Where Did All the Working Men Go?

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

That is a tremendous lie. Living in Oakland I have witnessed people living better than those who work a minimum wage job on every single form of government assistance that isn't once denied to them.

Pretty gross to witness actually.

Yes Craig, because anecdotal evidence is so reliable. just like the legion of trump voters you swear will bring your tangerine God the Presidency yet nobody can seem to find them for polling purposes.

Also, how do you know these people are living the high life on government assistance? Do you see colored folks buy things and just assume the government is paying for it? Or do you work at some store and frequently see people using cash assistance to purchase things you don't think they need?

I'M NOT TALKING ABUSE....do you get that? I'm not talking FRAUD? I am talking the inherent way our system works. THE WELFARE PROGRAM, was NOT set up for families to LIVE ON IT, yet how it is implemented now they can. THAT ISN'T ABUSE, THAT ISN'T FRAUD, that is simply how it works today, and that DOES breed mediocrity, it is the same thing that is happening in our educational system today. There are SO MANY SAFETY NETS, that we are now churning out mediocrity. NO ONE IS ABUSING those system, they have simply become a part of them, and that should have never happened.

Our welfare system is no longer a last resort, it is now an option, and that is not a positive thing.

Kelly, I've been on food stamps a few different times over the last decade or so. Trying to live off of $192 for the month is no easy task. I am now part of the working poor and much better off for it. I don't get any assistance and I pay in what I'm supposed to and I'm also insured.

 

[Kelly]

Yes Craig, because anecdotal evidence is so reliable. just like the legion of trump voters you swear will bring your tangerine God the Presidency yet nobody can seem to find them for polling purposes.

Also, how do you know these people are living the high life on government assistance? Do you see colored folks buy things and just assume the government is paying for it? Or do you work at some store and frequently see people using cash assistance to purchase things you don't think they need?



Kelly, I've been on food stamps a few different times over the last decade or so. Trying to live off of $192 for the month is no easy task. I am now part of the working poor and much better off for it. I don't get any assistance and I pay in what I'm supposed to and I'm also insured.

My mother and I lived below the poverty level for a good portion of my childhood, up until I turned 9. She never ate a meal with me at home at night, because there wasn't enough for both of us, she had an evening meal when she went on dates....we lived in a 1 bedroom apartment in a horrible area of Dallas. She never once took ANY ASSISTANCE except from my grandmother who made a lot of my clothes. She worked her ass off, every day, when she sick, tired, and feeling hopeless she worked. I know what it means to be poor. I also watched a woman go from the bottom of an insurance company to the top tier of that company in 15 years...she didn't always like the work, she didn't get near the praise for what she did that she deserved, she would have loved to be doing something else, somewhere else I am sure. She had to pull up stakes, friends, everything and move in order to continue working...she didn't want to, but she did because she went where the work was....she did it without one ounce of help from my dad, who ran from child support. I know what it means to be poor....I can assure you.

You can talk to me about that and the circumstances you live in. It will not change the fact that our welfare system is BROKE. It does not do what it is supposed to do. That is a fact. It is bloated, ineffective, inefficient, and lives FAAAR beyond its means. The PEOPLE are not the problem, please understand that.....the SYSTEM is the problem.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

The system is broken, you won't hear me argue that fact kelly.

 

[The Overlord]

My mother and I lived below the poverty level for a good portion of my childhood, up until I turned 9. She never ate a meal with me at home at night, because there wasn't enough for both of us, she had an evening meal when she went on dates....we lived in a 1 bedroom apartment in a horrible area of Dallas. She never once took ANY ASSISTANCE except from my grandmother who made a lot of my clothes. She worked her ass off, every day, when she sick, tired, and feeling hopeless she worked. I know what it means to be poor. I also watched a woman go from the bottom of an insurance company to the top tier of that company in 15 years...she didn't always like the work, she didn't get near the praise for what she did that she deserved, she would have loved to be doing something else, somewhere else I am sure. She had to pull up stakes, friends, everything and move in order to continue working...she didn't want to, but she did because she went where the work was....she did it without one ounce of help from my dad, who ran from child support. I know what it means to be poor....I can assure you.

You can talk to me about that and the circumstances you live in. It will not change the fact that our welfare system is BROKE. It does not do what it is supposed to do. That is a fact. It is bloated, ineffective, inefficient, and lives FAAAR beyond its means. The PEOPLE are not the problem, please understand that.....the SYSTEM is the problem.

I think a big problem is some Republican politicians think kicking people off welfare just solves the problem, but it doesn't, it often just moves the problem somewhere else.

Maybe some people will "pull themselves by their boot straps" if you just kick them off welfare, but these people might just end up on the streets instead or start to either engage in criminal activity to survive. One personal example never can predict a trend.

If you want to get people off welfare and solve the problem, transition these people off welfare into meaningful jobs. Everyone should be happy with that. It might cost some money, but it's better then slapping bandaids on problems. I dont think most people want to be a welfare, give them a real non welfare option and I bet most would take it.

I think a lot policies the GOP and the Democrats made in the past 30 years have reduced economic opportunities, not increased them.

 

[Tilapia]

You need to end the welfare state and replace it with a UBI (universal base income). Let's call it $12,000 a year. People already earning above 100,000K can write that amount off their taxes or give it to a charity of their choice. You use that money to expand volunteer opportunities and public service. Plant trees, clean up the community, sing kumbaya.

The problem is these unproductive men cannot secure a wife and start a family due to lower socio-economic status and most likely came from a destitute background with low education opportunities.

Use the excess money from the UBI and the cancelled welfare programs to pay for what education these young men can attain. It will be your criminal deterrent.

You also need to incentivize male nurses and care takers with higher pay than women. Likewise, higher pay for women in STEM. THAT is gender equality.

 

[Clark-Kent]

The system is broken, you won't hear me argue that fact kelly.

Kelly smoked you in this thread

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Kelly smoked you in this thread

Not sure how you came to that conclusion when I never argued that the system isn't in need of a major overhaul. I provided anecdotal evidence from my life and she did the same. Neither of which is any better than the other. My main point with this thread is capitalism as it is now in the USA is not on a sustainable course with its current trajectory. Those with money are writing the laws and it's causing able-bodied people to not even bother trying to work. Just another example of how trickle-down economics has failed America yet again.

But if you think her mother's personal story somehow "smoked" me then keep on keeping on sport.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

The thing to do that many many people abuse is as a couple, not to get married. You have children, the children live with their mother and father. The father states that he lives with his parents so the mother can get state and federal benefits. They both live in the house, should probably be married under law, and have joint incomes. Since one of them claims to live elsewhere, the mother gets assistance and they both reap the rewards.

 

[Donner]

The wealthy exploit tax laws and hide their money. The poor exploit social programs. It seems people only care about exploitation and "broken systems" when poor people are involved.

 

[Kelly]

I'm assuming you are talking the population in general?

 

[Kelly]

The thing to do that many many people abuse is as a couple, not to get married. You have children, the children live with their mother and father. The father states that he lives with his parents so the mother can get state and federal benefits. They both live in the house, should probably be married under law, and have joint incomes. Since one of them claims to live elsewhere, the mother gets assistance and they both reap the rewards.

What law?

 

[Donner]

I'm assuming you are talking the population in general?

Yes. Notice how wealthy people are allowed and encouraged to cheat the system because they "earned" their money, whereas poor people are seen as a drain on the system.

 

[DeadPresident]

The wealthy exploit tax laws and hide their money. The poor exploit social programs. It seems people only care about exploitation and "broken systems" when poor people are involved.

Pretty true, this is even worse when companies are considered. Corporate tax avoidance is so sophisticated that some companies can almost completely eliminate their tax expenditure when their revenue is in the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars.

But as you've mentioned, when a few thousand people want to "scam" the welfare programs for consumer goods suddenly it's a social outrage. People should probably direct their displeasure towards the companies robbing the IRS of probably hundreds of billions in tax revenue.

 

[Schlosser85]

Well the IRS is robbing everyone in the first place, so it's stealing from a thief.

 

[DeadPresident]

Well the IRS is robbing everyone in the first place, so it's stealing from a thief.

Yeah…that's horrible logic. The public budget is going to come from somewhere, it should rather be from companies busy paying their board members $50m annual bonuses than middle class households.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

What about women joining the workforce?

More women working means fewer jobs available to men and more men staying at home with the kids.

All things considered, a 10 percent drop since the 1950's isn't so bad.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Yes. Notice how wealthy people are allowed and encouraged to cheat the system because they "earned" their money, whereas poor people are seen as a drain on the system.

And somehow no one brings up the working poor when ranting about welfare.

Half the people on welfare work for a living.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Yeah…that's horrible logic. The public budget is going to come from somewhere, it should rather be from companies busy paying their board members $50m annual bonuses than middle class households.

The public budget is going to come from the citizen/consumer, whether it comes from taxing "middle class households" or the corporations that provide those households with goods and services.

As I've repeatedly stated on here, all corporate taxes are embedded in the price of goods and services that the consumer buys, just like other corporate costs such as payroll, equipment, etc. So, the consumer actually pays the taxes out of his/her pocketbook--the corporation just remits the money.

This form of indirect taxation is also regressive, as the cost of embedded taxes in a purchased gallon of milk, for instance, takes a larger percentage of available income to the consumer the further down the income ladder he/she is.

So, if you support indirect, regressive taxes that negatively impact the citizens the poorer they are, by all means demand that corporations pay more.

 

[DeadPresident]

The public budget is going to come from the citizen/consumer, whether it comes from taxing "middle class households" or the corporations that provide those households with goods and services.

As I've repeatedly stated on here, all corporate taxes are embedded in the price of goods and services that the consumer buys, just like other corporate costs such as payroll, equipment, etc. So, the consumer actually pays the taxes out of his/her pocketbook--the corporation just remits the money.

This form of indirect taxation is also regressive, as the cost of embedded taxes in a purchased gallon of milk, for instance, takes a larger percentage of available income to the consumer the further down the income ladder he/she is.

So, if you support indirect, regressive taxes that negatively impact the citizens the poorer they are, by all means demand that corporations pay more.

That assumes that all taxation can be passed onto the consumer, which wouldn't be feasible since manufacturers would price themselves out of a market with the economies of scale that the USA has. However, I agree it's a regressive method of taxation but it's what the USA has. Overheads can only be incorporated into the product price up until a certain point.

It's far more plausible that tax collection will be improved than revolutionary methods of taxation will be passed and implemented, although I'd say both are extremely unlikely since America's legislation is pretty much bought and paid for by big corporates - lobbyists would snuff out any coherent attempts at tax reform.

 

[summerteeth]

The wealthy exploit tax laws and hide their money. The poor exploit social programs. It seems people only care about exploitation and "broken systems" when poor people are involved.

I wouldn't say that at all. I think that's one of the major reasons some conservatives favor a flat tax to fix that. Whether or not that would actually work is another story.

That and it seems easier to say we can just stop spending money on that program then figuring out a way to stop the wealthy from getting out of taxes. It's just easier to control since the government is distributing that money instead of collecting it.