Forum Post: NBC shows America is morally bankrupt
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 30, 2011, 1:42 a.m. EST by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom
(3360)
from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
On Rock Center with Brian Williams this Sunday, NBC's new news magazine show did a story on poverty in America. They pointed out that 1 in every 3 Americans live near or below poverty and 47 million are on food stamps.
They actually showed that segment online before it aired on Sunday. So when it aired, Brian Williams was able to comment about how people reacted to it. He said the story drew a huge outcry online.
They profiled 2 families who were poor and on food stamps. One man had to get a job at McDonalds. It was the only job he can find. Another recently got hired as a customer service rep for $8.50 per hour.
They couldn't afford a $10 book for their son for school. They can't afford for their kid to play sports. And they have to do extra budgeting and saving in order to have enough money to buy the ingredients for their daughter's birthday cake.
So what do you think the outrage online was about? Was it how could 100 million Americans be living in poverty? How does our country tolerate an economic system that forces an adult father to work for $8.50 an hour when our economy produces $135,000 per year per worker?
Nope. None of those things.
The outrage was over the fact that we were giving food stamps to people who had cars, flat-screen tvs and cell phones.
Getting paid $8.50 per hour in a $15 trillion economy is not unfair. Helping someone who can't afford food who has a phone is unfair.
Have the republicans successfully turned America into a bunch of greedy, selfish, heartless fucks?
They were greedy, selfish, heartless fucks before this. The only difference is that they enjoy being greedy, selfish, heartless fucks more. They seem to roll around in it like pigs.
And Obama is looking like them more and more, sad to say. And I'm a black liberal.
http://occupyxmas.net
I seriously doubt that you are a "black liberal".
Doubt anything you want, "for."
a) Gerald Celente : Prepare for an Economic 9/11 and Economic Martial Law : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29858.htm &
b) John McCain : American Citizens Can Be Sent to Guantanamo : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29857.htm .
hmmm et ad iudiciummm ;-)
It doesn't matter whether these people are asking for help or not. What matters is the unfairness of the low wages paid to working people in this country. The working poor are not the entitled people. The entitled people are the rich executives who refuse to share the profits with their employees in a fair way. The entitled people are our paid-in- full politicians who refuse to protect workers with fair labor laws. A man or woman trying to feed their children is not entitled, they are needy. There is a difference.
Funny isn't it? That the complainers can't stop to think that many people who are now living in poverty actually had the TV, car and phones BEFORE they lost jobs and are now working at minimum wage. What are they suppose to sell every luxury they may have managed to keep? And with so many people using cell phones in stead of land lines are they to get rid of phone? I could understand the outcry if these people were ignoring their responsibilities to purchase unnecessary luxuries and then using food stamps, but that isn't usually the case.
All I can assume is that those that are complaining have never been faced with a loss of a job over a long term period..... I'm sure they'd change their tune if they did.
Someone in another state took out a home equity line of credit on our home. Then declared bankruptcy. We found out about it when the bank started foreclosing on our home. We proved fraud and conspiracy in material fact in court. It was a Washington Mutual loan. The federal court decided it had to uphold the FDIC's P & A agreement that sold Washington Mutual's assets, with total immunity to any liabilities.
We never borrowed any money but are being made homeless due to fraud and deceit. We paid cash for our property 10 years ago, unprotected wetlands used as a dump. We cleaned it up. The entire experience has been stressful through no fault of our own. My arteries have collapsed as I have struggled to stand up for myself and my family to no avail.
I apologize to the American people for needing help at this time but am sincere in saying I'm doing the best I am able in trying to feed myself and my family.
You don't need to apologize to this American. There is absolutely no shame in asking for help. I imagine you've paid taxes for many years. Your situation will improve, but you must stay level-headed and healthy for your family's sake.
It's called brainwashing people. Wake up and take your country back!
I personally think we need to help people making 200 dollars a year in africa and south america first we all are citizens of this planet.
Turn on MTV and see the morally inept material they are feeding our children.
Trolls now have their own call centers where they will call and object to what they see on "liberal" TV. The trolls are paid more than minimum wage to man the phones and the Internet to call and post stupid things everywhere. Call Karl Rove if you're a Republican/Tea party troll and would like to work doing that. I'm sure you'll be hired. All funded by the Kochs and other like-minded greed heads.
yes, i think so, that sounds right.
Well, it was painfully obvious in the news piece that one couple who was getting food stamps had an SUV, flat screen and smartphone. These things cost money and are luxuries, not entitlements. A cheap car, a box tv from goodwill and a landline or pay as you go phone, are more than fine and fully functional...unless, somehow OCCUPY thinks people are 'ENTITLED' to the very best of everything so they have to get government handouts to afford food?
Go on, perpetuate the stereotype that OWS members think everyone is entitled to luxury and that's the reason they are vocal.
You are a Rush Limbaugh-brainwashed moron.
These people are not asking for food stamps.
They are asking for a job that pays enough so they don't have to have food stamps. Since we use a cruel, Medieval, aristocratic economic system that only provides enough income to a select, privileged, entitled few, there are not enough jobs that pay enough money.
Go on, perpetuate the stereotype that right-wingers think only a select, privileged few based on luck, genetics and family heritage are entitled to luxury and that's the reason they are vocal.
If you can't afford it, don't buy it. Buy food instead. The only people who are entitled to luxury are people who have the money for it. And don't need credit or to starve their kids to get stuff. if you think its ok to spend more money than you have, go work for a derivatives trader
lol I suppose you think that having a car or a cellphone is not a necessity?
I would agree that having a TV is not a necessity, but in order to live life you must have a a way to communicate and a form of transportation... But wait are you saying that the poorest should have to walk to work and should have to do all their communication by snail mail? (I must also say that nowadays buses are just as expensive as owning cars in some places, and land line phone are about the same price as the cheapest cell phone services.
The average income in this country is $135,000 per year.
I believe everyone should be guaranteed a job and that job should pay close to the average wage.
The is absolutely no reason why anyone should struggle at all financially in this country.
Anyone who advocates anything differently is morally bankrupt.
The average income is not representative of what the majority of people make. Think of a scale...i put a million pebbles on one side, and a few thousand rocks on the other to come out at a balance point. But, the scale is not even balanced. It is slightly heavier on the rock side which gives you the average you quote.
No one should need food stamps or other government help when they actually have a job and work. It is disgusting.
yeah the problem is that the big companies use their extra money to either automate production or if they cant afford that then they outsource work to china or india where the highest paid non executive workers make way less than our minimum wage. In India you can live like a king on $1 an hour.
you always blame the right, the democrats are not responsible for anything at all, are they?
Like I mentioned in the comment below, the dems are far from innocent.
I only mentioned the republicans because they actively advertise they want a thug economy where you take as much as you can and to hell with everyone else.
I do believe if the democrats had the white house and a filibuster proof congress, they would pass universal healthcare with a public option, raise minimum wage, increase taxes on the wealthy and would do a new deal type jobs program to lower unemployment.
They wouldn't do enough for the 99%. But they would do far more than the republicans.
it is not the governments job to provide healthcare, raise minimum wage (which, btw, history shows that with every raise of the minimum wage unemployment goes up) and it is not the governments job to create jobs within the government. Who pays for government jobs? taxpayers. why should those who pay taxes be required to employ people who will do nothing more than rake the straw (like those in the WMP under FDR) just to have a job?
It is the government's job to pay for all those things since it is bound by a constitution that says it must provide for the general welfare.
Your welfare is not being provided for if you can't get medical care and you have a job that pays $8.50 per hour.
So the problem with this economy is not that it has jobs that pay people $8.50 per hour, the problem is that we have to give them food stamps?
Capitalism doesn't work. It is a cruel, barbaric, uncivilized system.
no, "promote" the general welfare, "provide" for the common defense. Seriously, do you read, comprehend, and then think? You do understand that doctors and health care have been around a very long time, right? as such do you not think that if the founders thought we should have free healthcare that they would have had it back int the day?
"no, "promote" the general welfare, "provide" for the common defense."
If you just read the top of the constitution, you will see "promote" the general welfare. But if you read past the first couple of paragraphs, you will learn that it also says "provide" for the general welfare.
.
"Seriously, do you read, comprehend, and then think?"
Don't you look stupid.
.
"do you not think that if the founders thought we should have free healthcare that they would have had it back int the day?"
Many of the founders did no want to put specific benefits and specific rights in the constitution because they didn't want future generations to interpret that as those being the only benefits and rights people should have.
Many of the founders owned slaves. So do you want to bring back slavery since slavery existed back in the day?
And why should the people living in the 21st century be bound by what people did in the 18th century? Society should work well for everyone as a right, regardless what a bunch of white, slave owning, elitists did 300 years ago.
you are an idiot and there is no helping you. It is time that you realize that the best vocation for you is working at a waffle house, smoking your wages away, and continually bitching about all the free stuff you should be entitled too just for breathing through your mouth.
Just like you don't understand what is in the constitution, you don't understand what people are asking for.
I don't know of anyone that is asking for anything for free.
If you live in this country, you should at the very least be guaranteed a job that pays enough to live a high standard of living. An economy that delivers anything less than that is an economy that is broken and needs to be fixed.
Poverty serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
This is simple common sense.
Don't even act like the constitution says anything about you being entitled to jack crap, especially healthcare. You don't understand what's in the constitution. I don't think any of you even understand history or what was going on/at stake when that document was written.
"If you live in this country, you should at the very least be guaranteed a job that pays enough to live a high standard of living. An economy that delivers anything less than that is an economy that is broken and needs to be fixed."
^This right here is ridiculous.
"^This right here is ridiculous."
And you thinking that it is ridiculous to have a society that works well for everyone firmly positions you in the greedy, selfish, heartless fucks category.
We are 2 different people with 2 different worldviews on the opposite ends of the moral spectrum.
I'm all for equality and fair treatment. Having our government shelling out money to people for everything they feel "entitled" to is not a moral issue. If I was pro-"making people starve", that would be a moral issue. You take everything I say to the most extreme example and act like you've said something smart to counter it. You pose fanciful views that you expect us to accept as reality and the best way, while throwing any other argument to speculation and turning them down with extreme irrational examples. You told me, in another thread, that I'm not doing things on my own because America is so helpful (which goes against your argument) and that I should move to Libya (or somewhere). ???. You are not smart, you don't make good points, you don't counter mine or anyone else's points, and these are the facts. Thank you.
when in the history of the world has anyone been guaranteed a job that pays enough to live a high standard of living?
Throughout all of history right up into the present day. There has always been a privileged, ruling class of aristocrats who were able to guarantee a life of privilege for those connected to them.
Once it was the Kings. Today it's the Trumps and Hiltons.
Real democracy is a society with no ruling class, no aristocracy and no special privileges. It is a society that works equally well for everyone.
You have a Medieval, anachronistic worldview.
Don't just blame the Republicans. The Democrats are just as much a party of the 1%. There is a Democrat in the White House, the most powerful position in the world, from which he could be doing considerably more than he is to aleviate the problems we face. He doesn't because he's not our President. He's the President of the 1% from a party of the 1%, working for the 1%. In a government of the 1%.
I completely agree that the democrats are also the party for the 1%.
I only mentioned the republicans because they actively advertise they want a thug economy where you take as much as you can and to hell with everyone else.
But I do believe if the democrats had the white house and a filibuster proof congress, they would pass universal healthcare with a public option, raise minimum wage, increase taxes on the wealthy and would do a new deal type jobs program to lower unemployment.
I want to know what anybody who thinks the Democratic Party would pass any progressive legislation is smoking. Don't have the time to go through everything, but speaking of thugs, it is mostly Democratic mayors that are shutting down occupations. It is a Democratic commander in chief who is overseeing the American Empire, conducting undeclared wars, killing American citizens, assasinating foreign nationals and incarcerating people without charges or a trial.
Poverty is the lack of a certain amount of material possessions or money.Absolute poverty or destitution is inability to afford basic human needs
Poverty is also very subjective.By this definition poverty can't and never can be measured accurately. Absolute poverty can. How many Americans live in absolute poverty?
You are incorrect, refer to a 1993 Supreme Court Ruling in the case of
Rowland vs California Mens Colony. Both Poverty and Artificial Entities
were very clearly defined. They even went as far to state what the court
would accept as reasonable proof of poverty.
It is an interesting read.
Also, when you get done with that, I could also point you to a very
interesting 1998 ruling as well.
Is this what you talking about.I don't see where it makes me incorrect.
The second revealing feature of § 1915(d) is its description of the affidavit required by § 1915(a) as an "allegation of poverty." Poverty, in its primary sense, is a human condition, to be "[w]anting in material riches or goods; lacking in the comforts of life; needy," Webster's New International Dictionary 1919 (2d ed. 1942), and it was in just such distinctly human terms that this Court had established the standard of eligibility long before Congress considered extending in forma pauperis treatment from "citizens" to "persons." As we first said in 1948, "[w]e think an affidavit is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty
pay or give security for thecosts . . . and still be able to provide' himself and dependentswith the necessities of life.' " Adkins v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339. But artificial entities do not fit this description. Whatever the state of its treasury, an association or corporation cannot be said to "lac[k] the comforts of life," any more than one can sensibly ask whether it can provide itself, let alone its dependents, with life's "necessities." Artificial entities may be insolvent, but they are not well spoken of as "poor." So eccentric a description is not lightly to be imputed to Congress.Well, yes.... and there is more that came later which goes even further, yet, neither have ever been over-turned. Good work, kick it about however you may, but, it is something worth thinking about.
That case law is one you should bookmark.
What's the jist of it I don't speak lawyer.Where does it tell me what the court would accept as reasonable proof of poverty?
Keep reading.... affidavit............. control f
It holds up even in today's kangaroo courts
Necessities of life are easy to calculate, the biggest expense is access proper medical care in the USA, food and housing aren't insignificant costs
Why make a morally bankrupt statement?
It just proves the point.
"Have the republicans successfully turned America into a bunch of greedy, selfish, heartless fucks?"
should read
Have the democrats successfully turned America into a bunch of greedy, selfish, heartless fucks?
Hi Rush.
That would be the FLAKESnews version, but like you, not grounded in reality..
"Republicans believe responsibility for each person's station in life ultimately resides with each individual person. The Republican Party encourages individuals to work to secure the benefits of society for themselves, their families, and for those who are unable to care for themselves. Democrats believe each person's rights can be sacrificed to the assumed needs of the group. Democrats assume "society" collectively is responsible for each of its members. Democrats place less emphasis on individual enterprise and initiative and prefer government 'programs,' such as the failed forty-year 'War on Poverty.'
True Republicans want all Americans to prosper.True Democrats want to control every aspect of your life so you think you can prosper.
Yeah, sure, Rush.
Like I said, not grounded in reality, as it never actually went that way.
Why do you call me Rush,yeah I like the band but so do allot of people. Conservatives represent the largest ideological group and outnumber liberals 3 to 1.
Sorry Mr. Limbaugh.
I forgot you have a license to lie, as you did in your last statement.
I forgot you were busy getting high and still picking at Clinton, while 8 years of Bush destroyed our nation.
I'm trying to have a discussion,but you keep spouting nonsense
What discussion is that Rush?
Lies about almost everything?
That's not a discussion, it's just lying.
Have the republicans done this?
Without a doubt. It's a result of Reagan's trickle down economics.
Now that it's actually trickling, the heartless greediness comes to light.
I saw the show. The outrage should have been at business who pay so little their workers need food stamps. In the end tax dollars are supporting employes while the business takes the money and runs. I was shocked that they had homes and a nice place to do an interview. I live in a 20 year old trailer with little insulation left and I was just above the line for foodstamps and medicaid for my kids. My God, take the profits away from electric, gas, oil, phone, internet, big old banks and leave people something to live on! Their profits keep climbing and the people are reduced to foodstamps. Why shouldn't every American who works get to live in a house, have a phone, have basic cable, have basic internet, have a car where there is no public transportation, and be able to put gas in the car and be able to buy food??? Why shouldn't WORKERS be able to survive and live like Americans? If people think American workers are so spoiled, why don't they beat feet to move to some third world country? We are talking about WORKING people who qualify for foodstamps. Wasn't it bad enough that companies could cripple their employes and throw them on disability? Nope, the government now has to step in so their employes don't STARVE. Talk about misplaced anger!
47 million on food stamps is nothing when you compare it to our almost 400 billion people living in the country.
And some of those 47 million don't need it and are exploiting the system.
I agree with you on that point. There has to be a better way to determine what people really need it and what people really don't.
Excellent post... I can't wait to read the far right's response as filtered through the FOX/Limbaugh lens!
Could we say the two-party system instead of republicans?
Please Please Please bring this to Philadelphia. only 217 days to go...
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
The whole thing sounds like a Dickin's novel got loose. Amazing what a well-oiled propaganda machine can accomplish. The Republican race-to-the-bottom will not stand!
What I love most about this movement is the information gleaned from posts like yours. Did not realize that our economy produced $135K per year per worker. Good info. Thanks.
The average income in the US is $135k which is more than what 97% of workers make. So 97% of workers make a below average income in this country. The Bureau of Labor Statistics innocuously refers to it as labor productivity instead of average income, although they mean the same thing.
If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, read this post:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/solution-raise-the-minimum-wage-to-110000-per-year/
and read this comment to see all the sources and explanations for non-economists:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/solution-raise-the-minimum-wage-to-110000-per-year/#comment-335497
productivity is the value of the work performed by the worker. How do you come up with productivity now means what a worker is earning (income)?
Total income paid out to all workers always equals the total amount of everything we produced. Since GDP is $15 trillion, that means we both produced $15 trillion in goods and services and paid out $15 trillion in income.
When you divide that $15 trillion by the total amount of hours worked by the entire workforce, you have calculated both worker productivity (GDP per hour worked) and average income (total income per hour worked).
When the BEA calculates GDP, they do it by using both the production approach (adding up total value of all goods and services produced) and the income approach (adding up the total incomes paid out to all workers including profit, rent and interest). The 2 numbers must be equal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product#Determining_GDP
Of course, in a capitalist system, the average worker earns far, far, far less than what the average worker produces. The median income is 80% less than the average income.
That is why I think capitalism is unfair and why all business should be financed with public funds by our current network of decentralized, independently run banks so that we can have democratic control over the allocation of income and can guarantee every worker an income closer to the $135k average.
"Total income paid out to all workers always equals the total amount of everything we produced"
Says who? Wages are not 100% of the value of the products that are produced.
Total income is all the income everyone earns which includes wages, profit, interest and rent.
"Worker" also includes business owners who collect profits.
" How could 100 million Americans be living in poverty?"
Really?
The census released their latest figures this month. 100 million, 1 in 3, are in poverty or on the verge of poverty.
Out of 400 Billion people living in this country, 100 million living in poverty is small in comparison.
You are living on another planet. 300 million live in the US, not 400 billion.
That amounts to 1 out of every 3 Americans in poverty or on its brink.
That is exactly 100 million too many.
Consider the source NBC or the person who posted this (a watcher of NBC).
The numbers went up under your god Obama. Oh yeah it's all the republicans fault. Get fucked Idiotcrat party buttboy.
The problem is that much of this poverty is self induced.
The Federal Reserve Act was for the purpose of creating a "rubber dollar", one that was elastic and could be manipulated by creating dollars out of thin air, to supposedly maintain a robust and balanced economy.
Ever dollar extended in credit, devalues or steals value, purchasing power, from all the dollars currently in the money supply.
What about the "entitlement program" of spending money before it has been made? While devaluing the dollars in everyone's pockets at the same time, most especially at the expense of those who do not use or were not granted, credit?
Yes, and women who get raped should have re-thought the outfit they were wearing that night.
What NBC didn't show, and what Limbaugh listeners learned, is that capitalism is so great and so benevolent and so fair that these people, like all poor people, were given the choice between a job that pays the $65 per hour average wage and a job with the $8.50 per hour wage.
They choose the job that pays $8.50. It is their own damn fault. They should have chosen the job that pays $65 per hour.
Well, I think people are ultimately responsible for their own well being, yes. And I also sincerely believe that parents have a responsibility to ensure the safety and security of their children. But that's now what's occurring here.
Much of America's poverty is self induced and therefore unworthy of compassion.
What specifically did they do to get themselves unemployed and what specifically did they do to make it so that only $8 per hour jobs are available?
Poor people caused the high unemployment rate? Poor people cause income inequality?
Poor people have full control over the economy?
When someone beats you up for being such a clueless, heartless fuck, is it your fault for letting them beat you up?
The Senate is set to vote on a bill next week that would define the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial. GlobalResearch
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27910&fb_source=message
15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America. Information Clearing House, Grafiken über Einkommens- und Vermögensverteilung in den USA
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25399.htm
http://www.pauljorion.com/blog/?p=11384
http://elboheme.blogspot.com/2010/05/die-wahren-ursachen-der-krise_12.html
100 A staggering 48.5% of all Americans live in a household that receives some form of government benefits. Back in 1983, that number was below 30 percent.
http://www.china-intern.de/page/wirtschaft-hintergrund/1318019478.html
[Removed]
on earth there are countries where people do not even $ 1 per hour.
In those countries, does it cost a $1 to even buy a single can of veggies? It'snot about the monetary amount of wages. It's how much you have to pay to have food and board that equate to poverty.
It is not true.all are doing relatively well on poorly
I don't understand your response.
What I meant was, that here in my area to buy a can of vegetables to eat - which is clearly not a full meal - it costs a dollar. Since the cost of food is higher, the fact that a worker in this country earns more money than someone from another area doesn't really mean anything.
The question is, for anyone in any area, how much do they have to pay out of those wages to have a place to sleep and food to eat? If the expenses to live a decent life = more than the wages they are earning, then they are not doing well.
In any country, it isn't fair to ask someone to work for less than that. But it's a reality in countries all around the world, including this one.
"Have the republicans successfully turned America into a bunch of greedy, selfish, heartless fucks?"
It feels like it's up to us to decide that!
There is so much here, I don't know where to start. 1) Getting paid $8.50 IS fair. I've worked that job before, so don't start in on me about low wages. 2) They can't afford a $10 book for their son but they can afford flat screen tvs? You know how I pay for food, books, etc? I prioritize and budget the money I have. If I need books, I don't buy the tv. Living within your means is something that shouldn't be frowned upon.
STORY FOR YOU: Since you are consumed with these tear jerking, emotional stories about people who work hard but can't get by without help, I have one for you too. Two dear friends of mine, they are married and college aged, have to pay for literally everything. Both of their parents are either on drugs, in jail, or "poor". They both qualify for government help. Instead of taking it, he is working his butt off every day while she goes to college. Do they starve? No they don't. They don't get to go out to eat every night and they don't buy lots of new things when they want them. They are perfectly happy and refuse to get government help. The people looking down on the "poor defenseless 99%" are not the "1%", its the people who realize where this entitlement mindset is taking us and are part of the "99%". Oh, and to make matter worse, his brother was arrested and they had to take care of his child because the mother is a drug addict and doesn't have responsibility. Thankfully something else worked out, but crying "my life is hard I am entitled to help" is ridiculous.
So your definition of fair is whether you personally had to work for that wage or whether you personally know someone who had to work for that wage!?!?
You think the fair solution is not to provide the man with a job that pays enough for him to live a high standard of living. The answer is to trade in his tv so his kid can have 1 book and no tv?
Is there a book shortage? Is there a tv shortage? We don't have the productive capacity to provide every family with a tv and a book?
I got news for you about your ridiculous story. You can't raise a family and pay for college tuition on an $8.50 per hour income.
.
"Living within your means is something that shouldn't be frowned upon."
So you want workers to know their place in a society: They are the lowly worker in a society ruled by wealthy aristocrats. They should be thankful that their benevolent overlords even graced them with $8.50. If you complain any further, you will then get nothing.
So let me check you off as a member of the greedy, selfish, heartless fucks category.
Well I see you're intelligent and will be a delight to debate with. If I can't afford a new tv, I don't get one. I mean that literally. I, up until recently, have only had an old, bulky, no HD tv. I got a new one because I got a good deal and saved my money. The laptop I am typing this on, I paid for. But I live within my means. My friend I mentioned may have been making 10$ an hour, maybe. They had student loans and budgeted their money appropriately. TV's are not a right, neither is a "high" standard of living. I'm going to come out and say that welfare should only guarantee you the basics: a severe weather radio, a roof, and food, that means no TV no internet, no xbox, no beer, etc. Sorry, but that's the way things are. I'm starting a job this summer thats starts me at double minimum wage + extra money for living and traveling expenses. I got it because I've worked since I can drive and I've put myself through college. I don't agree with the "woe is me" entitlement mindset.
We can a system like you describe where wealthy people, by virtue of them being wealthy, use their significant bargaining power to take most of the country's income so that everyone else, like you, are left with so little income that you can't afford a tv and a book.
Like Al Capone said, we can have a thug economy where you take as much as you can and to hell with everyone else.
Or we can have an economic system where everyone is paid a wage based on the amount of work they do, instead of how much power they can exercise, so that a small group of people cannot unfairly take most of the income and leave everyone else in poverty. That would enable us to make the minimum income $115k or so, an income large enough to guarantee every worker a high standard of living.
I choose plan B because there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to poverty and financial struggle. If you enjoy financial struggle, you should still have the freedom to give your money away and live off a meager $8 or $10 an hour.
.
"I don't agree with the "woe is me" entitlement mindset."
lol. So you should just accept whatever injustice society serves you!
Did slaves, who got food and a roof over their head, have a "woe is me" entitlement mindset when they asked not to be slaves?
Sounds like blacks were beginning to feel a little entitled with that woe is me emancipation nonsense.
What about people who make pennies an hour and live in caves? Do they have an entitlement mindset for wanting more than a cave in exchange for working?
What about people who have no opportunities and are so desperate that they have to work in unsafe conditions? Do they have an entitlement mindset for wanting a clean, safe place to work that won't give them cancer in 10 years?
At what point is something not fair? Or do you just accept anything capitalism produces as fair and just?
Extreme examples and talking about slavery make you sound smart! It's so emotional and convincing!!!
And I've worked for less - but I disagree that it is a fair wage. I also question the flat screen tv. But a car and phone are both necessities if you want to get a job. In some cases even the internet is required, since alot of places you go to fill out an app will respond "Our application is on-line."
My outrage would be why the school is demanding their son buy a $10 book. This is like how a grade school student at a public school has to buy a certain kind of calculator or gets sent home. (True story from my area.) This is public schooling. They aren't supposed to be requiring the child buy anything, but that's not how things work now-a-days.
It is a fair wage. The employee working at McDonalds making $8.50 is making that because he is producing a service of $8.50. There is profit to be made by upper management, corporate, etc. That's fine though. Inequality isn't bad. This whole "being a good peasant" and "slavery" talk that has been thrown around here is insane. I've worked for people before that have more money than they can spend and I would love just a drop of it. Do I get jealous? Yes of course. Do I think they don't deserve it? No I don't. If they come about it fairly and legally, then it's theirs. It's up to me to make it on my own.
I agree that it's fair to make your own money, but I disagree with paying your workers less than a living wage. A living wage merely takes into consideration the need for housing, food, clothing, electricity, etc. Not flat screen tvs, and rarely even private transportation. I'm guessing from your posts that $8.50 is close to the living wage in your area. Which is why it's understandable that you think it's fine.
What you don't seem to understand is that in many areas it isn't a living wage, and that people go without housing even though they work because that low-end wage isn't enough to even provide that and food. If employers were made to pay living wage (based on area rather than a government regulated minimum), then the government wouldn't have to pay out foodstamps because everybody would be earning the minimum amount to provide housing and food.
Your statement that inequality isn't bad is not a good choice of phrasing for what I feel you were trying to convey. You meant that a person who works harder, and strives to create a business should reap the rewards of that hard work. And you're right, they should. But not at the expense of asking those who work for them to manufacture and sell their products (without whom they wouldn't be making a product or a profit) having to live in sub-par conditions.
I don't think it's fair to get rich "at the expense" of others. However it seems that most of the OWS people feel that rich people don't deserve what they have and it should be redistributed, which is wrong. It is wrong. We cannot pick and choose who has rights and when they have it. If I fairly make my riches and you take them, then you're violating my rights.
I don't think it's most of OWS who feels that the rich people should have all their money redistributed. I've seen a few that claim that, but I've seen others who simply believe they should be made to give their workers fair wages based on the area those workers are living.
There's more to it than wage too, there's hours. After all, even if someone has a higher wage, if they work by the hour and the company doesn't give them a set number of hours, they still struggle with their bills.
A point: The government currently gives tax cuts to companies that hire people who have been out of work. But that includes part time. So they're getting tax cuts for hiring someone for 8 hours a week. That might give the person who's been unemployed some more food, or gas money. But can that buy them housing?
The solution to me would be to only give tax cuts if they hired full time, or for raising a part time employee to full time. Even in areas where the minimum wage is less than living wage, this gives the person a better chance at a decent chance of living than hiring them part time.
I'm not going to argue that there are deficiencies in the system. To me, though, it is not a good place to be when government starts getting too involved. Live I've said before, I'm not against change. I am against a lot of the policies that OWS seem to be pushing for. It seems that they are quick to violate someone else's rights if they are benefitted. But what if their rights are the ones being violated? Take the park for instance. The public can't use it while OWS was camped there, businesses are having problems because of the protest, and the park gets trashed. Now, when OWS is told not to be there any more they scream and cry violation of rights. What about everyone else's rights? Even if it was just one single person who's rights were violated, it's still wrong. There's a quote, and I'll have to get the reference later if you want, that I have used on here before. It basically says that no matter how developed our social consciences may seem, when we make the pursuit of profits seem evil, the end result will always be the iron fist of the government ruling business.
I tend to be long winded, my apologies. But I felt like my thoughts on the second issue you brought up would be best directed to a different post.
I agree that the pursuit of profits is not evil. Rather, it's valuing profit over humanity that is wrong. It is possible to pursue profit without it being at the expense of those who work for and with you. It is also true that government ruling business to any great extent is a bad thing, and leads down a dark road. But, what we are facing today is an issue that's never been faced. The size of these businesses. People in the past could never have imagined the amount of money and number of employees, and land owned by these huge corporations that we have today.
In fact, these corporations have more land, money, and employees, than some countries have land, budget, and populace. In the past, businesses did not effect the number of people these current businesses effect. At one time, you'd hear 2000 people were laid off of work and be shocked. Now we hear 20,000, and we just say - oh, again? So if the government doesn't insure that these companies treat the people under them well, who does? Who do we entrust that to? How do we make sure that they aren't being taken advantage of? Left without homes, without food?
And, while it might seem a strange and even disturbing suggestion - If these corporations wield so much power, land, and lives - Are they businesses? Or have they become countries?
I think there's two issues that we're running into.
One is a clash of rights. Public has the right to a park, but isn't OWS the public as well? I may want to play basketball, but if a group is playing basketball at my local park I either have to wait til they're done, go somewhere else, or join in. So, have my rights then been violated? Technically, I suppose they have, but I'd seem pretty whiny if I complained that I didn't get to play basketball because somebody else was playing, wouldn't I? I realize this is "small scale" and one could argue that it doesn't apply. But I think it does apply.
The idea of the parks getting trashed is questionable. I know they say they left garbage, but don't forget that some of that garbage is their personal belongings. If, instead of throwing it all away, they collected the tents and personal belonging and allowed them to be collected by their owners, I'm very curious how much real trash would be left behind.
Alot of the issues OWS is bringing attention to aren't new. They've been around for years, even decades, and nothing has improved. We know these issues exist, and we either ignore them because we have our own problems, or we tell ourselves the government is going to fix it. OWS and their supporters are sick of these issues being ignored, and broken promises to fix them. I understand that you and other people are disturbed by what you see as breaking of laws and violating other people's rights. But I also feel like until something huge like this happens, people don't sit up and take notice.
what if i convince the gov't that your wealth should pay for the society your wealth was acquired. you would be bound by the common good clause of the United States of America; pay up you dead beat. or the fed can destroy it like a good economic system should.
Notice how I said if I got it fairly. Any acquisition of my fairly obtained assets would be violating my rights and placing yours above mine. The constitution does not promise equality for anything other than opportunity and treatment.
"Inequality isn't bad."
There is nothing wrong with poverty, not being able to buy food or a book or soccer for your kid or medicine or relief from a toothache or school or a home or new clothes. There isn't anything bad about that at all.
Seriously, how do you sleep at night?
"It's up to me to make it on my own"
Ha! Then what are you doing in America? You are given an ENORMOUS amount of help by living here. Move to Liberia where you can say you really did it on your own. In fact move to the moon because it isn't fair that you are given all of earth's free resources.
Hat tip: Horatio Alger is a myth. And you will do far better in a system that guarantees you success for your hard work instead of guaranteeing you a mere 3% chance at success for your hard work.
I didn't say poverty was good, but obviously you have and axe to grind and can't competently have a debate. Sorry to hear that.
[Removed]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
Do you have anything to add or are you only capable of spamming this forum with your conspiracy movie?