Corporate Welfare Today

[Daryl Hunt]

Here is something I noticed working for Walmart in the 90s. And it hasn't gotten any better at Walmart. Now, Amazon is showing Walmart how it's really done.

 

[gipper]

There is no doubt Bezos is a crazed megalomaniac nut job. He just might be a psychopath. Yet he has enormous power in this country, due to his enormous wealth.

Trump went after him verbally, but nothing was done. Bezos is of the ruing class and well protected.

Now Bezos owns the Wapo and no doubt control it's content. Propaganda for the masses.

 

[sparky]

Bernie Sanders: Disney needs 'moral defense' for having hungry workers while making billions

America's 'working poor' ,basically those that need gub'mit assistance to get by, are a growing phenomenon.

Usually at the hands of larger corporations ,who spend $$$$ lobbying Congress

And.....insist they are creating economic prosperity....

Poverty in America: Then and Now - Social Work Degree Center

~S~

 

[gipper]

Bernie Sanders: Disney needs 'moral defense' for having hungry workers while making billions

America's 'working poor' ,basically those that need gub'mit assistance to get by, are a growing phenomenon.

Usually at the hands of larger corporations ,who spend $$$$ lobbying Congress

And.....insist they are creating economic prosperity....

Poverty in America: Then and Now - Social Work Degree Center

~S~

This is a win-win for the extreme wealthy and government.

The scumbag .01% get their cheap labor and government gets to increase dependency. Great for big business and big government.

 

[sparky]

They're definitely winning Gip

~S~

 

[Grumblenuts]

The natural result of coddling a thing that already has far more than enough is disease and rot. Jimmy Dore - give us more!

fishlaw1
Published on Mar 10, 2016

SUBSCRIBE 3.7K
Overfeeding is the major cause of fish loss. Overfeeding results in the accumulation of waste due to uneaten food and increased amounts of waste produced by the fish eating more than they really need. Overfeeding fish is so easy to do. First, we forget how small they are: our appetites are much bigger than their stomachs! Second, feeding is one of the only ways we can interact with the fish, so we tend to do it too often. Third, fish quickly learn that our approach often means food is on the way. They come to the front and top of the tank, appearing eager and hungry. Don't be tempted to think this is an indication that they are famished and need food immediately. Overfeeding is definitely too much of a good thing, and can lead to serious consequences.

 

[gipper]

The natural result of coddling a thing that already has far more than enough is disease and rot. Jimmy Dore - give us more!

fishlaw1
Published on Mar 10, 2016

SUBSCRIBE 3.7K
Overfeeding is the major cause of fish loss. Overfeeding results in the accumulation of waste due to uneaten food and increased amounts of waste produced by the fish eating more than they really need. Overfeeding fish is so easy to do. First, we forget how small they are: our appetites are much bigger than their stomachs! Second, feeding is one of the only ways we can interact with the fish, so we tend to do it too often. Third, fish quickly learn that our approach often means food is on the way. They come to the front and top of the tank, appearing eager and hungry. Don't be tempted to think this is an indication that they are famished and need food immediately. Overfeeding is definitely too much of a good thing, and can lead to serious consequences.

Jimmy Dore is the best. If a majority of Americans knew what he knows, that would result in the toppling of our criminal government.

 

[DGS49]

A couple generations ago, we had an expression in this country..."..the DESERVING poor."

The concept was that there were some people who played by the rules, worked hard, but for reasons outside their control they found themselves in poverty or some other sort of strife, and were worthy of charity. Widows, orphans, people with dread diseases (unrelated to behavior). It is THESE PEOPLE who were used by big-government nannies to promote the various forms of welfare, housing assistance, food stamps, MEDICAID, and other such programs.

But with everything government does, there are huge numbers of people who see a program and plot to exploit it, or, alternatively, live in such a way as to exploit it, which leads us to the situation we have today.

FACT: If a "couple" each has a high school diploma, each chooses to work ANY job, and refrains from having kids until they can afford to nurture those kids, and refrains from criminal or otherwise self-destructive behavior (e.g., substance abuse), that couple will NOT be living in poverty over the long term. Will Not. Regardless of race, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of the local or national Minimum Wage; regardless of any of that.

On the other hand, we have people who have children out of wedlock, engage in criminal behavior, refuse to take advantage of the free public education provided by the State, refuse to take jobs available because they are "demeaning" or "don't pay enough to live on," or engage in self-destructive behavior (see above), then those people will frequently live in poverty for most of their adult lives.

And "we" are told that homelessness is a failure of Government action. I say bullshit.

We are told that the poverty of single-parent households is a result of Government inaction. I say bullshit.

We are told that a "higher" Minimum Wage will solve the problem of endemic poverty. I say bullshit.

We are told that Corporate Welfare and "tax cuts" are the reason why the people described above are living wretched, hopeless lives. I say bullshit.

Middle Class Values. Work hard, save your money, act responsibly, don't do foolish things to fuck up your life. Try it, you'll like it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Jimmy Dore is the best. If a majority of Americans knew what he knows, that would result in the toppling of our criminal government.

But doesn't anarchy imply no government? Libertarian = "free" (not fair) "market capitalism"? Many (filthy rich) conservatives have been bent upon destroying (our) government for quite a while now and have arguably succeeded in large part.

 

[gipper]

Jimmy Dore is the best. If a majority of Americans knew what he knows, that would result in the toppling of our criminal government.

But doesn't anarchy imply no government? Libertarian = "free" (not fair) "market capitalism"? Many (filthy rich) conservatives have been bent upon destroying (our) government for quite a while now and have arguably succeeded in large part.

I prefer anarchy over the government we have today...any day of the week.

Has there ever been a government that actually worked for the people, rather than the rich and connected? I suppose you can argue that the social democracies of w. Europe do a much better job than does the USA. Which I agree with to an extent, but their governments are still corrupt. Government and corruption are one an the same.

I don't believe the wealthy of any group want to destroy the government. They CONTROL the government. Why would they want to destroy it, when they run it and obtain enormous riches from it? That belief sounds like something proclaimed in CNN or MSLSD.

 

[OnePercenter]

A couple generations ago, we had an expression in this country..."..the DESERVING poor."

The concept was that there were some people who played by the rules, worked hard, but for reasons outside their control they found themselves in poverty or some other sort of strife, and were worthy of charity. Widows, orphans, people with dread diseases (unrelated to behavior). It is THESE PEOPLE who were used by big-government nannies to promote the various forms of welfare, housing assistance, food stamps, MEDICAID, and other such programs.

But with everything government does, there are huge numbers of people who see a program and plot to exploit it, or, alternatively, live in such a way as to exploit it, which leads us to the situation we have today.

FACT: If a "couple" each has a high school diploma, each chooses to work ANY job, and refrains from having kids until they can afford to nurture those kids, and refrains from criminal or otherwise self-destructive behavior (e.g., substance abuse), that couple will NOT be living in poverty over the long term. Will Not. Regardless of race, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of the local or national Minimum Wage; regardless of any of that.

On the other hand, we have people who have children out of wedlock, engage in criminal behavior, refuse to take advantage of the free public education provided by the State, refuse to take jobs available because they are "demeaning" or "don't pay enough to live on," or engage in self-destructive behavior (see above), then those people will frequently live in poverty for most of their adult lives.

And "we" are told that homelessness is a failure of Government action. I say bullshit.

We are told that the poverty of single-parent households is a result of Government inaction. I say bullshit.

We are told that a "higher" Minimum Wage will solve the problem of endemic poverty. I say bullshit.

We are told that Corporate Welfare and "tax cuts" are the reason why the people described above are living wretched, hopeless lives. I say bullshit.

Middle Class Values. Work hard, save your money, act responsibly, don't do foolish things to fuck up your life. Try it, you'll like it.

Work hard, save your money, act responsibly, don't do foolish things to fuck up your life, and if you want to retire you'll need 100% of your social security, a full vested IRA or KEOGH, and $320k in cash. This is because fools like you voted for Republicans over the last 45 years.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I prefer anarchy over the government we have today...any day of the week.

Has there ever been a government that actually worked for the people, rather than the rich and connected?

Completely? Highly doubtful. Have you experienced sustained anarchy? Has there ever been amongst millions of people?

Somalia has maintained an informal economy, mainly based on livestock, remittances from Somalis working abroad, and telecommunications.

Not much to recommend there. No, I think we're stuck with things like national currencies, borders, and laws to worry about. The Founders had some great notions, imho. They were largely anarchists of a sort. Smugglers. But they fell well short of their stated life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness aims for all by recognizing only white, male, property owners as full citizens who then insisted they must "represent" the people rather than allow any genuine democracy. We had a good start though due mainly to struggling largely together in order to free ourselves from the corporate tyranny of the day. The same applies to FDR's post depression advances, largely now cut to ribbons (thanks to President "Gipper" in no small part).

I suppose you can argue that the social democracies of w. Europe do a much better job than does the USA. Which I agree with to an extent, but their governments are still corrupt. Government and corruption are one an the same.

No, they're actually different, thus the need for two distinct words. Governments have resulted where and whenever people have formed large groups seeking internal order and protection from outside. Nobody seeks to be victimized by corruption. It just goes along for the ride historically.

I don't believe the wealthy of any group want to destroy the government. They CONTROL the government. Why would they want to destroy it, when they run it and obtain enormous riches from it? That belief sounds like something proclaimed in CNN or MSLSD.

Of course. But what is meant by "destroy" is actually totally eliminating remaining checks on their power. Poor things still have to pretend the place isn't completely bought yet. Big corporations still feel at the mercy of law and the super rich remain their own worst enemies.

 

[gipper]

I prefer anarchy over the government we have today...any day of the week.

Has there ever been a government that actually worked for the people, rather than the rich and connected?

Completely? Highly doubtful. Have you experienced sustained anarchy? Has there ever been amongst millions of people?

Somalia has maintained an informal economy, mainly based on livestock, remittances from Somalis working abroad, and telecommunications.

Not much to recommend there. No, I think we're stuck with things like national currencies, borders, and laws to worry about. The Founders had some great notions, imho. They were largely anarchists of a sort. Smugglers. But they fell well short of their stated life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness aims for all by recognizing only white, male, property owners as full citizens who then insisted they must "represent" the people rather than allow any genuine democracy. We had a good start though due mainly to struggling largely together in order to free ourselves from the corporate tyranny of the day. The same applies to FDR's post depression advances, largely now cut to ribbons (thanks to President "Gipper" in no small part).

I suppose you can argue that the social democracies of w. Europe do a much better job than does the USA. Which I agree with to an extent, but their governments are still corrupt. Government and corruption are one an the same.

No, they're actually different, thus the need for two distinct words. Governments have resulted where and whenever people have formed large groups seeking internal order and protection from outside. Nobody seeks to be victimized by corruption. It just goes along for the ride historically.

I don't believe the wealthy of any group want to destroy the government. They CONTROL the government. Why would they want to destroy it, when they run it and obtain enormous riches from it? That belief sounds like something proclaimed in CNN or MSLSD.

Of course. But what is meant by "destroy" is actually totally eliminating remaining checks on their power.

Funny how those who don't understand anarchy ALWAYS cite Somalia. This is propaganda that apparently is widespread. At any rate, because something has never been tried does NOT mean it can't work. Logic dictates this. Anarchic does not mean there are no laws and that you can do as you wish, including harming your fellow man.

I don't believe Reagan is responsible for eliminating FDR's flawed policies. Yes FDR did some good things, but like all presidents he did bad too. His policies were outdated and ineffectual. That is why they failed.

Okay I can agree that the extreme wealthy want no checks on their power. I believe they essentially have this power now. Both criminal political parties are controlled by the extreme wealthy. There is little difference between the two parties in this regard, but sadly too many Americans have bought the propaganda that they are different. This allows the parties to keep Americans divided, while they and their buddies the extreme wealthy enrich and empower themselves.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Funny how those who don't understand anarchy ALWAYS cite Somalia. This is propaganda that apparently is widespread. At any rate, because something has never been tried does NOT mean it can't work. Logic dictates this. Anarchic does not mean there are no laws and that you can do as you wish, including harming your fellow man.

What's funny is that because one finishes with "anarchic" does NOT mean they've described (their use of) "anarchy" let alone even tried to. How do you define "anarchic"? Reason I ask? 'Cause here's what Google thinks it means:

an·ar·chic
əˈnärˌkik/
adjective

1. with no controlling rules or principles to give order.
   "an anarchic and bitter civil war"
   synonyms: lawless, without law and order, in disorder, in turmoil, unruly, disordered, disorganized, chaotic, turbulent;
   mutinous, rebellious
   "an anarchic society has replaced the despotism"
   • (of comedy or a person's sense of humor) uncontrolled by convention.
     "his anarchic wit"

Seems to fit my usage. How about yours?

Okay I can agree that the extreme wealthy want no checks on their power. I believe they essentially have this power now. Both criminal political parties are controlled by the extreme wealthy. There is little difference between the two parties in this regard, but sadly too many Americans have bought the propaganda that they are different. This allows the parties to keep Americans divided, while they and their buddies the extreme wealthy enrich and empower themselves.

Agreed. There is little difference between the two parties period. Though our duopolistic system of farcical "democracy" hangs by that thread of difference. Explains much of the corporate / infotainment media's desperation these days. Imagine if word got out... You mean we could simply stop, locate all these bastards with our smartphones, and round them up?!

 

[gipper]

Funny how those who don't understand anarchy ALWAYS cite Somalia. This is propaganda that apparently is widespread. At any rate, because something has never been tried does NOT mean it can't work. Logic dictates this. Anarchic does not mean there are no laws and that you can do as you wish, including harming your fellow man.

What's funny is that because one finishes with "anarchic" does NOT mean they've described (their use of) "anarchy" let alone even tried to. How do you define "anarchic"? Reason I ask? 'Cause here's what Google thinks it means:

an·ar·chic
əˈnärˌkik/
adjective

1. with no controlling rules or principles to give order.
   "an anarchic and bitter civil war"
   synonyms: lawless, without law and order, in disorder, in turmoil, unruly, disordered, disorganized, chaotic, turbulent;
   mutinous, rebellious
   "an anarchic society has replaced the despotism"
   • (of comedy or a person's sense of humor) uncontrolled by convention.
     "his anarchic wit"

Seems to fit my usage. How about yours?

Okay I can agree that the extreme wealthy want no checks on their power. I believe they essentially have this power now. Both criminal political parties are controlled by the extreme wealthy. There is little difference between the two parties in this regard, but sadly too many Americans have bought the propaganda that they are different. This allows the parties to keep Americans divided, while they and their buddies the extreme wealthy enrich and empower themselves.

Agreed. There is little difference between the two parties period. Though our duopolistic system of farcical "democracy" hangs by that thread of difference. Explains much of the corporate / infotainment media's desperation these days. Imagine if word got out... You mean we could simply stop, locate all these bastards with our smartphones, and round them up?!

typo...I know you never make them.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Typos? Couldn't care less... unless for purposes of levity. In which case more power to ya!

ob·fus·ca·tion

noun

1. the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
   "when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation"

"The state exists to enforce the dominance of Elites: everything else is propaganda, misdirection and obfuscation"

Governance is the way the rules, norms and actions are structured, sustained, regulated and held accountable. The degree of formality depends on the internal rules of a given organization and, externally, with its business partners. As such, governance may take many forms, driven by many different motivations and with many different results.

"Bureaucracy stifles innovation. This is a law of bureaucracy. It is rarely broken."

bu·reauc·ra·cy

noun

1. a system of government in which most of the important decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives.
   synonyms: civil service, government, administration; More...

I argue that no one starts out wanting governance or bureaucracy. They are functions of human number and time far more than human will. Being against such things is like being against air and water. I believe in democracy to an extent. Meaning the bolded bits below for the most part. Do you?

Democracy (Greek: "the rule of people"), in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or [directly*] elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament.[better source needed][1] The rule of majority is sometimes referred as Democracy.[2] Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes.

The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy, which makes all forces struggle repeatedly for the realization of their interests, being the devolution of power from a group of people to a set of rules.

*Added by yours truly with admittedly far more flesh and disambiguation called for here

 

[gipper]

Typos? Couldn't care less... unless for purposes of levity. In which case more power to ya!

ob·fus·ca·tion

noun

1. the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
   "when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation"

"The state exists to enforce the dominance of Elites: everything else is propaganda, misdirection and obfuscation"

Governance is the way the rules, norms and actions are structured, sustained, regulated and held accountable. The degree of formality depends on the internal rules of a given organization and, externally, with its business partners. As such, governance may take many forms, driven by many different motivations and with many different results.

"Bureaucracy stifles innovation. This is a law of bureaucracy. It is rarely broken."

bu·reauc·ra·cy

noun

1. a system of government in which most of the important decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives.
   synonyms: civil service, government, administration; More...

I argue that no one starts out wanting governance or bureaucracy. They are functions of human number and time far more than human will. Being against such things is like being against air and water. I believe in democracy to an extent. Meaning the bolded bits below for the most part. Do you?

Democracy (Greek: "the rule of people"), in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or [directly*] elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament.[better source needed][1] The rule of majority is sometimes referred as Democracy.[2] Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes.

The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy, which makes all forces struggle repeatedly for the realization of their interests, being the devolution of power from a group of people to a set of rules.

*Added by yours truly with admittedly far more flesh and disambiguation called for here

I am glad you read the statements in my signature. I believe all are profound truths.

They indicate in my mind, government as it is practiced throughout the world today, is unworkable. It is corruption, criminality, and injustice. We need a new approach. Anarchy might be that approach. It would eliminate the centralized power that government represents. However, the concept of decentralization...reducing government to small, local, and extremely limited power, is a concept most can't comprehend.

 

[there4eyeM]

Until the majority sees clearly what is at the center of life and all that is important, these innumerable problems will only increase. It requires only easily understood education, elements an 'average' ten year old can comprehend. The basic functions of the mind and perceptions, how language works (especially psychologically), the ramifications of quantum physics (not the extraordinarily complex details!). It is not overly ambitious or far fetched. These are not difficult to teach or learn. The result will be a population that is better equipped to think, not one that just accepts what to think. It will be people who understand how obvious it is that human creativity is the outstanding human characteristic.
That this is not what is happening clearly assures the power élite of security and success in exploiting "human resources" in degrading, inhuman fashion.

 

[Richard-H]

A couple generations ago, we had an expression in this country..."..the DESERVING poor."

The concept was that there were some people who played by the rules, worked hard, but for reasons outside their control they found themselves in poverty or some other sort of strife, and were worthy of charity. Widows, orphans, people with dread diseases (unrelated to behavior). It is THESE PEOPLE who were used by big-government nannies to promote the various forms of welfare, housing assistance, food stamps, MEDICAID, and other such programs.

But with everything government does, there are huge numbers of people who see a program and plot to exploit it, or, alternatively, live in such a way as to exploit it, which leads us to the situation we have today.

FACT: If a "couple" each has a high school diploma, each chooses to work ANY job, and refrains from having kids until they can afford to nurture those kids, and refrains from criminal or otherwise self-destructive behavior (e.g., substance abuse), that couple will NOT be living in poverty over the long term. Will Not. Regardless of race, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of the local or national Minimum Wage; regardless of any of that.

On the other hand, we have people who have children out of wedlock, engage in criminal behavior, refuse to take advantage of the free public education provided by the State, refuse to take jobs available because they are "demeaning" or "don't pay enough to live on," or engage in self-destructive behavior (see above), then those people will frequently live in poverty for most of their adult lives.

And "we" are told that homelessness is a failure of Government action. I say bullshit.

We are told that the poverty of single-parent households is a result of Government inaction. I say bullshit.

We are told that a "higher" Minimum Wage will solve the problem of endemic poverty. I say bullshit.

We are told that Corporate Welfare and "tax cuts" are the reason why the people described above are living wretched, hopeless lives. I say bullshit.

Middle Class Values. Work hard, save your money, act responsibly, don't do foolish things to fuck up your life. Try it, you'll like it.

Work hard, save your money, act responsibly, don't do foolish things to fuck up your life, and if you want to retire you'll need 100% of your social security, a full vested IRA or KEOGH, and $320k in cash. This is because fools like you voted for Republicans over the last 45 years.

Retire? We get to retire?

Retirement is a thing of the past. Nowadays you work until you keel over, then the medical industry takes all your money, then you die.

 

[Richard-H]

Typos? Couldn't care less... unless for purposes of levity. In which case more power to ya!

ob·fus·ca·tion

noun

1. the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
   "when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation"

"The state exists to enforce the dominance of Elites: everything else is propaganda, misdirection and obfuscation"

Governance is the way the rules, norms and actions are structured, sustained, regulated and held accountable. The degree of formality depends on the internal rules of a given organization and, externally, with its business partners. As such, governance may take many forms, driven by many different motivations and with many different results.

"Bureaucracy stifles innovation. This is a law of bureaucracy. It is rarely broken."

bu·reauc·ra·cy

noun

1. a system of government in which most of the important decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives.
   synonyms: civil service, government, administration; More...

I argue that no one starts out wanting governance or bureaucracy. They are functions of human number and time far more than human will. Being against such things is like being against air and water. I believe in democracy to an extent. Meaning the bolded bits below for the most part. Do you?

Democracy (Greek: "the rule of people"), in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or [directly*] elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament.[better source needed][1] The rule of majority is sometimes referred as Democracy.[2] Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes.

The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy, which makes all forces struggle repeatedly for the realization of their interests, being the devolution of power from a group of people to a set of rules.

*Added by yours truly with admittedly far more flesh and disambiguation called for here

I am glad you read the statements in my signature. I believe all are profound truths.

They indicate in my mind, government as it is practiced throughout the world today, is unworkable. It is corruption, criminality, and injustice. We need a new approach. Anarchy might be that approach. It would eliminate the centralized power that government represents. However, the concept of decentralization...reducing government to small, local, and extremely limited power, is a concept most can't comprehend.

maybe it's because small, local, extremely limited governments get taken over by big, national, powerful governments.