RE: The REAL Welfare Story

RE: The REAL Welfare Story (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

subfever -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 12:27:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro And this is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole monetary system is a giveaway to the banks. The military is a giveaway to the defense contractors, etc. For decades I have just watched things go from bad to worse. Until we start talking back the money we are giving away to those that don't even need it, I can't begin to care about this area of politics as pertains to any other kind of "welfare" program. You don't start by taking away safety nets first, you start by taking away the programs that grotesquely enrich the already vastly wealthy! Much of what you say here is true. And to affect any real change, it needs to start at the very top and work its way down. What's your plan?

Archer -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 12:35:32 PM)
LOL call us the name and then shift it around to us claiming to be something. LOL WOW just WOW. I claimed an LLC and that I work for an S corp and I'm claiming to be wealthy? LOL WOW just WOW. I said my paycheck from the S corp depends on a multi million dollar corporation (which BTW is a relatively small Oil Company) If that company gets hammered, regardless of the source of the hammer the resulting wave of economic damages is significant. I never took a pro subsidies stand I mearly took an "If you cut the subsidies how do you handle the resulting economic wave from killing off jobs" question standpoint. Simple question really, speaking to the practicality of eliminating the subsidies (which morally I am against the subsidies) but on a practicle side I see the hazards of ending them without a plan on how to handle the resulting consequences. Easy to say close off the tap, a bit harder to take all the thirsty folks it creates when you do it. Unintended consequences are a real bitch. and they seem to be something you don't want to address.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 12:35:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lablancsecret Cut the hippy anti-corporate attack crap, and adress his points, not what you percieve his character to be. Sorry, I'd rather not pursue digressions over fantasy ditto-head issues like the free market or what it takes to run a successful business by doubling the actual cost of every employee (which is not what Archer's link suggested, BTW - but then Archer eventually qualified his rank bullshit by the use of the word "completely"). [8\|] Don't you believe it's possible to run a successful business without having the government subsidize it in any way? Stop trying to derail the original topic with other bullshit. Or go start your own thread on the topics that you like. Let's stick to the subject of corporate welfare shall we? That's the topic of this thread.

ModeratorEleven -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 12:41:42 PM)
Ok folks, that's about enough for the namecalling. You're mostly all frequent fliers and have all been warned before so consider this a collective last warning. XI

SugarMyChurro -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 12:43:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Easy to say close off the tap, a bit harder to take all the thirsty folks it creates when you do it. I don't see ballparks and performance arenas as being anything other than big white elephants that cost taxpayers money and benefit some very few members of society. I suspect that studies proving otherwise have been bought and paid for ad nauseum, but that doesn't change common sense facts about such projects. Subsidizing Wal-mart is clearly throwing good money after bad. There's a buttload of evidence that the Walton family laughs all the way to the bank about this stuff. I guess you guys think differently. Let me turn this around: why should we subsidize wealthy corporations that don't need our money because they are already showing healthy profits? Where's the proof that there is a reciprocal return to society on these kinds of "investments"?

Archer -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 12:46:24 PM)
LOL happened before your reply, took me all of 30 minutes to come back with a source showing that my estimate was actually 0.7 times salary low. The reference showed it took 100,000 to make a job that paid less than what my rule of thumb stated. My example said 100,000 invested yielded a $50,000 job Investment = salary X 2 The professional consultant quoted took a few more things into account and came up with Investment = Salary X 2.7 or 100,000 yields a job paying 37,000. Thomas asked for the numbers and where they came from. I gave my rule of thumb and then backed it up with a consultant's formula In both cases the job created is a middle class job in both cases the job creation cost was $100,000. You on the other hand have offered no counter evidence.

lablancsecret -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 12:47:55 PM)
Sorry bout that, I was being childish. I should have been more civil about the whole thing.

subfever -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 12:50:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ModeratorEleven Ok folks, that's about enough for the namecalling. You're mostly all frequent fliers and have all been warned before so consider this a collective last warning. XI If it's about enough, does that mean there's room for a just teeny-bit more? Just kidding... you brought the inner child out in me there... [sm=mrpuffy.gif]

SugarMyChurro -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 12:55:11 PM)
Google it yourself Archer, it's out there. I admit I merely skimmed your source, because it's not on topic. I don't care about that, it's a minor digression. [Edit: Okay, I reread it more carefully and I'll co-sign the bit about "1.25 to 1.4 times base salary range" but the rest is a bit of a laugh. I mean, really?!!! Digression... digression... digression...] The numbers vary on such issues quite a bit. Try this on for size (like I care): ----- In 2006, the median annual household income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $48,201.00.[3] The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) in the year 2006 was $26,036.[4] In the year 2005, there were approximately 113,146,000 households in the United States. 19.01% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $100,000,[5] 12.7% fell below the federal poverty threshold[6] and the bottom 20% earned less than $23,202.[7] The aggregate income distribution is highly concentrated towards the top, with the top 6.37% earning roughly one third of all income, and those with upper-middle incomes control a large, though declining, share of the total earned income.[8][2] Income inequality in the United States, which had decreased slowly after World War II until 1970, began to increase slowly in the 1970s, and has increased more quickly since then.[9] Households in the top quintile, 77% of which had two income earners, had incomes exceeding $91,705. Households in the mid quintile, with a mean of one income earner per household had incomes between $36,000 and 57,657. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States ----- So exactly what Americans are you talking about that make this $50K you speak of? You're still off topic for this thread. Are you paid to derail discussions about corporate welfare and rework them into discussions about individual earnings and the possible costs to employers? Why do you exaggerate the facts so much?

Archer -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 1:09:45 PM)
From the last line in your own citation "Households in the mid quintile, with a mean of one income earner per household had incomes between $36,000 and 57,657. " So your source says middle class is between 36,000 and 57,657. Both of the figres mine ($50,000) and the consultants ($37,000) thus yield a middle class job with an investment of $100,000/yr. So where are the figures off ???????????

Archer -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 1:16:16 PM)
Not exagerating facts at all here, the result of ending the subsidies (although the morally right thing to do) are that people will lose their jobs, and not only those that work directly for the company losing the subsidy. Their suppliers and the companies that service them will also pay a cost and folks will lose jobs there as well. The larger the company and or subsidy the larger the effect. All that I was asking is what practical considerations have to be considered when ending them. I'm all for ending them, but I want more than the goal to be examined and taken into account then deciding HOW to make it happen. Edited to add: If you decide you need a new door in your house you don't just start swinging the sledge hammer knocking holes in the wall. You figure out where you need the door and what you have to do to rework wires and waterpipes and then you work towards cutting the hole.

ghitaPVH -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 1:20:16 PM)
Gee, Ive been looking for a place to rant about government run agencies for a while....I guess heres as good a place as any. Hi, my name is Ghita and Ive recieved several of those benifits generally grouped into the "welfare" label. please. no applause. Here is my opinion of the system. Benifit amounts are generally based on number of people in a household and total household income. The more willing you are to sit on your ass and do nothing, the more willing the government is to hand you whatever you want. In order to continue to recieve your benifits, you must show up for predetermined appointments whenever your case worker says you need to be there. If you are a lazy bum with no job, its generally no problem for you to get to your appointment whenever you need to. If you are trying to help yourself and be a normal citizen with a normal job, you arent allowed to call and change your appointment even if your employer refuses to to give you the afternoon off. If you dont make your appointment because you dont want to lose your job, your children lose their health insurance. Another part of the system used to determine who is eligible for benifits, is the amount of assets you own. If you decide to be a responsible person and buy some reliable transportation so you can make it to your appointments and your job, you will generally find yourself looking at good used cars with a low price tag. Once you purchase said used car and put it in your name, you now own an asset and can possibly be no longer eligible for benifits. If, however, you decide to go out of your way and go into thousands of dollars of debt by driving around in a brand new lincon town car with gold trim and spinning wheels, the bank actually owns that asset and you are still eligible for benifits and since you have a $500 a month added expense you can claim, the government will now give you cash assistance to help pay for that bill. If you try to do all of your housecleaning and take care of your own children and cook and do all the normal responsible things a parent should do, the government looks down on you. But if you add a nanny or a maid to your household (oh look..another member of your household...your elibility just went up..)the government gives you more money. So, it is possible for folks living the good life with fancy cars and huge mortgages and all of their actual assets held in trust funds and business ventures to be recieving more government assistance than the single mothers working their asses off to work a full time job, take care of their kids, and trying to not go too far into debt. My husband just retired from the Military after 24 years of service, but since he retired from the reserves, he doesnt get to recieve retirement benifits until he turns 60. So now that his job just decided over new years to no longer offer health insurance, I am trying desperatly to get my kids back on medicaid...but apparently since years ago I voluntarily decided to leave medicaid (ie..I found a great job that offered good health care and I decided to do my part as a responsible adult and no longer recieve government benifits when I could handle it on my own)...I am no longer eligible for government benifits ever again. Stupid government. Somehow they think that if people decide they dont need help..that means they will never need it again...ever? So now Ive got a household of 5 people, living on a salary or $1200 a month, and $200 gets paid out in childsupport to an exwife who uses it to leave the boy in a crappy appartment and go hang out in fancy hotels for a weekend in Tampa or Atlanta. And apparently Im no longer eligible for anything. Not even a polite phone call.

Archer -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 1:26:20 PM)
An excellent and well presented rant. Applause for doing what was right and rasberries to the system that is so poorly designed that it rewards those who do not do the right thing and punishes you for doing the right thing. I'm not against a safety net I am against a system that serves mostly to keep folks in the system rather than giving them a way out of it.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 1:36:47 PM)
More digressions... I guess we can't talk about corporate welfare can we?

subfever -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 1:40:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro More digressions... I guess we can't talk about corporate welfare can we? Sure we can talk about it. What's your plan to change things?

SugarMyChurro -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 1:59:11 PM)
Um... To stop giving these corporations subsidies they don't need. To stop a fruitless war that is a cost loser for the average taxpayer. To stop giving extensive tax breaks to multi-nationals that can pay their own way. Maybe then we could use that money to improve national infrastructure (which actually is a water that raises all boats).

Archer -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 2:05:01 PM)
Sugar we can talk about it sure we both seem to agree it's not morally acceptable to keep as is. So as subfever mantioned twice what's the plan? I said I'm for ending subsidies I just want to have the plan figured out so that how it happens has the least harmfull unintended consequences. What part of that is so hard to grasp? End them End them now is not feasible the damage to the economy as a whole would be too drastic. Wihin the narrow industry of Professional Sports, End them allow no more subsidized sports venues but let those in place now remain until the end of their contracted life. That I can and have been on board with with my votes when I lived in the DFW area, and would again be should Atlanta try to do it. Other industries I'm a bit more hesitant to use the from this day forward idea. The unintended consequences are just a bit too risky to the economy on the whole. Requires a bit more study as to how fast one can remove them wihout danga being too much.

luckydog1 -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 2:11:10 PM)
Why dont we try examining one of these "subsidies" in detail. Take it out of general rhetoric, and get specific. Why don't you name a specific example Churro, and lets examine if it serves a social need or not, if/what social cost would be paid by eliminating it. What payments exactly does Wallmart get, and how much? I am sure they get a tax credit for employing disabled people, just like all employers, so you must mean other things....I seem to recall a green push by Wallmart a year or 2 ago, I imagine they take full advantdage of Tax credits for retrofitting thier stores to be more efficient. Is that bad? A single mom has 6 kids so needs WIC and AFDC, Wallmart gives her some part time work, this is bad why? I am not a big sports guy, but it gives a community pride to have a big sports team and powerfull stadium. Voters pass bonds to have those. You might not like people wanting that, but they seem to. We (local voters) decided to build a new convention center in my town, we wanted it through the democratic process. What exactly is your problem with that? Why don't you give a specific example of a welfare payment you do not like churo?

seeksfemslave -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 2:53:35 PM)
Just reading this interesting debate I agree with those who say that you have to be very careful when deciding to do things that may cause harm to large corporations. I accept that the top executives can be financially rapacious but the fact is that the employment/salary "tentacles" spread far and wide thru' a community when a major large scale business exists there. Even if that business be centred around a sports stadium/team.

Archer -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 6:47:19 PM)
You realize of course that it looks terribly silly to rail against a small but related divergence from your premise, and then to include Stop the war in Iraq. Still you're talkig in HUGE generalities leavng very important economic effects of those actions unexplored evn to a rudimentary level. Stop the subsidies. OK How quickly? En mass or do some industries get them stopped now and others over time? Eliminate subsidies on research by big busness as well? Solar research alternative energy subsideies? Subsidies to encourage environmental benifits? Subsidies on employment of workers from various disadantaged groups? Subsidies are and have been used to promote policies that are consistant with your own politics as well as those you disagree with. So the question remains are you against all subsidies to business or jus those that have no social vaue to you?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125