CDZ Welfare vs Charity

[Andylusion]

You know, I gotta say that of all the things I could worry about, how much the government spends, thus how much of my tax dollar gets consumed by that spending, how much it spends on welfare and similar programs is very low on the list of things that disturb me. There are a few reasons why I don't really care all that much:

• Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.
• Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.
• "Corporate welfare" consumes far, far more of my tax payments and goes indirectly to support individuals who have less need for the help than do welfare recipients, if only by dint of their being employed by those corporations, if not an ownership stake.
• I really don't care whether every welfare recipient "needs" the help; I care that without welfare, the people who do truly need the help will receive less help than they do currently. I might care were welfare to consume a share of my tax payments comparable to that of "corporate welfare," but it doesn't doesn't, and I'm not going to be so heartless as to complain about the relative pittance welfare takes from my taxes, even considering whatever graft that may occur in welfare programs.

Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.

This is entirely false, by any economic measure possible. In fact, it's false by the very nature of the system, without trying to measure it. At the very fundamental level, it is logically impossible for what you claim to be true.

Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.

Depends on how you define help. While I was in college, I was forced to watch an educational video about a guy who lost his job, because of an apartment fire, where he failed to buy rental insurance, and lost all his tools. Instead of getting a job at a fast food joint, he got public housing assistance, but then was faced with the dilemma that if he got a job, he would be kicked out of the public housing. So instead he just remained unemployed. After being there for 2 years, he openly on camera admitted he was considering suicide.

There's your "help".

Compare that to the shelter I worked at, which pushed and helped people get jobs, and furnish their own apartments as soon as they earned the money to sign a lease. That's real help. Helping people to move on. Not helping them to stay in misery for life.

And let's not forget that for every dollar of taxes, the end welfare recipient gets about 20¢. That's your 'help'. Where as for every dollar given to the charities I support, the end recipient gets about 90¢. That's real help.

"Corporate welfare" consumes far, far more of my tax payments and goes indirectly to support individuals who have less need for the help than do welfare recipients, if only by dint of their being employed by those corporations, if not an ownership stake.

Total lie. Just simply not true. You have been brainwashed by liars. Pure and simple.

By the way, just for the sake of a hypothetical argument, if I had no choice, but to choose to either give money to a corporation or to a welfare recipient, which would I choose? The Corporation. How many jobs have you gotten, created by a welfare person? How many products have been made by a welfare person? How many products and jobs are created by corporations? Millions. Billions. Trillions even.

Any rational person, if they had no choice but to pick who to give money to, should pick corporations.

I really don't care whether every welfare recipient "needs" the help; I care that without welfare, the people who do truly need the help will receive less help than they do currently. I might care were welfare to consume a share of my tax payments comparable to that of "corporate welfare," but it doesn't doesn't, and I'm not going to be so heartless as to complain about the relative pittance welfare takes from my taxes, even considering whatever graft that may occur in welfare programs.

By the way, if you want people to get off welfare, and get good jobs, who are they going to those jobs from? Corporations.

 

[320 Years of History]

You know, I gotta say that of all the things I could worry about, how much the government spends, thus how much of my tax dollar gets consumed by that spending, how much it spends on welfare and similar programs is very low on the list of things that disturb me. There are a few reasons why I don't really care all that much:

• Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.
• Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.
• "Corporate welfare" consumes far, far more of my tax payments and goes indirectly to support individuals who have less need for the help than do welfare recipients, if only by dint of their being employed by those corporations, if not an ownership stake.
• I really don't care whether every welfare recipient "needs" the help; I care that without welfare, the people who do truly need the help will receive less help than they do currently. I might care were welfare to consume a share of my tax payments comparable to that of "corporate welfare," but it doesn't doesn't, and I'm not going to be so heartless as to complain about the relative pittance welfare takes from my taxes, even considering whatever graft that may occur in welfare programs.

Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.

This is entirely false, by any economic measure possible. In fact, it's false by the very nature of the system, without trying to measure it. At the very fundamental level, it is logically impossible for what you claim to be true.

Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.

Depends on how you define help. While I was in college, I was forced to watch an educational video about a guy who lost his job, because of an apartment fire, where he failed to buy rental insurance, and lost all his tools. Instead of getting a job at a fast food joint, he got public housing assistance, but then was faced with the dilemma that if he got a job, he would be kicked out of the public housing. So instead he just remained unemployed. After being there for 2 years, he openly on camera admitted he was considering suicide.

There's your "help".

Compare that to the shelter I worked at, which pushed and helped people get jobs, and furnish their own apartments as soon as they earned the money to sign a lease. That's real help. Helping people to move on. Not helping them to stay in misery for life.

And let's not forget that for every dollar of taxes, the end welfare recipient gets about 20¢. That's your 'help'. Where as for every dollar given to the charities I support, the end recipient gets about 90¢. That's real help.

"Corporate welfare" consumes far, far more of my tax payments and goes indirectly to support individuals who have less need for the help than do welfare recipients, if only by dint of their being employed by those corporations, if not an ownership stake.

Total lie. Just simply not true. You have been brainwashed by liars. Pure and simple.

By the way, just for the sake of a hypothetical argument, if I had no choice, but to choose to either give money to a corporation or to a welfare recipient, which would I choose? The Corporation. How many jobs have you gotten, created by a welfare person? How many products have been made by a welfare person? How many products and jobs are created by corporations? Millions. Billions. Trillions even.

Any rational person, if they had no choice but to pick who to give money to, should pick corporations.

I really don't care whether every welfare recipient "needs" the help; I care that without welfare, the people who do truly need the help will receive less help than they do currently. I might care were welfare to consume a share of my tax payments comparable to that of "corporate welfare," but it doesn't doesn't, and I'm not going to be so heartless as to complain about the relative pittance welfare takes from my taxes, even considering whatever graft that may occur in welfare programs.

By the way, if you want people to get off welfare, and get good jobs, who are they going to those jobs from? Corporations.

You know, the more you talk on this subject, the more it becomes clear you don't know what you are talking about, but you think you do.

 

[Andylusion]

You know, I gotta say that of all the things I could worry about, how much the government spends, thus how much of my tax dollar gets consumed by that spending, how much it spends on welfare and similar programs is very low on the list of things that disturb me. There are a few reasons why I don't really care all that much:

• Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.
• Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.
• "Corporate welfare" consumes far, far more of my tax payments and goes indirectly to support individuals who have less need for the help than do welfare recipients, if only by dint of their being employed by those corporations, if not an ownership stake.
• I really don't care whether every welfare recipient "needs" the help; I care that without welfare, the people who do truly need the help will receive less help than they do currently. I might care were welfare to consume a share of my tax payments comparable to that of "corporate welfare," but it doesn't doesn't, and I'm not going to be so heartless as to complain about the relative pittance welfare takes from my taxes, even considering whatever graft that may occur in welfare programs.

Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.

This is entirely false, by any economic measure possible. In fact, it's false by the very nature of the system, without trying to measure it. At the very fundamental level, it is logically impossible for what you claim to be true.

Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.

Depends on how you define help. While I was in college, I was forced to watch an educational video about a guy who lost his job, because of an apartment fire, where he failed to buy rental insurance, and lost all his tools. Instead of getting a job at a fast food joint, he got public housing assistance, but then was faced with the dilemma that if he got a job, he would be kicked out of the public housing. So instead he just remained unemployed. After being there for 2 years, he openly on camera admitted he was considering suicide.

There's your "help".

Compare that to the shelter I worked at, which pushed and helped people get jobs, and furnish their own apartments as soon as they earned the money to sign a lease. That's real help. Helping people to move on. Not helping them to stay in misery for life.

And let's not forget that for every dollar of taxes, the end welfare recipient gets about 20¢. That's your 'help'. Where as for every dollar given to the charities I support, the end recipient gets about 90¢. That's real help.

"Corporate welfare" consumes far, far more of my tax payments and goes indirectly to support individuals who have less need for the help than do welfare recipients, if only by dint of their being employed by those corporations, if not an ownership stake.

Total lie. Just simply not true. You have been brainwashed by liars. Pure and simple.

By the way, just for the sake of a hypothetical argument, if I had no choice, but to choose to either give money to a corporation or to a welfare recipient, which would I choose? The Corporation. How many jobs have you gotten, created by a welfare person? How many products have been made by a welfare person? How many products and jobs are created by corporations? Millions. Billions. Trillions even.

Any rational person, if they had no choice but to pick who to give money to, should pick corporations.

I really don't care whether every welfare recipient "needs" the help; I care that without welfare, the people who do truly need the help will receive less help than they do currently. I might care were welfare to consume a share of my tax payments comparable to that of "corporate welfare," but it doesn't doesn't, and I'm not going to be so heartless as to complain about the relative pittance welfare takes from my taxes, even considering whatever graft that may occur in welfare programs.

By the way, if you want people to get off welfare, and get good jobs, who are they going to those jobs from? Corporations.

You know, the more you talk on this subject, the more it becomes clear you don't know what you are talking about, but you think you do.

Coming from you, I'm not insulted.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Its an extreme example but just as relevant as the "lazy bitch" stereotype. In reality it doesnt matter as the key issue is to ensure that the children are looked after.

When you subsidize something you get more of it. Subsidize poverty, get more poverty. LBJ's Great Society initiatives destroyed American inner cities.

And if the corporations paid their due nobody would care.

Corporations have nothing to do with this discussion.

What are you subsidising ?
Thats right the big corporations who pay crap wages.

Which brings me to your second point.

That claim is patently false and one has nothing to do with the other, but you already knew that

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

You have no right to a job. You understand that, right? Employers don't exist to provide you with a life style. Corporations and small businesses start up to provide a product or service to others and jobs are a byproduct of that. The only compensation you are entitled to is what you and your employer agree to at the time of your hire.

To claim taxpayers are obligated to subsidize people for not making enough money at their jobs is bunk because one has nothing to do with the other. Most people on welfare are there because they don't make enough money to support a child they had no business having in the first place.

I am not claiming that. I am saying that their employers should pay them a living wage. Thats not really controversial.

 

[Andylusion]

When you subsidize something you get more of it. Subsidize poverty, get more poverty. LBJ's Great Society initiatives destroyed American inner cities.

Corporations have nothing to do with this discussion.

What are you subsidising ?
Thats right the big corporations who pay crap wages.

Which brings me to your second point.

That claim is patently false and one has nothing to do with the other, but you already knew that

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

That's not how it works. You don't demand X wage, and then the employer pays it, anymore than I can come to your home, demand you pay me $100 to mow your grass, and then you have to pay it.

What is difficult about that?

 

[Andylusion]

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

You have no right to a job. You understand that, right? Employers don't exist to provide you with a life style. Corporations and small businesses start up to provide a product or service to others and jobs are a byproduct of that. The only compensation you are entitled to is what you and your employer agree to at the time of your hire.

To claim taxpayers are obligated to subsidize people for not making enough money at their jobs is bunk because one has nothing to do with the other. Most people on welfare are there because they don't make enough money to support a child they had no business having in the first place.

I am not claiming that. I am saying that their employers should pay them a living wage. Thats not really controversial.

Controversial or not, it's not logical, or economical, or practical.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

What are you subsidising ?
Thats right the big corporations who pay crap wages.

Which brings me to your second point.

That claim is patently false and one has nothing to do with the other, but you already knew that

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

That's not how it works. You don't demand X wage, and then the employer pays it, anymore than I can come to your home, demand you pay me $100 to mow your grass, and then you have to pay it.

What is difficult about that?

If their business model means the taxpayer has to subsidise their underpaid employees then it is a bad business.Why should the taxpayer subsidise corporate profits ? Why do corporations need a handout ?

 

[Andylusion]

That claim is patently false and one has nothing to do with the other, but you already knew that

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

That's not how it works. You don't demand X wage, and then the employer pays it, anymore than I can come to your home, demand you pay me $100 to mow your grass, and then you have to pay it.

What is difficult about that?

If their business model means the taxpayer has to subsidise their underpaid employees then it is a bad business.Why should the taxpayer subsidise corporate profits ? Why do corporations need a handout ?

Like I said, it doesn't work that way. If I offer to pay for your lunch, that doesn't magically mean your employer didn't pay you enough money in wages.

Just because the government gives out cash, doesn't mean the people who collect such money, are not paid enough by their employers.

If you want to force them to pay more, they will simply pay zero, and lay everyone off. How much subsidies will they need when people are unemployed earning nothing?

If anything, Walmart has subsidized the government, by providing hundreds of billions in taxes, and jobs for 2.2 Million people. Not including their education reimbursement employee benefits, which subsidize government funded education.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

You have no right to a job. You understand that, right? Employers don't exist to provide you with a life style. Corporations and small businesses start up to provide a product or service to others and jobs are a byproduct of that. The only compensation you are entitled to is what you and your employer agree to at the time of your hire.

To claim taxpayers are obligated to subsidize people for not making enough money at their jobs is bunk because one has nothing to do with the other. Most people on welfare are there because they don't make enough money to support a child they had no business having in the first place.

I am not claiming that. I am saying that their employers should pay them a living wage. Thats not really controversial.

They are already doing that, otherwise they wouldn't have enough employees and would have to pay more to get them

 

[Spare_change]

You know, I gotta say that of all the things I could worry about, how much the government spends, thus how much of my tax dollar gets consumed by that spending, how much it spends on welfare and similar programs is very low on the list of things that disturb me. There are a few reasons why I don't really care all that much:

• Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.
• Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.
• "Corporate welfare" consumes far, far more of my tax payments and goes indirectly to support individuals who have less need for the help than do welfare recipients, if only by dint of their being employed by those corporations, if not an ownership stake.
• I really don't care whether every welfare recipient "needs" the help; I care that without welfare, the people who do truly need the help will receive less help than they do currently. I might care were welfare to consume a share of my tax payments comparable to that of "corporate welfare," but it doesn't doesn't, and I'm not going to be so heartless as to complain about the relative pittance welfare takes from my taxes, even considering whatever graft that may occur in welfare programs.

Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.

This is entirely false, by any economic measure possible. In fact, it's false by the very nature of the system, without trying to measure it. At the very fundamental level, it is logically impossible for what you claim to be true.

Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.

Depends on how you define help. While I was in college, I was forced to watch an educational video about a guy who lost his job, because of an apartment fire, where he failed to buy rental insurance, and lost all his tools. Instead of getting a job at a fast food joint, he got public housing assistance, but then was faced with the dilemma that if he got a job, he would be kicked out of the public housing. So instead he just remained unemployed. After being there for 2 years, he openly on camera admitted he was considering suicide.

There's your "help".

Compare that to the shelter I worked at, which pushed and helped people get jobs, and furnish their own apartments as soon as they earned the money to sign a lease. That's real help. Helping people to move on. Not helping them to stay in misery for life.

And let's not forget that for every dollar of taxes, the end welfare recipient gets about 20¢. That's your 'help'. Where as for every dollar given to the charities I support, the end recipient gets about 90¢. That's real help.

"Corporate welfare" consumes far, far more of my tax payments and goes indirectly to support individuals who have less need for the help than do welfare recipients, if only by dint of their being employed by those corporations, if not an ownership stake.

Total lie. Just simply not true. You have been brainwashed by liars. Pure and simple.

By the way, just for the sake of a hypothetical argument, if I had no choice, but to choose to either give money to a corporation or to a welfare recipient, which would I choose? The Corporation. How many jobs have you gotten, created by a welfare person? How many products have been made by a welfare person? How many products and jobs are created by corporations? Millions. Billions. Trillions even.

Any rational person, if they had no choice but to pick who to give money to, should pick corporations.

I really don't care whether every welfare recipient "needs" the help; I care that without welfare, the people who do truly need the help will receive less help than they do currently. I might care were welfare to consume a share of my tax payments comparable to that of "corporate welfare," but it doesn't doesn't, and I'm not going to be so heartless as to complain about the relative pittance welfare takes from my taxes, even considering whatever graft that may occur in welfare programs.

By the way, if you want people to get off welfare, and get good jobs, who are they going to those jobs from? Corporations.

You know, the more you talk on this subject, the more it becomes clear you don't know what you are talking about, but you think you do.

Ladies and gentlemen ---

What we have here is an example how to respond when you don't have a coherent or cogent counter-argument. If you can't attack the argument, attack the poster.

 

[Spare_change]

When you subsidize something you get more of it. Subsidize poverty, get more poverty. LBJ's Great Society initiatives destroyed American inner cities.

Corporations have nothing to do with this discussion.

What are you subsidising ?
Thats right the big corporations who pay crap wages.

Which brings me to your second point.

That claim is patently false and one has nothing to do with the other, but you already knew that

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

The employer should pay them exactly what they're worth - defined as how much value to they add to the finished product - and not one nickel more. Their lifestyle is not the responsibility of the employer.

Put in its simplest terms - which seems to work best around here -- it the goal of the employer to get $1 million worth of labor for $1, and it is the goal of the employee to get $1 million for $1 worth of labor. Sounds pretty adversarial to me.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The permanent underclass is maintained by creating government programs that offer no path to an increased financial reality, providing them a living subsistence with no possibility for growth, thus ensuring that their presence in the underclass is permanent.

Creating a permanent underclass and marginalizing the growth potential of whole segment of society is NOT "for the good of society", and constitutes the basest of thefts and the use of other people's money to solidify your position as the controlling element.

There is some permanency in allowing people to remain on welfare and not encourage them to leave it, but some have no choice such as the elderly on SocSec or military people on pensions, etc.

Your sweeping generalizations are simplistic in the extreme.

Ask yourself - what is the purpose of our government? Now, ask yourself - how does welfare help meet that purpose? In those two answers, you will find the fallacy of your position.

There are a great many purposes found in the Constitution for our federal and state governments.

That you think there is only one or a few simple purposes that can be attributed as one, is telling, and provides the fallacy of your position.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You know, I gotta say that of all the things I could worry about, how much the government spends, thus how much of my tax dollar gets consumed by that spending, how much it spends on welfare and similar programs is very low on the list of things that disturb me. There are a few reasons why I don't really care all that much:

• Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.
• Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.
• "Corporate welfare" consumes far, far more of my tax payments and goes indirectly to support individuals who have less need for the help than do welfare recipients, if only by dint of their being employed by those corporations, if not an ownership stake.
• I really don't care whether every welfare recipient "needs" the help; I care that without welfare, the people who do truly need the help will receive less help than they do currently. I might care were welfare to consume a share of my tax payments comparable to that of "corporate welfare," but it doesn't doesn't, and I'm not going to be so heartless as to complain about the relative pittance welfare takes from my taxes, even considering whatever graft that may occur in welfare programs.

Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.

This is entirely false, by any economic measure possible. In fact, it's false by the very nature of the system, without trying to measure it. At the very fundamental level, it is logically impossible for what you claim to be true.

Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.

Depends on how you define help. While I was in college, I was forced to watch an educational video about a guy who lost his job, because of an apartment fire, where he failed to buy rental insurance, and lost all his tools. Instead of getting a job at a fast food joint, he got public housing assistance, but then was faced with the dilemma that if he got a job, he would be kicked out of the public housing. So instead he just remained unemployed. After being there for 2 years, he openly on camera admitted he was considering suicide.

There's your "help".

Compare that to the shelter I worked at, which pushed and helped people get jobs, and furnish their own apartments as soon as they earned the money to sign a lease. That's real help. Helping people to move on. Not helping them to stay in misery for life.

And let's not forget that for every dollar of taxes, the end welfare recipient gets about 20¢. That's your 'help'. Where as for every dollar given to the charities I support, the end recipient gets about 90¢. That's real help.

"Corporate welfare" consumes far, far more of my tax payments and goes indirectly to support individuals who have less need for the help than do welfare recipients, if only by dint of their being employed by those corporations, if not an ownership stake.

Total lie. Just simply not true. You have been brainwashed by liars. Pure and simple.

By the way, just for the sake of a hypothetical argument, if I had no choice, but to choose to either give money to a corporation or to a welfare recipient, which would I choose? The Corporation. How many jobs have you gotten, created by a welfare person? How many products have been made by a welfare person? How many products and jobs are created by corporations? Millions. Billions. Trillions even.

Any rational person, if they had no choice but to pick who to give money to, should pick corporations.

I really don't care whether every welfare recipient "needs" the help; I care that without welfare, the people who do truly need the help will receive less help than they do currently. I might care were welfare to consume a share of my tax payments comparable to that of "corporate welfare," but it doesn't doesn't, and I'm not going to be so heartless as to complain about the relative pittance welfare takes from my taxes, even considering whatever graft that may occur in welfare programs.

By the way, if you want people to get off welfare, and get good jobs, who are they going to those jobs from? Corporations.

You know, the more you talk on this subject, the more it becomes clear you don't know what you are talking about, but you think you do.

Ladies and gentlemen ---

What we have here is an example how to respond when you don't have a coherent or cogent counter-argument. If you can't attack the argument, attack the poster.

But he is exactly right, from your sweeping generalizations about how all welfare creates and maintains a permanent underclass to your assertion that there is one purpose to our government (local,state and federal one can only suppose) you demonstrate that you really do not understand the subject.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The employer should pay them exactly what they're worth - defined as how much value to they add to the finished product - and not one nickel more. Their lifestyle is not the responsibility of the employer.

Put in its simplest terms - which seems to work best around here -- it the goal of the employer to get $1 million worth of labor for $1, and it is the goal of the employee to get $1 million for $1 worth of labor. Sounds pretty adversarial to me.

Which gum wrapper did you find that em on?

 

[JimBowie1958]

"And no, FDR is not responsible for Fannie Mae"

Sorry, Jimmy......he certainly was.

1. "During the Great Depression, as borrowers defaulted on mortgages en masse and banks found themselves strapped for cash, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress created Fannie Mae in 1938..."
Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

2. His drones, Liberals, went on to compound the problem, and the illegality....
"The FHLMC was created in 1970 to expand the secondary market for mortgages in the US. Along with the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Freddie Mac buys mortgages..."
Freddie Mac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. "Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"
Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

OK, I give up.

Telling people that FDR, who has been dead for 80+ years, is responsible for the 2008 Real Estate Collapse is sure to win new people over to your way of thinking.

Sure.

Go with that.

 

[Andylusion]

"And no, FDR is not responsible for Fannie Mae"

Sorry, Jimmy......he certainly was.

1. "During the Great Depression, as borrowers defaulted on mortgages en masse and banks found themselves strapped for cash, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress created Fannie Mae in 1938..."
Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

2. His drones, Liberals, went on to compound the problem, and the illegality....
"The FHLMC was created in 1970 to expand the secondary market for mortgages in the US. Along with the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Freddie Mac buys mortgages..."
Freddie Mac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. "Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"
Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

OK, I give up.

Telling people that FDR, who has been dead for 80+ years, is responsible for the 2008 Real Estate Collapse is sure to win new people over to your way of thinking.

Sure.

Go with that.

Well I do agree that you should give up. You said that FDR was not responsible. Since that is factually incorrect, giving up would be your best option.

I wish more people like you would give up after proving their own ignorance.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well I do agree that you should give up. You said that FDR was not responsible. Since that is factually incorrect, giving up would be your best option.

I wish more people like you would give up after proving their own ignorance.

Lol, yes, because FDR is still controlling our national economic policies.

That is so ludicrous, that it just defies argument, and then you call me ignorant for pointing out the absurdity of it all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"And no, FDR is not responsible for Fannie Mae"

Sorry, Jimmy......he certainly was.

1. "During the Great Depression, as borrowers defaulted on mortgages en masse and banks found themselves strapped for cash, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress created Fannie Mae in 1938..."
Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

2. His drones, Liberals, went on to compound the problem, and the illegality....
"The FHLMC was created in 1970 to expand the secondary market for mortgages in the US. Along with the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Freddie Mac buys mortgages..."
Freddie Mac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. "Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"
Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

OK, I give up.

Telling people that FDR, who has been dead for 80+ years, is responsible for the 2008 Real Estate Collapse is sure to win new people over to your way of thinking.

Sure.

Go with that.

"Telling people that FDR, who has been dead for 80+ years, is responsible for the 2008 Real Estate Collapse is sure to win new people over to your way of thinking."

1. Which of his policies vis-a-vis government control of the private housing....and banking....markets died with him?

Right...none.

2. The Democrat/Liberal/Socialist/Communist Party not only continues FDR's mismanagement of constitutional government, but is right back doing what brought on the same policies that caused the meltdown.

"Republicans and Democrats, meanwhile, have scrambled to reignite the housing market through ill-conceived tax credits and renewed federal subsidies for mortgages, including the Obama administration’s mortgage bailout plan, which recalls the New Deal’s HOLC.
Behind these efforts is a fundamental misconception among politicians that housing drives the American economy and therefore demands subsidy at virtually any cost. Our praiseworthy initial efforts—to eliminate housing discrimination and provide all Americans an equal opportunity to buy a home—were eventually turned on their heads by advocates and politicians, who instead tried to ensure equality of outcomes."
Obsessive Housing Disorder
City Journal,
Obsessive Housing Disorder


3. I have no agenda to 'win people over.'
I simply provide the truth, often a series of facts, none deniable.....as you have found....that lead to an ineluctable conclusion.

That is the case with the housing bubble, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.



As I wrote before: had there been no government attempt, under FDR, to manipulate the housing market....something the Constitution does not authorize...would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

The answer is clearly 'no.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well I do agree that you should give up. You said that FDR was not responsible. Since that is factually incorrect, giving up would be your best option.

I wish more people like you would give up after proving their own ignorance.

Lol, yes, because FDR is still controlling our national economic policies.

That is so ludicrous, that it just defies argument, and then you call me ignorant for pointing out the absurdity of it all.

"Lol, yes, because FDR is still controlling our national economic policies."

Worse.

His demand that the Constitution be ignore is in full effect to this day.


Let me give you an example, and you can research this yourself.

The Blaisdell Case...The FDR Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of mortgage debt.... plainly a violation of the Constitution’s Contract Clause.

a. "The Great Depression was a perfect opportunity for American socialists, interventionists, and advocates of omnipotent government to prevail in their long struggle against the advocates of economic liberty, free enterprise, and limited, constitutional government. FDR led the statists in using the economic crisis to level massive assaults on freedom and the Constitution. A good example of the kind of battles that were taking place at the state level is the 1934 U.S. Supreme Court case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, in which the “Four Horsemen” — Supreme Court Justices George Sutherland, James C. McReynolds, Willis Van Devanter, and Pierce Butler — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism.

b. The Blaisdells, like so many other Americans in the early 1930s, lacked the money to make their mortgage payments. They defaulted and the bank foreclosed, selling the home at the foreclosure sale. The Minnesota legislature had enacted a law that provided that a debtor could go to court and seek a further extension of time in which to redeem the property. The Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld the constitutionality of the new redemption law, and the bank appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

c. Constitution: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”
Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.



d. But what happens when an exercise of the police powers contradicts an express prohibition in the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, trumping both state legislatures and state courts? That was the issue that confronted the U.S. Supreme Court in Blaisdell. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes set forth the applicable principles: “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency. What power was thus granted and what limitations were thus imposed are questions which have always been, and always will be, the subject of close examination under our constitutional system.”

“While emergency does not create power, emergency may furnish the occasion for the exercise of power. . .. The constitutional question presented in the light of an emergency is whether the power possessed embraces the particular exercise of it in response to particular conditions. . ..“The economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of its continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts.

e. So there you have it. In the old horse-and-buggy era, the individual and his freedom were supreme but now in the new modern era, the collective interests of “society” would have to prevail. And society could no longer be bound by such quaint notions of constitutional limitations on state power, especially not during emergencies and especially not when the “good of all” depends on state action."
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0302a.asp
Economic Liberty and the Constitution, Part 9 - The Future of Freedom Foundation

"...society could no longer be bound by such quaint notions of constitutional limitations..."
Understand???
The Constitution, no longer in effect.
No amendments needed if these unelected lawyers say so.
You agree with this?



f. In 1937, the court buckled and ceased to act as the guardian of economic liberty, and as a limit on the extension of federal government power. It now upheld many New Deal measures.