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

That sounds good, but Henry Ford didn't pay pensions to retired workers, or health, dental, and eye care. For the most part I think large corporations pay pretty well, especially if you take into account the benefits of both working and retired employees.

Of course stockholders, which include pension investments for that companies employees as well as other companies employees, like to see a return on their investments as well. I know for a fact that I did as most of my retirement income was a result of investments in many companies in addition to the one I worked for. I really count on the rich fools to prop up the value of the stocks I had invested in.

 

That fuckwad also developed an automobile in which the only steel was the tubular frame. All the other components were made from natural fibers (mostly hemp and soybean) and bioresins. It even ran on fuel derived from the hemp stalk, as he saw bio fuels as the fuel of the future.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdkXBGKBxjw&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]Henry Ford's Plastic Hemp Car - YouTube
http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/facts/fordhemp.html

He was also a Nazi sympathizer, and an all around crazy bastard. But that crazy bastard was also a genius, who had a lot of great ideas that changed the world. If he succeeded his goals with natural plastics and fuels, this world would be a drastically better place.

 

Pure speculation dude. Market forces drive the auto industry, had there been profits in Fords hemp and bio-diesel ideas they might have flown.. but there was not.

If only the focus had been on mass transportation instead of personal vehicles for the masses....

 

I didn't miss the "community work" bit, I just feel that lobbyists would screw it all around and the tax payers would end up paying for their yard work...

 

I agree with rjhangover:

Your answer is untenable:

The GOP says that the unemployed voting block is an insignificant "small amount of people."

Individual:
Why would a politician spend political capital on a voting block that is insignificant?

 

.

 

Also speculation. At the end of WWII hemp production was again banned and put an end to it before the market had a chance to turn a profit.

Are you saying that the world would not be a better place if we weren't dependent on oil? That things would not be better if our automibiles could be grown from the soil?

 

Oh now you resort to Hyperbole! lol you could have a career in politics, ever think of that? dude!lol

yeah I'm done with your fool-ass

 

Hey you were the one that said I was speculating when I said that the world would be a better place if we were using bio fuels and natural plastics......fool ass

 

This is going rather well...

 

We're too far off topic anyway... IMHO Ford was a dick,
bio-diesel and hemp is neet-o ... Cool?

on topic; (I'm gonna borrow from Jimi here)

Poverty will end when the power of love over-comes the love of power

 

"The upper class: keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class: pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there...just to scare the shit out of the middle class" ... George Carlin

 

In the year 2010 the Federal government spent $11,503.97 per man, woman, and child, having collected revenues of $7,012.25 per man, woman, and child. How many people actually paid taxes in the equal to $7,012.25 per member of their family in the year 2010? Note that in addition to that amount the government borrowed an additional $4,491.72 per man, woman, and child.
It would appear that only the richest members of the society pay taxes anything equal to what should be considered a "fair share", leaving the vast majority of society paying little or nothing, yet receiving benefits from those whose total taxes exceed $11,503.97 per family member.
Poverty can only be eliminated if each person is made responsible for his/her own support in filling his/her own needs and wants. The easier it becomes to live in what we allow to be defined as poverty, the greater the number will be of those who choose to avail themselves of it.

 

Indie

Let me get this straight – the minimum wage rate in 2009 was $7.25 per hour or $15,080 for the 2080 hours in a typical work year.(wiki – Federal minimum wage)

I believe the federal level is still $7.25 (although different States have different levels).

Now the poverty level for 2012 was set at $23,050 (total yearly income) for a family of four (wiki) I believe in 2009 it was around 22,000 (Washington post)

You then also seem to want to tax them as well so they get even less than $15,080

So a lot of your forced labour (or whatever you want to call them) would still be way below the poverty line and most likely still be in need of some other assistance.

The individual poverty level I believe is $11,344 which would seem that $15,080 is an improvement which it is but that is a long way below the US’s annual median wage of around $26,364

Also as an aside I’d also point out that all such forced labour is basically a form of slavery and all slavery usually has to be accompanied by some type of threat (usually intimidation, physical threats or actual harm, work or starve, work or be beaten etc). I mean you can’t let a slave refuse to work.

So you get a work force working that is being forced to work for a very low wages - what do you use them on? You say ‘doing public service community work’ but what is that? If it is work that isn’t already being done, why wasn’t it being done? If it was being done then was it being done by people that had been doing it for a living wage who would now find themselves been undercut and out of a job (where ironically they could be forced to do the same job at your forced labour wage).

I mean where are these jobs coming from that are not there in a ‘free market’ labour market? So this would seem to be a gross manipulation of the concept you claim to hold dear that of the ‘free market’ – What you would be doing is flooding the market place with cheap labour subsidised by the state, which would have the effect of driving down all worker wage prices which would only favour the employers and their backers, so again you idea would seem only to favour the interests of the few rather than the majority.

 

Indie

But if the unemployed had such power and influence wouldn’t their situation be much better than it is? I mean in the last thirty years or so the wealth of the few has vastly increased while the real term incomes of all the other classes including I believe the unemployed has stagnated or fallen. Since these classes are the most likely to need unemployment benefits especially the lower down the scale you go if your contention was correct wouldn’t their situation (and that of the unemployed) be a lot better?

 

Indie

And that is one of the main reason for regulation because there is always the temptation to get the greatest profit possible by any means possible to the detriment of the wider community.

There is also the allure of often destructive short term speculation over beneficial long term stable investment.

Also it is often better to have a good product than a cheap product that isn’t fit for purpose. Or discover that there are hidden costs behind the initial tender. Basically it goes back to what I said before if the goal is the greatest possible profit, for the individual, business or corporation the production of what is best for the community at large can be lost.

I want people to have jobs with living wages (not the slavery of above) and for that we need long term investment in people, infrastructure and businesses that can employ people on living wages. It seems to me for that to happen we need to abandon the neo-liberal ideas that only seem to produce the opposite.

 

Letlovin

(my bold)

Had to - Have to work or else? It seems to me that if you force people to work against their will then that is slavery - and what happens to slaves that refuse to work?

For me rather than creating slaves why not try and create jobs with living wages that can allow people to have healthy and fulfilled (even possibly happy) lives?

 

Slavery!? Bahaha good one Balbus!

They wouldn't be forced to do anything. But if they chose to collect Benifits then they should be required to do some community service. An example of said service would be picking up trash (as I already mentioned), cleaning graffiti, clean/build/repair playgrounds, etc etc etc.

The work would be best for long term recipients who cannot find work.

 

letlovin


If you need assistance you have to work, if you don’t work you can’t have assistance, assistance to buy say food or to pay for accommodation, so work or become homeless and staving. It is a work or else situation if that isn’t a form of slavery what is it?

And I still don’t understand where all this work is coming from you say it would be picking up trash why isn’t the trash being picked up already where are the street cleaners? Why is the graffiti not been dealt with? Are you saying that playgrounds are not maintained, if so why not?

 

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.