All you welfare haters... how about this?

[The Rabbi]

I have a problem with the uber rich capturing productive gains in the last three decades.

This is why I am liberal. Conservatives refuse to look at this problem while expounding the "labor productivity"? or welfare distributions. Then they turn around and violate Bastiat's and Locke's assump0tion and ignorantly proclaim that we are on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve.

Seriously, RW Kooks are absent from political discussion, even though they utter inanities about the free market.

The uber rich are all liberals. Guess how much money Nancy Pelosi has stashed away.

Saying that the uber rich are all liberals sounds pretty ignorant. Do you have any statistics to back this up?

Take a look at the two richest men in AMerica: Warren BUffet and Bill Gates. Both are flaming liberals. The number of conservative wealthy people could be counted on one hand: the Kochs, the Coors family.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Big-government socialism saved the Reagan family farm.

Therefore it is evil.

Reagan's father was saved by FDR's BiG Government. He was given a government job. Socialism!

This is why Reagan was a staunch supporter of FDR and the New Deal (until 1954 when he entered the top tax bracket).

Point is this: FDR didn't see the Reagans as Welfare Queens. He didn't see Government support as evil. Why? He trusted the American people. He thought that if you gave them a leg up during hard times, than they would make something of themselves.

He saw government support as an investment in people.

FDR believed that poverty destroyed human capital -- so he taxed surplus wealth in order to invest in the American worker. The result was the postwar middle class, the most productive group of Americans in history.

Reagan had different feelings. He believed capital owed nothing to the country which created the roads, energy grids, damns, and infrastructure necessary for profits. He believed capital owed nothing to the Pentagon which protected its access to foreign labor and resources (a.k.a "supply chains". Where do you think your Walmart toaster comes from? It comes from dangerous places that must be militarily stabilized. The tax payer pays for this, but the share holder makes bank, i.e., socialize costs, privatize profit). Reagan believed capital should be able to bypass the American worker for Chinese sweat shops. Reagan wanted to relieve capital from expensive middle class labor costs. (And Clinton followed him every step of the way)

Which is to say: the point of the Reagan Revolution was to give cheap labor to capital. The result was that the middle class had lower wages and fewer benefits. Consequently, the middle class could no longer consume as much. What did Reagan do? He lorded over the most significant economic shift in America history. He shifted America from wage-fueled consumption (1945-1980) to debt-fueled consumption (1980-2008). That is, starting in 1980, Americans received 3 credit card offers a week. Reagan drove down wages (by freeing capital to go to the 3rd world), than he handed out Master Cards so that Americans could maintain the standard of living that used to be provided by the jobs he shipped to China.

Under Reagan, America went from the leading creditor nation to the leading debtor nation. We had structural deficits as far as the eye could see. The American economy, lacking real wages, was fueled by bubbles and credit for 30 years. Each bubble was larger than the last until . . .

(you know how it ends).

America swallowed poison in 1980.

(But yes: it's funny that FDR's big government saved Reagan. FDR thought he was making an investment in a fellow American. Unlike Reagan, he trusted the poor. He thought that if you prevented poverty from destroying people, you might be saving a future president. FDR believed that the American worker was worth investing in -- so he saved people like Jack Reagan. Some people think it was a wise investment. Others . . . not so much.)

I read this post, speechless with awe that you wrote the entire thing based on not one single fact, but based on several definitive assertions of what people long dead were thinking and feeling, in some cases before you were probably even born. Do you commune with the dead often?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Big-government socialism saved the Reagan family farm.

Therefore it is evil.

Reagan's father was saved by FDR's BiG Government. He was given a government job. Socialism!

This is why Reagan was a staunch supporter of FDR and the New Deal (until 1954 when he entered the top tax bracket).

Point is this: FDR didn't see the Reagans as Welfare Queens. He didn't see Government support as evil. Why? He trusted the American people. He thought that if you gave them a leg up during hard times, than they would make something of themselves.

He saw government support as an investment in people.

FDR believed that poverty destroyed human capital -- so he taxed surplus wealth in order to invest in the American worker. The result was the postwar middle class, the most productive group of Americans in history.

Reagan had different feelings. He believed capital owed nothing to the country which created the roads, energy grids, damns, and infrastructure necessary for profits. He believed capital owed nothing to the Pentagon which protected its access to foreign labor and resources (a.k.a "supply chains". Where do you think your Walmart toaster comes from? It comes from dangerous places that must be militarily stabilized. The tax payer pays for this, but the share holder makes bank, i.e., socialize costs, privatize profit). Reagan believed capital should be able to bypass the American worker for Chinese sweat shops. Reagan wanted to relieve capital from expensive middle class labor costs. (And Clinton followed him every step of the way)

Which is to say: the point of the Reagan Revolution was to give cheap labor to capital. The result was that the middle class had lower wages and fewer benefits. Consequently, the middle class could no longer consume as much. What did Reagan do? He lorded over the most significant economic shift in America history. He shifted America from wage-fueled consumption (1945-1980) to debt-fueled consumption (1980-2008). That is, starting in 1980, Americans received 3 credit card offers a week. Reagan drove down wages (by freeing capital to go to the 3rd world), than he handed out Master Cards so that Americans could maintain the standard of living that used to be provided by the jobs he shipped to China.

Under Reagan, America went from the leading creditor nation to the leading debtor nation. We had structural deficits as far as the eye could see. The American economy, lacking real wages, was fueled by bubbles and credit for 30 years. Each bubble was larger than the last until . . .

(you know how it ends).

America swallowed poison in 1980.

(But yes: it's funny that FDR's big government saved Reagan. FDR thought he was making an investment in a fellow American. Unlike Reagan, he trusted the poor. He thought that if you prevented poverty from destroying people, you might be saving a future president. FDR believed that the American worker was worth investing in -- so he saved people like Jack Reagan. Some people think it was a wise investment. Others . . . not so much.)

Is that how it's being taught in college these days? or did you get that from Joe Bidens website?

I was going with Miss Cleo and the Psychic Friends Network.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The uber rich are all liberals. Guess how much money Nancy Pelosi has stashed away.

Saying that the uber rich are all liberals sounds pretty ignorant. Do you have any statistics to back this up?

Take a look at the two richest men in AMerica: Warren BUffet and Bill Gates. Both are flaming liberals. The number of conservative wealthy people could be counted on one hand: the Kochs, the Coors family.

Even most of the uber wealthy conservatives are of the "blue-blood, country club" variety that have infested the GOP. They detest the Teaparty crowd as a bunch of "riff raff".

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is one big problem with this idea. Paying people, welfare recipients, to do the work is not a major obstacle. Yes it would cost taxpayers some money, but as you say, we would get something in return. The biggest problem is the cost of repairing our infrastructure. Currently it is estimated that we need approximately $2.5 trillion in infrastructure to bring us up to date. The problem with this is that a substantial amount of that cost is not labor, but supplies. And to do what you state will cost taxpayers more than anyone is currently willing to spend when we already are trying to cut spending. Nice idea, but the timing is not very good.

Well, all I have to say about that is this. Our wealthiest citizens use our infrastructure more heavily than the general citizenry. It's their Trucks on the road causing the most wear and tear, they would benefit the MOST from smart grid technology that will increase our efficiency to that of Europe and Japan(80-90%).

Right. Only rich people drive. Everyone below - what is it now, $200,000? - walks everywhere.

Of course, I look at my own car and all the others in my way when I try to get somewhere, and somehow, I continue to think that you're a frigging moron. Funny, that.

To sit there and say "we can't do it, we're broke." Is just plain wrong. The reason we're broke is that our revenue stream is way down. From the mid 70's on... it hovered around 33% of GDP. Now it goes anywhere from 26-28%.

And adding new expenses simply because YOU have decided that reality is just unacceptable is going to help that how?

It's an investment people. Hoover Dam, TVA, the Interstate System, railroads...All of those things were done on the Federal dime. I mean C'mon... You want to Compete with the Chinese? The Chinese are pouring vast amounts of money into their infrastructure. It makes them more efficient and more competitive IN ADDITION to their slave labor policies.

If it's an "investment", do you mind telling me where the profit generation is? I realize that you think one check going out is just as good as another, but no economy is sustained by making everyone a government employee.

Of COURSE the Chinese are pouring money into their infrastructure. That's because they mostly didn't have any. There's not even vaguely a comparison between the United States and China in that regard.

Stop our Business and Banking Community from investing in a Communist Country. Piddly shit like lowering their already obscenely low taxes isn't going to do it. We need mandates and regulations that prevent it from happening. Let the damned Chinese make their own wealth instead of taking ours away from our great country.

Yeah, what we need is even more regulation to force businesses and people to do what we want against their will, as opposed to . . . oh, I don't know, putting a stop to the policies that made them want to walk away from investing around here? Don't make investment in America attractive. Make it compulsory.

Why don't you stop looking for enemies to blame and hate outside our borders and start looking for them in the mirror?

 

[thereisnospoon]

We start a new age "Conservation Corps"? If you don't know what the Conservation Corps was... then you are either.

A. Too young
B. Too ignorant of history

What my proposal for welfare reform is this:

We have a crumbling infrastructure.. our roads and bridges suck, our water supplies are outdated, our electrical grid runs at approximately 34% EFFICIENCY!!!!

Let's get our current welfare recipients working.... for... you guessed it... The Federal Government.

Now before you scream socialism(like you always do), hear me out. In the beginning, we take our welfare folks and mandate them to work for their benefits. We train them, we offer them child care(for those single mothers out there), and we make the jobs as conveniently located as possible.

NOW... pay attention... IT WILL COST MORE TO DO THIS THAN THE CURRENT MODEL!

But, you will be getting something for your tax dollar, won't you? Not only that, but I personally feel that a sense of EMPOWERMENT beats a sense of ENTITLEMENT tenfold. You get these people into a real world working environment and most of them will respond.

Sure... there may be a certain percentage that will be a ditch digger for the rest of their lives, but so what? Even as a ditch digger, you are getting productivity for your tax dollar.

Good idea in theory. However, with government ewmployemnt it is A) never ending or open ended...B) will cost taxpayers huge sums of money...WHy? Because Washington wil demand that all workers be paid government union scale which is an inappropriate amount of money for what will be majority unskilled labor.
If this provision can be bypassed by legislation, then fine. Put these people to work. If not, forget it.
Oh, and once they start work, the regular checks stop. It's gotta be that way.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Welfare has its administration problem, but these problem are not as bad as rw kooks state. For example, Reagan attacked welkfare moms, but didn't provide evidence. He thought every welfare mom was abusing the system and driving around in a Cadillac fabricating their SSN and their husband's death.

However, Cons do not see the world in this light. Instead, they see it as a personal affront on them, which is odd. Most Red States receive welfare from Liberal States.

I say **** them and their welfare. However, Cons hate the free market. They only lobby for it when it benefits them.

Oh please. If anyone is not seeing that the majority of people on public assisatnce are not gaming the system, they are blind, ignorant or complicit.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I have a problem with the uber rich capturing productive gains in the last three decades.

This is why I am liberal. Conservatives refuse to look at this problem while expounding the "labor productivity"? or welfare distributions. Then they turn around and violate Bastiat's and Locke's assump0tion and ignorantly proclaim that we are on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve.

Seriously, RW Kooks are absent from political discussion, even though they utter inanities about the free market.

most of liberal America is well to do or has a mindset based solely on emotion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Welfare has its administration problem, but these problem are not as bad as rw kooks state. For example, Reagan attacked welkfare moms, but didn't provide evidence. He thought every welfare mom was abusing the system and driving around in a Cadillac fabricating their SSN and their husband's death.

However, Cons do not see the world in this light. Instead, they see it as a personal affront on them, which is odd. Most Red States receive welfare from Liberal States.

I say **** them and their welfare. However, Cons hate the free market. They only lobby for it when it benefits them.

Oh please. If anyone is not seeing that the majority of people on public assisatnce are not gaming the system, they are blind, ignorant or complicit.

I guess that would depend on how you define "gaming the system", I guess. I don't think anyone believes, or has suggested, that most people on welfare are actively lying or defrauding the system.

 

[The Rabbi]

Welfare has its administration problem, but these problem are not as bad as rw kooks state. For example, Reagan attacked welkfare moms, but didn't provide evidence. He thought every welfare mom was abusing the system and driving around in a Cadillac fabricating their SSN and their husband's death.

However, Cons do not see the world in this light. Instead, they see it as a personal affront on them, which is odd. Most Red States receive welfare from Liberal States.

I say **** them and their welfare. However, Cons hate the free market. They only lobby for it when it benefits them.

Oh please. If anyone is not seeing that the majority of people on public assisatnce are not gaming the system, they are blind, ignorant or complicit.

I guess that would depend on how you define "gaming the system", I guess. I don't think anyone believes, or has suggested, that most people on welfare are actively lying or defrauding the system.

No, they're not. They are responding to incentives already in place. And those incentives are to remain on welfare and not get off.
And that's the problem.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh please. If anyone is not seeing that the majority of people on public assisatnce are not gaming the system, they are blind, ignorant or complicit.

I guess that would depend on how you define "gaming the system", I guess. I don't think anyone believes, or has suggested, that most people on welfare are actively lying or defrauding the system.

No, they're not. They are responding to incentives already in place. And those incentives are to remain on welfare and not get off.
And that's the problem.

Exactly. I think when people talking about people on welfare "gaming the system", I think they're referring to those people basically lounging back on the social safety net like it's a hammock. They're not lying or defrauding, but they ARE taking advantage, simply because they're making little to no effort to do any better.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Big-government socialism saved the Reagan family farm.

Therefore it is evil.

Idiot.

 

[Mr.Nick]

"Welfare Haters"

Why the hell should the government be supporting people??

In what universe is it the governments job to support an individual er person for life?

 

[Too Tall]

The uber rich are all liberals. Guess how much money Nancy Pelosi has stashed away.

Gimme a fuckin' break. Nancy Pelosi? You really want to go there?

How 'bout the old lady from California that ran against Jerry Brown? Whitman?

Shall we compare tax returns?

You are a sheep for the right wing.

Whitman worked in the private sector and was a CEO of a fortune 500 company. Pelosi married a rich man and made him richer by handing him government contracts..

Do you want more comparisons?

 

[Gadawg73]

The uber rich are all liberals. Guess how much money Nancy Pelosi has stashed away.

Saying that the uber rich are all liberals sounds pretty ignorant. Do you have any statistics to back this up?

Take a look at the two richest men in AMerica: Warren BUffet and Bill Gates. Both are flaming liberals. The number of conservative wealthy people could be counted on one hand: the Kochs, the Coors family.

Buffett a flaming liberals that forces his kids to earn their own keep?
Where do you get this stuff?
Buffett sets a conservative model for his kids.
You claim that wealthy folks are not conservative?

 

[Steelplate]

The uber rich are all liberals. Guess how much money Nancy Pelosi has stashed away.

Gimme a fuckin' break. Nancy Pelosi? You really want to go there?

How 'bout the old lady from California that ran against Jerry Brown? Whitman?

Shall we compare tax returns?

You are a sheep for the right wing.

Whitman worked in the private sector and was a CEO of a fortune 500 company. Pelosi married a rich man and made him richer by handing him government contracts..

Do you want more comparisons?

Hey... YOU were the one asserting that the Uber Rich were all liberals... I proved you wrong. THAT was the point. How about Haliburton, Blackwater and the like? You don't think they're handed "Government Contracts".... ******* Goon Squads... but they're OK in your book, because they are "Private Sector".

What a ridiculous assertion... just like the Rich are all liberals. Funny how the rich are the ones fighting that wacky idea of a 4% tax hike. In short, you're insane.

Someone said that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results. That is the Conservative mindset in a nutshell.

You STILL believe that Corporate America doesn't run the show and they are just "Honest" businessmen trying to make better lives for themselves. You still believe that if you Give THEM more(even at the expense of our own working people), that they will "Trickle down" in some sense of honor or charity.

What happened this past decade? Can I ask you that... answer honestly.

They took their breaks and their incentives and their "Freedom" and fucked us over. They sent the manufacturing jobs to China and elsewhere, they played Casino with our investments(and lost) that required huge bailouts(at our expense... again) to make it right... and THEN... they gave all those CEO's and their underlings huge bonuses OUT OF OUR MONEY.... apparently for a job well done.

All of that JUST ******* happened... and you want more of the same... Freedom for businesses... freedom for bankers.... freedom for the huge conglomerates... freedom for EVERYONE!!!!! except for yourself and people like you. Working class? **** them.... they aren't worth it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Saying that the uber rich are all liberals sounds pretty ignorant. Do you have any statistics to back this up?

Take a look at the two richest men in AMerica: Warren BUffet and Bill Gates. Both are flaming liberals. The number of conservative wealthy people could be counted on one hand: the Kochs, the Coors family.

Buffett a flaming liberals that forces his kids to earn their own keep?
Where do you get this stuff?
Buffett sets a conservative model for his kids.
You claim that wealthy folks are not conservative?

Can't keep more than a single fact in your head?
In fact Buffet has consistently supported more and higher taxes and opposed tax cuts. When he was advisor to Arnold Schwartzenegger in CA he recommended raising property taxes and others.

However Buffet raised his kids is immaterial to his political views, which are decidedly liberal.

 

[MaggieMae]

We start a new age "Conservation Corps"? If you don't know what the Conservation Corps was... then you are either.

A. Too young
B. Too ignorant of history

What my proposal for welfare reform is this:

We have a crumbling infrastructure.. our roads and bridges suck, our water supplies are outdated, our electrical grid runs at approximately 34% EFFICIENCY!!!!

Let's get our current welfare recipients working.... for... you guessed it... The Federal Government.

Now before you scream socialism(like you always do), hear me out. In the beginning, we take our welfare folks and mandate them to work for their benefits. We train them, we offer them child care(for those single mothers out there), and we make the jobs as conveniently located as possible.

NOW... pay attention... IT WILL COST MORE TO DO THIS THAN THE CURRENT MODEL!

But, you will be getting something for your tax dollar, won't you? Not only that, but I personally feel that a sense of EMPOWERMENT beats a sense of ENTITLEMENT tenfold. You get these people into a real world working environment and most of them will respond.

Sure... there may be a certain percentage that will be a ditch digger for the rest of their lives, but so what? Even as a ditch digger, you are getting productivity for your tax dollar.

I agree that the crumbling infrastructure should be the next Apollo Project: Just get it done. The number of jobs, from architects down to guys with dustpans sweeping up construction debris have unemployment down to near zero for able-bodied persons.

But will it happen? Would any president in today's polarized political atmosphere dare to drop the flag and order a GO? Of course not. Congress would hem and haw, fritter and bicker over whether such an endeavor is even necessary (duh...), then they'd want to vie for a piece of the pie for their own districts (more bickering), then they'd force a cost analysis looking at the situation from every angle up, down, sideways and run the numbers all again--just for giggles.

Nope, the only way a monumental program like that will ever happen will be following a major catastrophe, such as huge segments of I-10 falling into Lake Ponchartrain due to crumbling supports and a few days later the Brooklyn Bridge collapses during rush hour. This country once was forward thinking and proactive regarding growth and modernization, but not anymore.

Of course the private sector could always step up and invest their own talent, time and money into our infrastructure, but will they? Probably only if Uncle Sam guarantees their loans, so like building nuclear power plants, nothing major gets built by the private sector without government assistance. Imagine that.

 

[Gadawg73]

Take a look at the two richest men in AMerica: Warren BUffet and Bill Gates. Both are flaming liberals. The number of conservative wealthy people could be counted on one hand: the Kochs, the Coors family.

Buffett a flaming liberals that forces his kids to earn their own keep?
Where do you get this stuff?
Buffett sets a conservative model for his kids.
You claim that wealthy folks are not conservative?

Can't keep more than a single fact in your head?
In fact Buffet has consistently supported more and higher taxes and opposed tax cuts. When he was advisor to Arnold Schwartzenegger in CA he recommended raising property taxes and others.

However Buffet raised his kids is immaterial to his political views, which are decidedly liberal.

Setting examples at home is far more important than political views. One is not defined liberal or conservative by views but by actions.
Buffet opposed cuts in the dividend tax. I do not agree with him.
Buffett had a problem with the tax on his 4 million dollar home in Laguna Beach CA being 2 grand a year while the tax on his 500 grand Omaha Neb home being 14 grand a year because California was in financial trouble and Nebraska wasn't. Your head is not large enough to ever gather ALL of the facts.
Of course an ideologue is all about talk and not action.

 

[Gadawg73]

We start a new age "Conservation Corps"? If you don't know what the Conservation Corps was... then you are either.

A. Too young
B. Too ignorant of history

What my proposal for welfare reform is this:

We have a crumbling infrastructure.. our roads and bridges suck, our water supplies are outdated, our electrical grid runs at approximately 34% EFFICIENCY!!!!

Let's get our current welfare recipients working.... for... you guessed it... The Federal Government.

Now before you scream socialism(like you always do), hear me out. In the beginning, we take our welfare folks and mandate them to work for their benefits. We train them, we offer them child care(for those single mothers out there), and we make the jobs as conveniently located as possible.

NOW... pay attention... IT WILL COST MORE TO DO THIS THAN THE CURRENT MODEL!

But, you will be getting something for your tax dollar, won't you? Not only that, but I personally feel that a sense of EMPOWERMENT beats a sense of ENTITLEMENT tenfold. You get these people into a real world working environment and most of them will respond.

Sure... there may be a certain percentage that will be a ditch digger for the rest of their lives, but so what? Even as a ditch digger, you are getting productivity for your tax dollar.

I agree that the crumbling infrastructure should be the next Apollo Project: Just get it done. The number of jobs, from architects down to guys with dustpans sweeping up construction debris have unemployment down to near zero for able-bodied persons.

But will it happen? Would any president in today's polarized political atmosphere dare to drop the flag and order a GO? Of course not. Congress would hem and haw, fritter and bicker over whether such an endeavor is even necessary (duh...), then they'd want to vie for a piece of the pie for their own districts (more bickering), then they'd force a cost analysis looking at the situation from every angle up, down, sideways and run the numbers all again--just for giggles.

Nope, the only way a monumental program like that will ever happen will be following a major catastrophe, such as huge segments of I-10 falling into Lake Ponchartrain due to crumbling supports and a few days later the Brooklyn Bridge collapses during rush hour. This country once was forward thinking and proactive regarding growth and modernization, but not anymore.

Of course the private sector could always step up and invest their own talent, time and money into our infrastructure, but will they? Probably only if Uncle Sam guarantees their loans, so like building nuclear power plants, nothing major gets built by the private sector without government assistance. Imagine that.

Uh, who pays for it?
Don't you know WE ARE BROKE.
Why should we borrow any more $$ from the Chinks that YOUR KIDS AND GRANDKIDS will have to pay back?