Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

Yes.

What the Hell are we talking about? EVERYONE, not just most, but EVERYONE needs the means of supporting themselves. In todays world very few persons can live without income.

How can it work? Employment, even a low paying job reduces the aid and assistance others may need to provide, and provides a start in moving out of poverty, not to mention that it also motivates others to provide help by seeing that someone is struggling and needing help.

If every able bodied person was gainfully employed, there would be much less need for welfare and the cost of providing what remained needed would be much lower, allowing the remaining few, primarily those who are totally disabled or incapable of ever supporting themselves, to be given better attention.

 

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

That explains it simply, but then you can google for many differing opinions on the various consequences attached to it, and decide how or if you can find a way to benefit from them.

If you look into it I would be curious to hear about what you learn and how it might have effect on you positively or negatively, and how you adjust to assure that the positive supersedes any negatives.

 

Perhaps you should first read the 1996 bill before claiming that it does something different than what I am suggesting.

 

Where did I say that? Individuals are constantly working together where they are striving to achieve a common goal. That does not in any way reduce their individuality.

We are, each and everyone of us, individuals are we not?

Being an individual does not impede ones ability to learn, and more often it is because of individuals greater knowledge is made available for us to learn.

 

"No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee." -- John Donne

No one denies that individuals working together in order to accomplish a complex common goal are much more capable of achieving it than would be a single individual. That is not to say that a single individual is incapable of surviving alone, albeit with many fewer extravagances.

Claiming that there is no "self made man" would depend on how you wish to define it.

I've never argued that people should have to make things that they can't. That would be nothing short of an exercise in futility. People should ONLY make or do the things that they can, and leave the things they can't make or do to others who can.
The only benefits I reap, and am entitled to, are the products and services provided for sale by others which I can afford as a result of remuneration received for the products and/or services that I am willing and able to provide.

That which I cannot afford, I cannot purchase and I would hold government responsible only for assuring that I cannot be denied purchasing the things that I can afford which are made freely available to others for purchase.

 

Indie

Thing is that you haven’t shown that they could work on any scale, and there is much criticisms (that you refuse to address) that are outstanding that seem to indicted that they wouldn’t.

But since you’re unable to address the criticisms how in your opinion do you think them unfounded. Again you seem to be saying you think you are right because you think you are right.

Also I’d like to point out that you have said you think you are left wing on the small scale having said -

“I might be seen as a little Left of center when it comes to my immediate family, friends and neighbors”

Oh hell not again we have been through this many times rather than restating it can you actually address the criticisms of it?

Why would you say that?

I mean this is now thought to be largely untrue most educated people and many others knew the world was a sphere. I mean Aristotle (384–322 BC) showed it by observation and Eratosthenes (276–194 BC) even quiet accurately worked out its circumference. Later the Venerable Bede (c.672–735) knew the earth was round and it was taught as such in the medieval universities. Dante (c.1265–1321) also knew the world was a sphere discussing it in the Devine Comedies (a widely read book). Columbus (c.1451-1506) set off west so he could get to India by travelling around the sphere to get to it. And of course there was Magellan’s circumnavigation (1519-1522 – he actually died in 1521, but it is still called Magellan’s).

It has been argued that medieval ‘flat earthism’ was based on some peoples religious belief that since heaven was above (and always above) the earth must always be below (lacking understanding of gravity). They sound like creationists today who refused to accept any criticism of their views although they cannot defend them ideas in any rational or reasonable way.

 

Indie

I’d prefer you to stop being evasive and actually address the criticisms that have been raised against you ideas some many, many times. There is no possibility of a civilized conversation with someone that is not willing to debate honestly and to me your constant use of evasion tactics is not honest debate.

 

Indie

I’m not really interested in your views any more since I think I’ve heard all of them at least twice (and i don't think you've said anything new for about a year), what I’m really interested in is why you seem totally unwilling or incapable of defending the views you hold from criticism in any rational or reasonable way.

Although I am intrigued by your idea of differing definitions of what is rational and reasonable?

Please explain - how do you define what is rational and reasonable?

 

Yes you have made such accusations. I'll presume you intended to use 'indicated'?, and if that's the case try restating one. But having proven to myself many of my ideas have, and do produce desirable and positive results, you seem to be saying the results are meaningless simply because you're not in a position to confirm them visually and/or someone who leans in the same direction as you has not documented them?

 

Bal,

Here we go again.

How about #000 through #999

 

Indie

And anyone who looks at your posts will see that you constantly evade address the criticisms raised.

As you indicate above you seem happy to be dishonest and use evasion rather than addressing the oft repeated criticisms

Well first you could claim anything - that doesn’t mean its true, I mean given the dishonest way you debate…well…

And second since you never seem to question your ideas and don’t seem to have put much thought into them, I’m unsure that your observations are in any way objective. I mean as I’ve pointed out to you a few times the ‘examples’ you have given from your life seem simplistic and superficial, and seem seen from your rather blinkered viewpoint and when I’ve tried to dig deeper you’ve not seemed able to go beyond the simplistic and superficial.

 

Bal,

I see you continue to refuse to post a legitimate criticism.

 

Personally I think not forcing companies to pay minimum wage could start companies hiring again.

Most of the people who are on welfare are young and unskilled. It cost money to train someone and companies might hire more unskilled workers at lower wages and it would help to reduce the burden on the tax payer if more people were in transition out of poverty by working for less and learning a skill which after training them would entitle them to a higher level of pay.

 

Indie

And I’m sorry and very sad to see that you prefer dishonesty to honesty.

 

Hmm, help people out of poverty by pay them less...fucking brilliant Yo'

 

Do any large companies use the minimum wage as the starting wage? I know many small businesses would probably benefit greatly in their ability and desire to hire more if they could freely negotiate an agreeable wage with newly hired workers.

A number of prospective employers have stated that uncertainty of what new or additional costs government may impose upon them is a primary factor keeping them from adding new persons to their work force.

Unlike governments who can print money, private enterprise both large and small must maintain a balance sheet out of the red or go bankrupt.

 

Yomama – Indie

Could you actually read the posts in a thread?

This has been covered in this thread and indie in others we have been in.

If people are on wages that mean they need public assistance to get by then all you are doing is subsidising employers. Another neoliberal policy that benefits the few to the detriment of many.

also reading - Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=353336&f=36

 

Bal,

That is ONE way of looking at it, and could even be true in some cases, but would they be the rule or the exception?

 

And I'm sorry that continue to evade making an honest attempt to post a legitimate criticism by constantly employing the tactic of implying that I am doing exactly what you are doing.

Post it or go sit in the corner.

 

Each of us has to start somewhere.