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

If we didnt have to work at measily jobs all day long, in order pay a 30 yr mortgage to keep a roof over our heads, we could stay home and grow and pick our own food. We're slaves working to pay off the tab at the company owned store.

 

But it's not just housing, everything is at an inflated price... and it's not due to "inflation" although that adds to it. It's due to the massive profits the corporations demand. Income never did (and never will) catch up to the greed of a few. Unless you are not one of "the few" you are basically a serf to the system...



We need a new system, this one doesn't work. It's broken and about to collapse.

 

Competition is one thing, competition in a rigged game is another thing.

Excessive competition is encouraged by the very wealthy as a means of becoming very much more wealthy. For normal people there is healthy competition, but we are not seeing this type.

Competition must have rules, we live in a CIVILIZATION, based upon the idea that simply having the ability to take something does not entitle you to that thing

You always bring up competition and "freedom" as though it has something to do with a few people walking all over a country. People don't have places to live, feed to eat, education, etc, because of an ideal of competition. But the competition is ONLY benefitting a few people. It's not benefitting me to bring things in from china, it's not benefitting any of the suckers who buy that shit at walmart. That competition is only benefitting the 1%, or the 5%, or whatever.

You describe competition as class warfare, but are then offended when people understand and respond as though it's class warfare. They respond that way and want blanket taxes on the wealthy because there are few regulations in place to keep wealth fair or honest, once you reach a point of wealth the money and power begin snowballing, and that is what leads to class warfare.

The thing is, EVERYTHING is that expensive. It's a third of our salary, and then we can't get other things we need, not because housing is a third, but because those things are just as expensive. It's because imports that blend economic zones that have developed in different places faster than those zones should be blended are inherently going to hurt the middle and lower classes, while the rich feel nothing because they're skimming your money.

The answer is not more imports to make housing affordable, that's the knee-jerk reaction that got us here. The answer is LESS imports or more EXPENSIVE imports, so that our economy can stop trickling to china.

It's totally true: rich people, in the process of getting richer, CAN create jobs and help the economy.... IF and ONLY if they work within the economy of their home country. Otherwise they're basically writing their own rules, while we play by strict ones dictated by the fact that we're not rich..... being rich is it's own justification, basically.

Because these people have shown that they will "compete" in such a way that it fucks every one else in the ass, they need regulations that force that they do play by the some rules as us,. and that if they reap the benefits of living and doing business in the US, they must choose to really and fully do their business in the US.

 

When US workers made a living wage, this was an option.

It's imports and the integration of our economy with many much worse economies for the benefit of the middlemen that has caused the situation you describe.

That is to say, it's imports.

 

Check out the St. Louis Federal Reserve data base for the causes of our economic problems. It's only going to become worse as government increases its efforts and more voters accept its actions to distribute the suffering caused by economic inequality which only result in creating greater economic inequality.
It's not a numbers game, as Roo posted earlier, but an ignorance of how numbers such as the population, money base, interest rates, wages, pensions, debts, etc. interact with each other in creating an environment in which each individual in each society that comprises the U.S. as a whole can achieve a degree of success adequate in providing their needs and wants relative to the efforts they are willing and/or capable of exerting.

As for this "fair share" often mentioned in these forums, anyone who is paying taxes equal to or greater than $12,000 per family member per year is paying what is currently a fair share. Any who are paying less are getting a free ride from those who ARE paying more.

 

Roo:

If the U.S. was to stop its exports and imports, what would happen to the jobs of those who are directly related to our exports and imports? And since that would reduce the consumer base to no more than the population of the U.S. how would that effect the businesses who produce for both domestic as well as foreign consumption? Not only that, but how would we acquire the raw materials needed that aren't available in the U.S. or are less available and only at a high cost or unfriendly to the environment?

 

Indydude

Speaking of tariffs, you are aware, of course, that it was the US lumber industry that first petitioned the government (early eighties) to impose the tariffs on Canadian lumber. The original complaint cited several reasons that Canadian producers were able to provide lumber at lower prices than their US counterparts – one of those reasons was regulation differences from one country to another. The US producers also accused the Canadians of subsidizing their timber industry – a claim the Canadians refuted with little effort. Unless, such has been settled recently, there is/has been an ongoing dispute between the two countries in that regard -- basically, the Canadian position is that the tariff, while unjustly applied in the first place, should have been eliminated under NAFTA.

It seems you neglect the fact that so many of those buying or building houses did/do so without regard to what they might actually be able to pay for while at the same time being able to heat, cool, and maintain. Government programs almost guaranteeing home ownership with as little as 3% down payment to those that would NEVER qualify for a loan otherwise, added to the demand for (occupant owned) housing and, thus, drove material prices up. Then there’s the “home builder” who has no direct employees, but “subcontracts” every phase of construction while riding around in his $40 thousand dollar pickup, looking for his next “client” between having breakfast and lunch with the local real estate skirts, but adds tens of thousands of dollars to a home already overpriced by reason of expensive materials which will not (i.e. are not designed) to last more than a few years.

One might logically dispute your assertion that the (wood) framing should be the cheapest part of a house. Your citation of what is actually cheapest is one of the problems of the housing industry: cheap products such as windows (your example) are one of the many things that will become a problem in much less than what should be the expected life of a residential structure and will add to the cost of owning a home by requiring maintenance or replacement in a relatively short time. The exterior skin or shell of a home should provide protection to everything within that shell with little more than routine cleaning for enough years that the owner is able to recover from the expenditure of the down payment and be prepared (financially) to perform the required maintenance without financial hardship.

If those buying or building a home consider or choose finish materials (including windows, doors, roofing, etc.) in view of the long term and not just based on whatever is cheapest/shiniest/latest and greatest at the time, then your assertion that the (wood) framing SHOULD be the least expensive material portion of a house is correct. However, claiming that components, such as windows (your example), are cheaper because of the materials involved in their fabrication (plastic and vinyl to use your examples) are a prime example of cheap (inferior) materials which ADD to the long-term cost of owning a home by requiring replacement or undue maintenance in the short term.

The lumber industry cannot be blamed for the short-sightedness of the average American home buyer. That industry provides the goods demanded at a price the market (the buyers) obviously deem fair and acceptable. If such is not a true and correct assertion, then why does the American home buyer continued to buy those products.

Currently, one of the most serious problems with residential construction is that many components have, over time, been redesigned to a point that they will not last for any period of time even approaching what should be the expected life of the structure. Examples of such products include laminate flooring (cannot be effectively refinished), plastic/vinyl windows and siding, and any number of other products touted as “maintenance free” – a term which effectively means “cannot be maintained, must be replaced”.

 

^^^Excellent synopsis 'dog!

I've worked in nearly every phase of residential construction, from footer to finish... you've certainly hit the shiner on the head here. :cheers2:

 

Roor

You seem to ignore the fact that it is those “suckers who buy that shit at walmart” that have demanded, by their buying habits, that the cheap imports be available. It is those same “suckers”, who rather than do business with their local folks, choose to flock to the ‘big box’ stores in droves to buy what may very well be an inferior product. Why? Because of the short-sightedness of the American buyer – the 99% if you will – who consider nothing more than what is within the length of their noses. The so-called “living wage” has deteriorated for any number of reasons – one of those reasons very definitely being the price-only mindset of the American buyer. Long forgotten is the idea that a longer lasting product at a slightly higher price is better than an inferior, disposable product at a lower price.

Ever hear of John Ruskin?:

“It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”

While I am much in favor of buying items of domestic manufacture, it seems that adding artificial cost (tariffs) to make imported goods similar in price to those produced domestically is nothing other than forcing what is likely an inferior product (imported) on the American buyer at the same or very near the same price as a possibly better product (domestic). Let’s not forget that the US manufacturing capacity for consumer goods is only a fraction of what is was just a few decades ago. Can we actually produce that type of goods in the quantities required without a major rebuilding of our manufacturing facilities? The American consumer started the cycle by choosing the cheaper, imported goods over the more expensive, domestic product – and the choice was most times made without regard to quality and certainly without consideration of the long-term effect. Very few considered that buying a widget made across town where their neighbor worked was better for the town than buying a similar, cheaper widget made in China – it was price and price only.

Initially, your claim that middle-men are getting rich may have been true. Not so true anymore -- foreign manufacturers are now the one’s getting rich. Doubt that what I’m saying is true? Take a look at the US furniture industry: The products of foreign (Chinese and other Asian) manufacturers became available in the US market through the marketing strategies and at the behest of US manufacturers; US buyers “took advantage” of the lower prices of those products lessening the demand for domestically produced products – workers were eventually laid-off, some plants were closed; the foreign manufacturers used the increased demand for their product to increase production and lowered their prices even more; domestic manufacturers continued to market the imported goods and laid-off more workers, more plants were closed -- some machinery was even sold and shipped to the foreign manufacturers.

Then, a change took place: Many foreign manufacturers made sales to the domestic (US based) companies conditional – close your (US) manufacturing facilities or we won’t sell you the goods! The US businesses were over a barrel and so were the American buyers – a barrel they had either built or one that was built on their own machinery.

Look up the “Byrd Act”, its intent and the results of it.

Go out today and try to buy a shirt or a pair of shoes “Made in the USA”. Make sure you’ve got a tank of gas. Good luck.

The answer isn’t in making imported goods cost more; the answer is in making the American worker more competitive and in making American goods more desirable – both in the US and globally.

 

So, I should be paying $48k a year to the fed. govt. in taxes! What the hell does the fed govt do for me that is worth $48k a year? Federal spending is insanely out of control.

 

rjhangover makes a great point. How can a single mom get a job and still raise her kids but make enough to not be in poverty unless she has a college degree? She can't. She can still keep the food stamps though, even with a job if she qualifies. I know for me I could make up to 1500.00 and still keep my benefits. I thought that was scary. If it were just me and my child and all I had was 1500.00 they would cut off my food stamps. Who can make it on that?
I absolutely do not agree with the abuse of welfare. I can't stand people who are too worthless to get a job. But of the people I know on food stamps, they for the most part have a job! Only a few families around here are actually known as being abusers of the system. If someone has a job, works full time and still qualifies for food stamps our system is BROKEN.

Just like soldiers who get food stamps for their family. I can't say that I'm a big supporter of the military but I do support our soldiers. And a private with a spouse and kids, or just kids....they qualify for food stamps. Our own soldiers aren't even paid enough! I don't even want to get onto Republicans and how they hurt everyone that's not extremely rich. I'm middle class. I grew up very poor and I never forgot it. I have friends of all income levels. Just the other day I visited an elderly Vietnam vet and smoked a joint with him. He lives in a one room apartment and doesn't even have a stove. He uses a hot plate and he knows I am successful and have money. He doesn't care, because I freely spread my wealth around and treat people with respect because that's what good people do. But I also know people who are typical republicans who wouldn't even think of spending a couple hours with someone like that because they don't care. They are missing out. Our country is full of people who are in poverty who are better people than the one percent will ever be.

 

I totally agree. But we are not going to go back to a closed US economy. I dont see it happening. We need to grow the economy in other ways. Maybe start a national movement that stops buying Chinese made junk we dont really need. Maybe get the public to stop buying and participating in corporatrions that dont have US operations. Maybe stop taxing the middle class so much. Federal, state, local, sales, vehicel taxes take over half of a persons pay. Free some of that money up. Stop the govt. from keeping people broke.

 

I mostly agree.

I mean, I KNOW the government won't do what we need to save the economy and the american's below the "rich as fuck" line, but I still think we need taxes that make imports at least as expensive as american things. But I want to see a blanket, to save the american people: big business would HATE that, they only like tariffs like the lumber one, against a similar market right next door.

Your whole post is pretty silly.

First of all, I never said anything about stopping, and I never said ANYTHING about stopping EXPORTS.

Exports are great, anyone who wants to buy our shit is welcome to, though I think few people actually DO. But exports should be totally untaxed.

As for taking the jobs of people who work in the business of importing shit, there will be plenty of jobs in the businesses that actually make things. Importers work as thousands of different things, each person can have a hand in the daily shipment of hundreds or thousands of tons of things that they personally could never produce.

As for the fact that US tooling is gone: great, jobs for the importers to bring it back, and jobs for americans to re-create it or re-install or re-furbish it.

Exactly WHAT raw materials can we not get in the US? But fine, by all means, allow careful exemptions or duty-reductions for raw materials, with the provision that they be shipped on US owned vessels by US employed dock workers and crew.

Then allow, say, 3 years for the taxes to phase in to give people an oppertunity to bring things home, and BAM, there goes the recession.

In the long-term, we obviously need to change our view of economics, whereas we stop expecting infinite growth and simply be content with a flat line and provisions enough for all. And we obviously need people intent on caution and keeping the economy under control and corporate and banking privilege in check, to be writing the rules, not the banker's and CEO's secretaries.

Another loophole would be to require the company to actually be based in it's home country, and require the finial retail price of the goods in the US to provide a total combined profit margin lower than that of similar goods produced IN the US. Then the excess is taxed to take it slightly above the price of the US-produced version.

Or to closely monitor employee situations and wages on the ground and in an ongoing manner, and slide down the tax rate as conditions and wages get closer to those encountered in america.

All of this would need to be taxed on a sliding scale, of course. But one that slides quite hard and fast.

If it costs more to do it there, even just a bit more, they'll do it here, because the sooner they move back the sooner the move back will pay for itself in saved taxes.

Also, all us corporations need to do ALL of their banking in the US, so that they're actually paying the taxes that we suppose them to to be in the first place.

If what I'm proposing was ever nationally proposed, they'd all scream about the end of business as we know it, and raised prices, and all...... cry me a river. Corporations would quickly swallow their "pride" and be back here, the only thing that would change is profit margins for the guy on top.

As for high quality imports from advanced countries, this would mean nothing. Why? Because if you buy a BMW or a nissan, they're already spending just as much to make it as GM or ford would be, the engineers are paid first-world wages, and they already assemble the things in virginia.

 

I'm aware that the consumer is partly to blame. It would be nice to have labeling requirements to the tune of, say, 50% of the front label bearing a big red "chinese horseshit" sticker. It's not right to let the stuff be sold as the same, if at all.

It's not that imported shit is better quality, it's almost universally much worse quality, often to the point of being dangerous or toxic. The issue is taking advantage of very poor people and instead of raising them from poverty, the middleman pocketing the profits. The american worker does not need to be chained up in a sweatshop and be paid a bowl of rice and beans a day on some ideal of being competitive, because that's what your suggesting. It needs to not be considered competitive when ANYONE does that, it's ("wage") slavery.

The whole thing also takes advantage of exchange rate differences, it's not being competitive, it's literally selling off america's advantage, the very advantage that gives us an exchange advantage and a higher standard of living, every time we spend a cent in another market. The poorer the US gets (the more "competitive", you say) the LESS competition we can offer, because when we're more "competitive" than they are, we will be poorer and shittier than them.

Every dollar to china is america: one dollar poorer. That is not competition. But the guy running the importing company doesn't care, he's benefitting more than anyone, while telling a lie about his wealth "creating jobs" for americans to avoid being taxed a fair amount on it.

 

I agree with this. Especially the last part.

Our country has an amazing amount of human capital, but the 1% are turning our asses out, and we're a "post-industrial" shithole, we have to DO things and not just BUY things, to continue to survive.

 

Theres is real potential in advanced tooling like robots and CNC automation to grow that technology in the US. We need to push this technology and the manufacturing potential. I heard a local university satelite college just ended their engineering adn tech. schools and I thought how stupid. We need to train more students in science disciplines.
Ive seen first hand the exporting of A LOT of heavy machinery and tooling. China and others our buying our older industrial machining and rebuilding it. A lot going to scrap too.

 

Canada has such a abundance of renewable lumber wood that they can low ball the US producers plain and simple. imo We subsidise our farmers in so many ways and our crops are exported. Yet the govt. and corporate lobbies keep lumber artifically high. Same with medicines. This hurts middleclass like nothing else. The lumber tarriff is just one item, but a major one, in a racket that keeps people slaves to mortgages and landlords. I dont think we would automatically be free of the shelter burden with just lumber costs low. Simple small family homes at affordable 5 or 10 yr loans seems like a solution yet Ive never heard anything about it.

 

Corporations should pay more of a share then a middle class taxpayer because the govt. has created and maintains the infrastructure and opens and protects market for the corporation to succeed.
What does the federal govt. do for the average working stiff? Put interstates thru our towns so the corporations can ship goods faster.

 

Indydude, I totally agree with you on almost all points, I just think the solution isn't lowering the price of lumber, it's increasing america's productivity and standard of living. There's enough for everyone, we need to create a monetary system that reflects this and allows everyone to GET enough.

The idea of being fair so that rich people don't pay shit on their ill-gotten money, while they create jobs in other countries, but that americans simply need to be competitive in taking any shit job for any shit wage, is bullshit meant to make the rich very much richer and more powerful. And it's always supported with something the lines of "it's not faaaair, they worked for their millions", to which I say, that's quite impossibe. Show me a diesel mechanic or a brick-layer or a factory worker or a computer-programmer who's a millionare or a billionare...... there's about 5 in each field, and they're millionares because they OWN the field. It's not because they deserve to have hundreds or thousands of times our salaries, it's because they're taking the salarys that we're earning, or they're taking money for goods at prices that are almost american-level, but paying next to NOTHING for the products they sell. This is not work, it's sleaze.

This talk of competition and being willing to lower ourselves as anyone else will is crazy-talk that only benefits the very rich, and the only benefit is that they get richer and everyone else gets poorer. We won the competition, we HAD a successful economy, we made quality things, we had an employed cared for population, and then a few rich people decided that we needed to compete with people who we'd beaten a long time age. The difference is that when wages go up and conditions improve, that's competing in a humanitarian quality-of-life way, it's competing for the vast majority of the countriy's people. When wages go down and wealth accrues at import/export kingpins and a country is no longer able to care for itself and just consumes, that's only competing for a few very rich people. And before indyvidual comes and says "you just resent rich people", no, I resent rich people who have legally robbed their way to wealth, and who continue to do so with the systems that you champion, all the while bitching and moaning about how bad it is for them.

 

It would be even nicer if those most affected (American workers, i.e. buyers) would exercise enough judgment and accept the responsibility of looking at the labels that are ALREADY required to include the country of origin/manufacture. Or, perhaps the government should just provide personnel at every checkout line to inform buyers in that regard.

I made no such suggestion! I stated: “The answer isn’t in making imported goods cost more; the answer is in making the American worker more competitive and in making American goods more desirable – both in the US and globally”

Perhaps, to you, that means nothing more than lower wages which is very much the “price only” mindset that put the US in the sorry position we currently enjoy. “More competitive”, to me, means such things as being more efficient and quality conscious, being on time and ready to work at work time rather than sitting in a break room and walking casually to one’s respective work area and stopping along the way to socialize; it means actually doing the job one is being paid to do – in other words, exercising one trait that many (if not most) Americans sorely lack – a real work ethic.

Americans enjoy the highest ‘disposable income’ per capita in the world. But, are we the most productive? Do we produce the best products?

And, what is “wage” slavery? Aren’t we all (as workers) faced with the decision of either performing the job or losing our wages? At what point does is qualify as “slavery”? Unfortunately, too many have become slaves to their own wants and desires by buying into a gotta-havit mentality – too ready to spend every dime or go into debt for the latest “make life better” junk without practical consideration or independent thought.

Shouldn’t the “very poor people” be afforded the opportunity to buy at the lowest possible price until they are able to raise themselves from poverty (aided in their effort by low-priced goods) and afford something better than the “chinese horseshit”.

If you’re referring to the Chinese method of controlling the value of their currency, that’s a whole different issue – a very serious issue and legitimate concern, but a different issue, still. Again, you misrepresent my statement in regard to what is “competitive”.

But it IS competition. Those producing / providing the cheaper goods are competing with those producing / providing the more expensive goods. Those producing / providing the cheaper goods are winning – and to the detriment of those making the win/loose decision, i.e. the buyers who are selling out their own jobs in doing so. The “guy running the import company” has provided the goods sought – he hasn’t forced anyone to buy those goods. Admittedly, that might be argued since many domestically produced goods have all but disappeared due to manufacturing facilities being closed for lack of demand. Is there any chance that the “import companies” are able to realize more profit than their domestic counter-part, at least in part, because their products actually sell?

I agree, completely, that the US is selling itself out with the wanton import of goods. It’s a screwy situation, to say the least. But should it be the government’s responsibility to say what we should or shouldn’t buy – by mandate or (price) coercion? That is what you are suggesting.