Terminate All Governmental Largess

Everyone is worth a living wage.

When people dont make a living wage they are forced to take government benefits to survive. Even people with 2 jobs sometimes have to take benefits. There are only so many hours in the day to work. Taxpayers should not be expected to subsidize corporations who are too greedy to pay their employees a wage consistent with the cost of living.

 

No. If people want a living wage, they had better prepare themselves (college) to earn what they think that they desire.

People aren't owed a damned thing from taxpayers. If people want something, it's their responsibility to earn it.

 

I didnt vote for Clinton.

 

Thank God for Donald J. Trump. He's gonna dump Bill Clinton's middle class destroying NAFTA and smother TPP. He is going to reindustrialize America. I've recently read that Apple is going to start making iPhones in America. Donald Trump told Ford executives that if they move more plants to Mexico, they'll never sell an imported car in America because he's pledged to slap a 35% tariff on every imported car pricing them out of the market.

Donald J. Trump will restore America's middle class, restore high paying jobs in America, and revive the American Dream.

 

James Rickards has called the depression in which we're now mired systemic rather than the normal cyclical recession. He said that our economic system is broken due to Obama's extreme incompetence. Consumers weren't spending because they didn't know whether they'd continue to have jobs and whether Obama would impose additional taxes. Companies left America for more business friendly foreign countries. They one's that remained were reluctant to expand for fear of more onerous Obama regulations. Well, it sure looks like prosperity is going to return. Keep in mind that Bloomberg was one of the neocons who tried to trash Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States of America: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-23/soaring-consumer-confidence-are-americans-happy-it-s-trump-or-just-happy-it-s-over

 

You're ignoring reality. The reality is that taxpayers ARE subsidizing low paid workers despite your personal feelings on the matter.

The reality is that wages are stagnant (despite record profits for some companies)

The reality is that college doesnt guarantee anyone a decent job anymore. There are plenty of college grads out there who cant find employment or who can only find jobs making $8 -$10 an hour in their field.

 

^^^^^This...plus they graduate greatly in debt.

 

Bill Clinton's NAFTA? Republicans supported it 132 to 43. The sole Independent—Bernie Sanders—voted against it. Republican margins in favor of NAFTA were about 3:1 both houses.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/1/1/1255736/-NAFTA-at-20-An-Unhappy-Birthday-and-a-Look-at-the-Roll-Call-Votes-on-Free-Trade-Deals

 

I agree that most college degrees guarantee nothing. Hard science degrees are always marketable.

Wages are stagnant because there is an imbalance of supply (labor) and demand (companies willing to hire supply). Bill Clinton's NAFTA is a huge cause of excess supply because factories have fled to foreign locales.

That, my friend, is reality.

Supply and demand determine employees' worth. We need to bring supply back to America.

 

Neocons supported it. Neocons have co-opted the Republican Party.

Pat Buchanan said in the 90's, during the peak of the illusory Clinton economic boom, that his economy was going to crash. It did. Pat Buchanan is an authentic conservative.

Neocons are liberals. Neocons are not conservatives. Neocons and liberals think and act alike.

 

What about the single moms who live off their former husbands?
I know hundreds that do.

 

Average US wage in 2015 is lower than the average US wage in 1999 ......... that isn't stagnant.

 

Yes, damn Bill Clinton for sending all of those factories overseas. Now our worthless, uneducated work force can't make seven dollars an hour and struggle to put food on the table. It's really a shame.

I'm sure that what our forefathers envisioned was a country where all of the people who made poor choices in their lives, who were born less fortunate than others, had to struggle all of their lives to get by while the president-elect sits on a golden throne. I'm sure they wanted this cycle to perpetuate, also, as the poor couldn't afford an education in the first place.

...

Americans are just too clingy with their money. We should be eager to pay more in taxes to create a better society and a better standard of living. If some mother with two kids living on minimum wage wants a hand out so that she doesn't have to live like a piece of shit, that is more than okay by me. Go ahead, raise my taxes!

The fact is that everyone in this country is responsible for this country's success, from the factory worker to the physician. All are needed; none are expendable. The thought that it would even be a good idea for everyone to decide to go to college and become a lawyer is asinine. We need these people to work these menial jobs, and we ought to show a little appreciation for what they do. Is it so much to ask that a mother who is working two jobs to support her kids can take them to the movies every once in a while? Or every so often buy them a really nice present to show how much she cares for them?

The one and only reason we aren't giving the shirts off our backs to help each other is greed, plain and simple. Dress it up however you like, but that's all it is.

 

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

MYTH: Poverty and homelessness have grown in spite of the trillions of dollars spent since 1965 to help the poor; therefore, these programs have failed.
FACT: These programs have succeeded and are succeeding in getting people out of poverty and homelessness. As Michael Harrington reported in The Other America (originally printed 1962, most recently printed http://www.amazon.co...alchangehomele/"]1997) not everyone was living like Ward and June Cleaver in the 1950's. Poverty hovered around 20 percent. In 1964, Johnson declared "war on poverty" with his "Great Society" program. The increased welfare payments reduced poverty to 12 percent by the end of the 60s.

As Nancy Amidei said in a speech at the Family Reunion conference in Tennessee, 1992: "Joan Growe, the Secretary of State of Minnesota is a former welfare mom. Judge Sedgewick, an appeals court judge, is a former welfare mom. Two members of the Montana legislature, two members of the Wisconsin legislature, a couple members of the Pennsylvania legislature. (Probably members of the Tennessee legislature are all former welfare moms.) Whoopi Goldberg is a former welfare mom. Carol Burnett is a former welfare kid. Bishop Weakland in Milwaukee is a former welfare kid. Six members of Congress (that I have been able to identify) are former welfare kids. I have run into former welfare kids and former welfare moms who are now PhDs and County Executives, nurses, career Army officials, police, Head Start aides. They are all over the place; they are terrific people and they are welfare success stories."

More people, new people, become poor and homeless daily, therefore the numbers grow. The increase in poverty and homelessness is due to grave problems in our economy, like the income of the lower 20 percent of the economy falling during the "economic boom", 6 out of 10 of the "new jobs" being under $10 an hour -- a wage at which no one can afford a market rate apartment -- racism (the median income of a Hispanic family is $3000 a YEAR), sexism, and a widening income gap. It is not due to welfare programs failing.
http://www.anitra.net/homelessness/columns/anitra/eightmyths.html

 

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And the same wealth sponsored shit is pumped out once again – they know it doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny yet they still try to peddle the same old lies.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I mean for fuck sake why do people keep falling for wealth’s propaganda, anyone actually looking at it would see it for the con it is – but hell OK once again –[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]It’s the old self serving argument put forward by the better off to justify not helping the poorer off.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]It is the con know as – ‘the deserving and undeserving poor’ and it has been a theme of wealth going back generation. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The deserving are those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The undeserving are those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are lazy scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Many Right wing libertarian types also express this in terms personal responsibility and ‘rugged individualism’ they seem to say - if people are responsible and make “better decisions” then they will not need assistance but those that are irresponsible and make “poor decisions” then don’t deserve assistance.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The problem is that an individual cannot always be in personal control of circumstance, at the very fundamental level the RWL view of personal responsibility falls down – No one can choose to whom they are born and that is one of, if not the biggest thing to impact a person’s life. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I’m sure if people could choose they’d want to be born into wealth or at least comfort rather than into disadvantage. For one it would likely lead to a happier and healthier life but also to the opportunities to fulfil your potential would be far greater. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]In an unequal system there cannot be equality of opportunity the more unequal a society the more difficult it can be for the disadvantaged to fulfil their potential and rise in social standing (what is referred to a Social Mobility).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]For a lot of people they are in the position they are because of lack of opportunity rather than lack of potential. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Also as well as giving greater opportunities advantage can also allow greater levels of irresponsibility or the making of bad decisions, advantage can cushion individuals and institutions from the effects. [/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The history of NAFTA before Clinton[/SIZE]

The impetus for NAFTA actually began with President Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on a North American common market.

In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act. That gave the President "fast-track" authority to negotiate free trade agreements more freely. That's because it restricts Congressional input to the ability to approve or disapprove. Congress lost the ability to change negotiating points.

Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney agreed with Reagan to begin negotiations for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. It was signed in 1988, went into effect in 1989. It was suspended when NAFTA was signed since it's no longer needed. (Source: NaFina, NAFTA Timeline)

Meanwhile, Mexican President Salinas and President Bush began negotiations for a liberalized trade agreement between the two countries. Prior to NAFTA, Mexican tariffs on U.S. imports were 250% higher than U.S. tariffs on Mexican imports. In 1991, Canada requested a trilateral agreement, which then led to NAFTA. In 1993, concerns about the liberalization of labor and environmental regulations led to the adoption of two addendums.

NAFTA was signed by President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1992. It was ratified by the legislatures of the three countries in 1993. The U.S. House of Representatives approved it by 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993. The U.S. Senate approved it by 60 to 38 on November 20, three days later.

*

Thing is that such free trade agreement were part and parcel of neoliberal/free market policy of politicians (including Clinton) that Americans voted for – and it can’t even be said that they were not warned about the likely adverse ramifications for American workers.

 

I wonder why people fall so easily for wealth’s propaganda – I mean it’s all about keeping the ‘lower orders’ divided so they can hold onto their position and wealth.

They have been paying to spread misdirection’s and falsehoods for years from the great support given to Social Darwinism to the present day wealth supported think tanks that pump out selective and subjective ‘reports’ and ‘studies’ that the right wing media then report as ‘fact’ .

The ‘lazy’ living well of public assistance has just about always been a common theme of such propaganda - it’s about pitting one set of poor against another, LBJ ‘Great Society’ has long been a target of wealth sponsored right wing think tanks who claim it a failure.

The subtext is easy to find if you look – public assistance doesn’t work so scrap it and instead cut taxes that will help the wealthy become more powerful and influential.

 

I suppose we've found something to agree on

But i also feel like the chicken has flown the coop. Trump has threatened to put a tariff on goods imported back to America if they're American companies manufacturing in a foreign land, but i feel like it wont be effective in bringing jobs back and will only raise the price of consumer goods for everyone.

I think one thing we really need to do is focus on filling the highly skilled jobs that are in demand here (we're currently filling a lot of positions with foreign workers) by getting the cost of college under control and also by adopting the german model of apprenticeships. I live in a city with a lot of German investment and we have seen some success with apprenticeship programs here

 

That may be possible but if a company thinks it will make more money here than there they will move pdq.
Everything made overseas is non essential. I don't think they will raise prices for certain things because they would just not sell.

 

How nice that Trump and Barack were able to speak together [SIZE=10.5pt]civilly[/SIZE], and The President asked Trump to reconsider the ACA and Trump said he would. How is this bad?

Perhaps it can be saved.

Mr Trump is a lifelong NY Democrat be ready for these [SIZE=10.5pt]surprises [/SIZE]