does not benefit the american consumer for very long if you try to fuse two different economies so that some people can get rich. In the end it's great for rich people here and in china, but it's bad for china's people, it's bad for america's people, it's bad for everyone who is NOT in upper management of a trans-national corporation. It's only affordable to all for a short while, because in the end it makes this country suck just as badly as china, and then nobody will have the money for shitty imports, or anything else. There's simply an inbetween period when there's still money here, but as we can see as of late, it's drying up, it's non a sustainable game, just a fast money grab for a few people.

So basically, you're saying we need to dumb ourselves down so that we can play with the retards.....

 

Yes,I propose we isolate ourselves economically. The millionaires-billionaires don't need more money--they just think they do. Our middle class needs living wage jobs with products they make and buy RIGHT HERE. Just like it used to be.

You may think capitalism is here to stay,but do a little extrapolation on resource use and see what you come up with. Think 50-100-200 years. What do you-all think will be left at the current rate of consumption?

 

You're right. Wages is also a reason why jobs have left this country. You can thank minimum wage laws for that, which do absolutely nothing but cause unemployment amongst unskilled workers. Also unions, which is another story. Tarriffs, like I said, sound good on paper, to people who don't know any better, but they almost always hurt much much mre than they help. As shown.. There is a reason why protectionism is such a dirty word. Anything that reduces competition between firms is not a good idea. Products produced by cheap labor are never bad for the consumer, because it means cheap prices. Slapping a tax on foreign goods to make them just as expensive as goods produced domestically, will just mean that domestic consumers will be paying higher prices, and so will be forced to buy less (higher prices mean real income goes down). So it's not as clear cut as you think. History agrees that Tarriff's hurt the consumer. I can cite many examples. I understand why the casual thinker would promote them, however a closer study of the economic repercussions will reveal the folly. Also, companies will return when it's profitable for them to do so.Case in point.
As far as there not being enough regulation on banks, get real. Do you know there was 115 regulatory agencies regulating the US economy before the financial crises? So you mean to tell me if only we had 116, that it would have never happened? I doubt that. Lack of regulation had nothing to do with it. The cause was artificially low interest rates set by FED, and forced sub-prime lending standards by The Community Reinvestment Act. Both a product of government. Fucking do some research and stop buying into whatever hear on msnbc. Do you know it's the companies themselves that lobby for more regulation? Big businesses love regulations, because it allows them to out compete smaller firms, because of the largrger overhead required to deal with them. Big companies can afford the lawyers, accountants, etc to deal with stiffer regulations while smaller companies cannot.Case in point.. They use government in order to restrict competition, which is always bad for the consumer (you and me).
Look, we both agree that the way our current system is set up, big business and powerful lobbyist groups pretty much run our government right? So doesn't it make sense that whatever's been going is exactly what those big businesses and lobbyist groups want? And what have we gotten? More regulations, more entitlements, more wars, etc. etc. etc.

 

You say products made with cheap labor are bad, but that we should have cheap labor here.

There will not be a magical job creation wave with no minimum wage, there will simply be less money for people who do get jobs.

Again, you have an argument that says if we just make our country suck, and dumb it down to the lowest common denominator, everything will be hunky-dorrie. Which is true, if you're already rich as balls.

What the helllll does the number of regulatory agencies in operation have to do with anything? You can have a billion of them, but if the regulations are toothless, it won't do a thing. The regulations have obviously been toothless. We need regulation, and it needs to be written by people who want regulation, not the people trying to avoid regulation, which is what has happened in the past.

As for big companies and their lawyers, are you trying to say that if we let big companies do anything, it will HELP smaller companies? Bullshit, I say! They use those lawyers as often against small companies. What is needed is a system of rules that regulates larger companies more strictly, because being "too big to fail" simply means that when you fail it fucks shit up. They need to be protected from themselves. In essence when a company reaches a certain size, it's a public business. It effects my country a huge amount, and I should have a say in it. I do not agree with strict regulations for small companies, but very strongly for big companies. This also introduces good competition, because a good idea can be marketed with less hassle by a company too small to be able to handle the hassle, instead of having to sell the idea to a big company or whatever. So sure, they love regulations, when they write the regulations. Them writing the regulations is what needs to change.

Yet AGAIN: The problem is that these corporations are profiting from living in two worlds and the best of both worlds. They pay nothing for something overseas, and sell nothing for something in the US. The solution is not to make the US suck, it's to keep the trash out of the US. An isolated but small market is a failure, an isolated but large market is healthy.

As for your last paragraph, that makes NO sense. You're saying that we both agree that they have too much influence, so let's just give them what they want so that we can be done with it and live like nigeria already. I don't buy that. You also say that everything that's happening is what they want, which is obviously not true. Corporations do NOT want regulation, they spend billions fighting regulations, because of the even bigger billions to be made fucking everything up with no regulation at all. They do not want welfare (assuming this is what you MEANT to say when you accidentally wrote "entitlements", a very corporate thing to call welfare) because it relieves the pressure for people to work too hard for too little compensation to the benefit of those corporations. And yes, of course they want wars, wars are big business.... this has nothing to do with the previous things you say they want, this is a red herring designed to prevent argument from people too lazy to pick apart the bullshit in your argument.

The "private sector" is not as private as the pseudo-libetratians would have you believe. Massive companies have a massive effect on the public, and therefore it is in the interest of proper libertarianism to protect the relatively powerless people from these companies. They are not "free" entities who do not hurt me simply because I do no business with them, they are major shaping factors in my country and they need to be kept in check as such.

 

Perhaps both were charging what they considered a decent wage, but the higher charge was because that person was having his private jet serviced.
Just what is a living wage? Living abroad, the majority of my friends and neighbors earn less per day than Americans earn per hour, yet nearly all of them own their houses and property outright, and are debt free, receiving no government assistance at all.
What have the republicans reversed? Obviously you would be a great person to work for, until you went bankrupt.

 

So you propose we isolate ourselves from the 'retards' who can produce many, if not most of the same products and services for much less than American workers, while providing them with much more than a living wage and providing American consumers with affordable products and services?

I'm beginning to see it might be a lost cause trying to save the U.S. from total economic collapse.

 

Now you're beginning to sound like how you describe conservatives, "those who don't want to allow change, or progress", talking about how "it used to be".

Just looking forward a couple of decades or less, what is going to be left is an unsustainable debt and greater poverty in America than ever in it's short history if the Left has their way.

 

There! I fixed it for ya...

 

Yeah where you live, a pound of rice'll set you back about 37 cents or about 3072 kip...am I close?

last lb bag of California brown rice I bought was over 3 bucks.

 

You haven't fixed anything, that's the problem with the Left, they always make things worse, claiming they are fixing something.

 

just don't get me started,

what if we turned the Military Industrial Complex into an education and health care entity.....I know just an errant thought....

 

Did I say I was a "lefty"?

 

I don't actually have to buy rice, but the price is currently the equivalent of about 35 cents a pound at the market, but much less directly from the producer. So yes, you're close, but are you suggesting the price should be over 3 bucks a pound everywhere?

 

So you're a righty?

Just how would you define poverty? And what is the cause of poverty?

 

So you're saying that because there's a low cost of living where you are, there should be low wages everywhere?

For most of the population, what the rice costs from the producer has very little to do with.... anything. You say you don't have to pay for your rice, which sounds much more entitled than many people on welfare, who at least have to spend a foodstamp credit that, improperly spent, could make them go hungry.

Compared to the cost of living, wages have dropped the US over.

Mixing currency through an importing company always puts the company on top, and the people of each country on the bottom.

It's not libertarian to allow a faceless company to trample the rights and quality of life of actual people so that a CEO can choose his own yearly bonus that's multitudes more than most or any of us will make in our entire lifetimes....... all of us put together.

 

Yes, I do.

They do not provide an adequate standard of living for that money.

It's an unsustainable equation. Just like the myth of an eternally growing economy. You can't keep buying cheap things from other places, and have a viable economy or healthy self sustaining country. It just doesn't work, one by one the people using their money on this cheap shit lose their jobs to people who will make the some shit that they do, for cheaper. And then nobody has any money for anything.

It's the world's biggest stimulus plan, no bailout needed...... the US stimulates the rest of the entire world's elite to wealth, while the greater populace of the US AND the rest of the world live in shantytowns.

 

The cost of living and wages are intertwined. Most every product or service produced or provided here is much cheaper because the wages are lower, and imports from the U.S. are unable to compete.

Yes, my family and I are most definitely 'entitled' to a share of the rice as we contribute to both the planting and harvesting of it.

Why not gather a number of like minded persons, pool your resources, and compete with those faceless companies and put them out of business?