11 States now have more on Welfare than working

[DucatiMonster696]

The private sector gets endless corporate welfare via demand created by the government and directly via cash.

If I'm a "special" bank I can get a loan for next to 0 interest, turn around and use that to charge interest. Big fat corporate welfare.

Moreover I get to fund the campaigns of lawmakers and lobby them to create/change laws to benefit me directly.

What you're saying is that those with political connections with big government gain benefits that those who are not so well connected are refused or unable to receive. In the end only those who align themselves with the political parties(party) who can pull the big government levers are able to be rewarded with favors and are benefiting. Every other business or individual unwilling or incapable to play the lobbying game is out of luck.

 

[dmcowen674]

Can we just institute labor camps?

Wages going down, taxes and costs of everything going up, we are instituting labor camps.

 

[buckshot24]

This is simply untrue. Government jobs are not dependent on the private sector for support, they are just financed in a different way. Think about two examples (and remember they are EXAMPLES not policy prescriptions):

If we lived in a communist society where everyone was employed by the government there would be no private sector to 'support' the public, yet the public sector is still there. Second, the public sector provides absolutely vital services; does the private sector enable the fire department to exist or does the fire department enable the business to exist because the town didn't burn down? Public workers provide goods for money. Saying they are on welfare is dumb.

We don't live in a communist society, yet. Also the public sector CAN provide absolutely vital services, doesn't mean they do all the time.

I think its obvious that public works, for the most part, are funded by the government first taking the money out of the private sector. If the public sector was anything like the private then places like Cuba would be killing it right now.

 

[Dannar26]

The top 1% share of income has basically doubled in 30 years, and shows signs of doubling again in a lot less time than that. The top .01% share of income has grown explosively in that time frame. But Righties, of course, want to cut, cut, cut! the only force that can possibly stand in the way of that, the govt of the people. Given their way, they'll totally destroy the middle class made possible by the New Deal, and they'll blame everybody but themselves for it happening, too.

Because we are more liberal now than ever. Most people on this board from either side seem to be intelligent folk. How can you not notice that as we become more "progressive" we also become poorer. Seems to be true everywhere but the far north end of Europe where there are fewer people, and a higher portion of their populace are contributers.

Who are you blaming? Your side's in charge, and has been in charge. Even when Republicans manage to get seats they're still at the mercy of public opinion, which as you've so stridently shown, is against any form of reasonable cutting. Conservatism has been fighting a losing battle for decades. All we can do is slow the losses of freedom, and universal poorness and government reliance.

People who are responsible citizens are losing ground to all the bottom feeders who make a living out of gaming the system. Hint: pop out lots of kids and then the govt is forced to provide for you and your brood. If your benefits get threatened, bide behind your misbegotten spawnlings. Nobody will have the balls to tell you no then!

I get that liberals want to save everybody and make sure that everybody has the same chance at the American dream that the children of the rich have. It's great. It's noble. It's also impossible.

What are you doing to human evolution by making everyone a lazy government drone? Do you think it helps us as a species? Will it help us colonize Mars, or settle the galaxy?

Really man, I'm not trying to be a jerk (I suspect that the backlash I get will suggest otherwise). But what do you hope to accomplish here?

 

[Jhhnn]

We don't live in a communist society, yet. Also the public sector CAN provide absolutely vital services, doesn't mean they do all the time.

I think its obvious that public works, for the most part, are funded by the government first taking the money out of the private sector. If the public sector was anything like the private then places like Cuba would be killing it right now.

If the private sector was anything like Righties claim it to be, we'd be killing it right now. Bush era deregulation & cheerleading would have created a capitalist utopia.

Righties fail to comprehend the basic nature of money & where it comes from, why it exists at all. All the money currently in existence has been created by govt, and was literally spent into existence or allowed to exist with fractional reserve banking. Spending, lending & taxes keep it circulating as intended to promote commerce.

 

[1sikbITCH]

My math was off, it should have been about a million a year.

How does the population grow at 1 million a year, but only 67,327 people entered the workforce?

What are the other 900,000+ people doing?

Probably pooping their diapers and screaming for mommy.

 

[OrByte]

I never said that public sector workers were on welfare. And I DID say that they provide a service. Yes, public sector workers are needed, police, fire, teachers, etc. They are still FUNDED through the private sector. We don't live in the glorious days of the USSR so there IS a distinction in our country between public and private sectors.

The fact remains that we have a virtual majority of people in this country that get their FUNDING from the private sector.

the public sector is funded by the public...not just private sector workers.

 

[OrByte]

We don't live in a communist society, yet. Also the public sector CAN provide absolutely vital services, doesn't mean they do all the time.

I think its obvious that public works, for the most part, are funded by the government first taking the money out of the private sector. If the public sector was anything like the private then places like Cuba would be killing it right now.

I don't agree with the logic that the public sector and private sector are competing at business...as you have described.

Since so much of the work being done by public sector is not the same work being done by the private sector, you cannot draw conclusions that private sector businesses would do a better job than public sector workers and vice versa... I think that is making an argument on too simplistic terms.

Thats making an argument akin to football players being better athletes than soccer players...therefore football players would be better playing at soccer than soccer players...

edit on topic:

I'd like to see a statistical breakdown on the type of individuals on welfare for each of these 11 states...and then cross check that with work eligibility.. I know alot of 6 and 7 year olds probably can't get a job even if their life depended on it.

 

[lotus503]

What you're saying is that those with political connections with big government gain benefits that those who are not so well connected are refused or unable to receive. In the end only those who align themselves with the political parties(party) who can pull the big government levers are able to be rewarded with favors and are benefiting. Every other business or individual unwilling or incapable to play the lobbying game is out of luck.

I am saying that and saying its worse. Big banks for example choose who is to control economic and monetary policy for his country, not the government.

In addition they can pick a politician or a man and take it from conception to election. I'm talking politicians owned lock stock and barrel by industry.

the government isn't the puppet master here, its the puppet.

 

[buckshot24]

If the private sector was anything like Righties claim it to be, we'd be killing it right now. Bush era deregulation & cheerleading would have created a capitalist utopia.

Where do we have this mythical free market you're trying to make fun of?

Righties fail to comprehend the basic nature of money & where it comes from, why it exists at all. All the money currently in existence has been created by govt, and was literally spent into existence or allowed to exist with fractional reserve banking. Spending, lending & taxes keep it circulating as intended to promote commerce.

Ah, so why doesn't the government just print money to make the lowest paid person in the country a millionaire? That would solve everything.

 

[buckshot24]

I don't agree with the logic that the public sector and private sector are competing at business...as you have described.

I'm sorry you got that from the post. I think there is a place for public sector and the funding for it should come from the private sector as one supports (in theory) the other and vice versa.

 

[Jaskalas]

Where do we have this mythical free market you're trying to make fun of?

Heh, the one that needs trillion dollar deficit spending to keep from collapsing after the .gov funded housing bubble popped. They freely admit government spending directly controls it. Of course it was never free, that's just what they call it ensure the backlash feeds into their goal of tax and spend. Keep expanding, keep growing government control. Keep handing out money, or the "free" economy will get you!

They will have bed time stories with little children scared of the "free economy" under their beds.

 

[Meghan54]

Kentucky has more registered Democrats than Republicans. Governor's office and House are both controlled by Democrats.

Kentucky Democrats are not Democrats in the same way that they are commonly thought of nationally. There's a reason why there is exactly one Democrat in their congressional delegation and why Mitt Romney won the state by about 23 points. It's not because all the Democrats forgot to hit the polls.

My God, someone that may actually understand that Southern Democrats are actually Republicans in every way but label.

What most do not comprehend, either by choice or lack of attention while being taught American history in grade school, is that anyone running for office in the South couldn't get elected to shit if they labeled themselves Republican, once the South was free of the region's takeover by Republican carpetbaggers after the Civil War.

So, the Democrat label was almost exclusively used to get elected to office, despite them failing to follow any of the typical Democrat "standards" of liberalism. The Southern Democrats are some of the most conservative politicians in the country......very conservative socially, religiously, economically, in any measure of conservatism.

It's only been in very recent history that any politician calling him/herself a Republican has been able to get elected to public office....and Texas is not part of the South, btw.

Southern Democrats, until very recently, are Republicans in every shape and form, outside name. In fact, most southern Democrats were probably more conservative than most northern/western Republicans ever tried to be. Ever wonder why the Religious Right has its largest following in the South?

 

[Jhhnn]

Where do we have this mythical free market you're trying to make fun of?

So if it's not absolutely "free", then it isn't "free", huh?

Markets can't exist without govt- they never have.

Ah, so why doesn't the government just print money to make the lowest paid person in the country a millionaire? That would solve everything.

When called on your bullshit, you resort to flippant absurdity as a means to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Read up about it-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

 

[piasabird]

When liberal states raise taxes often people move out of the state to find work somewhere else. This leaves only the indigent behind.

 

[Jhhnn]

When liberal states raise taxes often people move out of the state to find work somewhere else. This leaves only the indigent behind.

Pure bullshit. Cite your source.

 

[buckshot24]

So if it's not absolutely "free", then it isn't "free", huh?

Basically yes.

Markets can't exist without govt- they never have.

Who says zero government? I'm not an anarchist.

When called on your bullshit, you resort to flippant absurdity as a means to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Why don't you go suck on Krugmans cock some more you fucking stooge.

 

[buckshot24]

Pure bullshit. Cite your source.

Raise taxes on the "rich" and some of them will do whatever they can to lighten their tax burden. If moving to Texas to do business lightens their tax bill SOME businesses and individuals will do that. Not all but some.

Try this thought experiment.

State A raises taxes to 100% and state B has a rate of 0%.

Would there be any businesses who move from state A to state B?

The people that are interested in making any money would move to state B.

All you have to do is make it financially beneficial for something to happen and it will happen more often. How financially beneficial you make determines how many people take advantage of it.

 

[Chaotic42]

Yay, Mississippi leading the way again!

 

[fskimospy]

Raise taxes on the "rich" and some of them will do whatever they can to lighten their tax burden. If moving to Texas to do business lightens their tax bill SOME businesses and individuals will do that. Not all but some.

Try this thought experiment.

State A raises taxes to 100% and state B has a rate of 0%.

Would there be any businesses who move from state A to state B?

The people that are interested in making any money would move to state B.

All you have to do is make it financially beneficial for something to happen and it will happen more often. How financially beneficial you make determines how many people take advantage of it.

How about we analyze a real experiment instead:
http://www.stanford.edu/~cy10/public/Millionaire_Migration.pdf

So yeah, when you raise taxes some people move; a tiny fraction of them. Piasabird's statement was definitely pure bullshit.

 

[Jhhnn]

Raise taxes on the "rich" and some of them will do whatever they can to lighten their tax burden. If moving to Texas to do business lightens their tax bill SOME businesses and individuals will do that. Not all but some.

Try this thought experiment.

State A raises taxes to 100% and state B has a rate of 0%.

Would there be any businesses who move from state A to state B?

The people that are interested in making any money would move to state B.

All you have to do is make it financially beneficial for something to happen and it will happen more often. How financially beneficial you make determines how many people take advantage of it.

When called on bullshit hyperbole, you double down. How quaint.

You're out in the weeds wrt to piasabird's original proposition, anyway-

When liberal states raise taxes often people move out of the state to find work somewhere else. This leaves only the indigent behind.

I challenged him to support that with something other than hyperbole, something neither of you have accomplished. The only people who might move are those who don't need to "find work". Middle class people don't abandon their jobs & familiar surroundings to avoid taxes. Well, other than teahadist freaks. It's not like high earners are abandoning San Francisco or NYC, either.

 

[Jhhnn]

Basically yes.

Who says zero government? I'm not an anarchist.

Why don't you go suck on Krugmans cock some more you fucking stooge.

You started out with hyperbole about Cuba, as if that had some meaning to our own situation. It doesn't.

I pointed out that if freer markets were the key to prosperity, then the efforts of the Bush Admin certainly should have improved things, but they didn't- they made it worse, precipitated the greatest financial catastrophe of the last 80 years.

Then you deflected about how we really don't have free markets. When I pointed out the absurdity of that proposition, that so called "free markets" cant exist w/o govt, you get all butthurt, head straight for the bunker o' denial, claim you're not an anarchist.

The reason that there are more people on welfare than working isn't a failure of govt at all, but rather a failure of the private sector to distribute the rewards of capitalism in a way that's self sustaining. Your much revered Job Creators! aren't doing their part to create jobs at all. If they were, we wouldn't be here, we wouldn't need for the govt to intervene, to actually create jobs with spending.

 

[BladeVenom]

I pointed out that if freer markets were the key to prosperity, then the efforts of the Bush Admin certainly should have improved things, but they didn't- they made it worse, precipitated the greatest financial catastrophe of the last 80 years.

Government grew during the Bush administration. Government spending almost doubled.

 

[buckshot24]

How about we analyze a real experiment instead:
http://www.stanford.edu/~cy10/public/Millionaire_Migration.pdf

Just after a cursory skimming of the paper something caught my eye.

"The New Jersey millionaire tax experiment offers a potent testing ground, given the magnitude of the policy change and the relative ease of relocating to a different state tax regime without leaving the New York or Philadelphia metropolitan areas."
I may be wrong about this but if your income is made outside of the state it isn't subject to that state's tax rates. The same reason it would be easy for them to leave the state are some of the same reasons that working in another state, ie. NY and PA aren't out of the question. How many of those New Jersey millionaires work in NYC?

So yeah, when you raise taxes some people move; a tiny fraction of them. Piasabird's statement was definitely pure bullshit.

Perhaps a tinge hyperbolic :awe:

 

[buckshot24]

You started out with hyperbole about Cuba, as if that had some meaning to our own situation. It doesn't.

I don't think Cuba is anything like our situation. The point was that Cuba is mostly public sector. All of their retail stores are state owned (at least they all have the same shit).

I pointed out that if freer markets were the key to prosperity, then the efforts of the Bush Admin certainly should have improved things, but they didn't- they made it worse, precipitated the greatest financial catastrophe of the last 80 years.

The Bush administration expanded government more than Clinton.

The reason that there are more people on welfare than working isn't a failure of govt at all, but rather a failure of the private sector to distribute the rewards of capitalism in a way that's self sustaining. Your much revered Job Creators! aren't doing their part to create jobs at all. If they were, we wouldn't be here, we wouldn't need for the govt to intervene, to actually create jobs with spending.

So you do want a more Cuban style system than we have already?