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

So you continue to evade by accusing me of evading?


The only issue you have raised, as best I can remember is that by disagreeing with you in any way, one is exercising evasive tactics, dishonesty, being irrational, unreasonable, or any combination of those.

Perhaps if you were to ban any and all of those who disagree with you, you could create the utopian fantasy world you would like to impose upon us all.

If you wish to ban me, go right ahead, and if you do please just remove me, my login and email, entirely from the site.

For those who remain more freedom minded I might suggest viewing the video titled "The Determinators" if you have not already. Quite interesting in pointing out where health care in the U.S. is heading if Obamacare is not repealed.

 

It appears you've ran out of answers.

 

Well all I can tell you is when that many people are gathered together maybe one person will come up with a good idea that at least helps them self. I know things are bad but as Einstein said "out of difficulty rises opportunity"

 

There would be NO welfare if your precious trickle-down 1%ers ideas worked and they gave a shit about this country. Fuckin' right-wingers want ALL the damn money and they are constantly working to get this one-world labor force cranked up regardless of what happens to american citizens. The entitled are differant than most of us. They can screw the whole world economy and what happens? They get billions of taxpayer money as a reward. According to that man that is coming out with a book on Goldman-Sachs, they have a great time laughing about their stupid customers and are continuing the same crap that brought the economy down. "sell the most sophisticated,complicated financial instruments to the least sophisticated dummys that trust those crooks. Why should the paper shufflers worry, when they are in effect,backed by the government? Which is now bought and sold by corporations that do their bidding.
If there were enough jobs in THIS country,we'd see who would work and who wouldn't. But there aren't. So that's why most people that are on welfare are on it. Kind of the way Ayn Rand used it when she needed it.

 

I think somewhere in this post is something incredibly profound.. that very likely proves all of us wrong.

The one and only blunder I can see Mug, is that you seem to think that "machines replacing jobs" is a bad thing, and that it results in unemployment. This is a fallacy. Machines replacing jobs is actually a very GOOD thing for society, and instead of causing unemployment, merely frees up labor to pursue other means. For instance, 90% of the population in early societies used to be employed as farmers. Because it took 90% of people's labor to simply produce enough food to survive. Now it's true when technology improved that many of people's jobs as farmers were lost, because machines made it possible to produce the same amount of food (or more) with less labor. This meant that there were more people who could become say, doctors, or lawyers, or craftsmen, or therapists, or engineers, or intellectuals... You get the idea.

Lets take the idea to it's logical extreme... Say machines replaced EVERY SINGLE job currently on the planet. Meaning that every good and service currently in society could now be supplied by machines, and by zero effort from any human. Not only would all of these goods now be completely free... Now EVERYONE could become an intellectual, therapist, philosopher, professional skier, scientist, or whatever the fuck else they felt like doing.

You can see this really well in Manufacturing. Overall employment in manufacturing has been going down not only in the United States, but equal amounts in the rest of the world as well. This has freed up workers to produce and work in other sectors of the economy. Manufacturing percentage of overall GDP has decreased the same amount in the United States as the rest of the world. As shown here:
Actual manufacturing output has increased, but it's percent of overall output has decreased! Showing that the freed up labor is leading to more goods being produced by other sectors.



So all those people you see on TV talking about the many woes of technology replacing the work force, don't pay any attention to their neanderthal logic. Also, this idea that there are limited amounts of jobs in this, or any country... is another myth... but one for a different post.

 

See all those machines on the auto assembly lines? Used to be humans doing those jobs. I'm not a Luddite,but I wonder what those long gone workers are doing now. They sure didn't get shuffled off to other jobs in the plants. Those jobs are gone. As Walter Reuther said to Henry Ford when shown some mechanization--"nice,but how many Fords will they buy"?

 

This is the thing with you people. In your 'best of all possible worlds' universe, poor people are only poor when they're too lazy to be rich.

You're living in a fantasy world any trying to make real policy from fantasy.

This 96 legislation everyone is busy staring at is a different application of welfare. Now I don't know a huge amount about it, but if it's soon some good it's because a DIFFERENT APPLICATION of welfare worked, not because welfare is Teh evil.

 

That's classic. Machines replacing people is good for society. Shit,you people will say anything to justify your disdain for REAL working people. You're all just a little better than the rest of us. Frankly I don't know why any of us bother with the likes of you right-wingers. Including myself. If machines replaced EVERYBODY, then everybody would starve. Except ,of course the owners of the machines. They show no largesse toward working people. History shows that. Ever heard of the term Robber Barons? It's not fiction. Union busting? Not fiction.

They had little suck-ass motherfuckers that would do their bidding in the Ford plant in which I worked. They tried to eliminate jobs by assigning one phase of a particular job to ,for example-ME. Another phase of the same job marked for elimination to someone else. They just wern't happy with us working hard. Nope. Work harder and OH yeah--never mind when we snuk around like scurvy dogs and turned the assembly line faster ,as was PROHIBITED in our contract. Caring employers.

As I said before---those jobs are gone.

And by the way--I fucked some cars up when they tried their chickenshit shenanigans. I got fed up and quit.

 

Do you see? You had nothing to say about the "corporate" part of corporate welfare.

 

To a degree, that can be true. Depends on the job. Automation in manufacturing, for example, creates more jobs than it eliminates...And safer jobs at that.

However, I won't use that damned automated checkout line at the grocery store, because that DOES eliminate jobs.

 

I have answered this before.

I do NOT support isolation, because it limits the freedoms of individuals.

I DO support taxes or foreign goods that raise their prices to slightly higher than the domestic version. Specifically, those taxes would be about the farest place to get money to pay out for unemployment benefits.

I don't care what american can't buy an iPad, that doesn't mean it's okay to cheat the system in the short term, which fucks the american people in the long run.... oh, except the guy selling the iPad's, he's just fine.

 

No no no, he's totally right.

Machines concentrate prodution, all that must be done is the wealth, which could previously be acquired by doing that machine's job by hand, redistributed to those who lost jobs to the machine.

If the same wealth exists, but there is no longer a manner of getting it for the vast majority of the population, it must be distributed to that majority -- if you don't agree with me, guess what..... you agree with import tariffs and bringing jobs home to america, so that the rich can just be reasonably rich for coordinating americans to build things, instead of very rich for running cartels to scam americans out of their little remaining money.

 

I'm fairly certain that I am someone that you would classify as one if those doggon 'right wingers.' But I know that you are right on about the machines. Anyone who's spent any time in a factory could tell you that the people losing their jobs to automation, aren't the type to go out and become an 'intellectual' instead. I don't even see how anyone could earn a living that way, much less someone whose main skill consists of fastening parts together, and/or pushing buttons.

 

What 'exactly' is it you are calling corporate welfare?

 

Ha, ha, ha, so it limits the freedoms of individuals? That's taking away from governments function?

And the same could then be applied to goods exported abroad making them more expensive then their own locally produced. I guess that would solve all our problems? While we're at it why not raise the taxes on all domestic produced goods and services and provide government with much greater revenues to be redistributed to those who can no longer afford to buy the products produced abroad or locally?

Essentially, you think imported products should be made available, as long as they are less likely to be purchased or made unaffordable.

I'm afraid I have no idea what 'system' you are talking about, nor do I see what it is you are calling 'cheating' it.

 

Wrong

Oh hell man we’ve been through that, could you please read the posts? I take the common courtesy of reading your posts I hope you will do the same.

I’ve explained in full why insurance is relevant to the discussion and have challenged you to explain why it isn’t.

You have claimed that - Insurance has absolutely nothing to do with anything. We're talking about the money spent on repairing a broken window. A third party service that spreads the burden to the baker over a period of time doesn't change anything.

Well my reply was - Doesn’t change anything - to you paying for insurance still means the baker is not spending it elsewhere and seemingly suggesting that rather than pay for insurance he should spend the money on something else and just hope an accident never happens.

*

You see the problem I have with the parable is that you are saying it would be better if the window didn’t break BUT it did brake.

I’ve asked you several times if that window broke, and ask again did it?

*

That’s because no one in their right mind would want a complete economic collapse, so they try to stop it. You seem to want to allow a complete economic collapse in the hope somehow that it wouldn’t happen, or might just possibly have, at some point in the future, a good outcome.

Again it comes back to what I’ve pointed out before - it is a mentality based on the hope that bad things will not happen or if they do will not be that bad. But people in the real world should understand that bad things can happen and should be told that it can happen so that they are willing to prepare for that eventuality.

The other problem here is that the it is disputed as to whether the 1920-1921 recession backs up your claims I mean for example that it seems not to have been such a large financial sector crisis and so was unlikely to cause a complete economic collapse.

Eventually and eventually everyone is dead

Look I know the theory – eventually, sometime, possibly, off in the future the economy should maybe, possibly emerge rebuilt better than it was before…better…stronger…faster…

The problem is that like the six million dollar man I think that is fiction

Try reading – The Decline and Fall of the America Empire: Part One 1945-2011
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=435209&f=36

Try reading - Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353

 

Wrong

Oh that’s just evasion – I thing I have a fair understanding of your views I just don’t agree with them and have raised a number of criticisms of them – the problem is that you don’t seem willing to address those criticism. Having to be prodded to get any replies.

 

Indie

So are you accepting the challenge?

 

"any money given to manufacturing must be extracted from other sectors of the economy, and so money spent to prop up bad businesses can only be done at the expense of successful ones."

You continue to evade addressing this very straight forward criticism of your view. How do you respond?

Who tries to stop it? I've pointed you to several depressions where the government did NOT intervene, did NOT give bailouts, did NOT give monetary stimulus, and not only did we still recover, we recovered FASTER. The depression of 1920-1921 is a great example. You've insinuated that if bailouts weren't given we would have had "a complete economic collapse." I've cited several situations in history where your statement has been proven entirely false, and you continue to evade addressing any of them.
The depression of 1920-1921 is a great example. How do you respond?

 

I doubt it.