Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The question(s) OWS does not want asked or answered.

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 10, 2011, 11:48 a.m. EST by Rodin (29)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

OWS is always screaming "paying their fair share" but what about the other end of the spectrum: "Taking their fair share" One example (of many): A woman in Florida has 15 children. She is on public assistance ( and demands that "someone needs to pay"), she is a taker. Figure an average of 10k per year per child for public school education for 12 years her brood will "take" 1.8 million dollars (education alone) from the system all while recieving welfare, food stamps, free medical (yes, it does exist) and who knows what else she will draw from the government trough, so the question is: When do we cut off the leaches of society, what is her "fair share" of taking? How is this fair to a family of 4 who pays into the system and does not recieve the same amount back?

201 Comments

201 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Don't feed the troooooooooooooooooooollllllllllllls.

[-] 4 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Without the poor, you would be living in a cave. name one world changing invention that came from a wealthy person.

[-] 1 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

What does that have to do with the original question?

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

To prove your point, I think your challenge should be to "name one world changing invention that came from someone who was not poor." There is a wide spectrum of economic status ranging from poor to wealthy - and there have been countless inventions by people who would not be considered poor.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

The inventor of the internet was a professor at Oxford University.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

Karl Marx came from a highly aristocratic family.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

thats like saying nissan invented the car.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

It's nothing like that, Karl Marx defined Communist Theory. Nissan did not define the car.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

The origins of communism are debatable, and there are various historical groups, as well as theorists, whose beliefs have been subsequently described as communist. German philosopher Karl Marx saw primitive communism as the original,

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

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

how could he have invented it, yet referred to previous versions of it?

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

He was the inventor, sorry definer, of modern communism. No single invention has been the work of one man, every invention so far has been built off of previous inventions.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

ok. my argument was not that wealthy people don't define anything. in fact wealthy people define parts of society with substantial regularity.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

I was just conceding that Karl Marx didn't invent communism.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

The iPod, iPad, Email, the list goes on.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Rags to Riches

try again

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

Do you have any idea how wealthy Steve Jobs was when he came up with the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad? Yes he was poor when he first started Apple but by that time he was worth billions.

[-] 2 points by GBWendorf (3) 2 years ago

Jobs biggest fault was not keeping Apple manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Apple has $76 billion in the bank. If Americans manufactured all its goods, Apple would have what, $55 billion in the bank, since manufacturing only accounts for about 30 percent of a product's cost. Jobs was a visionary of sorts, but he was no friend to America's working class.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

I'm not arguing that.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

poor when he first started Apple

in debate, it is wise to not make the case for the opposition.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Jobs wasn't poor when he first started Apple. He was adopted by a lower middle-class couple. He started the company in the garage of their house. Not poor.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

lower middle class is poor. i didn't say poverty, don't be ridicules.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I guess as long as you are taking such a liberal definition of 'poor' then it is hard to argue your point. I would think that most people interpret poor as being on the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder. Therefore, anyone considered to be "middle class" would not be poor. Though I did find it humorous that you accused me of being ridiculous.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

ok, i live in florida. making 40,000 annual net, just pays the bills. that doesn't include a car payment.

Income Scale

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

You are just below the "real median" income based on the link you included. I would hardly consider $40k a year poor.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

i still can't afford healthcare insurance, a car payment, or a down payment on a house. maybe the cost of living where you are makes 40 seem like a lot, here, it gets you buy.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I live in big east coast city - but doing a quick web search it shows that the Cost of Living is equitable to Fort Walton Beach (assuming that is where you live). But that is besides the point. There are a lot of people in this country that get by on much less than $40k. I can't speak to your situation, because I don't know what your expenses are. I think that we just have a disagreement on what the definition of poor is.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

you remind of those people that say only some should own their home, only some should be able to afford kids, it's ok to leave behind some people to be taken advantage of by deadbeat employers. they call that a Zero sum game or Nihilism.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

how many kids do you have? what do you expect to be able to provide for your children as they grow older? sure we can all continue to just "Get By". but i think what is being protested is the lack of opportunity to do much more than just get by.

"settle for nothing now, and we'll settle for nothing later, if we don't take action now, then we'll settle for nothing later."

or do you suggest we wait until we are all homeless before we complain? because we are in a downward spiral, not upward.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I don't know what you are ranting about or why you make all of these assumptions about what I think about who should have what. I was merely debating your initial statement. Let me refresh your memory : "Without the poor, you would be living in a cave. name one world changing invention that came from a wealthy person." Which was followed by your assertion that Steve Jobs was poor, and that lower middle class is poor. All of which are incorrect.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

since the word poor is largely subjective, i hardly see that you have made any case against my statement. i was simply commenting on what i see in your objection to my claim since you have done so with much vigor and no substance.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

I think you misunderstood my point. Steve Jobs was incredibly wealthy when he came up with the concepts for these products. Therefore at least one wealthy person has come up with a world changing invention. Not to mention poor people hardly ever have enough financial capital to come up with world changing inventions. Therefore your point holds no weight.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

and the sky is purple. you just can't see it because the longer wave lengths experience a higher rate of entropy.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

What's your point? That's completely irrelevant...

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

you wanted to take a point out of context to make an argument that has no foundation. i reciprocated.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

That point was redefining my earlier point therefore it has foundation. How long have you debated?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

an academic huh?

"Without the poor, you would be living in a cave." is the part you selectively dismiss.

so let us play on what portion of a point we want to debate, as you have done.


poor people hardly ever have enough

yes, that is why they are called poor.


when you are ready to debate the point in it's entirety, let me know.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

Well obviously without the poor we would be living in a cave, I don't think the inventor of the wheel and fire could be considered "wealthy" nobody could've been considered wealthy at that time. I was making the point that not every world changing invention has been invented by a poor person/

[-] 0 points by TheNewMovement (46) 2 years ago

fire was not "invented" it was discovered.

Or was there no fire before man?

And the same with the wheel unless things were not round before man, logs didn't roll, planetary bodies were not round and rocks didn't roll...

Also unless you can tell me who "invented" the wheel you cannot use it as a fact, because it very well could have been a leader of a group of Neanderthal that noticed things moved better when placed on a object that could roll while supporting weight and he would be considered wealthy if he had more then the rest of the tribe.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

Forgive me, the discoverer of fire.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Hobohemian (260) 2 years ago

Steve Jobs didn't invent any of that shit, except maybe some of his earliest stuff. He was an executive, he oversaw some design elements.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

They were all his ideas originally. I've read several biographies about him.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

so then - we need poor people to invent stuff. So why do you want to eliminate poverty? Where would we get all our inventions? poverty doesn't really exist anyway because they get govt subsidies. We have the richest poor people in the world by the way.

[-] 4 points by BLUTODOG (111) 2 years ago

Rodin whatever she takes is a pittance compared to what the 1% Welfare moochers are taking from the rest of us every day. Your buying into the Right wing screed about eaters and job creators etc. It's all BS, racist BS largely.

[-] 2 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

Race was never mentioned, you brought it up (as I expect from the left wing when there is no valid argument). You missed the point of the question; If you expect the weatlhy to pay more, then do you not think that those that take should have a limit?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Well, I say if people's actual wealth was fairly taxed, with a reasonable threshold before any taxation started, then we could look at welfare for the poor, which ultimately should cease.

However, before that happened, and after ACTUAL WEALTH was taxed, not just income, then all subsidies, tax breaks, loopholes and uber-welfare for the WEALTHY should cease FIRST before helping the poor is cut.

[-] 1 points by BLUTODOG (111) 2 years ago

It was certainly implied, liked Reagan's welfare Cadillac mime he loved telling. In answer to your question. Clinton ended Aid to Dep. Children as it was once done 15 yrs ago. Now these women /men need to have some kind of job to get welfare. Of course almost no jobs exist now, so millions are falling deeper and deeper into poverty.

[-] 0 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

I challenge you to show me where race was implied.

[-] 1 points by BLUTODOG (111) 2 years ago

Whatever. Your whole rant is demeaning and false. Like so many Conservatives your focus is backassward. The welfare problem is with the 1% and the Corps. they own and run.

[-] 0 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

Demeaning to who? False in what way? This one example is a true story, the costs are averages, but far from being false. You cannot deal with the fact that this is a question you just do not want to answer because you would have to take a side against this woman, that is unless you approve of this kind of behavior.

[-] 2 points by BLUTODOG (111) 2 years ago

What's your pt.? That this women and others like her are the problem with America today?I don't agree. It's a false equivalence dude. She and her kind don't do anywhere near the harm to society that a few thousand Corp. bankers and other Corp. criminals and their bought for shills in Congress do every day.

[-] 1 points by nkp (33) 2 years ago

the real crooks are in washington, most of wall street is honest

[-] 3 points by cusa (5) 2 years ago

As Rodin has stated people should be forced to live with the consequences of THEIR decisions. The corrupt corporations and banking institutions made choices to line their own pockets at the cost of the American way of life. They therefore should not only be held criminally liable, but should also be brought up on charges of treason against the United States. There are a little less than 313 million Americans currently living in the U.S., if the $700 billion dollars from the bailout had been handed over to the American citizens we would all be multi-billionaires. Now considering we were all multi-billionaires the economy would have been saved, everyone could keep their homes, the government could go on collecting taxes and the lady he mentions would no longer be on welfare. To further my point, there is currently less than 7 billion people in the world. So, if we dispersed to the entire population... end to hunger.... homelessness.... ETC.... BAM WORLD PEACE!!!!

[-] 5 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

Worse, if we took the 16 trillion dollars that the Fed gave to the bankers for free in one single year and spread it evenly among the 7 billion that would give each person $2286.

That is enough money to feed the entire planet's population for one year and still have spare change.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Yup and if you take the average combined Fed and State and Local tax contribution for the year: it's enough to feed, house, and cloth a family of four in the US.

[-] 1 points by BLUTODOG (111) 2 years ago

"People should be forced to live with the consequences of THEIR decisions." Rodin and others like him only believe that should be the rule for the 99%. The 1% in their worldview are above the law. They are the holy job creators like Gods they cannot be held to the constraints of mere mortals. These folks are royalists , they believe in an elite aristocracy have the divine right to rule.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Your math doesn't work.... the TARP money itself divided, 760 billion, wouldn't make every American citizen a millionaire. Not even close.

[-] 2 points by TheNewMovement (46) 2 years ago

$780,000,000,000 / $350,000,000 = $2228.57 ( rounded )

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

That's what I came up with many moons ago with another basic math failure told me nearly the same thing.

[-] 1 points by randart (498) 2 years ago

I agree. I am a self proclaimed liberal progressive but I think people who have more than two children should not get any special breaks. Child credit for up to two children, no credit for the third, and a penalty for the fourth or more.

There is actually a TV program called something like 19 and counting. These people are about to have their 20th kid. This is so wrong in my own opinion. The media portrays this as something cool to report on but I find it obscene.

[-] 1 points by thepistolet (28) 2 years ago

Why are so many men on this thread criticizing this woman for "spreading her legs" without also criticizing the man (or men) who are not supporting these children financially or otherwise. Behind every "welfare queen" is at least one man (maybe we should call him a queenmaker) who also failed to practice safe sex and who did not and will not take responsibility for the human lives he helped to create.

[-] 0 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

Because in the end it is the womans decision.

[-] 1 points by thepistolet (28) 2 years ago

What is?

[-] 1 points by nolongerasleep (57) from Cleveland, OH 2 years ago

If a company cannot compete, let it fail. If an individual cannot compete, let them fail. Personal accountability. Once they have failed, give them a chance for success if they WORK for it.

For individuals this means training and basic unemployment insurance funded through taxation.

For companies this means deferred payments for obligations to restructure. When I say restructure I mean there should be salary caps, and limits on executive bonuses until they are out of bankruptcy and their obligations are up to date.

[-] 1 points by FriendIyobserver (-28) 2 years ago

You are either with us or against us. She is entitled to any welfare or food stamps she receives she is a mother of many. That family of 4 are probably capitilatic pigs. Follow me and I will promsie the perfect future.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

Who is the leach; the woman or her children? Do you know how much money it costs to house a prisoner for a year? How about a suspected "terrorist" in guantanamo bay? Why aren't you more concerned about that than some poor children getting basic access to subsistence?

[-] 0 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

You fail to comprehend the question.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

No I just didn't care. Boohoo I don't wanna pay for children. Pussy.

[-] 0 points by TheNewMovement (46) 2 years ago

Well the mom should close her damn legs don't have a little bastard unless you can take care of it so suck it up if the little fucker dies it's the parents fault... pussy, man up and take responsability of your choices.

And you're right we should just shoot the terrorist and not waste money on holding them same with inmates that are in for real crimes, fry the bastards.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

Whatever, dickhead.

[-] 1 points by sato (148) 2 years ago

Imo all government welfare should be limited by time. 2 years help to get your feet on the ground but no more. The struggling class isn't the poor or the rich but the middle class. The middle class is the engine of our economy and the one that gets bent every single time.

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 2 years ago

We can get rid of welfare, improve the economy, and create a bigger middle class if people had access to equal education (let parents send their kids to any school of their choice) and interest free loans. (An interest free loan, by the way is the highest form of charity. Welfare is one of the worst things we can do for that woman and her 15 children). If you treat people like dirt they will act like it.

[-] 1 points by julianzs (147) 2 years ago

A woman who was denied food-stamps shot her 2 children and herself. Surely, there must be a place for this in our conception of humanity.

[-] 1 points by zymergy (236) 2 years ago

Fairness is indeed way too subjective to complain about, but from the question of taxation, a National Transaction Tax would treat all people and all sides of the economy equally - unless Congress would decide to exempt some transactions or some people from the tax liability. A short description of one form of a Transaction Tax is available at FactCheck.org http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/1-transaction-tax/

The unequal distribution of common resources that is at the heart of Rodin's topic above has always been a thorny problem for societies. But, within today alone, there were a lot of OWS Forum contributors who were willing to talk about it

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

I would argue that the human psyche is set up in a similar fashion to a 'pack mentality'.

I would argue that within each indivdual is a desire to be a contributing member of the community, and, to be recognised and appreciated for that contribution.

I would argue that profit, has surplanted conciously, these sub-concious desires/needs, and, as a direct result, many people who would normally be a contributor, don't, because they see their contribution as being unappreciated, unrecognised and of no value to the community, or, that they and the community differ on the defintion of contribution, so as to again work against that instinctive human desire.

I would ask, what led to the situation that you describe above? What occured in this womans life, that she would lead it that way? At what point did she 'give up', and become a 'taker'? And, much more relevant, could a system be set up, that would ensure such situations, simply never arise...and what would that system look like?

Could we, using the latest advances in psychology, anthropology, social sciences, and other related wisdoms, to create something, where that woman, would be almost 'forced', through appreciation and recognition, to be all that she can be. Afterall, whatever her circumstances, or whatever anothers circumstances are, there IS something that they can acheive/produce/create.

To simply cut these people off from society further, will only deepen the problem, and not lead to a better place, for anyone. To understand the underlying causes and reasons, to understand the human nature that led to the sad events and situations you describe, could lead to something profound.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

Excellent Post - Probably the best on this site !!!!

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@ Rodin......Your so full of shit, are you saying the state of Florida is paying $10,000 a year per child! and the State is charging the school system for her kids to go to public school.

Your an out right LIAR.

[-] 0 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/2009/07/how-much-do-we-really-spend-per-student-in-florida.html AS I stated, it is an average. You should learn to read and comprehend (as well as learn to research before letting words fly out of your ass).

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@ Rodin.........Your a fool, the State doesn't charge the school system, that the cost of the upkeep, pay, etc. they would pay that no matter if this imaginary woman with 15 children was on welfare or not.

Its mandatory for children to go to school.

What about the $10,000 a year per child, I didn't see your fat ass backing that one up.

[-] 0 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

That is what it costs the state per child for a years worth of education. I guess you never took an econ class or even understand the true cost of anything. It Costs over 10k per year per child to educate them. Again, you just cannot comprehend, or research. Here is the person in question http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavou_SEj1E

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@Rodin....Education is mandatory...The children would go not matter what the case. Are you say you need to be an economist to know when someone is full of shit.

[-] 0 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

Yes it is mandatory, but 15 kids and on public assistance plus the statement "someones gotta pay for this" indicates that this person is taking more than her fair share, don't you think?

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

Rodin....No....................................How would this Imaginary person be taking more than her share? Public assistants is just that, help for the needy, what would you propose.

We all know there is no free lunch, are you just finding out.

School is mandatory, so how did you come up with $10,000 per child.

[-] 0 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

Not imaginary. See link in earlier post. Figure from Tampa tribune. See link earlier post.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@Rodin...You didn't answer my reply. It makes no difference to me if she is a real person.

[-] 0 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

Public "assistance" is temporary, she is seeking public financing of her life. Have a kid...get a check. I will assume that you are still young and naive and just recently took down the unicorn and rainbow pictures off the walls of your bedroom, so let me ask you this; why do you demand more form those that pay in and expect nothing from those that only take?

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@Rodin....Just what is it you expect?

[-] 1 points by CatLady2 (248) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Absolutely.. I watched the video last week. This woman is out of her mind on so many levels and the state she lives in is out of thier minds to continue funding her. In what world is it ok to continue to have child after child after child and not be able to feed and clothe and shelter them. That is the parents role, not the state or governments role.
It's a vicious cycle that will be repeated by her children because it all they know. She is an irresponsible woman, plain and simple.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You tube isn't news. With some effort I finally found a source which wasn't a right wing blog.

Without your source, and I must admit you have never told me the truth before, so I am disinclined to respond to a hypothetical story or urban legend.

Abuses of government or citizens by citizens, corporations and politicians are not to be condoned.

The response to abuses should be proportional, in indignation, to the scale of the abuse. Cherry picking the cases to justify ranting serves little purpose. Investigating and prosecuting lawbreakers is a beginning.

But correcting the abuse of citizens by a government corrupted by special interests to legalize practices that should be prosecuted, affects so many more people that it deserves priority.

The blogs were ranting and ranting about this terrible person. What I didn't find was a consistent concern for why the adults involved hadn't used birth control. And and why the advocates of restricting access to birth control have so little interest in how the children resulting from the failure to use birth control are to be supported and cared for. The children are the victims in such a case. Who us looking out for them? The bloggers don't seem to have much interest in them.

But you, how can you be so concerned by this "case" and unconcerned with the corruption of the banks, mortgage originators, rating firms, appraisers, and hedge funds? They have ruined millions of lives, taking away half of the value of the residential real estate in this country and the retirements, and college educations, and business of so many.

Where is the proportionality in that?

[-] 0 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

With regards to the point of question, if you think the wealthy do not "pay their fair share" and should pay until it hurts, what do you say about those that do nothing but take from those who are being forced to give more? Where is the parity?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Ignoring the rest of my example of the impact of the corruption of the financial community on this country and the rest of the world where they sold worthless paper, as you have done, and we know how and the extent that they are ripping us off, lets say that, ignoring the details of how the woman came to be in that circumstance, what would you say is the appropriate punishment for the crooks in the financial world, the woman, the father's and, of course the children?

Let me guess, you are a big fan of enhanced interrogation, right? (You didn't happen to notice that she is black woman and not really a leach, did you?) Hmmmm.. So, show me the parity, if you won't go for proportionality. I have some idea of the net harm the woman has done to me and I have a clear picture of what the other guys have done to me, so here is your chance to demonstrate your version of fairness, parity and proportionality. 1,2,3, GO!

[-] 0 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

Again, you are deflecting the question because you know it is a valid question and it is simple to answer. If you are going to say one group does not give their "fair share" then why not say another group should not be able to TAKE more than their "fair share". You van harp all you want about the 1%, but that is not what the question was about. Let me see if I can make this simple for you. Should there be a limit as to how much someone can recieve and then become responsible for the choices THEY made?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Just because a question can be asked doesn't mean it is the right question.

Simplicity is also not always correct or the best answer. Einstein said, "Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler." I have tried to inform you rather than give you a simplistic answer that leaves you in ignorance. It is your choice not to accept it. Willful ignorance is still ignorance.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

How is it fair to people who do not procreate and have nothing but contempt and loathing, for expensive and ineffective disgraces of education systems, of which they pay for yet cannot churn out able and capable self-starting graduates to even keep productive machines rolling?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Money is relative

Wheat has gone from $4 to $25 on Speculation alone! Stop Goldman Sachs from ripping off the world!!

Posted 23 hours ago on Dec. 9, 2011, 2:40 p.m. EST by fucorporatemedia This content is user submitted and not an official statement

from 2005 to 2008, the worldwide price of food rose 80 percent — and has kept rising.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/wheat-has-gone-from-4-to-25-on-speculation-alone-s/

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

How is this fair to a family of 4 who pays into the system and does not recieve receive -your typo, not mine the same amount back?

You answer your own question: the system is not fair. it is fixed to favor a few at the top. It ain't doing much for anyone else.

[-] 0 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

You missed the point of the question; If you expect the people at the top to pay more, shouldn't the people who are taking have a limit? Thanks for the correction, spelling nazi

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

No, I got the point of the question. You missed my point. What's wrong with the system that produces these results? Is the system perfect in your opinion and therefore we should never challenge anyone's authority who tells us it works fine. It is obviously not working for millions of people. That is a fact. I understand all the culpable arguments damning those who don't take personal responsibility and better lie in the bed they made.

But the people are tired of hearing such nonsense. We are not satisfied with the status quo. The status quo is broken and it's time for some reforming, or maybe even some transforming, of the rules we play by. Cause the current rules ain't working.

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a Communist."~Hélder Câmara

[-] 1 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

Who says that what this mother is doing is unfair? I just love how you play judge, jury, and executioner.

Your solution would be to throw them all out on the street, out of sight and mind, so that they will die of starvation or lack of medical care. It’s all about punishing the children for the mother’s choices. The sentence? Death to the children. How cruel and inhumane.

[-] 0 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

So she gets to suck the treasury dry (maybe she should have done sucking instead of spreading). I find it intersting that you deel it is unfair for someone to keep what they earned, yet totally fair that someone just takes and takes without any contribution.

[-] 1 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

Again you play judge, jury, and executioner. You disregard the needs of the children and infer that the children should be left to die, or they can learn to eat out of garbage cans and hopefully never get a serious illness. That is the best you can suggest.

You have nothing specific to demonstrate the facts of why the mother should be denied help. There is no cause other than your claim that “…she gets to suck the treasury dry…” I guarantee you that with the banks getting over 16 trillion in free money that it is orders of magnitude more significant than the pennies that have gone to pay for the annual cost of all our social programs.

Further, you are unable to prove that the mother is unfit. If she were unfit then you would be on the phone calling the police and/or social services to protect the children (I assume); for which case social services would take away the children.

You cannot prove there is no disability that may limit the mother’s life choices, you are obviously bitter just like the 1% want, you obviously have the most inhumane desires in your heart aimed at the innocent, and you are filled with hatred for the mother. Your implication that the mother and children should be left to die is simply what you've been told to think and believe by the 1%.

If you are worried about the treasury being sucked dry then try demanding justice in relation to the 1%. For example, they can stop outsourcing/off-shoring jobs. The 1% can stop using the Internet to employ offshore workers who do not pay taxes, social security, local taxes, Medicare, and more into the system. Yet the offshore workers get all of the benefits of employment with corporate America. Who pays for the roads that these corporations have? It is the taxpayers on American soil not the workers from all over the world who are doing the jobs of accountants, software developers, human resources, and much more. We are in a changed world.

What happens to the unemployed? They must be retrained at considerable costs. With the cost of education, it is simply too precious of a resource to waste. When a person earns a degree they expect a lifetime earnings of 1-5 million dollars. That is a real return on the investment. Currently, corporations have developed a complex business models designed to cut the educational return on the investment, anywhere from $50,000 to $150,000, to a return that is only $500K over the lifetime of the individual. After that it becomes necessary to spend another $50K or whatever to retrain with no realistic expectation for a reasonable return on investment. There are of course some exceptions and those jobs are classified as mission critical positions. All other jobs are targeted to be off-shored.

You present the appearance of worrying about freeloading, but then you ignore corporate welfare, the tax shelters of the 1%, and you ignore the legislation enacted by Senator Hatch and former Senator Gramm that is allowing Capitalism to be used as a weapon to starve and murder the innocent.

You ignore the 16 trillion in cash that was transferred onto the balance sheets of the 1% for free (and not repaid), you ignore the harm to your neighbor who finds their $100K job sent offshore via the Internet, you ignore the fact that such individuals find themselves working minimum wage jobs with no benefits, then you complain and want to murder by starvation and withholding of medical care those that have their careers sent offshore, and finally you complain that the treasury is having a cash flow problem.

Cry me a river.

You know nothing of hardship, suffering, compassion, and mercy.

[-] 0 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

"You know nothing of hardship, suffering, compassion, and mercy". You have not idea where I come from. You do not know my background. I know far more than you can ever imagine, the difference is I changed my direction, made better choices and DID NOT DEMAND THAT OTHERS TAKE CARE OF ME. You live in a fantasy world and one day life is going to smack you in the face with the reality that there are those in society that will be nothing more than leaches who will teach their off-spring how to carry on the leaching tradition. Wise up, or you will wallow in self pity because you never learned to be responsible for your own actions.

[-] 1 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

People like Rodin are a dime-a-dozen. They like to blame-the-victim for their situation. They are what I call the deceived elect; they only listen to the lies of the 1% and refuse to do a reality check. Rodin also proves ignorance by writing, “…..there are those in society that will be nothing more than leaches who will teach their off-spring how to carry on the leaching tradition….” This of course is not possible in the original case presented by Rodin. Current law does not permit a healthy mother to live on welfare indefinitely. They have a five year lifetime limit. That law was passed during the Clinton administration. Guess they will not be sucking the treasury dry after all. What you claim is fact is actually propaganda. It is part of “The Big Lie” told by the 1% .

Here is a URL that explains the real facts regarding TANF and the five year limit:

http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/welfare.shtml

I know it is hard reading for you, but at least try. You might learn something.

And so your argument gets nuked by my utilization of what I define to be the “categorical order of the sphere of truth.” Your lies know no bounds. The facts that I have presented shine light on your darkness. Thus the darkness of your lies vanishes.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13628) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

rodin would divide the public based on stereotype, and class.

who can say what circumstances led the woman of his example to where she is? the real question is, how can society better serve both her own needs, and ours?

[-] 3 points by CurveOfBindingEnergy (165) 2 years ago

It's a TROLL, a bullshit example that does not exist in the real world.

[-] 1 points by tomcat68 (298) 2 years ago

what reality do you live in?

what led her there is screwing to pop out kids to increase her welfare check.

I grew up in LA and know the system inside and out..

quit being such a pussey, the guy is just pointing out the Largest drain on our system. not allowed to visit reality? no wonder OWS is a failure

and the answer to your "real question" is: a "family cap"

[-] 2 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

While a few cents goes to the occasionally mentally "challenged" parent, most of "welfare" goes to keep poor, elderly dementia patients in nursing homes. And that is chicken feed compared to the tax money that goes out in corporate welfare. Oil companies, for example, are the most profitable enterprises in the world. By no rational standard do they need tax subsidies, and those cost us taxpayer a lot!

But those aren't as much fun to talk about....

[-] 1 points by tomcat68 (298) 2 years ago

well, maybe so.

I know one woman in particular who has spent her whole life drawing welfare checks,had 7 kids then kept those kids kids in her home at different times in order to keep that welfare money coming.

she is one in millions and over 60 years drawing an average of 25K a year in cash and food stamps, medical not included, is 1.5 mil for her ass alone.

again, she is one of millions.

the issue I think he was TRYING to discuss before the liberals twisted and turned it, was... what to do about THAT drain on our system.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

To do something about that, we could have good sex ed plus free birth control, as they do in several other countries. We could have better mental health outreach to all ages, starting with children. We could have a couple of years of pre-kindergarten, which research shows produces better employment success life-long. This country has higher rates of pregnancy by the too-young than almost any other industrialized nation, so we could easily look and see what works.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

This drain pales in comparison to what is being handed out to those at the top, or allowed to be lost without accountability. And is pales by a long shot.

Super-welfare for the uber-wealthy is no joke.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13628) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

and the answer to your "real question" is: a "family cap"

that sounds suspiciously like eugenics - an underlying philosophy behind one of the most infamous crimes against humanity this earth has ever witnessed.

Do I look like a pussy to you?

. . . . and it's clickable . . .

If bleed we must then bleed we shall,

and upon their heads will rest that stain.

May that thread that permeates the universe

and binds us together in peace and in love

guide and protect all, and let us take great pride:

we are a secular nation. We are a progressive nation.

. . . . . . . . . We are not afraid. . . . . . . . . .

-

-

z

[-] 1 points by tomcat68 (298) 2 years ago

i suppose from a story book prespective it could very well be interpeted as eugenics.

from a Real World point of view and Understanding Exactly what these women do to "get more money" I'd have to ask You to pay for it, not the American workforce.

maybe we can work that out. and Sure, then they can shit out as many welfare bonuses as they desire

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

welfare bonuses. are you talking about wall street?

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I think I heard Obahma spoke about saving the middle class

never mend the lower class

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

Agree.

Maybe that woman is Catholic and has been brainwashed by her Church into thinking that BIRTH CONTROL IS A SIN and that abortion is murder.

For people who have never been taught to think for themselves, dogmatic religion can have calamitous consequences in their inner and outer lives.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Do a quick search, religions that believe they must have the largest standing army to win on judgment day, should be lobotomized.

The catholic church wants catholics IN INDIA FOR CHRIST's FAWKING SAKE, to procreate more.

[-] 2 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

As I wrote earlier, the Catholic obsession with procreation seems to derive from a VERY ANCIENT TEXT:

"Be fruitful and multiply", commands God to Adam and Eve in Genesis. That kind of command probably made sense THEN, when the Jewish people NEEDED to become more numerous just to survive in a hostile environment.

However, it no longer makes any sense NOW that the planet has become overpopulated.

But the Catholic Church and its "infallible" Pope apparently DON'T GET IT... :(

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

well, that and having kids was the only way to survive in your old age back then :P

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

noted

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13628) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

there are over seven billion people on the planet

we have been fruitful

we have multiplied

we have multiplied

like fruitflies . . . .

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

"Be fruitful and multiply", commands God to Adam and Eve in Genesis.

That kind of command probably made sense THEN, when the Jewish people NEEDED to become more numerous just to survive.

But it no longer makes any sense NOW that the planet has become overpopulated.

But the Catholic Church and its "infallible" Pope apparently DON'T GET IT... :(

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13628) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

no, they don't - but that's alright. I think I saw something recently from the Pope indicating support for economic reform.

Lets not bash the faith too hard, shall we?

[-] 1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

I'm NOT blindly "bashing" the Catholic Church. The Pope did indeed recently issue a good document on Social Justice, for which I COMMENDED HIM on this very forum.

I just happen to think that on issues such as BIRTH CONTROL - and sexuality in general, may I add - they've got it all wrong and are actually promoting teachings that ADD TO THE SUFFERING in this world. For that, I cannot stand by and remain silent.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13628) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I share your opinion - but in this country at least, people have options. Separating themselves from the radical right will not be easy. So long as they exhibit a willingness to contemplate reason, I am not willing to push them too hard.

It is difficult for them - I would embrace them with patience, as brothers and sisters, committed to world peace.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

IMO we need to educate ourselves and then educate others. Religious hypocrisy of the leaders and religious ignorance of the people constitute MAJOR PROBLEMS in our country and OWS cannot afford to ignore that crucial dimension which impacts all the rest!

YES, ZenDog, people do need to be embraced with love and patience, but we also need to enlighten them on the hypocrisy of the "Irreligious Right" which cries out "Lord, Lord!" but completely ignores the teachings of Jesus on Social Justice. When was the last time we heard a right-wing preacher quote Jesus's words, "Woe unto the rich!" When was the last time they brought up the cleansing of the Temple, where Jesus swung a WHIP at the greedy money changers, who were the equivalent of the Wall Street criminals of today?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13628) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I was not aware that issues of religion are a particular focus of the Occupy Movement

[-] 1 points by WarmItUp (301) 2 years ago

Religious corruption is not exempt from scrutiny by OWS. When you have Mormons giving many millions alongside Catholics to get the prop 8 anti-gay referendum passed, then yes you do have to wonder how much money are religious corporations (they are technically corporations) giving to politicians to push through policy that help their agenda. In a real democracy those with the most money shouldn't have anymore access to our congress than the average american. So just because you use the cloak of religion doesn't mean you are not just as corrupt. Any organization who trys to use their millions to interfere in true democracy should be in jail, religious leaders need to obey the laws of the land as the bible tells them to. Jews by far give the most money to lobby congress with catholics and mormons following close behind. So yes if a politician wants money from jews, mormons, catholics and evangelicals they creat advertisements like the anti-gay pro religion ad that perry just put out. Why would someone play up sucha devisive issue as religion during a time when our country needs to really come together. I am so sick of divisive politics. we are all human. We have that in common.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

Issues of religion are NOT a particular focus of the Occupy Movement and I never suggested that they were.

What I AM suggesting is that those supporters of OWS who feel so inclined SHOULD study the religious dimension of the "dumbing-down" of America, as it has an ENORMOUS impact on voting patterns in this country. The RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT of tens of millions of Christians in this country is being SLYLY MANIPULATED by complete hypocrites of the "Irreligious Right". And usually, this has distorted election results in favor of the "Repelicans".

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13628) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

given the current economic instability I am confident this will change

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

I love when people demonstrate how out of touch they are to blame our current economic problems on welfare moms. While I don't usually advocate what those welfare moms are doing, this has been the most frequently used tactic of taking peoples' eyes off of the lawmakers, bankers, and lobbyists that collapsed the economy.

Notice how he doesn't mention wealthy people that have many kids (Michele Bachmann claims 28) and suckle as much as they can off the system?? That's how you know he's full of shit.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Foster parents get paid to foster kids...at least the ones who have kids in the foster care system...the kids get medical, clothing allowance, and if they desire to participate in sports, social services will find the funding to pay for that too.

Foster care has been used as a income source for many families, some few do it out of love for children.

I know these things to be true, I was a foster parent, both for the state and voluntarily. Some might say I was a foolish foster parent, I never made an extra dime. Allowances, clothing that was not purchased with the clothing allowance given the kids, extra shoes, sigh...I don't praise Ms. Bachmann for fostering children, it's nothing thousands of others haven't done.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

Is there a legal distinction between "fostering" and "adoption"?? For instance, did you need to legally adopt the kids you fostered??

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Yes there is a distinction between fostering and adoption. A rather large one as a matter of fact. Adopting makes the 'parent' legally responsible for the child, they must provide all the needs of the child as a natural parent would provide for the child.

Foster parents are 'temporary' parents, although sometimes temporary isn't so temporary...

Foster parents provide housing, guidance, supervision to children who for whatever reason, have become wards of the state. The foster parent is not solely responsible for the child, medical needs are paid for by the state, clothing allowances are granted by the state, food allowances are supplied by the state, and foster parents are paid for the previously mentioned items, shelter, guidance, supervision, and hopefully love.

So in answer to your second question, no I did not need to legally adopt the kids I fostered. I received $500 per month per child...I was not required to spend this on the child, but I did, allowance, extras, you know, the stuff that makes being a kid good.

[-] 1 points by poopsmith (-3) 2 years ago

The bachmens are wealthy and contribute to the system, plus they are not her biological kids, they are cast offs that would most likely become a detriment to society.

[-] 3 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

Bachmens still got paid by the "state" for the foster care. If they were wealthy and believed in what they preached, they would pay it all back with interest.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

"The bachmens are wealthy and contribute to the system"

how?

[-] 1 points by Steve15 (385) 2 years ago

Nobody is favorable to those who abuse the system. The question is how to prevent that from happening. OWS asks the very same question.

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 2 years ago

Rodin ask a natural question, an appropriate question. Moreover, his question suggest a more fundamental question: does this Florida woman have the right, natural and/or constitutional, to procreate up to 15 children? Apparently, yes. Please respond.

[-] 1 points by poopsmith (-3) 2 years ago

She has the right to do as she pleases, no doubt, but my question would be "at what point does society no longer have a responsibility to provide assistance"?

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 2 years ago

Yes, indeed. Your response seems to be very similar to my concern that, at some number of children, her pursuit of happiness encroaches on the pursuit of happiness of others. Stated differently, her joys (or her problems) become the problems of others.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17965) 2 years ago

What would you do?

Ship her and her "brood" to China?

[-] 0 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

You are not answering the question, when does someone "take more than their fair share"? It does work both ways

[-] 1 points by shooz (17965) 2 years ago

You're the one comparing one person to everyone on welfare.

The question is unfair to begin with.

My question is a request for clarification.

[-] 1 points by poopsmith (-3) 2 years ago

I do no think it is a blanket comparison, I did not read that into the question. I think it is reasonable to ask that if your are going to demand a '"fair share" from one group, then you should demand a limit, "fair share" on those who take.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17965) 2 years ago

Still no clarification?

The response is very broad and the case is specific.

Considering the low level of family planing, in communities and schools, coupled with a fear of sex education, the question asked is vague.

[-] 1 points by poopsmith (-3) 2 years ago

How can you say this question is vague? Perhaps the OP should have phrased it like this; do you think the 1% pay their "fair share" of taxes? Assuming your answer would be "no", then a follow up question could be; define "fair share". Perhaps followed by the question of; are there people who "take more than their fair share"? The only thing that is vague is the definition of what OWS deems to be "fair share". As far as what I would do, I would take all the kids, make them a waed of the state, forcibly sterilize the woman and leave her penniless. I think at that point the kids might have a chance to make something of themselves.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17965) 2 years ago

Thanks. now I understand the anal fixation explicit in your username.

You would be much happier sculpting you own excrement, crazy, but happy.

So, in your case, you could be 100% sure of your road to happiness.

[-] 0 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

A personal attack and no answer to the question. Face it, it is a reasonable question but you cannot bring yourself to admit that there are those that do take and will continue to do so with impunity because they can. You would just assume bankrupt everyone to achieve equality.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17965) 2 years ago

There was no real question, because it was based on one case, with no details given, only supposition.

Besides, I didn't pick that name.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

and that is somehow worse than millionaire bankers getting welfare? not so their children can eat, but so that their children can have iphones?

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Honestly yes. At least the millionaires contribute something.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

their work has contributed to the decline of this country. they did this on purpose to enrich themselves. and then we paid them welfare for the favor . that's not worse? to be rich and leach off the system is not worse than to be poor and leach off the system?

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

The fallacy of your reasoning is that if they did it one purpose the they would eventually lose the system that has made them so much money and the promise of more money.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

yes, your beginning to see. they are corrupt. 'they' are just private citizens leaching off the system for personal gain. they are the ones that should be fixed.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

God you're thick. Why would they deliberately destroy the system? Do you know what a fallacy is?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

they would do so for greed. they are doing so. just for money. thats why they would do that. its a fallacy to believe corrupt people would do anything for the benefit of the system when doing so would reduce their personal benefit

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Why would they destroy a system that would continue to make them money if they kept it somewhat healthy?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

for money, for personal gain, they do not care about the system beyond what use it is for that purpose. they only want to make more money.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Yes and if they destroy the system they CANNOT do that

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

yes they can..they can maintain this for at least the next 30 yrs..- after that they dont care , the system is destroyed everyone goes broke the country is destroyed and none of the guilty are around to answer for it. so they do not care that they destroy the system. they are dead by then.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Where the hell do you get this information? Conspiraciesr'us or what?

[-] 0 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

You are not answering the question, when does someone "take more than their fair share"? It does work both ways

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 2 years ago

Rodin...don't expect an answer, because there is no answer in the minds of those who support such things as "social justice" and "fair share"

The real answer is when everyone is equal in their misery, when the least common denominator of human existence becomes the rule.....or when everyone is dead from lack and starvation due to a system that pretends you can consume more than you produce, because they wish it to be.....

The answers will always be directed to your question/assertion being unfair, uncaring, unkind, etc....they ignore the bottom line, because the bottom line destroys the validity of their abstraction...

[-] -1 points by necropaulis (491) 2 years ago

Even broke people have iPhones now....

And yes, that is worse. You help the bankers by buying their products. With money you made working(i hope).People abusing welfare are the ones who are stealing off the top. Not the bankers who go to work everyday. I don't care if they sit in their office, working their faces off, or have a midday golf session to get a new investor, they go to work.

The ones sucking on the government tit, on the other hand-the abusers, not the ones who take it when they need it and then get out- have no intention of working. They puke out babies to get more money, while raising ignorant bastard who will usually grow up to do the same thing. I personally know people like this. They are the ones you should be mad at. They gladly take your money and laugh while they get big screen TVs, lobster, and steak, while you sit in a shitty apartment staring at you 15 in, eating Ramen noodles.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

i know people too

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 2 years ago

Then gestopo(sweet moniker), you know what I'm talking about. These are the people making us weaker. They take up space, because they think they are entitled to it. At least the rich provide something more than nothing/ignorant loud mouthed bastards. And the rich feed off the country buy selling services, thereby HELPING society. These(baby factories) people are common leeches

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

foreclosures for everybody else... While the billionaires steal our tax dollars... Fair share...4 sure...

"The banks have said, leave us deregulated, we know how to run things, don't put government in to meddle. Then with that freedom of maneuver they took huge gambles, and even made illegal actions, and then broke the world system. As soon as that happened then they rushed out to say 'bail us out, bail us out, if you don't bail us out, we're too big to fail, you have to save us'. As soon as that happened, they said 'oh, don't regulate us, we know what to do'. And they almost went back to their old story, and the public is standing there, amazed, because we just bailed you out how can you be paying yourself billions of dollars of bonuses again? And the bankers say, 'well we deserve it, what's your problem'? And the problem that the Occupy Wall Street and other protesters have is: you don't deserve it, you nearly broke the system, you gamed the economy, you're paying mega fines, yet you're still in the White House you're going to the state dinners, you're paying yourself huge bonuses, what kind of system is this?

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2011/12/2011121074125944352.html

[-] 0 points by barb (835) 2 years ago

Women in the welfare system should not be allowed to get pregnant again while they are in the system and appropriate measures should be taken so she doesn't become pregnant. I too, know of a few woman that purposely became pregnant again so they could continue receiving benefits. To me, it is selfish on the woman's part and her children are learning from her example which is not good for society at all.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Gasp, you're (not your) not suggesting a heavy handed government, out of control and intruding into the individual freedom of someone who isn't gay,are you?

How can we do that while keeping the morning after pill off the market, closing all of the Planned Parenthood facilities, and preventing sex education from reaching the ears of children in high school?

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 2 years ago

What other answer would solve it. We should not keep the morning pill off the market, we should not close planned parenthood facilities and should provide sex education.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I agree with you. Blaming the people who are poor, who don't have access to the means to break the cycle, is cruel. Being poor and having too many kids isn't a coincidence. They always go together.

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3e41prVDv4

Here is the news clip of Ms. Angel Adams and 12 of her 15 kids. Three others were taken from her. She may be pregnant with number 16.

[-] -1 points by fandango (241) 2 years ago

welfare reform.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

Sure, I'd be glad to discuss corporate welfare. It should be reformed, and it is where the big money is.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 2 years ago

tell me an example of "corporate welfare" where a corporation receives funds from the government and produces nothing, and only consumes the production of others? Do you have one, or are you another talking point moron?

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

Oil companies produce, but they get special subsidies that they don't need, because they are the most profitable companies in the world already. It is a huge drain on our tax payments, and it is unnecessary by any rational standard.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 2 years ago

a huge drain? really.....they pay more in taxes than they receive in subsidy...you do know that right, it is only 5-7 billion dollars that is spent on Oil subsidy, and much of that is tax credits, and subsidies to smaller companies....

They produce many times more in contribution to the system than they are given in subsidy....tell me again how you can compare that to the social welfare system that pays for inactivity, and sends most of the money distributed, out of the country to the makers of the inexpensive disposable products, purchased by those receiving the benefits...you don't think they are buying high quality american made products, do you?,

and.........the social welfare portion of national expediters is 60+ percent of the budget, or in excess of 2.2 trillion dollars...you still want to attempt to compare the two? really?

[-] 0 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

This is not about corporate welfare. The claim is the 1% (private citizens)do not "pay their fair share", what do you do about those (private citizens) that do nothing but "take more than their fair share"?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

you see what we did.. the banks and the politicians took more than their fair share and we paid them welfare when they lost it. we should look at it any differently for 'private citizens'?

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 2 years ago

are you calling T.A.R.P. "welfare"? it was a loan, for which more has been collected than was distributed....so..how is THAT welfare?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

besides particulars.. you can see my point

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 2 years ago

no, I don't see your point, and saying something is "welfare" when it is actually a loan obligation is beyond "particulars"

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

There are very few who are not: the elderly poor with dementia in nursing homes (most of "welfare" goes for them), the mentally ill, the physically disabled due to illness, injury, or defect at birth, etc.

Little known fact: lack of initiative (aka laziness) is one of the serious and misunderstood symptoms of some forms of mental illness. While there are people who are lazy, they usually grow out of it. Many, though, have undiagnosed &/or untreated mental disorders.

The ones who can take care of themselves, and don't, are such a small number that I have more important things to worry about. My taxes going to subsidize oil companies that make record profits - now that costs me!

[-] 0 points by Rodin (29) 2 years ago

Will you cut it off? at what point should she be 100% responsible for the choices she made and why should society be responsible for irresponsible behaviour?

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

No I think aid is a good thing. Its just when people sit on it and roll in it that it is wrong. Help people when they need, as long as they need it, and not a second more.

[-] 0 points by fandango (241) 2 years ago

her kids could be taken from her , then they really be wards of the state and provided for, maybe even adopted by people who can take care of them. then SHE would not receive money for irresponsible behavior.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

to pay her to keep the kids cost maybe 20k.. to put 15 kids into the system cost maybe 250k. do the math

[-] 0 points by fandango (241) 2 years ago

20k? over how long a period of time?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

per year if she also gets rent paid. a single kid in the system cost maybe 100k per year.

[-] 0 points by fandango (241) 2 years ago

20k per child , per year? better to be "in the system " than with a mother in name only.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

not per kid for the whole lot of them.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

You are behind the times. Most of "welfare" is old people with dementia in nursing homes after they've run out of money and the house has been sold to pay for it. The "reform" some states are using is to pass debt down to their descendents.

[-] 0 points by fandango (241) 2 years ago

the story is about the lady and the kids she keeps having and can't afford. people DO have kids to get money from the govt.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

That's the story, not the reality of where most of the money goes - it is a tiny fraction. In the meantime, oil companies which are the most profitable in the world are getting corporate welfare. And that costs us! It really costs us.

[-] 0 points by fandango (241) 2 years ago

those oil companies also pay taxes. Look into G. E.( formely run by Immelt, friend of 0bama) that paid NO taxes.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

We should get about $4.4 billion more from the oil companies, and we should get GE paying their share as well.

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

Profitable by % or just by the amount of money that is the profit?

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

~ $56 Billion gross profit, annual, as of Sept. 2011

I don't have the percentage.

Please don't tell me you think the percentage is low so we should give them subsidies.

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

Is that $$ amount you posted the gross profit for one company? If yes, which one?