GOPer: We Must 'Divide And Conquer' People On Public Assistance

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Just wanted to see what kind of big bad job creator you were. The answer, as expected, is none.

Just wanted to cast aspersions, right? I never claimed to be a Job Creator. Capitalism is the game, and those who have the stuff aren't creating jobs at all, certainly not in sufficient quantity to justify all the usual raving about welfare moochers. Why aren't they creating jobs? Because they're meeting demand with the current workforce. Why isn't there enough demand? Because too few are employed & many of those who are employed are too busy paying off debt to create demand. Find a way out of that, if you please.

In the absence of jobs, the Welfare State is a necessity to having domestic tranquility & providing for, you know, the general welfare. Looks like the only "trickle down" America will be getting, sad to say.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
I'm guessing Whiny Shitheads INC, specializing in posting whiny drivel to internet forums and bitching about "the rich". Anyone who shows up with no skills, a complete inablitiy to do for self, and lots of pent up leftist emo-rage is hired instantly. $40+ an hour just to sit around spamming forums all day. Several WSI employees clearly work this forum.

Its funny how changing "the rich" to "the poor" and "leftist" to "rightwing baby living with his parents" is pretty much your posts. People really write what they know.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
Just wanted to cast aspersions, right? I never claimed to be a Job Creator.
LOL. What a cop out. Yeah, its always for someone else to do what you say, not what you actually do.

Anyway, don't worry. No one actually thought you provided anyone with a job. You're too busy whining at others to do that.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
Its funny how changing "the rich" to "the poor" and "leftist" to "rightwing baby living with his parents" is pretty much your posts. People really write what they know.
Looks like I pegged you pretty spot on eh?
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Two things. First, this is over two and a half years ago from a State Congressman. Second, granny and grandpa who paid into social security for their whole lives are hardly on government assistance.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
LOL. What a cop out. Yeah, its always for someone else to do what you say, not what you actually do.

Anyway, don't worry. No one actually thought you provided anyone with a job. You're too busy whining at others to do that.

And you, sir? How many job have you created? Does that matter? Don't we all support employment in general by being part of the economy of commerce? Doesn't public assistance do the same thing?

Do business owners & landlords not benefit from public assistance to their customers & tenants? Does the Nation's largest employer not benefit from such assistance to their employees?
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,224
306
126
Nobody (or at most a tiny, statistically insignificant amount of people, since in a large enough population there will be SOMEONE to fit any description) chooses to depend on government and doesn't want something better for their life.

What planet do you live on?
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Lets see a list of all these companies who have larger percentage of earnings paid out as dividends to shareholders than they have operating expenses paying for labor. For once, put up.

I want to see this list (as does every other investor on the planet) so I can get in on investing my money with these companies.

I said too much of the revenue goes to shareholders and executives, not the majority.
You can read, can't you ?
http://www.businessinsider.com/profits-versus-wages
1) Corporate profit margins just hit an all-time high
2) Wages as a percent of the economy are at an all-time low. This is closely related to the chart above. One reason companies are so profitable is that they're paying employees less than they ever have before.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
I said too much of the revenue goes to shareholders and executives, not the majority.
You can read, can't you ?
http://www.businessinsider.com/profits-versus-wages
1) Corporate profit margins just hit an all-time high
2) Wages as a percent of the economy are at an all-time low. This is closely related to the chart above. One reason companies are so profitable is that they're paying employees less than they ever have before.

The problem with your claim is that wages have been falling since 1970.

Whereas corporate profits were essentially flat from 1970-2000.

Seems to me like there must be another driver of corporate profits.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,672
136
The problem with your claim is that wages have been falling since 1970.

Whereas corporate profits were essentially flat from 1970-2000.

Seems to me like there must be another driver of corporate profits.

Picture-13-e1290538160389.png
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
They seem to be on their way up the last few years. All that sweet government deficit spending is going somewhere, and it ain't trickling down...
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Why is it that some people deem their highest and best use to be mad at the world? Jealous of what others have, what others have achieved? One poster in the thread rails against executives and shareholders. Why do some people analyze that structure and decide their best course of action will be to strive to be an executive or at the least a shareholder and others think the best course of action is to moan, whine and complain?

It's all in the upbringing. What's going to be interesting is how things ultimately shake out now that the takers outnumber the makers.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
The problem with your claim is that wages have been falling since 1970.

Whereas corporate profits were essentially flat from 1970-2000.

Seems to me like there must be another driver of corporate profits.

Funny... My wages have been rocketing upward for the last 15 years. I guess professionally employed wages aren't counted in that stat.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Why is it that some people deem their highest and best use to be mad at the world? Jealous of what others have, what others have achieved? One poster in the thread rails against executives and shareholders. Why do some people analyze that structure and decide their best course of action will be to strive to be an executive or at the least a shareholder and others think the best course of action is to moan, whine and complain?

It's all in the upbringing. What's going to be interesting is how things ultimately shake out now that the takers outnumber the makers.

Heh. And somehow you manage to rail against the weak in your whole contrived "makers vs takers" scenario.

The truth is far different than your holier than thou conceptualizations & ravings. It's a great example of how effective right wing propaganda really is at dividing & conquering the public, about how it turns your own jealousy into a self perceived virtue. How hard are you working when posting here all day long, anyway? Where else are you spreading your bullshit at the same time? Is that your job, or what?

In the face of automation, offshoring, concentration of ownership & concentration of economic power into the hands of fewer & fewer people, maybe there's insufficient demand for "work" as we've always conceived it. When robots do all the work, who should benefit- just the owners of the robots, or the rest of us as well? When wealth becomes more & more hereditary & concentrated as it's done for 40 years or so, what's left for everybody else?

The ultimate outcome of Capitalism is oligarchy when allowed to follow its natural course, along with increasing severity of economic swings. We live it today. If we can't figure out some way to better distribute the rewards of Capitalism we'll achieve a third world distribution pattern, regardless of how hard the the people at the lower end work- a few thousand privileged lords for every million serfs, with a relative few well indoctrinated & slightly more privileged serfs believing what their lords tell them about the other serfs.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
"we need to get these people to look down on them" he says..

Then you look at the overwhelming amount of government handouts that go to the top 1% who get Billions in welfare subsidies and don't need them, welfare tax breaks, welfar TARP, and we can thank him (and others like him) for one thing - exposing the under-handed tactics that will prey on members of the disabled community to try to get them to do their dirty work by "looking down" on other Medicaid beneficiaries. Not as stealth as Karl Rove but just as feeble in moral compass department.

Hate to say this but he is right... There are so many lifers on Medicaid and the other social programs that the amount and quality of assistance is diluted. If we could raise the bar for what qualifies one for long term assistance and also raise the bar on what we do as a gov't/society to enable people currently on assistance to live productive lives, then we could actually offer a higher quality of assistance to those needing these benefits.

For reference, my daughter had a Medicaid card for her first three years of her life. I make six figures a year. Due to her birth weight (1 pound 4.2 ounces) the U.S. Gov't deemed her disabled at birth. So for the first few years, we would have Medicaid to fall back on if needed and if she had been still deemed disabled at age three she could have potentially had Medicaid coverage for the rest of her life which would have been important to have as sooner or later both her mother and I will depart this earth.

Point is, the program was there to help us when and in case we needed it. I got a statement of benefits every now and then explaining what was changing with Medicaid and I have to say the level of benefits is appalling, if at minimum - sufficient. When my daughter was born, I had been laid off, and continued my private insurance via COBRA. My private insurance was there to pay everything... though it was nice to know that Medicaid- at least given the circumstances of my daughter's birth weight would also cover her.

That is my point... If we can get rid of the lifers that are otherwise able bodied and just producing a new dependent welfare generation, we could actually really help those more deserving. We could help those with more assistance that fall temporarily on hard times. It was pretty fucking eye opening to me in going through the interview at the Social Security office for my daughter's Medicaid coverage how dirt poor you need to be for standard Medicaid.

Anyway, I digress. My original point stands, yes he is right. We should work to eradicate those on social assistance that do not aspire to rise above it.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Anyway, I digress. My original point stands, yes he is right. We should work to eradicate those on social assistance that do not aspire to rise above it.

Yeh, just round 'em up & gas 'em, their kids, too, like the vermin they are. Or not.

The fact is that the distribution system of Capitalism increasingly fails to deliver to the population as a whole, and it fail because of its very success in exploiting technology. Nor is it like there's any more than contrived shortages of much of anything in this country, either, other than jobs to earn money to promote distribution.

Public assistance varies by degrees, and isn't obvious in all of its manifestations, either. Tax deductions & credits of all kinds are really public assistance, like the mortgage interest deduction & tax credits for alternative fuels. The list goes on from there to include farm subsidies, oil depletion allowances & all sorts of other measures, as well, like lower tax rates on investment income. It's not just about what Righties think it's about, at all.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
How hard are you working when posting here all day long, anyway? Where else are you spreading your bullshit at the same time? Is that your job, or what?
I'm just going to address one point in your rant. I'm retired you dumb fuck. And I mean that with all the sincerity I can muster. I retired at age 55 after utilizing the system to the best of my ability. I got mine. But I earned every penny of it through the sweat of my brow - physical labor or through investments that gave me monetary returns with no physical involvement on my part. In 1980 I had spiraled down to having only $35 dollars to my name. Again in 1987 I found myself nearly broke. I was the weak you refer to twice in my lifetime. Three times if you include being born with nothing.

Stay angry. But know that your greatest enemy stares back at you in the mirror. Your continual anger is a choice that you make every single morning when your feet hit the floor. Revel in it if you wish but don't expect me to share it with you. You are your own greatest enemy - by choice.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
How hard are you working when posting here all day long, anyway? Where else are you spreading your bullshit at the same time? Is that your job, or what?

LOL! Do you ever post anything that isn't blazingly hypocritical? The loon with 20k posts questioning a guy with 12k posts over posting too much on a forum, while you spew 3 or 4 paragraphs to his 1. So are you retired?