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

[BoberFett]

So are you retired?

Yes, he most definitely is.

Oh, you said RETIRED, I misread the question...

 

[theeedude]

When compared against GDP corporate profits have been flat.

Doubling from 5%-10% is flat?

 

[nehalem256]

Doubling from 5%-10% is flat?

Corporate profits were pretty clearly flat from 1970->1990 despite personal income falling more in the 1970->1990 period than subsequently.

Seems like there is no real correlation between wages and corporate profits.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Doubling from 5%-10% is flat?

Compared to this highly misleading graph...yes. Was the context of his post difficult for you to understand?

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

I'm also retired at this point through much the same mechanism. It's nice that we can set that aside. I doubt that many of those with similar sentiments as your own are in the same position, however. Workin' sooo hard, posting here continuously.

You seem to think that the only reason everybody of our age group don't have it as well is because they didn't put forth the effort, when that's not true at all. The truth is that I've been lucky in many respects, and I'm sure you have been as well. It's unfortunate that the system we live in allows as few winners as there are, that it's increasingly structured to create fewer & fewer small winners while allowing for an extreme few to win bigger all the while. The notion that anybody can in in no way negates the fact that not everybody can. That particular notion has less grounding in reality every day that passes, everyday that oligarchy gains greater power & control of our lives.

That's the essence of trickedown economics, like it or not. In many respects, we're both examples of a dying breed, one being put out of existence by forces beyond the control of ordinary people as individuals. Blaming the losers only intensifies the effect.

I would also offer that any truly rational person would find you projecting your own misplaced anger onto those who disagree with you, railing against the weak rather than the strong who exploit their weakness. Lookin' down your nose at the losers when they're not much different than ourselves.

The truth is that very, very few people will settle for what life on the dole offers. It's also true that we need to find better ways than ownership to distribute the fruits of automation & offshoring if we're to have a thriving middle class at all. Previously, we accomplished that distribution with work & broad based opportunity, both of which are increasingly scarce due to concentration of wealth, power & income. America's wealthiest no longer need us the same way that they once did- they mostly need us to dummy down & go along. They'll have to pay a price for that, obviously, and it can only come in the form of increased redistribution through govt rather than redistribution through work. Either way, it's the price they have to pay to live in a non-revolutionary society.

That doesn't mean I like it any more than you do.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Corporate profits were pretty clearly flat from 1970->1990 despite personal income falling more in the 1970->1990 period than subsequently.

Seems like there is no real correlation between wages and corporate profits.

Which is a shame in my opinion.

 

[theeedude]

Compared to this highly misleading graph...yes. Was the context of his post difficult for you to understand?

Doubling is flat. Got it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Corporate profits were pretty clearly flat from 1970->1990 despite personal income falling more in the 1970->1990 period than subsequently.

Seems like there is no real correlation between wages and corporate profits.

Seems like you're trying rather desperately to avoid the correlation, that's for sure. The difference isn't just in corporate profits, but in executive compensation, capital gains & the vast difference in the rates of increase for wealth & wages across class lines.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Doubling is flat. Got it.

Context...do you speak it?

 

[BoberFett]

Doubling is flat. Got it.

Notice that the upward trend started around the time the federal government started deficit spending in the trillions. Did Democrats really believe their own bullshit? All that money went straight to the 1%; your very own trickle down.

 

[Zaap]

Notice that the upward trend started around the time the federal government started deficit spending in the trillions. Did Democrats really believe their own bullshit? All that money went straight to the 1%; your very own trickle down.

And the biggest rates of increase during Democrat admins.

Now, in other contexts the usual class-envy doofuses have and will be heralding that as "See how great Democrats are!??!"

But in this context- they'll just ignore it and sweep it under the rug. See, companies making more profit is a bad thing in this thread. In another thread, it'll become a great thing if it makes some D look good.

Whatever it is Democrats whine loudest and longest about- they always end up producing more of it. So if its big corporate profits- get ready for more.

Anyone in big business must love Democrats- their warped policies end up pushing small businesses out, leaving the big businesses with less competition. Who wants to start a business and go up against the minefield of red tape and busibody bullshit and regulation that Democrats put in everyone's way? There's even a thread here on how fewer and fewer are even attempting it anymore. The ONLY businesses that can afford armies of lawyers and lobbyists to deal with all the corrupt scumbags putting up roadblocks and extracting their payoffs, are large businesses.

 

[nehalem256]

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.

The problem is you are assuming that the reason for government aid programs is to help legitimately needy people.

Liberal economist Barbara Bergmann, professor emerita at American University
...
So as single motherhood, for example, grows — 41 percent of babies these days are born to unmarried mothers — and it’s going to continue to grow because of the decline of marriage, what you need is bigger programs of that type to help those families directly.
...
There is a good chance government beefs up those social welfare programs. Maybe not in the immediate future, as our present situation suggests, but people will understand that social needs are changing, partly because of the decline of marriage and the increase in single parenthood. People are going to see that that kind of help from government is becoming more and more necessary.
...
One of the problems with the minimum income is that it would probably result in women, more than men, leaving the labor force. And if you think about the increase in women’s stature, that has really been almost entirely due to the fact that more women are in the labor force. So I think that would be a relatively bad effect of universal cash payments.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/sweden-switzerland-americas-social-welfare-model/

Government programs are about liberal social engineering not helping legitimately needy people. Straight from a liberal economists mouth.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't consider Social Security to be public assistance. If you worked for 30-45 years and paid taxes then maybe that is really just your money that you paid into the system with a fair market return of your compounding interest.

However, I have no compassion for lazy baby making machines. They can work like everyone else.

I might go as far as to help people if they have one baby but only till that child reaches the age that they can go to school. No second and third chances. Maybe we should put their boyfriends in jail

So you want to spend a fuckton MORE tax dollars locking up even more people? You do realize that the US has more people per capita in jail than ANY other country in the entire world as it is, right?

or fine them $5000 for each child they father.

If they had, or could afford, $5000 they would likely be paying (or being forced to) child support.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I am a Democrat, and have a hard time being offended by what this guy said. Certainly if it is taken out of context and turned into a one-second sound bite (which is essentially what the HuffPos of the world have done), it sounds bad, but his actual sentiment is one I don't quarrel with.

I will say, though, that the idea of "dividing and conquering" he has in mind (truly needy recipients of public assistance turning against those with a less legitimate need) makes no real sense to me. It seems he is saying this because he doesn't want to say what he is really thinking - that taxpayers not receiving benefits need to turn on what they believe are freeloaders.

 

[Darwin333]

Yep, across the board cuts. Everybody should have to feel it at least a little.

ONLY cutting SS will not fix the debt, ONLY cutting DoD will not fix... and so on. Everything should be on the table.

Me and my wife make a good living but are not high enough for the .1% benefits but not low enough to get the low wage benefits. So cutting would not affect us as much, immediately, as many others. That and we save a LOT more % wise than most so even if we both got laid off we would have many years before we went broke.

While you are correct, that is the only way to get the deficit and eventually the debt under control I am not sure if you understand the full ramifications and the biggest reason it won't be done.

The long and short is, if we miraculously ended deficit spending next year the country would immediately be thrown into a depression. Find me even 20% of the required politicians that are willing to do that.

 

[BoberFett]

I will say, though, that the idea of "dividing and conquering" he has in mind (truly needy recipients of public assistance turning against those with a less legitimate need) makes no real sense to me. It seems he is saying this because he doesn't want to say what he is really thinking - that taxpayers not receiving benefits need to turn on what they believe are freeloaders.

I read it as him saying that people who ARE receiving benefits should turn on those freeloaders, because the freeloaders endanger the programs for people genuinely need them.

 

[werepossum]

I read it as him saying that people who ARE receiving benefits should turn on those freeloaders, because the freeloaders endanger the programs for people genuinely need them.

That's how I took it as well.

 

[BUnit1701]

I read it as him saying that people who ARE receiving benefits should turn on those freeloaders, because the freeloaders endanger the programs for people genuinely need them.

That's how I took it as well.

Not possible, he clearly said he wants them fighting among themselves while the Republicans take all the benefits away and give them to the Koch Bros. /liberal

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem is you are assuming that the reason for government aid programs is to help legitimately needy people.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/sweden-switzerland-americas-social-welfare-model/

Government programs are about liberal social engineering not helping legitimately needy people. Straight from a liberal economists mouth.

So, uhh, single mothers aren't needy, nor are their children, right? Does that include divorced women, too?

 

[Zaap]

That's how I took it as well.

Yeah but reading things logically is no way to have a good emo-rage.

Back in the day, most people didn't even want handouts due to the social stigma involved. Today, the statists are working hard on attaching a negative social stigma to anyone who's independant and successful at anything, and who isn't screaming for a handout of some kind.

 

[Jhhnn]

I read it as him saying that people who ARE receiving benefits should turn on those freeloaders, because the freeloaders endanger the programs for people genuinely need them.

Only because the usual ravers exaggerate the numbers of people they perceive as freeloaders. It's an excellent form of denial, a away to pretend that reality is what you want it to be rather than what it is.

One of the leaders in the standoff in Nevada collects SSDI, as have prominent Teahadists. Is that who you're talking about, or this a much more nebulous "them"? Perhaps race & gender based?

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah but reading things logically is no way to have a good emo-rage.

Back in the day, most people didn't even want handouts due to the social stigma involved. Today, the statists are working hard on attaching a negative social stigma to anyone who's independant and successful at anything, and who isn't screaming for a handout of some kind.

I'll take false attribution for $1000, Alex.

Liberals would much rather there were sufficient opportunity for everybody to have a job, to pay their own way. That's unfortunately not how it is, no matter how badly you need to believe it is to support your self righteousness.

 

[nehalem256]

So, uhh, single mothers aren't needy, nor are their children, right?

They are needy largely as a result of their own choices.

Note that she is talking about how the number of single mothers is increasing, due to liberal values, resulting in increased need for government aid.

Note further she is complaining that some women might choose not to work but instead of a husband. And how this is a bad thing.

Clearly she is saying the point of government aid is to support liberal social engineering.

Does that include divorced women, too?

Something like 2/3 divorces are initiated by women. If you decide you are "unhappy" with your husband maybe you should see how much happiness starvation brings you.

 

[Jhhnn]

They are needy largely as a result of their own choices.

Note that she is talking about how the number of single mothers is increasing, due to liberal values, resulting in increased need for government aid.

Note further she is complaining that some women might choose not to work but instead of a husband. And how this is a bad thing.

Clearly she is saying the point of government aid is to support liberal social engineering.



Something like 2/3 divorces are initiated by women. If you decide you are "unhappy" with your husband maybe you should see how much happiness starvation brings you.

None of that changes the fact that their children are needy, does it?

I do love the way that you put the cart ahead of the horse, claiming that single motherhood is the result of liberal policies rather than vice-versa, which would be the truth.

 

[werepossum]

Not possible, he clearly said he wants them fighting among themselves while the Republicans take all the benefits away and give them to the Koch Bros. /liberal

lol I forgot that part.

Yeah but reading things logically is no way to have a good emo-rage.

Back in the day, most people didn't even want handouts due to the social stigma involved. Today, the statists are working hard on attaching a negative social stigma to anyone who's independant and successful at anything, and who isn't screaming for a handout of some kind.

QFT