Our Entitlement Society
First Prev
of 13
Next Last
Paul Revere

London, KY

#1 Jan 17, 2014
"The number of Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) receiving food stamps zoomed from 1.7 million to 3.9 million between Fiscal Year 2007 and Fiscal Year 2010. In that same period, food stamp recipients in total grew from 26 million to nearly 40 million."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/...

More than half of the total population receive government assistance in some form, while less than half of all American pay taxes. Is there any doubt we are now a society based on entitlements, handouts and freebies?

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#2 Jan 17, 2014
Maybe that is why we are becoming a 3rd world nation. In the global economy, we are 17th.

“Welcome to the Winds of Change”

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#3 Jan 17, 2014
pitbullie

Versailles, KY

#5 Jan 18, 2014
You are trying to educate the uneducable. Sadly, you are wasting your time with the people who swallow this stuff hook, line and sinker..

Highly profitable companies like Walmart encourage their employees to apply for food stamps because they don't want to pay a living wage.

As usual, the taxpayers are "subsidizing" Big Monied interests while the public is fooled by a shell game. Part of the Gamers strategy is making up ridiclous lies to demonize the working class and the poor..
Allanon80 wrote:
chris

Campbellsville, KY

#6 Jan 18, 2014
I worked as an hourly associate for walmart in the nineties.i worked really hard.i made a real good living.had insurance.money for whatever my family needed.i dont know what happened but it started in 2004.they picked certain associates to keep,got rid of the rest of us older folks.ive been talking to different people from different stores.its the same everywhere.hours cut for some.some getting overtime.
pitbullie

Versailles, KY

#7 Jan 18, 2014
Younger people will work cheaper. They don't need health insurance, because they believe are Immortal.

They are easier to indoctrine, they have less baggage and they are more likely to indiscriminately consume.

There are always plenty more where they came from, when they price themselves too high. American business believes in on-time delivery of interchangeable units. That includes people.

They get away with it, because our system of values stinks and because we let them
chris wrote:
I worked as an hourly associate for walmart in the nineties.i worked really hard.i made a real good living.had insurance.money for whatever my family needed.i dont know what happened but it started in 2004.they picked certain associates to keep,got rid of the rest of us older folks.ive been talking to different people from different stores.its the same everywhere.hours cut for some.some getting overtime.
Common Sense Person

London, KY

#8 Jan 18, 2014
pitbullie wrote:
You are trying to educate the uneducable. Sadly, you are wasting your time with the people who swallow this stuff hook, line and sinker..
Highly profitable companies like Walmart encourage their employees to apply for food stamps because they don't want to pay a living wage.
As usual, the taxpayers are "subsidizing" Big Monied interests while the public is fooled by a shell game. Part of the Gamers strategy is making up ridiclous lies to demonize the working class and the poor..
<quoted text>
Preach it pitbullie...you are exactly right...it's easy to blame the lower guy by labeling him/her lazy, selfish, greedy and feeling entitled. I don't doubt that there are lazy people out there taking advantage of the system but all folks on food stamps aren't this way. There are some very hardworking people on public assistance and it's not their fault their employer doesn't pay them a living wage. I think corporations share part if not most of the blame.
zipyourlip

Somerset, KY

#10 Jan 20, 2014
Paul Revere wrote:
"The number of Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) receiving food stamps zoomed from 1.7 million to 3.9 million between Fiscal Year 2007 and Fiscal Year 2010. In that same period, food stamp recipients in total grew from 26 million to nearly 40 million."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/...
More than half of the total population receive government assistance in some form, while less than half of all American pay taxes. Is there any doubt we are now a society based on entitlements, handouts and freebies?
Bush surely did put a lot of people out of work, when he and his Republican enablers ran the economy over the cliff. In true right wing fashion though, let's blame it on those that lost their jobs. Lots of compassionate conservatism going on over there at Breitbart..... give me a frickin break. Happy MLK day Paul, I bet that roasts your white bread backside, lol!
Paul Revere

London, KY

#12 Jan 20, 2014
pitbullie wrote:
.
Highly profitable companies like Walmart encourage their employees to apply for food stamps because they don't want to pay a living wage.
As usual, the taxpayers are "subsidizing" Big Monied interests while the public is fooled by a shell game. Part of the Gamers strategy is making up ridiclous lies to demonize the working class and the poor..
<quoted text>
Really? Are you saying that PART-TIME employees (the large percentage of Walmart employees) should be paid MORE to keep them off of government assistance? Remember, these are adults who knew what their wages and hours would be when they took the job. By accepting the position they agreed to the salary and hours offered. I guess that isn't important is it? Why? Because YOU say it isn't fair?

“Welcome to the Winds of Change”

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#13 Jan 20, 2014
Paul Revere wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Are you saying that PART-TIME employees (the large percentage of Walmart employees) should be paid MORE to keep them off of government assistance? Remember, these are adults who knew what their wages and hours would be when they took the job. By accepting the position they agreed to the salary and hours offered. I guess that isn't important is it? Why? Because YOU say it isn't fair?
Perhaps we should ask why on of the largest companies in the world has a majority of part time employees. Their profits would seem to suggest that they could hire employees full time but they don't and they are happy to receive government subsidies that we the tax payer are giving them because they don't hire people full time. Also even if that were the case that people were being hired there knew....What choice did they have? Either work there and have a part time job or work no where and live completely off the government. At least with the part time job they are paying into the system via taxes. Also just as a reminder where are all the job creators at? Sometimes the only option is to work at Wal-Mart because there are no other jobs to be had.

Government support was only supposed to be a limited time means to an end, however places like Wal-mart is ensuring that it is the way of life.
Easy Peasy

Somerset, KY

#14 Jan 20, 2014
All of you brain-dead, bleeding heart liberals need to STOP blaming your employers for your own self-inflicted problems! For example, I notice that almost all of you lib-tards talk about your past or current positions as "associates" with a large corporation like Walmart.

Well, if you had enough intelligence and initiative to do a little research, you would know that associates at Walmart don't make much at all. However, corporate CEOs are making more money than EVER before.

So just get jobs as CEOs, not associates. Duh.

Screw the poor.
Common Sense Person

London, KY

#15 Jan 20, 2014
Paul Revere wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Are you saying that PART-TIME employees (the large percentage of Walmart employees) should be paid MORE to keep them off of government assistance? Remember, these are adults who knew what their wages and hours would be when they took the job. By accepting the position they agreed to the salary and hours offered. I guess that isn't important is it? Why? Because YOU say it isn't fair?
@Paul Revere...you sir are dead wrong especially in at will employment states...in an at will employment state, there is no employment contract. Employees do not agree to work for a specified amount for any length of time before they can demand more. This is how businesses wanted it so they can hire and fire at will. On your other note, even Wal-Mart's FT staff are subsidized by uncle sam just the way they want it. You are right however that the adult did accept the job but the fact of the matter still stands that Wal-Mart's employees are heavily subsidized by the tax payer and this is not fair to allow the tax payers to pay what Wal-Mart will not.
Common Sense Person

London, KY

#16 Jan 20, 2014
Easy Peasy wrote:
All of you brain-dead, bleeding heart liberals need to STOP blaming your employers for your own self-inflicted problems! For example, I notice that almost all of you lib-tards talk about your past or current positions as "associates" with a large corporation like Walmart.
Well, if you had enough intelligence and initiative to do a little research, you would know that associates at Walmart don't make much at all. However, corporate CEOs are making more money than EVER before.
So just get jobs as CEOs, not associates. Duh.
Screw the poor.
Easy Peasy if you don't have enough common sense to realize that not everybody can be a CEO then you probably don't need to even be on here but I really don't think anyone thinks that way. However, what people do need and should get when they go to work everyday is a job that provides dignity through a living wage (something that Wal-Mart doesn't have a clue about) which is really no where near what a CEO makes but is quite lower...I think that is all the people expect.
Paul Revere

London, KY

#17 Jan 21, 2014
Common Sense Person wrote:
<quoted text>
@Paul Revere...you sir are dead wrong especially in at will employment states...in an at will employment state, there is no employment contract. Employees do not agree to work for a specified amount for any length of time before they can demand more. This is how businesses wanted it so they can hire and fire at will. On your other note, even Wal-Mart's FT staff are subsidized by uncle sam just the way they want it. You are right however that the adult did accept the job but the fact of the matter still stands that Wal-Mart's employees are heavily subsidized by the tax payer and this is not fair to allow the tax payers to pay what Wal-Mart will not.
So you're saying that a prospective Walmart employee has NO IDEA what their salary and hours will before being hired? Ridiculous! And "demand"? Who gets to "demand" anything of their employer? Those who start demanding anything will quickly find themselves on the outside looking in and justifiably so.
I personally know several FT Walmart employees and not a single one of them are receiving government assistance. Of course the Obama administration has continually lowered the threshold to be eligible for food stamps, etc. so who knows, they may be missing out.
Paul Revere

London, KY

#18 Jan 21, 2014
Common Sense Person wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy Peasy if you don't have enough common sense to realize that not everybody can be a CEO then you probably don't need to even be on here.
Translated= "if you don't agree with the Marxist agenda to redistribute wealth and make the rich pay, then you need to leave."

There, simplified it for you Easy Peasy.
Common Sense Person

London, KY

#19 Jan 21, 2014
Paul Revere wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying that a prospective Walmart employee has NO IDEA what their salary and hours will before being hired? Ridiculous! And "demand"? Who gets to "demand" anything of their employer? Those who start demanding anything will quickly find themselves on the outside looking in and justifiably so.
I personally know several FT Walmart employees and not a single one of them are receiving government assistance. Of course the Obama administration has continually lowered the threshold to be eligible for food stamps, etc. so who knows, they may be missing out.
You would say that you brown noser...last time I checked, employees have the right to Unionize and negotiate with their employer and make demands before they go back to work just like the employer has the right to demand performance from their employees...but I guess you're the type that feels the employer should make all the demands and rules. Yes they do have an idea of what they will be making up front but that doesn't mean they agree to work for it for any length of time as I repeat "THERE IS NO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT". This is the way businesses wanted it so they could hire and fire at will and there is no promise of employment...well the employees can enjoy this fact as well. Employees need to start standing collectively to make demands of their employers if they could only figure out this would/could be a solution to many of their problems. And the first employer to fire them for it can and should be sued for everything they have for violating the rights of workers.
Common Sense Person

London, KY

#20 Jan 21, 2014
While we are on the subject, I think most of us could agree that as a country, at times we have experienced better times economically than at others...today is not one of the better times. With that said we must ask ourselves what made the difference? Let me first begin by saying that I never knew of a company that paid a living wage to their employees of anything else for that matter out of the goodness of their hearts...any decent wages in the past for blue collar workers was gained through the unionization and negotiation process. This in effect not only got unionized folks a living wage but also non-union people as well. When more people have a living wage the better the economy is. Just look at the stats, there are fewer organized workers in this country now than when the labor movement started gaining traction earlier in the century. Less union membership = poorer economy. Look it up, all the numbers are there. But I know you "pro business cronies" will foam at the mouth over that one, but it is true. The other thing is regulation...I can show with certainty that deregulation played a major role in the stock market crashes of 1987 and 2008. This is because major players in major industries we not doing what they should have been doing because they had no oversight. Both stock market crashes came toward the ends of republican presidencies...the group who champions deregulation so businesses can do what they want without repercussions. Heck Ronald Reagan was the deregulation champion as his idea was that business would prosper under such an environment and signed deregulation legislation after legislation and lookie what happened in 1987. The same thing happened in 2008 with the lax business oversight policies of Bush. Under these lax business environments, business get cocky and start doing unethical business practices and eventually get caught, this causes major players (investors) to loose confidence in the market and all of us suffer the consequences.

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21 Jan 22, 2014
Common Sense Person wrote:
<quoted text>
@Paul Revere...you sir are dead wrong especially in at will employment states...in an at will employment state, there is no employment contract. Employees do not agree to work for a specified amount for any length of time before they can demand more. This is how businesses wanted it so they can hire and fire at will. On your other note, even Wal-Mart's FT staff are subsidized by uncle sam just the way they want it. You are right however that the adult did accept the job but the fact of the matter still stands that Wal-Mart's employees are heavily subsidized by the tax payer and this is not fair to allow the tax payers to pay what Wal-Mart will not.
So you not like for people to be subsidized? How do you feel about the working people subsidizing obummercare, for the non-working people. If you will go back and check the post. A former worker did not seem disatisfied.
These are entry level jobs. If you want to stay at that level, that is your pay.
This buzz word"living wage" is a bunch of crap.
Speaking of subsidizes, how about giving tax credits(money) to people who do not pay taxes. Just popping babies?
pitbullie

Versailles, KY

#22 Jan 22, 2014
Six (6) Wal Mart heirs are worth more than the bottom 40% of Americans combined.

Wealth is being re-distributed, yeah right.

From John Q. Public to the wealthiest Americans.
Common Sense Person

London, KY

#23 Jan 22, 2014
pitbullie wrote:
Six (6) Wal Mart heirs are worth more than the bottom 40% of Americans combined.
Wealth is being re-distributed, yeah right.
From John Q. Public to the wealthiest Americans.
Preach it pitbullie, preach it!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 13
Next Last

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.

Science Hill Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 12 min Athenesword 141,476
Politicians refusing to perform Duties. 40 min Dead Horse 25
County Judge Exectuive Steve Kelley: Resign 1 hr still posting 15
The pledge, our nation and moving forward. 2 hr Freedom4all 3
Trump 2 hr The Court 5
Wrath of GOD 5 hr gayrights 5
Where to go in Somerset for Good Workout? 8 hr PinkyGee 9
More from around the web

Science Hill People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Science Hill Mortgages