Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 4:31:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2013 10:28:04 GMT -5
We didnt have the level of affluence we have now. We also developed a lot of our programming in response to economic and social problems that existed without them.
If 47% of the public pays no federal income tax, and 1 in whatever gets some form of assistance... But 80-90% (?) of those people buy the products that sustain our economy... Cutting those programs cuts our economy off at the knees...
Say Walmart adjusts in either of the ways you suggest... Now the poor is cut off even more, there is a huge body that can afford only basic necessities, living in a disconnect from those ho can now afford even more as wealth concentrates even more... And since there ill be fewer goods sold, manufacturing and distribution further retract... fewer persons can afford service, those sectors retract, even more fall into the poor category. How does a democratic republic survive in that environment? Do we go back to when the poor and disconnected didn't access the vote? And without those programs and the complacency they engender, what does the majority demand now? The republic would fall...
|
|
Otto the Orange
Well-Known Member
Go Orange!
Joined: Aug 23, 2012 4:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Otto the Orange on Sept 29, 2013 10:44:50 GMT -5
The money doesn't just "go away" if we were to cut social programs, people (tax payers) would be able to keep more of their money and spend it or save it accordingly.
People are more efficient with their money than government. Middle class people and above would keep more of their money (less money in taxes for social programs). They would spend and invest this money which would cause other industries and economic sectors to grow.
This probably allows new opportunities for new kinds of jobs
Why would there be fewer goods sold? More people get to keep and spend / save their own money instead of giving it to the gov for social programs (not saying social programs are bad, just saying what could happen if they were cut)
Charities would rise to fill part of the gap. Middle class people and above would have more money to donate to charity (charity is more efficient IMO than gov). Charity would not fill the gap perfectly but it would help fill some of the gap
I suspect people would become somewhat more "responsible" and you would have more people not having kids they can't afford (again not saying this totally stops this problem, but it would decrease)
and who couldn't "access the vote"? you don't think democratic groups wouldn't bus people to the poles like they do now (repub groups bus certain people too so not saying this is a bad thing, just saying it exists)
I just don't see it like you do and not sure how we got to this part of the discussion on the thread
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Sept 29, 2013 11:11:44 GMT -5
We didnt have the level of affluence we have now. We also developed a lot of our programming in response to economic and social problems that existed without them. If 47% of the public pays no federal income tax, and 1 in whatever gets some form of assistance... But 80-90% (?) of those people buy the products that sustain our economy... Cutting those programs cuts our economy off at the knees... Say Walmart adjusts in either of the ways you suggest... Now the poor is cut off even more, there is a huge body that can afford only basic necessities, living in a disconnect from those ho can now afford even more as wealth concentrates even more... And since there ill be fewer goods sold, manufacturing and distribution further retract... fewer persons can afford service, those sectors retract, even more fall into the poor category. How does a democratic republic survive in that environment? Do we go back to when the poor and disconnected didn't access the vote? And without those programs and the complacency they engender, what does the majority demand now? The republic would fall... Basically we fall into another recession. I agree if we cut off giving money to the poor it will hit us at every level. And other taxpayers won't just keep more money because we are running a trillion dollar deficit. Hopefully if we cur spending we would cut the deficit.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Sept 29, 2013 11:18:13 GMT -5
Only something like 10-15% of taxpayers pay enough to cover their share of government spending. They're subsidizing the rest of us. I never paid anywhere close to our share even when our household income was six figures. So 90% of the population wouldn't get a tax break without welfare spending. They don't even pay enough now to cover military spending, R&D, food inspection, etc.
10% of the population, roughly, might see a tax break, but with our deficits they might not either.
I don't see those numbers supporting economic growth.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Sept 29, 2013 17:28:53 GMT -5
Rukh- I am confused what you are saying with the above? Are you implying it is OK that the mom and pop stores pay the help lower wages since mom and pop are doing most of the "heavy lifting and real work"? Only he people mom and pop hire to cover down for them when they go on vacation or whatever ("relief worker"? is that your definition of a relief worker?) f that's the case, do you really think the wal mart minimal wage workers are the ones doing all the heavy lifting? If I have your scenario right than I would say the majority of the wal mart busiess is actually on the store managers, assistant managers and department managers (just like you say in the mom and pop store they do the lion share of the work)...or is there an issue wit Walmarts pay of these managers too? If I am misinterpretting what you are saying about mom and pop stores please let me know Thank you! And it easy to target Walmart because it is 1 company, the math is easy. Take all the mom and pops in all the towns/cities of America and come back to us. Their impact is just as big if not bigger.... You cannot arbitrarily make one set of rule for Company A but Company B, C and D because they are smaller are not obligated to follow those rules. Sure you have have different rules for different size businesses, Carl. We do it all the time. For example, FMLA does not apply to businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Much of Obamacare doesn't apply to businesses with few than , I think it is 50, employees. If OSHA decides you haven't complied with the law, they impose higher fines on bigger businesses than they do for a smaller business for the exact same infraction. And I'm sure there are many other examples where the big boys are required to play by a different set of rules than Mom and Pop.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Sept 29, 2013 17:43:00 GMT -5
We didnt have the level of affluence we have now. We also developed a lot of our programming in response to economic and social problems that existed without them. If 47% of the public pays no federal income tax, and 1 in whatever gets some form of assistance... But 80-90% (?) of those people buy the products that sustain our economy... Cutting those programs cuts our economy off at the knees... Say Walmart adjusts in either of the ways you suggest... Now the poor is cut off even more, there is a huge body that can afford only basic necessities, living in a disconnect from those ho can now afford even more as wealth concentrates even more... And since there ill be fewer goods sold, manufacturing and distribution further retract... fewer persons can afford service, those sectors retract, even more fall into the poor category. How does a democratic republic survive in that environment? Do we go back to when the poor and disconnected didn't access the vote? And without those programs and the complacency they engender, what does the majority demand now? The republic would fall... I think the flaw in this argument is the assumption that if social programs are cut, that the recipient of social program benefits will not do anything in response. Based on observation of situations where benefits are reduced or eliminated (was it Tenn. that kicked single people with no dependents off medicaid?), people respond by making "other arrangements". Often the "other arrangements" include going to work to replace the benefits that used to be provided by social programs, as was indicated by internet employment searches in Tenn. when medicaid benefits ended for some people.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 4:31:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2013 19:07:24 GMT -5
Contrary to common conception, a lot of people on benefits ALREADY work... Thus the topic of this thread...
|
|
Otto the Orange
Well-Known Member
Go Orange!
Joined: Aug 23, 2012 4:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Otto the Orange on Sept 30, 2013 8:46:39 GMT -5
I think if all the social programs were cut and everything else you would never see a lowering of taxes. People are dreaming if they do. There would just be more spending on military or space exploration or something. You would see people starving is about all you would see. Now some of the people that you think are making it ok are just hanging on by a thread with the social programs. I think you would be really surprised at how many poor we really have out there. and people are "dreaming" if they ever think all social programs would ever be cut and yet that's what we are discussing , but this is a discussion thread where we are discussing what if.......
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Sept 30, 2013 9:08:58 GMT -5
50 years ago, a welfare system was created that paid people to sit on their asses and squirt out children. Two generations passed with people having no intention of working, no plans for their children to get better jobs, and therefore no incentive to push their children to get an education or work hard, because Uncle Sugar met their needs without expecting anything in return. The middle class fled to the suburbs, the poor people lost access to good role models, and as a result, you have an entire group of people being raised in a culture where doing the minimum is the norm, and valuing education and hard work is considered very very weird. Then in the 1990's, welfare reform happened, and the folks who had never worked a day in their lives had to get some kind of job. But the 'do the minimum' mindset didn't magically go away. As a result, you have grown adults working teenager jobs, even in areas when there are better paying jobs with more room for advancement. So you can talk all you want about the lack of opportunity and evil corporations cheating folks out of their just wage, but in my neck of the woods, there are jobs available that pay significantly more than Walmart with full benefits, all the overtime you can take, and generous tuition reimbursment, but they can't get these poor oppressed Walmart employees to apply for these jobs, because these people would rather do an easier job with no room for advancement and collect benefits than pull their own weight.
|
|
laladuck
New Member
Joined: Apr 19, 2013 17:39:39 GMT -5
Posts: 21
|
Post by laladuck on Sept 30, 2013 10:25:07 GMT -5
I rarely post (as I'm sure you can tell), however, I feel the need to comment now. In full disclosure, I am fairly liberal in my view and staunchly pro-choice, however, I find the rhetoric used by some people on this board, such as "squirting out children" or "popping our kids" quite disgusting. That people can be so crass, especially when referring to children is upsetting. It does nothing to help get your point across, encourage people to consider your views, or move the conversation forward in a constructive manner.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Sept 30, 2013 10:38:34 GMT -5
Actually it does, it was an attention getter for me. I'm older, I was in the work force 50 yrs ago and I witnessed that phenomenon (more kids equals bigger welfare checks), followed by the decay of our Inner Cities, along with the failure of what was a first-in-class K12 system. Yeah, the choice of wording may ding some delicate sensibilities - but the content is certainly clear.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Sept 30, 2013 10:50:22 GMT -5
That people can be so uncaring when creating children is also quite upsetting. For those of us who actually bothered to think about our children's welfare before getting pregnant and who took concrete steps to put ourselves in a better position before creating them, it is very upsetting to see someone deliberately create children when they haven't even bothered to do anything with their lives, kowing full well that the children they are bringing into this world are going to be raised in an unsafe neighborhood, go to dysfunctional schools, have subpar healthcare, and be raised by parents who are too young and stupid to do the job right. When people talk about squirting out babies, it isn't a dig against the kids, who had no choice in what parents they got, it is dig against the parents, who didn't care enough about their chidlren to make something of themselves before having them.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Sept 30, 2013 10:55:28 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree.
Although I agree with the point that current systems create and encourage behavior that is not productive or beneficial, when you indiscriminately insult and dehumanize an entire group of people your message gets lost because most open minded people (the group you are seeking to influence) are so turned off by your behavior.
You will not be able to influence people on the far ends of either spectrum, your best hope is to attempt to convince intelligent people in the middle. If you alienate that intelligent middle group, you lose.
|
|
laladuck
New Member
Joined: Apr 19, 2013 17:39:39 GMT -5
Posts: 21
|
Post by laladuck on Sept 30, 2013 11:00:53 GMT -5
What milee is saying is exactly my point. I understand the frustration that some people choose to have children when they cannot care for them (and I completely agree that ultimately, children deserve to be born to parents who think about their welfare first and do what they need to do to ensure their child has the best chance in life) but the use of insulting rhetoric causes your message to get lost and prevents the discussion form advancing.
|
|
Otto the Orange
Well-Known Member
Go Orange!
Joined: Aug 23, 2012 4:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Otto the Orange on Oct 1, 2013 2:23:01 GMT -5
and being all politically correct and touchy feely works so well?
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Oct 1, 2013 6:27:56 GMT -5
and being all politically correct and touchy feely works so well? Are you new here? I'm not exactly PC or touchy feely. It's not about holding hands and singing Kumbayah, it's refraining from using inflammatory language that is designed to be hurtful and derogatory. You can make your point - and make it much more effective, IMHO - by being factual and not insulting.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Oct 1, 2013 6:34:52 GMT -5
50 years ago, a welfare system was created that paid people to sit on their asses and squirt out children. Two generations passed with people having no intention of working, no plans for their children to get better jobs, and therefore no incentive to push their children to get an education or work hard, because Uncle Sugar met their needs without expecting anything in return. The middle class fled to the suburbs, the poor people lost access to good role models, and as a result, you have an entire group of people being raised in a culture where doing the minimum is the norm, and valuing education and hard work is considered very very weird. Then in the 1990's, welfare reform happened, and the folks who had never worked a day in their lives had to get some kind of job. But the 'do the minimum' mindset didn't magically go away. As a result, you have grown adults working teenager jobs, even in areas when there are better paying jobs with more room for advancement. So you can talk all you want about the lack of opportunity and evil corporations cheating folks out of their just wage, but in my neck of the woods, there are jobs available that pay significantly more than Walmart with full benefits, all the overtime you can take, and generous tuition reimbursment, but they can't get these poor oppressed Walmart employees to apply for these jobs, because these people would rather do an easier job with no room for advancement and collect benefits than pull their own weight. Here's my proposed rewrite: Our current welfare system was created 50 years ago, and the results indicate that it provides incentive for people to avoid being self-reliant. The system creates and fosters the very conditions we are seeking to alleviate. Two generations passed with people having no intention of working, no plans for their children to get better jobs and therefore no incentive to push their children to get an education or work hard, because their needs are met without the effort. The middle class fled the suburbs, the poor people lost access to good role models and as a result, there is an entire group of people raised in a culture where doing the minimum is the norm and valuing education and hard work is considered very, very weird. Then in the 1990s, welfare reform forced people who had never worked a day in their life to get a job. But the "do the minimum" mindset didn't magically go away. As a result, there are adults working starter jobs, even in areas where there are better paying jobs with room for advancement. In many areas of the country, although better jobs are available, the people don't have the desire or mindset to do the work required to get or advance in the better jobs. BTW - I would agree with about 90% of that. But when I read the first, quoted paragraph, was so turned off by the hate and obvious bias, I didn't even read the whole thing. That's what I'm talking about when I say that the message is lost when you insult people because you discredit yourself.
|
|
Otto the Orange
Well-Known Member
Go Orange!
Joined: Aug 23, 2012 4:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Otto the Orange on Oct 1, 2013 6:49:03 GMT -5
and being all politically correct and touchy feely works so well? Are you new here? I'm not exactly PC or touchy feely. It's not about holding hands and singing Kumbayah, it's refraining from using inflammatory language that is designed to be hurtful and derogatory. You can make your point - and make it much more effective, IMHO - by being factual and not insulting. There are a lot worse things to say than "squirting out kids" I m not new here
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Oct 1, 2013 7:51:18 GMT -5
I know you're not new, I'm just using a beloved YM phrase. Yes, there are worse things to say, but the point is that you hurt yourself by saying them.
|
|
Otto the Orange
Well-Known Member
Go Orange!
Joined: Aug 23, 2012 4:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Otto the Orange on Oct 1, 2013 7:52:23 GMT -5
and the other side hurts themselves when they call peeps tea partiers and whatever?
|
|
Otto the Orange
Well-Known Member
Go Orange!
Joined: Aug 23, 2012 4:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Otto the Orange on Oct 1, 2013 7:54:21 GMT -5
I eant tea partiers above (stupid PB won't let me edit)
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Oct 1, 2013 7:55:29 GMT -5
and the other side hurts themselves when they call peeps tea partiers and whatever? I don't agree with the other side, so they can hurt themselves all they want. Let 'em look like jerks...
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Oct 1, 2013 8:46:31 GMT -5
50 years ago, a welfare system was created that paid people to sit on their asses and squirt out children. Two generations passed with people having no intention of working, no plans for their children to get better jobs, and therefore no incentive to push their children to get an education or work hard, because Uncle Sugar met their needs without expecting anything in return. The middle class fled to the suburbs, the poor people lost access to good role models, and as a result, you have an entire group of people being raised in a culture where doing the minimum is the norm, and valuing education and hard work is considered very very weird. Then in the 1990's, welfare reform happened, and the folks who had never worked a day in their lives had to get some kind of job. But the 'do the minimum' mindset didn't magically go away. As a result, you have grown adults working teenager jobs, even in areas when there are better paying jobs with more room for advancement. So you can talk all you want about the lack of opportunity and evil corporations cheating folks out of their just wage, but in my neck of the woods, there are jobs available that pay significantly more than Walmart with full benefits, all the overtime you can take, and generous tuition reimbursment, but they can't get these poor oppressed Walmart employees to apply for these jobs, because these people would rather do an easier job with no room for advancement and collect benefits than pull their own weight. Here's my proposed rewrite: Our current welfare system was created 50 years ago, and the results indicate that it provides incentive for people to avoid being self-reliant. The system creates and fosters the very conditions we are seeking to alleviate. Two generations passed with people having no intention of working, no plans for their children to get better jobs and therefore no incentive to push their children to get an education or work hard, because their needs are met without the effort. The middle class fled the suburbs, the poor people lost access to good role models and as a result, there is an entire group of people raised in a culture where doing the minimum is the norm and valuing education and hard work is considered very, very weird. Then in the 1990s, welfare reform forced people who had never worked a day in their life to get a job. But the "do the minimum" mindset didn't magically go away. As a result, there are adults working starter jobs, even in areas where there are better paying jobs with room for advancement. In many areas of the country, although better jobs are available, the people don't have the desire or mindset to do the work required to get or advance in the better jobs. I like that rewrite.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Oct 1, 2013 9:16:02 GMT -5
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Oct 1, 2013 9:21:44 GMT -5
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Oct 1, 2013 11:01:18 GMT -5
Maybe, maybe not. Not that long ago, we gave a check to anyone for life without expecting anything in return. So the 'do the bare minimum' crowd just sat around and collected checks. Then in the 1990's, we did welfare reform, and many on the left predicted people dying in the streets, rebellions, and so on. Instead, the 'do the bare minimum' crowd got McJobs. If the removal of other benefits is done slowly and sensibly, and those cliffs, where earning more money means less money for the household, are eliminated, you might find the 'do the bare minimum' crowd just moving out of the McJobs to self supporting jobs.
The real missing piece here is mentoring. When my grandparents started their careers, they were able to launch careers, despite having families that didn't really care about them, because companies did on the job training, mentoring, and career development. But now, young people have to go into debt getting their training before they are hired, and nobody is really making sure these kids are making wise choices for training. And when kids see others go to the trouble and expense of getting an education and have the investment not pay off, one can hardly blame them for thinking education is for schmucks.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 1, 2013 17:10:33 GMT -5
I didn't read the 5 pages, but a company's responsibility is to pay their employees based on supply on demand. IF a company did have some moral obligation to pay employees enough to keep them off of public assistance, that duty applies only to the EMPLOYEE, which is why we have a minimum wage. A company doesn't need to pay Joe more than John just because Joe is the sole breadwinner of a family of 12 and John is a bachelor with no kids.
And I don't see how retaining an employee after the FMLA limit does much good. Presumably, even if you fire that person, you're going to need to hire someone else to fill it, thereby keeping that person off the public dime.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 1, 2013 17:23:39 GMT -5
::It’s extremely difficult to organize workers in such a fragmented service industry, so the fact that these demonstrations have taken place on this scale is a sign of their determination::
Disagree. It's not difficult to organize ANYTHING large scale with all the technology we have today. And the fact that people organize actually says little for their determination. People organize for ridiculous stuff like flash mobs and easter egg hunts. Do you know how many people organized for talk-like-a-pirate day and got free donuts at Krispy Kreme?
When we talk about the fast food strikes, we're talking a few thousand. They organized more than that in 30 minutes for an impromptu Justin Timberlake concert for Target.
If anything, these demonstrations are a sign of just how little most fast food workers actually care about this issue. It happened in like 60 cities, how many places have a fast food restaurant across the country? More people will show up to watch my HS's football game on Friday.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Oct 1, 2013 18:44:39 GMT -5
60% of all jobs created are on the low end of the pay scale, always have been. For every entrepreneur with a grand vision there are hundreds or thousands of low level flunkies needed to carry it out.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Oct 2, 2013 8:53:54 GMT -5
The real issuse here is the numbers of people who either don't think they need to be self supporting and/or aren't being given the tools to be self supporting. If a child is left to rot in a chaotic home, unsafe neighborhood, subpar healthcare, and dysfunctional schools, one can hardly be suprised if that person doesn't turn out well.
I knew a guy whose wife worked for a charity that took kids in chaotic homes and sent them to boarding school. Implementing a program like that nationwide would be way more expensive than handing out welfare, but it's a lot cheaper than having that kid spend 40 years in jail, or being in and out of rehab, or getting his brains scrambled because mom's boyfriend of the week beat the crap out of him.
|
|