What about people with a mental or physical disability or genuinely homeless? I'm sure none of those people are living on welfare as a lifestyle choice.lowing wrote:
People need to realize that, if your lifestyle is welfare, then yes, you are a leech.11 Bravo wrote:
i was watching something yesterday where this chick got 600 per month for welfare. the state paid 800 for her rent. and she got food stamps. she was able to save 200 dollars per month lol. ya...no leeches.Jaekus wrote:
People on welfare aren't leeches.
You guys just see people on welfare as stoners who can't be arsed getting a job and sit at home playing their PS3 whilst eating doritos and getting McDonalds every night. Thing is, this is the minority. Very blinkered.
source? how are they disadvantaged, by their hand or was their someone else you wanted to blame?Jaekus wrote:
People on welfare aren't leeches. That's an ignorant view that those on the politcal right cannot see past, or at best choose not to.
Sure, there are those who take advantage, but the vast majority on welfare are disadvantaged to begin with.
This is a disucssion for another thread... and clearly the technology is still finding investment from the private sector, so it's not like R&D is being neglected here.
also this
We have a thread bitching about 3 billion dollars wasted. Compare that to 702 billion annually. I have shown where that 3 billion is not really wasted. You nor anyone else has shown how that 702 billion is NOT wasted. So where is the outrage?
Your argument is those on welfare are circulating money through the economy. My argument is I am more than capable and willing to circulate MY OWN money through the economy without their help.
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-27 06:27:44)
there is no source. its hard to gather accurate stats on that stuff. so, since its impossible to trust any stat you have to go off of what you know.Jaekus wrote:
Source?11 Bravo wrote:
yes not going to argue the short term. long term abuse is WAY more common than honest people. thats a fact.jord wrote:
You can pull out personal examples from both "leeches" and the people who genuinely need welfare in the short run to survive. Personal examples like that aren't really a great argument, for both the for and against opinions.
maybe in your country. go stroll around cleveland for a bit.Jaekus wrote:
You guys just see people on welfare as stoners who can't be arsed getting a job and sit at home playing their PS3 whilst eating doritos and getting McDonalds every night. Thing is, this is the minority. Very blinkered.
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2011-03-27 06:29:26)
Do you really think it should cost 702 billion dollars to take care of people who are physically or mentally disabled?Jaekus wrote:
What about people with a mental or physical disability or genuinely homeless? I'm sure none of those people are living on welfare as a lifestyle choice.lowing wrote:
People need to realize that, if your lifestyle is welfare, then yes, you are a leech.11 Bravo wrote:
i was watching something yesterday where this chick got 600 per month for welfare. the state paid 800 for her rent. and she got food stamps. she was able to save 200 dollars per month lol. ya...no leeches.
I believe that 100% of all homeless people are genuinely homeless. You simply got to accept that, most people live the lives they are in as a result of their choice in that life.
I don't see where I ever blamed anyone for anything, you have clearly misread me there.lowing wrote:
source? how are they disadvantaged, by their hand or was their someone else you wanted to blame?Jaekus wrote:
People on welfare aren't leeches. That's an ignorant view that those on the politcal right cannot see past, or at best choose not to.
Sure, there are those who take advantage, but the vast majority on welfare are disadvantaged to begin with.
This is a disucssion for another thread... and clearly the technology is still finding investment from the private sector, so it's not like R&D is being neglected here.
This thread isn't about you so I'm not sure why you would put that last sentence in there.also this
We have a thread bitching about 3 billion dollars wasted. Compare that to 702 billion annually. I have shown where that 3 billion is not really wasted. You nor anyone else has shown how that 702 billion is NOT wasted. So where is the outrage?
Your argument is those on welfare are circulating money through the economy. My argument is I am more than capable and willing to circulate MY OWN money through the economy without their help.
You haven't really "shown" any more than I have, other than a simple graph that illusrates where the money is spent. You also haven't shown me how the money is wasted, other than your opinion it is.
That is part of it. What about a single mother looking after 3 kids from an abusive relationship who had to live in a women's shelter, who came from a poor background and received no education as the result of an abusive upbringing and thus has no employable skills other than the most basic of society, and yet cannot do so when she has her children to look after? And does not know better because this is all she has grown up with and known? And can barely afford to properly educate her children and thus the cycle continues? And then have the stigma of being "on welfare" because she has "made these choices in life" and any money granted to her is a waste?lowing wrote:
Do you really think it should cost 702 billion dollars to take care of people who are physically or mentally disabled?Jaekus wrote:
What about people with a mental or physical disability or genuinely homeless? I'm sure none of those people are living on welfare as a lifestyle choice.lowing wrote:
People need to realize that, if your lifestyle is welfare, then yes, you are a leech.
I believe that 100% of all homeless people are genuinely homeless. You simply got to accept that, most people live the lives they are in as a result of their choice in that life.
See, I thought the benefit of living in a first world country was the fact that our governments are rich enough to look after people like these, because those of us who are more advantaged have the luxury of saving up for a new car and overseas holidays, whilst the destitute can get some crumbs from our tax dollars to feed them and their kids for another week.
But, I guess if you want to go back to living life like in the 1950's...
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-03-27 06:41:30)
As long as my dad works for GE, I'm happy for them to exploit the tax system for profit.
Firstly it's a known fact that the more you earn the more you save, so welfare helps circulate more money.lowing wrote:
Your argument is those on welfare are circulating money through the economy. My argument is I am more than capable and willing to circulate MY OWN money through the economy without their help.
Secondly the more you earn doesn't make people buy more things. You can only consume so much food, drive so many cars and watch so many TVs, so people are unlikely to purchase that many more things, but just better quality ones. With less demand for things, less people are needed to produce them which will cause unemployment.
Thirdly, as demand for more luxury items increases, inflation will push up their price meaning your real increase in income is no where near as much as your nominal one would seem like.
Fourthly, the drop in demand for stables will force prices down, causing many people to lose their job or be unable to make a fair living.
Welfare is all about increasing the market size, which in turn creates demand and jobs.
Congress decided it was needed. Over the protests of the DoD. It's one (of the several) reasons the F-35 program has gone over budget and behind schedule.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Putting aside the issue of welfare for the moment, if the military says it doesn't need or want this engine, why was money spent on it in the first place? Could make any number of viable guesses as to why, but it's just frustrating.lowing wrote:
if you really wanna be disgusted
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usg … 702.701601
at least people are employed at GE, and technology is being developed. What has this welfare budget produced?
but nooo, can't have any outrage for the nanny state.
702,000,000,000 for nothing, compared to 3,000,000,000 that goes to Research and development of new technologies. Yes folks, even if the project is cancelled , what is learned from it does go toward other projects and technologies.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
No you are correct this thread is about govt. wasting tax payer money, there is outrage over the wasting of 3 billion ( which really wasn't wasted and that has been explained why). There is however, NO outrage over the wasting of 702 billion, not just once but every year. You claim it is not wasted because it is spent. Fine, so why not let those that worked for it spend it?Jaekus wrote:
I don't see where I ever blamed anyone for anything, you have clearly misread me there.lowing wrote:
source? how are they disadvantaged, by their hand or was their someone else you wanted to blame?Jaekus wrote:
People on welfare aren't leeches. That's an ignorant view that those on the politcal right cannot see past, or at best choose not to.
Sure, there are those who take advantage, but the vast majority on welfare are disadvantaged to begin with.
This is a disucssion for another thread... and clearly the technology is still finding investment from the private sector, so it's not like R&D is being neglected here.This thread isn't about you so I'm not sure why you would put that last sentence in there.also this
We have a thread bitching about 3 billion dollars wasted. Compare that to 702 billion annually. I have shown where that 3 billion is not really wasted. You nor anyone else has shown how that 702 billion is NOT wasted. So where is the outrage?
Your argument is those on welfare are circulating money through the economy. My argument is I am more than capable and willing to circulate MY OWN money through the economy without their help.
You haven't really "shown" any more than I have, other than a simple graph that illusrates where the money is spent. You also haven't shown me how the money is wasted, other than your opinion it is.
welfare is not a component to economic vitality. yet we blow 702 billion on it. R and D, jobs, technology advancements however are a necessity.
So again, if we want to be outraged over govt. wasting money, why not start at the biggest waste of it?
Lowing, are you in favour of removing foreign aid too?
You mean you do not want to ask why a woman had not 1 but 3 kids with an abusive husband? HS is govt. funded, how is it she had no education?Jaekus wrote:
That is part of it. What about a single mother looking after 3 kids from an abusive relationship who had to live in a women's shelter, who came from a poor background and received no education as the result of an abusive upbringing and thus has no employable skills other than the most basic of society, and yet cannot do so when she has her children to look after? And does not know better because this is all she has grown up with and known? And can barely afford to properly educate her children and thus the cycle continues? And then have the stigma of being "on welfare" because she has "made these choices in life" and any money granted to her is a waste?lowing wrote:
Do you really think it should cost 702 billion dollars to take care of people who are physically or mentally disabled?Jaekus wrote:
What about people with a mental or physical disability or genuinely homeless? I'm sure none of those people are living on welfare as a lifestyle choice.
I believe that 100% of all homeless people are genuinely homeless. You simply got to accept that, most people live the lives they are in as a result of their choice in that life.
See, I thought the benefit of living in a first world country was the fact that our governments are rich enough to look after people like these, because those of us who are more advantaged have the luxury of saving up for a new car and overseas holidays, whilst the destitute can get some crumbs from our tax dollars to feed them and their kids for another week.
But, I guess if you want to go back to living life like in the 1950's...
We can play these what if games all day long, I will always be able to ultimately pin the responsibility back on the individual. Who were you wanting to blame other than her?
not necessarily no, lotta factors involved.jord wrote:
Lowing, are you in favour of removing foreign aid too?
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-27 07:50:35)
I am biting my tongue on what I really wanna say about your post.DrunkFace wrote:
Firstly it's a known fact that the more you earn the more you save, so welfare helps circulate more money.lowing wrote:
Your argument is those on welfare are circulating money through the economy. My argument is I am more than capable and willing to circulate MY OWN money through the economy without their help.
Secondly the more you earn doesn't make people buy more things. You can only consume so much food, drive so many cars and watch so many TVs, so people are unlikely to purchase that many more things, but just better quality ones. With less demand for things, less people are needed to produce them which will cause unemployment.
Thirdly, as demand for more luxury items increases, inflation will push up their price meaning your real increase in income is no where near as much as your nominal one would seem like.
Fourthly, the drop in demand for stables will force prices down, causing many people to lose their job or be unable to make a fair living.
Welfare is all about increasing the market size, which in turn creates demand and jobs.
firstly, Are you really suggesting it is irresponsible for me to save MY money for when I really need it. and the responsibility is really being exercised by those who take MY money without earning any of it, and spend it for me? Are you REALLY ARGUING THAT??!!
secondly, it is not for you to decide what I do with my money be it save it or spend it.
thirdly, as demand for such items goes up so does productivity of those items, which creates jobs.
fourthy, same thing. Demand does not drive prices down it drives prices up, and puts people to work, who then spend money, and so the cycle goes.
Welfare is about getting something for nothing. there are no contributions to society through welfare except the spending of other peoples money, and those of us that earn are quite capable of handling that ourselves as we see fit.
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-27 08:12:08)
This post has me both mesmerized and dazed by it's multiple assumptions and straw-man arguments. I only wish I had the time...DrunkFace wrote:
Firstly it's a known fact that the more you earn the more you save, so welfare helps circulate more money.lowing wrote:
Your argument is those on welfare are circulating money through the economy. My argument is I am more than capable and willing to circulate MY OWN money through the economy without their help.
Secondly the more you earn doesn't make people buy more things. You can only consume so much food, drive so many cars and watch so many TVs, so people are unlikely to purchase that many more things, but just better quality ones. With less demand for things, less people are needed to produce them which will cause unemployment.
Thirdly, as demand for more luxury items increases, inflation will push up their price meaning your real increase in income is no where near as much as your nominal one would seem like.
Fourthly, the drop in demand for stables will force prices down, causing many people to lose their job or be unable to make a fair living.
Welfare is all about increasing the market size, which in turn creates demand and jobs.
Last edited by LividBovine (2011-03-27 08:01:40)
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
what a shame, to feel you have to censor yourself. i'm sure the reply that you wanted to post would've been epically lowing.lowing wrote:
I am biting my tongue on what I really wanna say about your post.
Nothing that wouldn't be dismissed, denied, re-directed, or mis-quoted or result in accusations of being a racist or a Nazi.burnzz wrote:
what a shame, to feel you have to censor yourself. i'm sure the reply that you wanted to post would've been epically lowing.lowing wrote:
I am biting my tongue on what I really wanna say about your post.
In fact, I would welcome your comments on that post burnzz.
1. I'm talking about the economy, not your irrelevant spending patterns. Just pointing out a FACT that savings is taking money out of the economy.lowing wrote:
I am biting my tongue on what I really wanna say about your post.DrunkFace wrote:
Firstly it's a known fact that the more you earn the more you save, so welfare helps circulate more money.lowing wrote:
Your argument is those on welfare are circulating money through the economy. My argument is I am more than capable and willing to circulate MY OWN money through the economy without their help.
Secondly the more you earn doesn't make people buy more things. You can only consume so much food, drive so many cars and watch so many TVs, so people are unlikely to purchase that many more things, but just better quality ones. With less demand for things, less people are needed to produce them which will cause unemployment.
Thirdly, as demand for more luxury items increases, inflation will push up their price meaning your real increase in income is no where near as much as your nominal one would seem like.
Fourthly, the drop in demand for stables will force prices down, causing many people to lose their job or be unable to make a fair living.
Welfare is all about increasing the market size, which in turn creates demand and jobs.
firstly, Are you really suggesting it is irresponsible for me to save MY money for when I really need it. and the responsibility is really being exercised by those who take MY money without earning any of it, and spend it for me? Are you REALLY ARGUING THAT??!!
secondly, it is not for you to decide what I do with my money be it save it or spend it.
thirdly, as demand for such items goes up so does productivity of those items, which creates jobs.
fourthy, same thing. Demand does not drive prices down it drives prices up, and puts people to work, who then spend money. at so the cycle goes.
Welfare is about getting something for nothing. there are no contributions to society through welfare except the spending of other peoples money, and those of us that earn are quite capable of handling that ourselves as we see fit.
2. No, but it's more then obvious people who earn more money don't go out and buy 3 Camrys, but one Mercedes.
3. Yes, but you are only shifty demand from other things, not creating any extra demand.
4. Demand goes down when people can't afford stuff. Food is a good example, because millionaires and the poor still roughly consume the same amount of food. If the poor can't afford food, the fact the rich earn more isn't going to make them buy any more. Thus lowering demand.
That's your personal opinion and your morality. It has nothing to do with economics and how demand and supply works.
1. If I save my money for when I need it, then HAVE IT WHEN I NEED TO SPEND IT, instead of turning to the govt. for assistance, how is that not economically sound?DrunkFace wrote:
1. I'm talking about the economy, not your irrelevant spending patterns. Just pointing out a FACT that savings is taking money out of the economy.lowing wrote:
I am biting my tongue on what I really wanna say about your post.DrunkFace wrote:
Firstly it's a known fact that the more you earn the more you save, so welfare helps circulate more money.
Secondly the more you earn doesn't make people buy more things. You can only consume so much food, drive so many cars and watch so many TVs, so people are unlikely to purchase that many more things, but just better quality ones. With less demand for things, less people are needed to produce them which will cause unemployment.
Thirdly, as demand for more luxury items increases, inflation will push up their price meaning your real increase in income is no where near as much as your nominal one would seem like.
Fourthly, the drop in demand for stables will force prices down, causing many people to lose their job or be unable to make a fair living.
Welfare is all about increasing the market size, which in turn creates demand and jobs.
firstly, Are you really suggesting it is irresponsible for me to save MY money for when I really need it. and the responsibility is really being exercised by those who take MY money without earning any of it, and spend it for me? Are you REALLY ARGUING THAT??!!
secondly, it is not for you to decide what I do with my money be it save it or spend it.
thirdly, as demand for such items goes up so does productivity of those items, which creates jobs.
fourthy, same thing. Demand does not drive prices down it drives prices up, and puts people to work, who then spend money. at so the cycle goes.
Welfare is about getting something for nothing. there are no contributions to society through welfare except the spending of other peoples money, and those of us that earn are quite capable of handling that ourselves as we see fit.
2. No, but it's more then obvious people who earn more money don't go out and buy 3 Camrys, but one Mercedes.
3. Yes, but you are only shifty demand from other things, not creating any extra demand.
4. Demand goes down when people can't afford stuff. Food is a good example, because millionaires and the poor still roughly consume the same amount of food. If the poor can't afford food, the fact the rich earn more isn't going to make them buy any more. Thus lowering demand.
That's your personal opinion and your morality. It has nothing to do with economics and how demand and supply works.
2. yeah 1 Mercdes, 1 private jet, 1 mansion, 1 yacht multiple vacations, and all the people needed to support that life style.
3. Actually the rich do create extra demand, examples listed above. Or do you think they build and fly and sail and clean all that shit themselves?
4., supply goes up when demand goes down, Prices go down when demand goes down and jobs are lost when demand goes down.
actually the laws of supply and demand are not my opinion or morality, it is how shit really works.
1. For you it is. For individuals it is. For Governments it is. For businesses, not so much, and definitely not for the economy on a macro scale.
2. Not paying taxes (or paying a little less tax) does not make you go from middle class to supper rich over night. The super rich can and do buy those things anyway. Most people do not and couldn't even with a 10% increase in income.
3. That demand is already there. You don't create anything new.
4. Supply is not effected by demand. The rest is correct... and exactly what I said anyway, well done on that.
I know, but your opinion is not "how shit works", nor are they the laws of supply and demand.
2. Not paying taxes (or paying a little less tax) does not make you go from middle class to supper rich over night. The super rich can and do buy those things anyway. Most people do not and couldn't even with a 10% increase in income.
3. That demand is already there. You don't create anything new.
4. Supply is not effected by demand. The rest is correct... and exactly what I said anyway, well done on that.
I know, but your opinion is not "how shit works", nor are they the laws of supply and demand.
1. saving money does not take money out of the economy, unless it's physically put in a jar and buried in the yard. whatever instrument you use to save money (savings account, long/short term CD, IRA, 401k, etc) is used as capital for investment.DrunkFace wrote:
1. I'm talking about the economy, not your irrelevant spending patterns. Just pointing out a FACT that savings is taking money out of the economy.
2. No, but it's more then obvious people who earn more money don't go out and buy 3 Camrys, but one Mercedes.
3. Yes, but you are only shifty demand from other things, not creating any extra demand.
4. Demand goes down when people can't afford stuff. Food is a good example, because millionaires and the poor still roughly consume the same amount of food. If the poor can't afford food, the fact the rich earn more isn't going to make them buy any more. Thus lowering demand.
That's your personal opinion and your morality. It has nothing to do with economics and how demand and supply works.
2. that's a very broad statement, and one you cannot defend. i can afford 1 mercedes, or 3 camrys, or even a corvette if i wanted to, but drive a corolla, and a pick up truck when i need to.
3. Inflation isn't dependent on supply and demand, i don't see how you made that connection.
4. a drop in demand does force pricing down, but doesn't lead to a whole economy tanking, it leads to those items not being bought. in a market economy, it's not the consumer who offers items for sale, it's the consumer that decides at which price items will be bought.
you have displayed a naive and simplistic view of a market economy, all trying to show how a welfare recipient is a vital and central part of an economy.
you have failed.
1. Still not an excuse for you to justify an argument that welfare is vital to economic vitality. It isn'tDrunkFace wrote:
1. For you it is. For individuals it is. For Governments it is. For businesses, not so much, and definitely not for the economy on a macro scale.
2. Not paying taxes (or paying a little less tax) does not make you go from middle class to supper rich over night. The super rich can and do buy those things anyway. Most people do not and couldn't even with a 10% increase in income.
3. That demand is already there. You don't create anything new.
4. Supply is not effected by demand. The rest is correct... and exactly what I said anyway, well done on that.
I know, but your opinion is not "how shit works", nor are they the laws of supply and demand.
2. not true, when the economy went bad so did markets that cater to the rich. that is a fact.
3. wrong the demand is not always there, it is created by those that earn money to spend and a demand met by those that provide the supply, who get paid for supplying that demand see the circle?. So where does welfare fit in to all of this, when they do not earn money to spend, nor create anything in the form of supply? They are dead weight, anchors, hindering the recovery effort. Period
4. Supply is not affected by demand?vYou are not serious are you? When no one can afford a widget, the price goes down, when no one wants a widget, they stop supplying it. When the widget is in demand the price goes up and they make more.
Did you ever wonder how or why they stopped cranking out ( supplying) VCR's? Could be demand dropped? and the price drop to maintain a demand was too much to make it worth while to keep making them, maybe?
but you are right I am sure, supply is not affected by demand. and I don't know how shit works.
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-27 09:14:52)