More US Folks On Welfare Than Fully E...

More US Folks On Welfare Than Fully Employed

Posted in the Joliet Forum

Unincorporated

New Lenox, IL

#2 Oct 26, 2013
I'm troubled to agree that this is what the country has become. There are stages democracies go through until their demise. We are in the stage where the people are able to vote themselves a raise by voting for certain elected officials who are promising the largest handouts. Eventually the system collapses on itself from the weight of the handouts. Here is an article explaining the math behind the certain demise of the country. It's by Karl Denninger. A man I have a lot of respect for because he isn't partisan. Math does not lie. Read it. It's short and explains how the country is on an absolute certain path to destruction if we continue on with the policies in place.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www...
Union Yes

Saint Charles, IL

#3 Oct 26, 2013
Neighbor wrote:
Ahhhh.... just love that Obama strategy, and it's working.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jef...
Did you actually read the article? If 1 person in the household was receiving some sort of program, they included the entire household as getting the program...and it also included SS....nice try.
Unincorporated

New Lenox, IL

#4 Oct 26, 2013
Did you read my article? I don't think you did. Read it. You will rethink your position. You're a taxpayer, you are footing the bill for all this crapola. Get with it man. Nobody is trying skew any data. It is what it is. There are too many people on the dole who don't need it. They are cheating the system. Nice try? If you want to pony up for this stuff, be my guest. Why would you want to? Are you on aid?
Professor

Chicago, IL

#6 Oct 27, 2013
Union Yes wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you actually read the article? If 1 person in the household was receiving some sort of program, they included the entire household as getting the program...and it also included SS....nice try.
They base entitlements on household income. If they are collecting entitlements, no one in the house is working. Therefore the amount of the entitlement is based on how many individuals are in the household. Understand the system before you comment.

They should do a poll on "Low Information Citizens" I bet 70% of the nation would be classified as one! Including you!
manhattan yellowhammer

New Lenox, IL

#7 Oct 27, 2013
Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
They base entitlements on household income. If they are collecting entitlements, no one in the house is working. Therefore the amount of the entitlement is based on how many individuals are in the household. Understand the system before you comment.
They should do a poll on "Low Information Citizens" I bet 70% of the nation would be classified as one! Including you!
Professor (of misinformation) your attempt to sway the minds of topix readers has failed miserably. You're pre-presidential claims were completely wrong. Time to give up. America is not buying you garbage you spew! No one can be more mis-informed that you!
Mike

Chicago, IL

#8 Oct 28, 2013
I think this is more a reflection of Reagan's "Trickle Up" economics than anything. Since Reagan, wealth has steadily moved up to the richest few.

I have a much better career than my father did. I am a computer programmer, and my father was a milkman. However, my father was able to support a family of four on his own - my mother didn't need to work. I am able to support my family on my own, but without my wife's income, I think our standard of living would be lower than I had growing up with my father's milkman salary.

Let's face it, as a society, we are worse off today than our parents were 30 or 40 years ago and this is reflected by the number of people on welfare programs.

Unfortunately, this will continue to get worse...
Unincorporated

Melrose Park, IL

#9 Oct 28, 2013
The devaluation of our currency has a lot to do with our situation. Every ten years the dollar is debased by 30% with an inflation rate of 2%. That is what the Fed days is a stable inflation rate. Cars used to be 5k. Now they are 25. Why?
Professor

Mokena, IL

#10 Oct 28, 2013
manhattan yellowhammer wrote:
<quoted text>
Professor (of misinformation) your attempt to sway the minds of topix readers has failed miserably. You're pre-presidential claims were completely wrong. Time to give up. America is not buying you garbage you spew! No one can be more mis-informed that you!
Hammer head if you had a brain you would be dangerous. What do my presidential electon hopefuls have to do with this topic of more people on welfare than working? The fact that America is not listening me and going down the toilet economically and socially by their poor decisions at the ballot box makes me look brilliant!
Mike

Chicago, IL

#11 Oct 28, 2013
Unincorporated wrote:
The devaluation of our currency has a lot to do with our situation. Every ten years the dollar is debased by 30% with an inflation rate of 2%. That is what the Fed days is a stable inflation rate. Cars used to be 5k. Now they are 25. Why?
This is true. But if salaries stayed in line with the devaluation of the dollar, we wouldn't be in this situation. If cars used to be 5K and now they are 25, someone who made 5K at that time should make 25 now, but I don't think that's the case.

My point is that if I got paid in marbles, and marbles never devalued, 40 years ago I might make 50 marbles, but today, doing the same job, I would only make 45 marbles. Unless, of course, you are at the top of the wealth scale. The top may have gotten 100 marbles 40 years ago, but today, they get 1000 marbles.

The above is just an example to explain my opinion. I make no claims to actual numbers, but I do feel that the middle class has be destroyed by one of the worst presidents we've ever had, Ronald Reagan.
Neighbor

North Chicago, IL

#12 Oct 28, 2013
Mike, I have discussed & debated all types of economic positions over the years. What I can tell you is it's what they accomplished, not what they did not, that mattered to the people at the time. Following Carter, this country was in deep do do. Unemployment, fuel shortage & rationing, mortgage rates 15% to 17%. Bad times right?

Reagan created 15,000,000 jobs & increased Federal revenue by 15%. At the time, the people got what they needed. So yes, he was a hero then.

The nay sayers argued Reagan created the wrong type of jobs. Yep. Then they (Dems) took congress from the Repubs and both spent the 15% plus, like drunken sailors. Typical political move right?

So in good times or bad, a POTUS that gave the people what they needed was a hero at the time.

Reagan was a staunch believer in free enterprise & self support. The opposite of every Liberal right? So don't be too hard on Reagan. You don't have to look back & agree, but give credit where credit is due.
Professor

Mokena, IL

#13 Oct 28, 2013
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
This is true. But if salaries stayed in line with the devaluation of the dollar, we wouldn't be in this situation. If cars used to be 5K and now they are 25, someone who made 5K at that time should make 25 now, but I don't think that's the case.
My point is that if I got paid in marbles, and marbles never devalued, 40 years ago I might make 50 marbles, but today, doing the same job, I would only make 45 marbles. Unless, of course, you are at the top of the wealth scale. The top may have gotten 100 marbles 40 years ago, but today, they get 1000 marbles.
The above is just an example to explain my opinion. I make no claims to actual numbers, but I do feel that the middle class has be destroyed by one of the worst presidents we've ever had, Ronald Reagan.
Actually you mean Obama! He is dismantling the middleclass with his policies! Even the unions woke up and noticed that! A little too late unfortunately! The GDP was at 7% under Reagan! Companies were hiring and expanding! Not cutting workers benefits and hours to under 30 per week to avoid Obamacare! this is only the beginning! Obama has three more years of destruction lined up for us! Scary.....but reality!
someone

Chicago, IL

#14 Oct 28, 2013
In response to Mike and the milkman story, I agree with what you wrote. However I also think that as consumers we "need" things today that we didn't then. Cell phones, cable/satellite tv, multiple cars, Xbox, internet service, Starbucks, mp3. I know sending our kids to public school cost less then. Now every school has specialists that need be paid for. Our food and dining choices have increased and I believe society thinks of fast food as a way of life. If we got McDs 2x a month that was a treat It's examples like these and s my others that I would love to see a comparison too from 30+ years ago. This applies to welfare also, I was at a store and someone was using a link card for a custom made cake. Maybe that person should get a box of cake mix and a can of frosting. Food stamps were for basics not special orders, but now it is acceptable to use in that manner.
So its not a matter of things just costing more, it may be a matter of our selfish, wasteful consumption.
Neighbor

North Chicago, IL

#15 Oct 28, 2013
Very well stated "someone".
Mike

Chicago, IL

#16 Oct 28, 2013
Neighbor wrote:
Mike, I have discussed & debated all types of economic positions over the years. What I can tell you is it's what they accomplished, not what they did not, that mattered to the people at the time. Following Carter, this country was in deep do do. Unemployment, fuel shortage & rationing, mortgage rates 15% to 17%. Bad times right?
Reagan created 15,000,000 jobs & increased Federal revenue by 15%. At the time, the people got what they needed. So yes, he was a hero then.
The nay sayers argued Reagan created the wrong type of jobs. Yep. Then they (Dems) took congress from the Repubs and both spent the 15% plus, like drunken sailors. Typical political move right?
So in good times or bad, a POTUS that gave the people what they needed was a hero at the time.
Reagan was a staunch believer in free enterprise & self support. The opposite of every Liberal right? So don't be too hard on Reagan. You don't have to look back & agree, but give credit where credit is due.
I will agree that the Reagan administration did pull us out of an awful mess. And yes, he was a hero at the time. But in my opinion, his policies are now having serious (almost devastating) effects on the middle class. I feel sorry for the middle class 40 years from now - I probably won't be around to see it.
Mike

Chicago, IL

#17 Oct 28, 2013
someone wrote:
In response to Mike and the milkman story, I agree with what you wrote. However I also think that as consumers we "need" things today that we didn't then. Cell phones, cable/satellite tv, multiple cars, Xbox, internet service, Starbucks, mp3. I know sending our kids to public school cost less then. Now every school has specialists that need be paid for. Our food and dining choices have increased and I believe society thinks of fast food as a way of life. If we got McDs 2x a month that was a treat It's examples like these and s my others that I would love to see a comparison too from 30+ years ago. This applies to welfare also, I was at a store and someone was using a link card for a custom made cake. Maybe that person should get a box of cake mix and a can of frosting. Food stamps were for basics not special orders, but now it is acceptable to use in that manner.
So its not a matter of things just costing more, it may be a matter of our selfish, wasteful consumption.
You are correct that we spend a lot on things we didn't used to. I do have a larger house than the one I grew up in. I do have a family cell phone plan that causes me great pain every time I see the bill (good grief!).
However, I still think things are worse than they were as far as household income is concerned.
This chart shows the inflation adjusted household income over the last 45 years, and yes, it has increased at most levels (except for the bottom). What this doesn't show is the increase in 2-income families over the same period.
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/cha...
Professor

Mokena, IL

#18 Oct 28, 2013
someone wrote:
In response to Mike and the milkman story, I agree with what you wrote. However I also think that as consumers we "need" things today that we didn't then. Cell phones, cable/satellite tv, multiple cars, Xbox, internet service, Starbucks, mp3. I know sending our kids to public school cost less then. Now every school has specialists that need be paid for. Our food and dining choices have increased and I believe society thinks of fast food as a way of life. If we got McDs 2x a month that was a treat It's examples like these and s my others that I would love to see a comparison too from 30+ years ago. This applies to welfare also, I was at a store and someone was using a link card for a custom made cake. Maybe that person should get a box of cake mix and a can of frosting. Food stamps were for basics not special orders, but now it is acceptable to use in that manner.
So its not a matter of things just costing more, it may be a matter of our selfish, wasteful consumption.
That comment about the poor having to bake their own cake while not working is extremely insensitive and unfair! They are entitled to custom cakes, cars, homes, etc, just like the rich are! If that damn Tea Party would just go away Obama would be able to distribute out all wealth in this nation so we are all living equal and fair! You know.....bring UTOPIA to the United States!
They he can work on fixing the WORLD!
Unincorporated

New Lenox, IL

#19 Oct 28, 2013
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
This is true. But if salaries stayed in line with the devaluation of the dollar, we wouldn't be in this situation. If cars used to be 5K and now they are 25, someone who made 5K at that time should make 25 now, but I don't think that's the case.
My point is that if I got paid in marbles, and marbles never devalued, 40 years ago I might make 50 marbles, but today, doing the same job, I would only make 45 marbles. Unless, of course, you are at the top of the wealth scale. The top may have gotten 100 marbles 40 years ago, but today, they get 1000 marbles.
The above is just an example to explain my opinion. I make no claims to actual numbers, but I do feel that the middle class has been destroyed by one of the worst presidents we've ever had, Ronald Reagan.
Great points. But you've lost your marbles! Rim shot! I'm here all week! Try the pork chops, they're wonderful! Sorry, couldn't resist. You do make a valid analogy though. Pay has not kept up with inflation. It is harder to get ahead or stay afloat even. Reagan was the beginning of the spending spree we now are accelerating to infinity and beyond. Can you imagine that Obama has doubled the national debt in his term? Wow! Exponents are a bitch!
Four More Years

New Lenox, IL

#20 Oct 28, 2013
Unincorporated wrote:
<quoted text>Great points. But you've lost your marbles! Rim shot! I'm here all week! Try the pork chops, they're wonderful! Sorry, couldn't resist. You do make a valid analogy though. Pay has not kept up with inflation. It is harder to get ahead or stay afloat even. Reagan was the beginning of the spending spree we now are accelerating to infinity and beyond. Can you imagine that Obama has doubled the national debt in his term? Wow! Exponents are a bitch!
Playing with numbers,Reagan quadrupled it.
Unincorporated

New Lenox, IL

#21 Oct 28, 2013
No doubt. I believe the recipe went, Reagan wanted much higher defense spending. He had a Democrat Congress. They wanted much higher social spending. The Congress said if you give us what we want, we will give YOU what YOU want. And, here we are today. Swirling the bowl. He definitely started it though. No arguments here. They are all complicit. Every President since has dug us a deeper hole. And please don't bring up Ol' Billy Clinton. His budget never really balanced or ran a surplus. What we owed the Social Security system was not taken into account. Obama is the champion though.
Common Sense

Cicero, IL

#22 Oct 28, 2013
Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
That comment about the poor having to bake their own cake while not working is extremely insensitive and unfair! They are entitled to custom cakes, cars, homes, etc, just like the rich are! If that damn Tea Party would just go away Obama would be able to distribute out all wealth in this nation so we are all living equal and fair! You know.....bring UTOPIA to the United States!
They he can work on fixing the WORLD!
Too funny. Liberalism is backwards thinking. I don't know how their brains got like that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Joliet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Springtime in Chicago 18 min AAA 46
Ted nugent at white house 4 hr Hmmm 4
How has the Trump presidency benefited you? 4 hr Humanity Matters 79
What is your take on these political explanations? 4 hr UoC nurse 6
This is What We Deal With 5 hr pearl 43
Mailman who delivers to downtown businesses? (Oct '16) 6 hr Terrimom 2
Did You Know 7 hr Jus Sayin 2

Joliet Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Joliet Mortgages