Liberalism and Limitless Welfare: An Explanation.

[Dragonlady]

Americans with good paying jobs don't collect welfare.

Conservatism has tried to systemically drive down wages, weaken labor, and drive jobs out of this country for the benefit of the capitalists.

And they've been successful. Now you're reaping the whirlwind, because what conservatives never took into account is that the People, with the power of the ballot box, would take back much of what conservatives took away from them,

in the form of government help for the poor and low income Americans that conservatism created.

What a crock. Peeps with low paying jobs usually have only low earning skills.
Forcing employers to overpay low skill workers would just drive up the pay scale (and prices) for everyone, solving absolutely nothing. As already noted, leftists think only with their hearts.

And like the rest of your RW pals, you have no better ideas.

Here's an idea:

How about wages just get put back in line with productivity? All that means is that the producers, i.e. labor, would get a bigger share of the value of what they're producing.

That need not drive up prices because you're simply redistributing the profits in a fairer proportion.

Certainly the wages of those company executives have gone up by leaps and bounds over the same time frame. The people doing the production should have reaped the same benefits.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A citizen's health is more basic than his education.

and has Obombcare changed the cost of that as promised............NOPE............rates continue to sky rocket............due to the rules...........and businesses are making changes to the workforce to adapt................causing lost jobs and 30 hour weeks.....................
That isn't a solution. It's a disaster..................

You can talk market realites to a socialist until you are blue in the face but he will simply cover his eyes and ears.

The claims in the prior post are not supported by the evidence.

What market realities are you trying to claim? That the poor should simply go without healthcare if they can't afford the market prices?

Is that what you want?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Chinese are doing what used to be our jobs for $300 a month.

Bring those jobs back here at 300 a month and the US worker would still get virtually every form of government assistance for the poor/low income American.

That is how free trade, another pillar of conservative economic policy, works.

Those jobs were chased out of the US by our draconian tax system which is so onerous that those who run the businesses which can relocate some or all of their operations outside the US would be guilty of violating their fiduciary responsibilities to the company's stakeholders if they failed to do so.
Much as socialists demand it to be, companies are not in biz to benefit employees or the tax man.

Wrong. The jobs went to cheaper labor, period. And now, as further proof, China is losing jobs to even cheaper labor in places like Southeast Asia.

That's the 'free market' you adore.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Although I don't ever see it happening, I'm more and more inclined to support the idea that every American get a guaranteed basic income,

regardless of their situation, that replaces all or most of the programs for the poor.

That's the idea behind not asking the bottom 50% of American earners to help shoulder the federal tax load. Unfortunately even that did not satisfy he demands of some for free stuff from the gov't. Those in the bottom half get a free ride. WooHoo!

lol, see, one more conservative who wants the poor to be even poorer.

The one big exception to the conservatives' religious devotion to lower taxes is their desire to RAISE taxes on LOWER income Americans.

That is more support for my assertion that conservative domestic economic policy always tries to widen the gap between richer and poorer.

 

[Stephanie]

this is the Democrat/Progressives plan for you and our country. You people out there Better wake up

 

[PoliticalChic]

A citizen's health is more basic than his education.

and has Obombcare changed the cost of that as promised............NOPE............rates continue to sky rocket............due to the rules...........and businesses are making changes to the workforce to adapt................causing lost jobs and 30 hour weeks.....................
That isn't a solution. It's a disaster..................

You can talk market realites to a socialist until you are blue in the face but he will simply cover his eyes and ears.

The claims in the prior post are not supported by the evidence.

What market realities are you trying to claim? That the poor should simply go without healthcare if they can't afford the market prices?

Is that what you want?

Liar.

The 'poor' have had healthcare for near 30 years.

"Reagan’s healthcare mandate
In 1986, the GOP icon signed a law that requires hospitals to treat poor people and undocumented immigrants"
Reagan 8217 s healthcare mandate - Salon.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

A citizen's health is more basic than his education.

and has Obombcare changed the cost of that as promised............NOPE............rates continue to sky rocket............due to the rules...........and businesses are making changes to the workforce to adapt................causing lost jobs and 30 hour weeks.....................
That isn't a solution. It's a disaster..................

You can talk market realites to a socialist until you are blue in the face but he will simply cover his eyes and ears.

The claims in the prior post are not supported by the evidence.

What market realities are you trying to claim? That the poor should simply go without healthcare if they can't afford the market prices?

Is that what you want?

Liar.

The 'poor' have had healthcare for near 30 years.

"Reagan’s healthcare mandate
In 1986, the GOP icon signed a law that requires hospitals to treat poor people and undocumented immigrants"
Reagan 8217 s healthcare mandate - Salon.com

That's a non sequitur. Ask Sayit if he favors a free market in healthcare, or socialized healthcare.

See what you can get him to say.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Could any of you in the anti- 'welfare state' crowd be so kind as to list where, and specifically how much, you would cut the programs for the poor?

 

[Brucethethinker]

Certainly the wages of those company executives have gone up by leaps and bounds over the same time frame. The people doing the production should have reaped the same benefits.

If that's how you feel, why don't you start a company, make lots of money, and pay the unskilled production people huge wages? Then when you go to walmart, be sure to pay more for products that were made by over-paid Americans instead of the poor abused Chinese? The thing with liberals is they want to change everyone's behavior except their own.

 

[Brucethethinker]

Could any of you in the anti- 'welfare state' crowd be so kind as to list where, and specifically how much, you would cut the programs for the poor?

I would eliminate ALL the programs for the poor. Over 100 years ago, before there were any government programs for the poor, a woman lost her husband, and couldn't afford to raise her young children. So she sold them into indentured servitude. The older boy ran away when he turned 17. He never spent a day in school, he had been forced to work his whole life in conditions not approved by OSHA, and yet he became the 17th president of these United States. Look it up. The programs for the poor are HURTING the poor, not helping them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Could any of you in the anti- 'welfare state' crowd be so kind as to list where, and specifically how much, you would cut the programs for the poor?

I would eliminate ALL the programs for the poor. Over 100 years ago, before there were any government programs for the poor, a woman lost her husband, and couldn't afford to raise her young children. So she sold them into indentured servitude. The older boy ran away when he turned 17. He never spent a day in school, he had been forced to work his whole life in conditions not approved by OSHA, and yet he became the 17th president of these United States. Look it up. The programs for the poor are HURTING the poor, not helping them.

lol, I wish more of the RWnuts on this forum would admit that this is what they really want.

A return to the 19th century. Where hey, if you don't die in the mines before your tenth birthday, you might grow up to be president.

 

[Dragonlady]

If that's how you feel, why don't you start a company, make lots of money, and pay the unskilled production people huge wages? Then when you go to walmart, be sure to pay more for products that were made by over-paid Americans instead of the poor abused Chinese? The thing with liberals is they want to change everyone's behavior except their own.

And you call yourself "Bruce the thinker". Wages for workers have remained static while those in power have voted themselves enormous increases. These workers used to be consumers, but the buying power of their wages have eroded to the point where they are barely getting by. Instead of giving them raises, they got "earned income credits", which conservatives, who gave the earned income credits in the first place to avoid increasing wages, now rail against.

Conservatives engineered the current situation and now complain about the "takers".

As for shopping at Walmart - I consider Walmart a parasite corporation, and never, and I do mean, never, shop there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If that's how you feel, why don't you start a company, make lots of money, and pay the unskilled production people huge wages? Then when you go to walmart, be sure to pay more for products that were made by over-paid Americans instead of the poor abused Chinese? The thing with liberals is they want to change everyone's behavior except their own.

And you call yourself "Bruce the thinker". Wages for workers have remained static while those in power have voted themselves enormous increases. These workers used to be consumers, but the buying power of their wages have eroded to the point where they are barely getting by. Instead of giving them raises, they got "earned income credits", which conservatives, who gave the earned income credits in the first place to avoid increasing wages, now rail against.

Conservatives engineered the current situation and now complain about the "takers".

As for shopping at Walmart - I consider Walmart a parasite corporation, and never, and I do mean, never, shop there.

No finer indicia of imbecilic prattle could be found than your post.


1. ".... this wage figure ignores the rise over the past few decades in the portion of worker pay taken as (nontaxable) fringe benefits. This is no small matter—health benefits, pensions, paid leave and the rest now amount to an average of almost 31% of total compensation for all civilian workers according to the BLS."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8249723138161566.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop



2. "As for shopping at Walmart - I consider Walmart a parasite corporation, and never, and I do mean, never, shop there."
That's because you're a moron.

"Older socialists dreamed of a world in which all classes would share in the fruits of the world. Yet when a permutation of this emerges, it is resented if it represents capitalism.
An institution beyond the imaginings of socialists of old: Wal-Mart. Within Wal-Mart we see a cornucopia of goods designed to improve human well-being, at prices that make them affordable for all. Millions of jobs are created, and prosperity is spread throughout areas where it was sorely needed. An entity owned by share-holders, people of mostly moderate incomes who have invested their savings, worker-capitalists."
http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2007_05_Imprimis.pdf

 

[Brucethethinker]

Wages for workers have remained static...

That's because it takes fewer and fewer people to make things, so there isn't demand for workers, so companies don't need to raise workers' wages to get workers. It's the law of supply and demand.

... those in power have voted themselves enormous increases.

Well why wouldn't they? Why do you think they go to all the trouble to get in power in the first place?

... their wages have eroded to the point where they are barely getting by.

Where is that happening? We've had virtually no inflation for years. Even gas is getting cheaper.

As for shopping at Walmart - I consider Walmart a parasite corporation, and never, and I do mean, never, shop there.

Well, yipee for you! You're in the vast minority. I love walmart. They let me sleep in my van in their parking lot, they have good prices, they offer decent jobs for people, and they have everything you need. To each his own.

 

[Discombobulated]

William Voegeli spoke at Hillsdale College in October, analyzing why, with inordinate growth and very little in results of solving poverty, "liberals do not seem all that concerned about whether the machine they’ve built, and want to keep expanding, is running well.

For inflation-adjusted, per capita federal welfare state spending to increase by 254 percent from 1977 to 2013, without a correspondingly dramatic reduction in poverty, and for liberals to react to this phenomenon by taking the position that our welfare state’s only real defect is that it is insufficiently generous,..."


No...not insanity, although one could make that argument.
Voegeli explains it as a different twist of their psyche.




1. "....while the welfare state was growing constantly, liberals were insisting constantly it wasn’t big enough or growing fast enough..... the welfare state is a permanent work-in-progress, and its liberal advocates believe that however many resources it has, it always needs a great deal more.

2. [We are left with] two of the journalist’s standard questions:
What is the liberal disposition regarding the growth of the welfare state? ....
Why do liberals feel that no matter how much we’re doing through government programs to alleviate and prevent poverty, whatever we are doing is shamefully inadequate?




3. [From a policy perspective,] Progressives of a century ago, followed by New Deal and Great Society liberals, worked to transform a republic where the government had limited duties and powers into a nation where there were no grievances the government could or should refrain from addressing, and where no means of responding to those grievances lie outside the scope of the government’s legitimate authority.




4. If we make ...an effort to understand committed liberals as they understand themselves—then we have to understand them as people who, by their own account, get up every morning asking, “What can I do today so that there’s a little less suffering in the world?” ....the question of liberal compassion,....

a. Empathetic kindness is “what binds us together, and . . . how we’ve always moved forward, based on the idea that we have a stake in each other’s success.” [These are the] Arguments and rhetoric that work—that impress voters and intimidate opponents—are used again and again.




5. [But] disciplining government according to “measured provable performance and effective spending” ought to be a “completely philosophically neutral objective.” Skinflint conservatives want government to be thrifty for obvious reasons, but ... liberals’ motivations should be even stronger.

a. ‘You [Liberals] ought to be the most offended of anybody if a dollar that could help a poor person is being squandered in some way.’"
Current Issue

You never have to worry about so called conservatives being accused of any sort of empathetic kindness.

 

[Brucethethinker]

I would eliminate ALL the programs for the poor.

lol, I wish more of the RWnuts on this forum would admit that this is what they really want. A return to the 19th century. Where hey, if you don't die in the mines before your tenth birthday, you might grow up to be president.

I'm not familiar with young children working in mines in America. The reason President Johnson's mother sold him to a tailor is so that he would learn a trade, which he did. He ran away at 17 to Tennessee and opened a tailor shop. Kids don't learn a trade as teenagers today, unless they learn it from their father, and fewer and fewer of them have fathers, thanks largely to liberal programs for the poor. I know we can't return to the 19th century. Isn't it a shame? By the way, President Johnson married a school teacher when he was 18. He was no dummy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If that's how you feel, why don't you start a company, make lots of money, and pay the unskilled production people huge wages? Then when you go to walmart, be sure to pay more for products that were made by over-paid Americans instead of the poor abused Chinese? The thing with liberals is they want to change everyone's behavior except their own.

And you call yourself "Bruce the thinker". Wages for workers have remained static while those in power have voted themselves enormous increases. These workers used to be consumers, but the buying power of their wages have eroded to the point where they are barely getting by. Instead of giving them raises, they got "earned income credits", which conservatives, who gave the earned income credits in the first place to avoid increasing wages, now rail against.

Conservatives engineered the current situation and now complain about the "takers".

As for shopping at Walmart - I consider Walmart a parasite corporation, and never, and I do mean, never, shop there.

No finer indicia of imbecilic prattle could be found than your post.


1. ".... this wage figure ignores the rise over the past few decades in the portion of worker pay taken as (nontaxable) fringe benefits. This is no small matter—health benefits, pensions, paid leave and the rest now amount to an average of almost 31% of total compensation for all civilian workers according to the BLS."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8249723138161566.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop



2. "As for shopping at Walmart - I consider Walmart a parasite corporation, and never, and I do mean, never, shop there."
That's because you're a moron.

"Older socialists dreamed of a world in which all classes would share in the fruits of the world. Yet when a permutation of this emerges, it is resented if it represents capitalism.
An institution beyond the imaginings of socialists of old: Wal-Mart. Within Wal-Mart we see a cornucopia of goods designed to improve human well-being, at prices that make them affordable for all. Millions of jobs are created, and prosperity is spread throughout areas where it was sorely needed. An entity owned by share-holders, people of mostly moderate incomes who have invested their savings, worker-capitalists."
http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2007_05_Imprimis.pdf

Walmart just symbolizes what happens when capital can easily flow to the cheapest sources of labor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I would eliminate ALL the programs for the poor.

lol, I wish more of the RWnuts on this forum would admit that this is what they really want. A return to the 19th century. Where hey, if you don't die in the mines before your tenth birthday, you might grow up to be president.

I'm not familiar with young children working in mines in America. The reason President Johnson's mother sold him to a tailor is so that he would learn a trade, which he did. He ran away at 17 to Tennessee and opened a tailor shop. Kids don't learn a trade as teenagers today, unless they learn it from their father, and fewer and fewer of them have fathers, thanks largely to liberal programs for the poor. I know we can't return to the 19th century. Isn't it a shame? By the way, President Johnson married a school teacher when he was 18. He was no dummy.

The 19th century. Seriously?

 

[PoliticalChic]

William Voegeli spoke at Hillsdale College in October, analyzing why, with inordinate growth and very little in results of solving poverty, "liberals do not seem all that concerned about whether the machine they’ve built, and want to keep expanding, is running well.

For inflation-adjusted, per capita federal welfare state spending to increase by 254 percent from 1977 to 2013, without a correspondingly dramatic reduction in poverty, and for liberals to react to this phenomenon by taking the position that our welfare state’s only real defect is that it is insufficiently generous,..."


No...not insanity, although one could make that argument.
Voegeli explains it as a different twist of their psyche.




1. "....while the welfare state was growing constantly, liberals were insisting constantly it wasn’t big enough or growing fast enough..... the welfare state is a permanent work-in-progress, and its liberal advocates believe that however many resources it has, it always needs a great deal more.

2. [We are left with] two of the journalist’s standard questions:
What is the liberal disposition regarding the growth of the welfare state? ....
Why do liberals feel that no matter how much we’re doing through government programs to alleviate and prevent poverty, whatever we are doing is shamefully inadequate?




3. [From a policy perspective,] Progressives of a century ago, followed by New Deal and Great Society liberals, worked to transform a republic where the government had limited duties and powers into a nation where there were no grievances the government could or should refrain from addressing, and where no means of responding to those grievances lie outside the scope of the government’s legitimate authority.




4. If we make ...an effort to understand committed liberals as they understand themselves—then we have to understand them as people who, by their own account, get up every morning asking, “What can I do today so that there’s a little less suffering in the world?” ....the question of liberal compassion,....

a. Empathetic kindness is “what binds us together, and . . . how we’ve always moved forward, based on the idea that we have a stake in each other’s success.” [These are the] Arguments and rhetoric that work—that impress voters and intimidate opponents—are used again and again.




5. [But] disciplining government according to “measured provable performance and effective spending” ought to be a “completely philosophically neutral objective.” Skinflint conservatives want government to be thrifty for obvious reasons, but ... liberals’ motivations should be even stronger.

a. ‘You [Liberals] ought to be the most offended of anybody if a dollar that could help a poor person is being squandered in some way.’"
Current Issue

You never have to worry about so called conservatives being accused of any sort of empathetic kindness.

In a marvelous consistency, you've created another in a long line of senseless posts, indicative of your lack of any cognitive ability.

Let's review your understanding of empathetic kindness:

1. An inability to understand the caused of poverty...
"You can avoid poverty by:

a. Graduating from high school.

b. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.

c. Having a full-time job."
Three rules for staying out of poverty members.jacksonville.com


2. Liberal policy has wasted $1 trillion a year in what all can see as wasted efforts.
"On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a State of the Union address to Congress in which he declared an “unconditional war on poverty in America.”
At the time, the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This
year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing."
Scribd



3. There is neither empathy nor kindness in dunning producers $1trillion annually, while throwing away said dollars which would have provided money and training for the poor.

4. Liberals should never......never......be allowed in positions of power.

5. The solution to your particular problem is far simpler: You needs your sleeves lengthened by a couple of feet so they can be tied in the back.
Then, off to the 'nervous hospital.'

 

[Discombobulated]

If that's how you feel, why don't you start a company, make lots of money, and pay the unskilled production people huge wages? Then when you go to walmart, be sure to pay more for products that were made by over-paid Americans instead of the poor abused Chinese? The thing with liberals is they want to change everyone's behavior except their own.

And you call yourself "Bruce the thinker". Wages for workers have remained static while those in power have voted themselves enormous increases. These workers used to be consumers, but the buying power of their wages have eroded to the point where they are barely getting by. Instead of giving them raises, they got "earned income credits", which conservatives, who gave the earned income credits in the first place to avoid increasing wages, now rail against.

Conservatives engineered the current situation and now complain about the "takers".

As for shopping at Walmart - I consider Walmart a parasite corporation, and never, and I do mean, never, shop there.

No finer indicia of imbecilic prattle could be found than your post.


1. ".... this wage figure ignores the rise over the past few decades in the portion of worker pay taken as (nontaxable) fringe benefits. This is no small matter—health benefits, pensions, paid leave and the rest now amount to an average of almost 31% of total compensation for all civilian workers according to the BLS."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8249723138161566.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop



2. "As for shopping at Walmart - I consider Walmart a parasite corporation, and never, and I do mean, never, shop there."
That's because you're a moron.

"Older socialists dreamed of a world in which all classes would share in the fruits of the world. Yet when a permutation of this emerges, it is resented if it represents capitalism.
An institution beyond the imaginings of socialists of old: Wal-Mart. Within Wal-Mart we see a cornucopia of goods designed to improve human well-being, at prices that make them affordable for all. Millions of jobs are created, and prosperity is spread throughout areas where it was sorely needed. An entity owned by share-holders, people of mostly moderate incomes who have invested their savings, worker-capitalists."
http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2007_05_Imprimis.pdf

Walmart just symbolizes what happens when capital can easily flow to the cheapest sources of labor.

Walmart shoppers are the biggest supporters of communism.