START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Here's hoping that somebody listens.

Guess I'm a 1%.  I live within my means,  my mortgage is paid off,  I owe no one a penny, and I got money in a sock.

     Potter

Count yourself lucky then.  I'm in that 1% too, but it wouldn't take a whole lot to flip me into that 99%.

Her sign reads:

Quote:

My mother (leader in her field of pathology, MA) is upside-down on her house. My father (multiple PhD’s) lives in his car so that he can do what he loves for a living rather than be a slave to the system. I am lucky to have a steady job doing what I love. I live frugally and without debt. All of my friends are jobless or homeless or swimming in debt or all of the above… I wonder how long it will be before I join their ranks… and the government DOESN’T CARE. We are the 99%. I want a government that puts PEOPLE before corporate BOTTOM LINES. HUMANITY BEFORE MONEY.

She should quit her bitching. She loves her job.

A job that sucks is one that you hate but still perform because of any of a number of reasons.

I want an invisible government - a government that gets the hell out of everybody's way. Our citizens should be free to try, free to succeed, free to prosper, and free to fail. It'll never happen.

The potential in this country is overwhelming. And it will NEVER be realized as long as freeloaders are created and encouraged by the government.

Brew wrote on Oct 5^th, 2011 at 9:08pm:

Her sign reads: Quote: My mother (leader in her field of pathology, MA) is upside-down on her house. My father (multiple PhD’s) lives in his car so that he can do what he loves for a living rather than be a slave to the system. I am lucky to have a steady job doing what I love. I live frugally and without debt. All of my friends are jobless or homeless or swimming in debt or all of the above… I wonder how long it will be before I join their ranks… and the government DOESN’T CARE. We are the 99%. I want a government that puts PEOPLE before corporate BOTTOM LINES. HUMANITY BEFORE MONEY. She should quit her bitching. She loves her job. A job that sucks is one that you hate but still perform because of any of a number of reasons. I want an invisible government - a government that gets the hell out of everybody's way. Our citizens should be free to try, free to succeed, free to prosper, and free to fail. It'll never happen. The potential in this country is overwhelming. And it will NEVER be realized as long as freeloaders are created and encouraged by the government.

Reckon my daughter will be a freeloader?  You pick the one post (there's not too many) out where someone has a job.  The majority of those posters there do not have a job, or if they do, it's not enough to make ends meet.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not for the government coming it and taking things over, but something has got to give.

Let me ask you a question, what would happen if for whatever reason, your boss walked in tomorrow and told you that you didn't have a job any more?

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Carolyn - The social safety net concept has gone WAY beyond original intent. We are now to the point where damned near half of all US households receive one form of government assistance or another. So please don't imply that mine is an all-or-nothing proposition. Our government encourages dependence, and it's flat out wrong.

If my boss came in and told me I didn't have a job, I'd get another one. Or two or three if I had to. I didn't always make the kind of money I make now, and I've learned that we can survive on very little.  We learned the value of a dollar together early in our marriage each time we emptied the penny jar so we could buy enough mac and cheese or peanut butter until one of us got paid again.

Do not put words in my mouth or attitudes in my heart. Government handouts to able-bodied people are what is killing spirit and motivation in this country. Once the number of voters who live off other people's taxes reaches 50% plus one, the American Experiment is over because all they'll have to do is vote themselves a pay raise and more benefits. Then what happens?

Brew wrote on Oct 6^th, 2011 at 9:00am:

The social safety net concept has gone WAY beyond original intent.

Your point being valid among controversy, I'm not seeing this protest as having that at the heart of it.  I think much has come out after 2007 about the way business has been done conducted.

Such as:

In 2007, the top 1% crossed over the 13% mark in total income.  The only other time this has happened was in 1927, prior to the Great Depression.  This may be the Great Recession presently.  During the era of middle class prosperity, 50's - 70's, the top 1% was a much lower % of total income, putting more money in middle class hands.

Goldman Sachs taking Morgan Stanley's lead and lobbying the credit-rating agencies for higher ratings on junk mortgage bundles, getting AAA so many large pension plans bought into what were actually very risky bets.  Sachs turned around and shorted the same investments they sold knowing they were dogs, making a ton.  The whole deal was marketed as a way to save Mainstreet and jobs to Greenspan.  Our tax dollars then bailed out the losers, such as AIG.  On top of that, with huge amount of tax dollars AIG got, they paid Sachs dollar for dollar more than 12 billion they owed Sachs. 

Most earners over 300 million such as lobbyists are allowed to only pay 17% tax because they are able to declare their services as capital gains.  Warren Buffet commented on this.

It seems becoming a Washington politician is really only a stepping stone to power.  They make the real bucks afterwards on Wall Street and as lobbyists.  In bed for bucks.

This all builds resentment.  The demonstration may be unfocused, but there is point in there also.

Quote:

Our tax dollars then bailed out the losers

Good post Kevin.

Charlie

So let me try to understand this...

You're protesting on Wall Street because the fat cats have bought and sold Washington politicians to craft legislation in their favor.

Washington forces institutional banks to make mortgage loans to folks who statistically will likely not repay the loan. Freddie and Fanny join in on the fun and Congress turns a blind eye while the corrupt managers of this quasi governmental agency make and walk away with millions.

Corrupt Rating Agencies stick their heads in the sand and bestow triple A ratings on what is essentially junk and AIG insures this junk while its managers are raking in billions in premiums which are inadequate to cover the losses in case things go to crap.

Treasury Secretary force banks and lending institutions to take Government bailouts, some of which don't need it, or they will make their operations miserable.  The banks pay back the loans with interest to the Government.

Meanwhile Congress holds hearings and points fingers at everyone else but does not include itself in the collapse.  New regulations follow.

Many Security Exchange Commission prosecutors unexpectedly resign only to be found to be newly employed at the very same banking institutions they had opened investigations on...shredding boxes of files on their way out.

Government hand-outs are disingenuously spread across the ignorant voting populace, ink still wet from the Fed's printing press, to keep them in power...all under the guise of compassion...trillions in debt with an annual interest payment of 400b+.

Incumbents making up the rules to maintain their place of power, garnering millions in campaign fund (Wall Street) all the while lying through their teeth at their ignorant constituency and looking forward to their gilded cozy retirement.

Unions suck dues and from their ranks, pay off politicians, force concessions from their employers and diminish their ability to compete internationally, burdened by unsustainable legacy costs resulting in bankruptcy and a Government bail outs...to maintain union worker jobs/votes.

I could go on and on but I think you get my drift.

The whole thing is corrupt.  It's collapsing from within.

You kids want to protest? Educate yourselves and go to Washington and protest against the real culprits.

Steve Debt Free G

You filled in more of my broad brushstrokes of the picture very nicely, Steve.  The line of perspective running through to over the horizon has been flat income, diminishing domestic jobs.  With money flowering at the top of the trees, the verdure of the landscape below has been turning slowly more barren.

Steve....Kevin

Your posts should be required reading for every US citizen. Stop blaming the president, be you republican, democrat, independent, green party etc.

That same corrupt gang of "House and Senate" has been all but unchanged for decades, from republican president, to democratic president, back to republican, back to democrat. They keep us all focused on the "Presidency" while we ignore the real fat cats. THAT"S what needs to be changed.

Sadly, everyone agrees the incumbents need to be voted out.....except MY incumbent! ;)

Joe

stevegeebe wrote on Oct 7^th, 2011 at 12:10am:

So let me try to understand this... You're protesting on Wall Street because the fat cats have bought and sold Washington politicians to craft legislation in their favor. Washington forces institutional banks to make mortgage loans to folks who statistically will likely not repay the loan. Freddie and Fanny join in on the fun and Congress turns a blind eye while the corrupt managers of this quasi governmental agency make and walk away with millions. Corrupt Rating Agencies stick their heads in the sand and bestow triple A ratings on what is essentially junk and AIG insures this junk while its managers are raking in billions in premiums which are inadequate to cover the losses in case things go to crap. Treasury Secretary force banks and lending institutions to take Government bailouts, some of which don't need it, or they will make their operations miserable.  The banks pay back the loans with interest to the Government. Meanwhile Congress holds hearings and points fingers at everyone else but does not include itself in the collapse.  New regulations follow. Many Security Exchange Commission prosecutors unexpectedly resign only to be found to be newly employed at the very same banking institutions they had opened investigations on...shredding boxes of files on their way out. Government hand-outs are disingenuously spread across the ignorant voting populace, ink still wet from the Fed's printing press, to keep them in power...all under the guise of compassion...trillions in debt with an annual interest payment of 400b+. Incumbents making up the rules to maintain their place of power, garnering millions in campaign fund (Wall Street) all the while lying through their teeth at their ignorant constituency and looking forward to their gilded cozy retirement. Unions suck dues and from their ranks, pay off politicians, force concessions from their employers and diminish their ability to compete internationally, burdened by unsustainable legacy costs resulting in bankruptcy and a Government bail outs...to maintain union worker jobs/votes. I could go on and on but I think you get my drift. The whole thing is corrupt.  It's collapsing from within. You kids want to protest? Educate yourselves and go to Washington and protest against the real culprits. Steve Debt Free G

WHY can't I be this eloquent and direct?  *sigh*

Mel Consumer Debt Free issa. :)

stevegeebe wrote on Oct 7^th, 2011 at 12:10am:

So let me try to understand this... You're protesting on Wall Street because the fat cats have bought and sold Washington politicians to craft legislation in their favor.

Steve's first line is the big bingo statement.  If you've served on an influencial committee you're worth $2 million after your term.  Even if you're an aide to one of these, you're starting future is half a mil in the private sector. 

The wonderous stuffed mattresses in biz know anyone can be bought.


If you've been watching Ken Burns' documentary on "Prohibition" and wondered how it lasted as long as it did, this same thing happened back then.  Those making the big money from prohibition contributed greatly to politician campaigns to keep the 18th amendment intact.

I didn't watch the series but read the book earlier this year.  It's a great insight into politics on how things happen on a slant and are reinforced politically.  There are present reflections.



stevegeebe wrote on Oct 7^th, 2011 at 12:10am:

Incumbents [or the newly bought elected] making up the rules to maintain their place of power, garnering millions in campaign fund (Wall Street) all the while lying through their teeth at their ignorant constituency

Getting elected matters more than doing the right thing.

Steve and Brew I could not agree more.

How are we to remove  the elected when they give out more in food stamps than I was able to earn this year?  (I refuse to take food stamps)  This is given to able bodied no-accounts who won't take a job, yet get housing assistance and are able to drive vehicles I cannot afford?  I have no issue with helping someone in need.  I have in the past, and I will in the future, and I volunteer in a food pantry two days a week.  I was choosy in the food pantry I would volunteer in.  Most of our clientele are not the professional poor who will not work, but those who have lost jobs and need a hand. 

Personally I would like to see our "safety net" go back to what it was years ago in that those in need were given basic staples in food to hold them over rather than what some unelected unaccountable functionary in DC decides should be given for the "poor" to waste at the grocery store.  It has gotten to the point some people cannot afford to take a job  because the "benefits" they are receiving are greater than the pay they would receive if they were to work.  Also, the "benefits" are tax free.

I hope this made sense.  It's been a 14 hour day that I hope generates a commission check in about 2 months.

Jerry

A good thread.
Problem is... our country is too far gone to save.

i for one still believe in America. 
i also believe that America is learning a very important lesson.
when i was growing up, my father was in the Airforce.  he was rarely home, always on deployments.  when i was four, my family income totaled just over 6,000 dollars, my fathers pay that year.  my mother was hospitalized twice for malnutrition because she wouldnt eat if we were running low on food. 
after my father got out of the airforce, things didnt get much better.  my brothers and i would sneak food back into the kitchen so my mother would think that there was more food than there was, otherwise she wouldnt eat.  we would often skip out on dinner, the only meal served at home, just so we knew my mother would eat.  we wouldnt go hungry, i would go hunt snakes, pigeons, catch fish, etc...  my older brother usualy found a way to get invited to a friends house for dinner.  my dad always worked.  my younger brother was too young to really understand what was going on.

my brothers and i became quite adept at dumpster-diving.  it was not uncommon for me to drag home electronics and appliances from six or seven miles away and fix them.  we got a tv and a vcr that way, and for times we couldnt afford the power bill, i learned how to make a generator from an old winch motor to run a couple fans or lamps.

my father worked.

my mother kept us fed.  she did her best with what she had.

things started to change when my older brother and i were old enough to work odd jobs(12 years old)

what do i think of the way i grew up?  i f!%$in loved it.  with a little hard work and ingenuity we made do just fine. 

both of my brothers and myself learned enough lessons to make a successful run at life.  we all had stable incomes with real career options available to us before each of us decided to join the army.  we gave up our jobs and our career opportunities to serve our country, because we all believe in America.  i had a stable job with the University of Florida, health and retirement benefits and a successful business on the side by the time i was 20.  No college.  my older brother worked his way to a 4 year degree by the time he was 22. neither of us have any debt.  my younger brother gave up his job and is graduating basic training right now.  no debt.

my brothers and i believe whole heartedly that anyone can do just about anything they want, it just takes hard work, creativity, and time.  my parents are starting to finaly jump on the opportunities that are still out there.  they are starting to understand the point of view that my brothers and i have learned.  growing up we would have qualified for pretty much every government handout that existed.  the lesson that we learned is much more valuable.

you only really fail if you give up.

Well said, Aubanbird.  Thanks for sharing your story and for your service.

Jerry

Does anyone realize that Welfare/Food Stamps are a very small part of the Federal expenditures?

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

deltadarlin wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 9:46am:

Does anyone realize that Welfare/Food Stamps are a very small part of the Federal expenditures?

13% is massive.
It should be 0%.  Taking care of individual welfare is a state or local job. 

Welfare is largely a joke.  All of us have a family on chronic welfare down the street.  My local dirtbag family is 3 generations of welfare scum.  Their 18 year old drop-out daughter is pregnant with her second child.  Every act of vandalism or burglary ends up being attributed to someone in that house.  Low end work is beneath them... why bother when they can sleep in every day for the same pay?

150 years ago the answer was 'they would starve to death'.  If people feel this family needs to be supported then by all means support them via charity.  Get the government out of the support business.   

Well said Rock!

As I said before, I have no problem with helping those in need, but to continue on letting them live off of someone else's labor is immoral. 

Looking at the pie chart I see that 57% of the monies spent have no Constitutional validation that I can understand.

I had come back to this thread thinking of the rabble on Wall Street and other similar carefully orchestrated "spontaneous" demonstrations when I came across a quotation that none of those demonstrating will comprehend.  "The value of liberty was thus enhanced in our estimation by the difficulty of its attainment, and the worth of characters appreciated by the trial of adversity."
--George Washington

Our country has gotten so soft over the last couple of generations because everything has become much to easy.  Our kids are not allowed to learn to fail.  Every time something calamitous happens the Federal Government is expected to make everything whole.  Personal responsibility is an unknown commodity.

Jerry

Lobster wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 1:20am:

A good thread. Problem is... our country is too far gone to save.

Bingo. A major metamorphosis is well underway, and things will not change for the better without MAJOR bloodshed. Probably not in any of our lifetimes. Mark my words.

Quote:

Probably not in any of our lifetimes. Mark my words

How are we going to mark your words if they don't happen in our lifetime? (just jerking your chain) :)

Jimi wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 11:53am:

How are we going to mark your words if they don't happen in our lifetime? (just jerking your chain) :)

Post-temporally and Celestially.  ;)

Government is in the support business.  They know the power of a single vote and will promise to support those who will support them with their vote.

Times have been hard before. The safety net was small and most were ashamed to even temporarily reside there. The path out is a choice that is easy for those with integrity, character and a sense of honor. Unwittingly, the Governments lust for power via prepaying for votes, has sucked the drive out of generations resulting in chronic poverty, crime and dependency. And I don't feel they really even give a crap.

Unfortunately, a growing number of people in this country have been provided for and real hardship is blunted by the myriad of entitlements bestowed upon them, via the Government, by the productive in society.  So many are now, in some way, assisted by Government handouts that their collective ethos is now rounded over like so many rocks in a stream. "Hey everybody else is doing it...why not me?"

It's really sad that there isn't a requirement for those receiving assistance to get out a do something...something to benefit society...besides protesting and whining.

No...instead...here's you check.  Now don't forget to vote for us in November.

Steve my grandpa's grandson G

I think most of us like the idea of libertarian solutions. It has never been completely experienced, however, and the world of the small agrarian society, where it might have worked, is no more.

Radical attempts at perfect solutions have never worked. I think however, most of the time, Americans do rather well with what and with whom we are stuck with.

Charlie

An interesting thing happened to Jesse and I at the beginning of the year when we ventured into Dave Ramsey's Total Money Makeover.  As we were starting step 2 of the plan, it dawned on us that for the past 20 years, we thought that in order for us to buy a car, we had to get a loan first.  Never did it occur to us that all we had to do was set up a sinking fund to save for a car when we would need it in the future.

Many of our generation, and I'm sure those older and younger, have been taught to believe that we need to incur debt in order to succeed and be secure in our lives.  The politicians exacerbate this process to the 10th degree with the social welfare programs, bailouts, etc.

People are confused and hurting right now because they have been manipulated by a system which is faltering through no fault of their own. 

I can empathise with them, but I will not condemn them, for we all have a common goal, and that is to make our government accountable to its citizens. 

I am amazed at what I see when I stay away from main stream media like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN & FOX.  I seek out those who are in the thick of things, and those who objectively report the facts as they see it happening.

I too, believe in America.  I love this country and all it stands for, and I'll be damned if I'll contribute to a one sided argument that runs itself in circles.

Oh, and Charlie, I agree with you and raise you with a "can it really be worse than what we have now?" ;)

All this ranting about these lazy good for nothing welfare bums...nowhere have I seen the words "corporate welfare".  ::)

Melissa wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 1:53pm:

Many of our generation, and I'm sure those older and younger, have been taught to believe that we need to incur debt in order to succeed and be secure in our lives.  The politicians exacerbate this process to the 10th degree with the social welfare programs, bailouts, etc.

i think you hit the nail on the head right there.  my parents were in debt after my younger brother almost lost his arm in an accident.  the surgery and resulting hospital bill crushed them financialy, for years.  naturaly, i always viewed any kind of debt as evil.  when i was working for the university of florida, i would buy a snake or lizzard every week.  it didnt really matter what it was, as long as it was something i thought i could sell later.  it wouldnt cost much, maybe 20-30 dollars, money i never could seem to save otherwise.  i would go to the local flea market and find a cage for them every weekend.  after about a year, i had quite a collection going on, enough open a booth at the flea market on weekends.  i had spent a year building inventory, experience, and business connections.  business built up quick once everything was set up, go to supplier on thursday, feed the animals, set up friday night, and sell animals on saturday and sunday.  i pretty much turned the whole thing over to my parents when i joined the army.  the flea market pet store was doing great, made about as much money on the weekends as i do in a month.  business was so good because there was so much foot traffic in the flea market each weekend, and plenty of repeat business because we sold all of the feeder animals as well.  im still not entirely sure why my parents gave it up...

the point to the story is that there is almost always a way to achieve your goals without borrowing money.  one of my goals is to buy a piece of land, at least 10 acres, without taking out a loan.  it will be in cash and i will find a way to do it within the next three years.  my next goal after that will be to put a house on it and have it paid off before i am 35. 
my wife is currently building up stock for an online business the exact same way i did, piece by tiny piece.  it is costing us barely anything, and in a few years we will be able to start selling and making an income off of it.
  why not?  time is just going to pass anyway.

these are the lessons i will be teaching my daughter.  maybe i cant change all of america, but i can teach my children how to make the best of the freedom we are given. 

who knows, maybe we can all change america, one lesson at a time.

AubanBird wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 3:32pm:

Melissa wrote on Oct 8th, 2011 at 1:53pm: Many of our generation, and I'm sure those older and younger, have been taught to believe that we need to incur debt in order to succeed and be secure in our lives.  The politicians exacerbate this process to the 10th degree with the social welfare programs, bailouts, etc. i think you hit the nail on the head right there.  my parents were in debt after my younger brother almost lost his arm in an accident.  the surgery and resulting hospital bill crushed them financialy, for years.  naturaly, i always viewed any kind of debt as evil.  when i was working for the university of florida, i would buy a snake or lizzard every week.  it didnt really matter what it was, as long as it was something i thought i could sell later.  it wouldnt cost much, maybe 20-30 dollars, money i never could seem to save otherwise.  i would go to the local flea market and find a cage for them every weekend.  after about a year, i had quite a collection going on, enough open a booth at the flea market on weekends.  i had spent a year building inventory, experience, and business connections.  business built up quick once everything was set up, go to supplier on thursday, feed the animals, set up friday night, and sell animals on saturday and sunday.  i pretty much turned the whole thing over to my parents when i joined the army.  the flea market pet store was doing great, made about as much money on the weekends as i do in a month.  business was so good because there was so much foot traffic in the flea market each weekend, and plenty of repeat business because we sold all of the feeder animals as well.  im still not entirely sure why my parents gave it up... the point to the story is that there is almost always a way to achieve your goals without borrowing money.  one of my goals is to buy a piece of land, at least 10 acres, without taking out a loan.  it will be in cash and i will find a way to do it within the next three years.  my next goal after that will be to put a house on it and have it paid off before i am 35.  my wife is currently building up stock for an online business the exact same way i did, piece by tiny piece.  it is costing us barely anything, and in a few years we will be able to start selling and making an income off of it.   why not?  time is just going to pass anyway. these are the lessons i will be teaching my daughter.  maybe i cant change all of america, but i can teach my children how to make the best of the freedom we are given.  who knows, maybe we can all change america, one lesson at a time.

This is the governments problem in bold.  Whenever politicians need money for programs, wars, bailouts, etc., they get their money from the Treasury.  Where does the Treasury get the money from?  From the Federal Reserve.  What does the Federal Reserve do?  They "print" more money because there isn't enough in circulation to cover the costs.  What then happens to the dollar?  It loses it's value because there's nothing backing it up like a gold standard.  BTW, the Federal Reserve is supposed to be an independent entity and yet our Constitution deems Congress to "coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;  To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;", and yet Congress can't even attend a Federal Reserve board meeting?  WTF??

BTW, you are wise in wanting to pay cash instead of accuring debt.  Unfortunately, our government is NOT. 

Also check out this inflation calculator.  Plug in $1.00 in the year 1913 and compare it with last year. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE;  Insane, right?

Lobster wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 10:05am:

deltadarlin wrote on Oct 8th, 2011 at 9:46am: Does anyone realize that Welfare/Food Stamps are a very small part of the Federal expenditures? 13% is massive. It should be 0%.

You do realize that the *13%* is not just welfare and foodstamps?  Of the 495.6 billion spent, 142.2 billion is Workman's Comp and Unemployment.


nani wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 3:26pm:

All this ranting about these lazy good for nothing welfare bums...nowhere have I seen the words "corporate welfare".  ::)

Amen!  And that, in a nutshell, is one of the biggest problems we have.  BTW, we haven't even begun to look at what we are sending overseas.

i really couldnt care less about inflation.  i will find a way to succeed regardless of the circumstance.

what im more worried about is the government stepping on my toes and taxing the crap out of me for starting a business.  some of the taxes on small businesses now are flat out stupid.  all to pay for that victim-of-circumstance mentality they have engendered and enabled.

and i cringe at the thought of how schools are teaching this kind of mentality these days.

i really think the government should just step out of the way and let the economy be.

AubanBird wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 4:57pm:

i really couldnt care less about inflation.  i will find a way to succeed regardless of the circumstance.

How are you going to succeed when just the cost of food is so astronomical that you can't put gas in your car?  Or pay your mortgage?  You should care about inflation!


Quote:

what im more worried about is the government stepping on my toes and taxing the crap out of me for starting a business.  some of the taxes on small businesses now are flat out stupid.  all to pay for that victim-of-circumstance mentality they have engendered and enabled. and i cringe at the thought of how schools are teaching this kind of mentality these days. i really think the government should just step out of the way and let the economy be.

Absolutely, completely agree with you here.  The free market has not been allowed to correct itself and that is why we keep having this long and painful recession.  The government keeps it this way by "stimulus".  Every time they inject money into the system, no matter what it's for, it is money we. don't. have.  The FED prints it.  All they're doing is digging a deeper hole, and until they get their paws out of it, it's going to get worse.

ive alread learned how to live without money to buy food.  if i cant buy gas, i have a pair of running shoes.  if food gets to be that expensive, ill sell home grown carrots or something.   :)

its not easy for the value of a dollar to drop so low that people cannot survive, as the value of all the things they cannot buy will soon follow the value of the dollar.

nani wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 3:26pm:

All this ranting about these lazy good for nothing welfare bums...nowhere have I seen the words "corporate welfare".  ::)

Charlie quoted a single phrase from my first post, which was about biz:


Charlie wrote on Oct 6^th, 2011 at 9:39pm:

Our tax dollars then bailed out the losers

;)

Kevin_M wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 6:53pm:

nani wrote on Oct 8th, 2011 at 3:26pm: All this ranting about these lazy good for nothing welfare bums...nowhere have I seen the words "corporate welfare".  ::) Charlie quoted a single phrase from my first post, which was about biz: Charlie wrote on Oct 6th, 2011 at 9:39pm: Our tax dollars then bailed out the losers ;)

That is true Kevin, but those lines are in the minority in comparison to the statements against welfare.

Like it or not, some type of safety net needs to exist.  If it had not been for medicaid and food stamps, my friend would have died a lot sooner (she had non-Hodgkins lymphoma and no insurance).

My friend who had Guillain Barre would be dead if it weren't for *free care*.

Medicaid and Medicare both are subject to a lot of graft and corruption, but lo and behold, it's not those that use the system who are abusing it in most cases (it's the providers).

There are people who use these services in a responsible manner, do not abuse what is given to them and do everything they can to better themselves.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

deltadarlin wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 7:26pm:

Like it or not, some type of safety net needs to exist.

Agreed, though the mechanism is faulty.  It should be charity $$$.  A local organization handing out support $$$ is far more capable of weeding out the freeloaders than big government. 

Safety nets are fine, when they are state run, not Federally run.

Melissa wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 9:17pm:

Safety nets are fine, when they are state run, not Federally run.

Exactly.  The states have no power in the face of the fed.  That is the opposite of what the founding fathers envisioned, imo. 

That sounds good...the problem is that most states are broke. So they will get funded by the feds.

As one who has had to use the safety net for health care I am not unappreciative of it, but I was put in that situation due to government action that put me out of business at a time in which I was uninsurable.  However, what the protesters are looking for is not a safety net but a hammock. 

I personally would prefer the government get out of my way and let me make it, or not, on my own. 

I would rather pay the lions share of my taxes locally or to the states instead of to the feds.  The feds just piss it away without accountability. 
If that amount went local I could personally cock-punch any politician who squandered it.

Lobster wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 10:52pm:

I would rather pay the lions share of my taxes locally or to the states instead of to the feds.  The feds just piss it away without accountability.  If that amount went local I could personally cock-punch any politician who squandered it.

Exactly.....

I don't know how to take this thread...politics and especially politicians are beyond me...I don't trust any of it or them...yet, OUR system is the best the world has seen. It would have to get REALLY bad before I give up on that...

This then is my story....a 1% er from 99%er Parents.

My Dad was disabled for the last 10 years of his life...and the second 10 of mine. He got about $400/mo SSD..and health care...which was sorely needed. He wasn't proud, happy, or comfortable with that...but he surely fricken earned it...and aint no one gonna tell me different. The Doctor told my Mom.."Nita, he's just worn out" (he worked himself to death). Yup, your federal dollars got him 10 yrs...and btw...thank you.


Mom made about $9-10,000/yr as a teacher...and retired at $200/mo. The whole family lived on that income. Dad became Mommy-Dad...laundry, housecleaning, shopping, cooking, childcare...and on and on. I hear of this "new" trend...and I smile...cuz I lived it before it became a fad/trend/or "cool"....

He wasn't sucking on any teat I can imagine...he wasn't a sponge in any sense of the word...I'm sure someone looking in from the outside would have thought different...they would have been wrong....and his 3 kids all graduated college, became successfully 1%ers...and couldn't be prouder of Him. He desperately wanted that...we couldn't disappoint...

So, YOUR taxpayer dollars made this possible...and you made a good investment....

I'm not any happier than anyone else seeing those who "play" the system..it nauseates me. Moreso the attitude that that is alright to do it! THAT is what worries me...THAT attitude...Dad would've thought the same...and I'm sure he worried it was thought of him...

To be totally honest...and perhaps the genesis of my msg....I am in the position of eventually "needing help" too. Several medical conditions have left me barely hanging on...my medical bills (so far) are over $200,000. ...only possible because I have a job and insurance. My employer has been understanding to date...that's gonna end someday...and being less than 65, by a long ways...no JOB...no insurance.

Whatever you think of health care reform...put yourself in that position...when no health care company would think of insuring you...and however "comfortable" you are...deal with those costs. It twists my guts daily.................

Am I worth your dollars?

Best,

Jon

Great post Jon and thanks for sharing. I think it's obvious that both sides have validity when you break it down by each individual.

It is also cool when hot topics like this can be discussed without the accusations, profanity and individual finger pointing.

Carry on.

Jon, and whoever else is reading, I want to make this point.  There is NOTHING WRONG with help for those who need it, medically or otherwise.  What is wrong, is that it's coming from the Federal Government.  They mismanage taxpayer dollars badly.  Hell, they can't even keep the money that is taken, (i.e. SS), and keep it specifically for that program.  They cross dip into funds to pay for whatever in God's name they have been lobbied for, for wars, etc.

If the Constitution was followed by our government, then any help needed to its citizens, would come from the state they live in.  It's really not all that different except our state government officials would be held accountable since it is kept local. 

And yes Jon, you and a lot of other people are worth my dollars, but if my hard earned dollars are taken from me by force (which they are), I want a say in how it's spent.

Hugs,
mel

Jon,

You are describing the "Safety Net".  I don't believe anyone has a problem with that, in fact we support it.  I have no problem with some government funding of such programs.  I do believe as the Lobster has said it should be handled by the States, and I really think it should go down to the County level for implementation.  There are many charities that would be an excellent option for distribution.  For years these things were handled by churches, but since the Government has taken over much of that has ended.  These programs need to be handled on a local basis rather than by an overweening unaccountable bureaucracy in DC.  A one size fits all approach does not match the needs among the diverse areas of the country. 

I also believe the Agricultural Dept should go back to giving out commodities to those in need of food.  They used to give out basic staples that helped support prices farmers received for milk, cheese, beans, rice, etc. and provided for basic nutrition for families.  Now they pay the farmers to not produce these products and hand out food stamps (or the new equivalent) which gets used for frivolous, non-nutritive junk food and expensive cuts of meat that many of us cannot afford to buy.

I know a number of us have needed to go on disability, and I don't believe any shame should be attached to that.  Again, that falls into the "Safety Net" category.  Especially for those who have been productive members of society who have become unable to continue being as productive and thus unable to continue in a job.  My problem is with those in Government who have developed a vote buying enterprise that is wasteful and undermines our society.

JMHO
Jerry

Jimi wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 10:20pm:

That sounds good...the problem is that most states are broke. So they will get funded by the feds.

Therein lies the biggest problem.

deltadarlin wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 10:01am:

Jimi wrote on Oct 8th, 2011 at 10:20pm: That sounds good...the problem is that most states are broke. So they will get funded by the feds. Therein lies the biggest problem.

Do you know WHY the states are broke?  Find out why, and then you'll see what the problem is.  (hint: It has to do with Federal spending...)



ETA: It's a cycle that does not peddle backwards.  Federally funded anything, means either they raise taxes, or they "borrow" money to fill what they want.  The first means more dollars coming out of your paycheck, the latter, means the Federal Reserve prints more money which causes inflation.  There then may be more money, but it takes MORE of that money to pay for those things due to the drop in value of the dollar.

Melissa wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 8:57am:

any help needed to its citizens, would come from the state they live in.

concerning Jimi's statement:


Quote:

That sounds good...the problem is that most states are broke. So they will get funded by the feds.

What if a state's unemployment fund was tapped out to the tune of say $1.5 billion in the red and needed to borrow money.  The fed will lend, with interest of course of say $48 million a year.  The employment picture has not been kind the last four years.  What if this was just Wisconsin alone.

Melissa wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 10:36am:

deltadarlin wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 10:01am: Jimi wrote on Oct 8th, 2011 at 10:20pm: That sounds good...the problem is that most states are broke. So they will get funded by the feds. Therein lies the biggest problem. Do you know WHY the states are broke?

The economy.....unfunded mandates handed down from the feds......and the fact they can't print money.....

Kevin_M wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 12:00pm:

Melissa wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 8:57am: any help needed to its citizens, would come from the state they live in.  concerning Jimi's statement: Quote: That sounds good...the problem is that most states are broke. So they will get funded by the feds. What if a state's unemployment fund was tapped out to the tune of say $1.5 billion in the red and needed to borrow money.  The fed will lend, with interest of course of say $48 million a year.  The employment picture has not been kind the last four years.  What if this was just Wisconsin alone.

I am not sure what you're asking, Kevin?  Are you wanting the Fed to keep operating, printing money that the Federal government doesn't have in order to lend WI the money?

My answer would have to be that Wisconsin will have to restructure its budget by taking from one (or several) line itmes and probably raise taxes in order to stay in the black.   

Melissa wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 12:29pm:

I am not sure what you're asking, Kevin?  Are you wanting the Fed to keep operating, printing money that the Federal government doesn't have in order to lend WI the money?

There are times of hardship.  If the gov didn't have the money to give to help with natural disasters such as the tornados last spring or the Texas fires, it should not help and let each particular state be responsible?



Quote:

My answer would have to be that Wisconsin will have to restructure its budget by taking from one (or several) line itmes and probably raise taxes in order to stay in the black.

That hasn't seemed a popular vote-getter, Mel.    :)

Kevin_M wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 12:50pm:

Melissa wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 12:29pm: I am not sure what you're asking, Kevin?  Are you wanting the Fed to keep operating, printing money that the Federal government doesn't have in order to lend WI the money? There are times of hardship.  If the gov didn't have the money to give to help with natural disasters such as the tornados last spring or the Texas fires, it should not help and let each particular state be responsible?

First of all, please differentiate between Federal and State governments, thanks.  Secondly, if the Federal government had been following the Constitution to begin with, you wouldn't even be asking me this question. 


Quote:

[quote]My answer would have to be that Wisconsin will have to restructure its budget by taking from one (or several) line itmes and probably raise taxes in order to stay in the black.

That hasn't seemed a popular vote-getter, Mel.    :)
[/quote]
No, it's not, because its citizens haven't trusted politicians with their money for quite some time now.  That and because we are taxed on our income, property, state and federal as well as on goods and services and we have lost our voice in where that money goes due to a corrupt system based on lies, propaganda and a corporate owned media as well as an illusory monetary policy.

Melissa wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 12:57pm:

First of all, please differentiate between Federal and State governments, thanks.

Quote:

If the [Fed] gov didn't have the money...

I took it we were talking about the fed.



Quote:

Secondly, if the Federal government had been following the Constitution to begin with, you wouldn't even be asking me this question.

Where would states turn to in hardship or natural disaster.  I understand the Fed gov doesn't have the money due to many reasons, but present situation being, they wouldn't turn their back on a hardship a state can't handle when needed, whether the fed gov has the money or not.



Quote:

...we have lost our voice in where that money goes due to...

Which takes us back to the original post of the 99% who have less influence in these decisions.

Kevin_M wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 1:21pm:

Melissa wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 12:57pm: First of all, please differentiate between Federal and State governments, thanks. Quote: If the [Fed] gov didn't have the money... I took it we were talking about the fed. [quote]Secondly, if the Federal government had been following the Constitution to begin with, you wouldn't even be asking me this question.

Where would states turn to in hardship or natural disaster.  I understand the Fed gov doesn't have the money due to many reasons, but present situation being, they wouldn't turn their back on a hardship a state can't handle when needed, whether the fed gov has the money or not.[/quote]
What will the states do?  The states could make it so people aren't able to build in disaster prone areas and they could build up a fund when the economy is prosperous to provide for its citizens if hit by a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, flood, etc. 


Quote:

[quote]...we have lost our voice in where that money goes due to...

Which takes us back to the original post of the 99% who have less influence these decisions.

[/quote]

I'm lost here?  Do you think I don't understand where their voices are coming from?  If I have not made myself clear that I support them, I am sorry.  But what I really would like to see is a clearer objective made by the protesters other than they're mad that the banks were bailed out and they weren't.  Many folks are going by what they see on the national news, and much of it is made to look like the people occupying Wall Street are just mad that they have lost their jobs, homes, etc. due to the economy.  Which is understandable!  But what it DOESN'T show, is what the root of the protesting is for. 

It'd be nice to see a clearer message.  That's all.

Here's a clear message...

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Melissa wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

What will the states do?  The states could make it so people aren't able to build in disaster prone areas and they could build up a fund when the economy is prosperous to provide for its citizens if hit by a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, flood, etc.

At times the state of California is a disaster prone area due to earthquakes.  Florida due to hurricanes.  This year Texas due to fires and Louisiana due to floods.  There's tornado alley.  Difficult.

I'm sure there are funds, as there are unemployment funds, but they get tapped out in severe times.





 




Quote:

...what the root of the protesting is for.

I didn't have to read word of any newsprint to know.  When they mentioned 99%, it's been told, they've just got hold of a drift already written in many recent books.


Quote:

It'd be nice to see a clearer message.  That's all.

Yep, my first reply this thread mentioned "unfocused".  Some conversation's been sidetracked by it.

Quote:

The states could make it so people aren't able to build in disaster prone areas and they could build up a fund when the economy is prosperous to provide for its citizens if hit by a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, flood, etc.

A bit too late, don't you think?  Even if it weren't already done, that's not feasible.   

Kevin_M wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 2:02pm:

At times the state of California is a disaster prone area due to earthquakes.  Florida due to hurricanes.  This year Texas due to fires and Louisiana due to floods.  There's tornado alley.  Difficult. I'm sure there are funds, as there are unemployment funds, but they get tapped out in severe times.

Which is why they need to be replenished as soon as possible.  It's a revolving fund, just like the sinking funds our family has to pay home maintenance, car replacement, car repair, etc.



Quote:

Yep, my first reply this thread mentioned "unfocused".  Some conversation's been sidetracked by it.

Agreed, and I probably added to it by making it even more muddled, lol.

deltadarlin wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 2:05pm:

Quote: The states could make it so people aren't able to build in disaster prone areas and they could build up a fund when the economy is prosperous to provide for its citizens if hit by a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, flood, etc. A bit too late, don't you think?  Even if it weren't already done, that's not feasible.

There is nothing wrong with states starting now.  For example, it would cost less to pay to have someone relocated than it would cost after the disaster.  People can decide for themselves to stay, but they also have to realize they need to be responsible for their decisions.  I don't think others should have to pay if I am given a choice to build my home on a flood plain when I've been warned not to, and then cry for help from my state government to pay me for damages after there is a flood.

When do we start being responsible and start getting off of our dependency on everyone else?  It becomes entangled and snarly because the red tape is wrapped around everything...

Melissa wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 2:11pm:

...after the disaster.  People can decide for themselves to stay, but they also have to realize they need to be responsible for their decisions.

:)

Reminds me of the early 80's when starvation in Ethiopia made world news.

Well...IT'S FUCKING SAND, YOU CAN"T GROW ANYTHING!!!!

There were so many jokes.


But they somehow have the best coffee.     ;)



:)

Kevin_M wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 2:32pm:

Melissa wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:11pm: ...after the disaster.  People can decide for themselves to stay, but they also have to realize they need to be responsible for their decisions. :) Reminds me of the early 80's when starvation in Ethiopia made world news. Well...IT'S FUCKING SAND, YOU CAN"T GROW ANYTHING!!!! There were so many jokes. But they somehow have the best coffee.     ;) :)

I don't believe I've ever had Ethiopian coffee?   I really like Kona and Sumatra myself. 

Dang it, now I gotta go brew a cup...

What about infrastructure.

As to charities handling the burden of the people in need.  What happens when they go broke and can no longer handle the participants?  Our local food bank is almost bare.

deltadarlin wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 7:28pm:

What about infrastructure. As to charities handling the burden of the people in need.  What happens when they go broke and can no longer handle the participants?  Our local food bank is almost bare.

Carolyn, why can't the State governments take care of these things?  Why does it have to be the Federal government? 

If we got the Fed out of all the things the states are supposed to take care of as deemed by the Constitution of this country, the states would have enough money to care for these things as designated by its citizens.  Democracy works much better at the local level anyway instead of the Federal level.

Some very interesting reading concerning the early arguments among our nation's founders about the Federal Governments ability to tax and spend.
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE; Madison consistently argued the Federal Government did not have the power to expend monies on anything not enumerated within the Constitution.  He ought to know what it meant since he is the primary author of it.  Funny that he isn't taught in our schools today.

Again from James Madison:  "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
  --  James Madison

It is very nice of the government to respond to disasters, i.e. hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, fires, etc., but you cannot find in the Constitution of the United States any such provision, nor can you find instance before the time of FDR that such actions were taken on a large scale.  (To the best of my research.  If you can find such instance I would appreciate being shown it.)  Neither can you find government sponsored crop insurance, hail insurance, flood insurance, etc.  If the populace wants to pool its resources together to cover such risks that is all well and good.  It's called insurance.  However, when the government decides to pool my resources to cover another individual's risk without my consent that is called tyranny.  To quote C.S. Lewis:
" If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. . . . In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent. They ‘cash in.’ It has been magic, it has been Christianity. Now it will certainly be science. . . . Let us not be deceived by phrases about ‘Man taking charge of his own destiny.’ All that can really happen is that some men will take charge of the destiny of others. . . . The more completely we are planned the more powerful they will be.
. . . .

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
—C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock

I can't say it better than that.

Jerry

Callico wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 11:23pm:

...nor can you find instance before the time of FDR that such actions were taken on a large scale.  (To the best of my research.  If you can find such instance I would appreciate being shown it.)

It doesn't take looking back very far, Hoover's work in the Commission for Relief of Belgium - Fed gov sponsored 80%, for an international example.  Then his work on the Great Mississippi flood of 1927 for a domestic example.  Charlie would recognize the Whiz Kid.   ;)

This welfare tangent is a bit disjointed, someone must be listening to or watching the media.  Strange.



To add:

If you wish to know of the first large act of the fed gov in aid the states, in 1789 the debt owed for the Revolutionary War was $79 million.  $45 million was debt the states owed.  The fed gov assumed the states' debt. 



Alternate history:

George Washington:  If we go headlong into this thing against Britain, we may have to borrow.

Ben Franklin:  Oh well then forget it.  A penny saved is...


:)

the government should never rescue corporations that base themselves on unstable and unsustainable business models.  if they are not frugal or competitive enough to succeed on their own, they should be allowed to fail.  to save them is to promote financial irresponsibility. 

when assessing risk, remember...

too much energy invested in an unstable system inevitably leads to collapse.

It doesn't take looking back very far, Hoover's work in the Commission for Relief of Belgium - Fed gov sponsored 80%, for an international example.  Then his work on the Great Mississippi flood of 1927 for a domestic example.  Charlie would recognize the Whiz Kid.   ;)

This welfare tangent is a bit disjointed, someone must be listening to or watching the media.  Strange.



To add:

If you wish to know of the first large act of the fed gov in aid the states, in 1789 the debt owed for the Revolutionary War was $79 million.  $45 million was debt the states owed.  The fed gov assumed the states' debt. 

)[/quote]

Kevin,
With respect, Hoover did what he did during the 1st War as a private citizen.  I had forgotten his involvement with that.  I'm not sure of the 80% number, but will bow to your knowledge.  That bumps us back then to the Wilson era.

The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 was a multi-state issue and involved Interstate Commerce, properly making it a Federal issue.  I won't argue that there were no improper usages of the funds from that.  That is normally the case when the Fed Gov gets involved.

In 1789 the debt assumption of the States by the Federal Government was proper.  The States had made expenditures in the fight for the independence of the whole because the disjointed union under the Articles of Confederation was unable to properly tax and support the armies in the field.

jc

Callico wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 9:43am:

With respect, Hoover did what he did during the 1st War as a private citizen.  I had forgotten his involvement with that.  I'm not sure of the 80% number...

I went a little conservative with the figure, U.S. gov kicked in 85%.  In a way it was unfortunate for Hoover because he did not know the fed gov contributed.  He thought the donations all came from charities and private donations.  Consequently when the Great Depression hit he remembered how many billions had been raised to feed millions without the fed gov's involvement.  This swayed his initial decisions as president to have the fed step in to help as the depression steepened.  He was persuaded from past experience that charities and the private sector could step up and aid people who needed it.  The scale became too large.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE


Quote:

Posted October 07, 2011 Wall Street couldn’t have done it alone. It takes a government and/or its central bank, the Federal Reserve System, to: Create barriers to entry for the purpose of sheltering existing banks from competition and radical innovation, then regulate for the benefit of the privileged industry; Issue artificially cheap, economy-distorting credit in order to, among other things, give banks incentives to make shaky but profitable mortgage loans (and also to grease the war machine through deficit spending); Make it lucrative for banks – and their bonus-collecting executives — to bundle thousands of shaky mortgages into securities and other derivatives with the knowledge that government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other companies, all subject to powerful congressmen looking for campaign contributions, would buy them after a government-licensed rating cartel scores them AAA; Inflate an unsustainable housing bubble by the foregoing and other methods, enticing people to foolishly overinvest in real estate. Work closely with lending companies to establish a variety of programs designed to lure people with few resources or bad credit into buying houses they can’t afford; Attract workers to the home-construction bubble, setting them up for long-term unemployment when the bubble inevitably burst; Implicitly guarantee big financial companies and/or their creditors that if they get into trouble they would be rescued; Compel the taxpayers to bail out those companies and/or creditors when the roof finally fell in. No bank or group of banks could do these things on its own in a freed market. It takes a government-Wall Street partnership – the corporate state — to create such misery and exploitation. So demonstrators, you are right. Something is dreadfully wrong. But your list of culprits is far from complete. So go ahead and protest outside Goldman Sachs and Bank of America. But also spend some time outside the White House, the Fed, the Treasury, and the Capitol Building. Together they are responsible for our current economic woes. These are the entities that control our fate and over which we have no real say. It’s time for things to change. Greed without political power is boorish. Greed with political power is dangerous. The freed market is the alternative to what you properly despise.

Now if only they would stop giving away all that free food to poor kids, they wouldn't be so fat.

When the 1920s got under way, the progressive era was discovered for what it was: Progressive. Not good. TR upset the apple cart with it in 1912. They had to do something, so they did and it quickly brought about almost the end of everything. The New Deal and the war produced a kind of enforced progressive era which kept things running rather well for 75 years. Finally, however, those that fought against it got their way about 10 years ago by underfunding things that they found meddlesome. By doing so, it took about the same amount of time for them to beat the shit out of us as before.

Charlie

Callico wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 9:43am:

That bumps us back then to the Wilson era.

Another step back and we have the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, which does not involve interstate.  The army built over 5500 relief shacks to house about 20,000 and Congress approved a million for relief supplies and tents many lived in for years.  Seems kinda proper.




Callico wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 9:43am:

In 1789 the debt assumption of the States by the Federal Government was proper.

There was an alternative motivation for assuming the debt.




There were even some in Abe's own northern party that questioned the constitutionality of the Emancipation Proclamation, called it an "unconstitutional scheme".   

Abe simply defined proper himself, he decided to act.



A quote that would be nice to hear today:

Alexander Hamilton knew many Federalists were using their governmental connections to get rich.  He did not want to be one of these, clinging long and hard to the classical concepts of leadership.

"There must be some public fools who sacrifice private to public interests at the certainty of ingratitude and obloquy because my vanity whispers I ought to be one of those fools and ought to keep myself in a situation the best calculated to render service."


Aaron Burr was Hamilton's opposite, an opportunist for money-making with his connections from public service, most notorious his Manhattan Co.  They dueled, Burr won.  I hope this wasn't a precedent for which type of politician prevails.    :)

Just read some hilarious OWS pickup lines on Twitter:

• I, like totally, hate corporate America too!! Care to share my Starbucks, Tweet on my iPad, ride in my Beemer??
• What time do you get off not working?
  
• Wow, I have that same Chinese symbol tattoo, and I don't know what it means either!
  
• I'll smuggle you some Starbucks if you comb my lice.
  
• I just got my Pell Grant and my food stamps, let's party!
  
• I have an extra roll of toilet paper in meine rucksack.

Brew wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 4:22pm:

What time do you get off not working?

What I say to my overpaid freeloading boss who sits in his office on his laptop browsing the internet and talking on his cell phone while facebooking.

Brew wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 4:22pm:

I have an extra roll of toilet paper in meine rucksack.

rule number one of combat patrols:
never skimp on ammo, clean socks, and toilet paper. ;)

Sounds like it may the start of the long awaited American revolution.

NBG

Charlie wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 6:30pm:

By doing so, it took about the same amount of time for them to beat the shit out of us as before.

from "Sympathy for the Devil"


...

I'm in need of some restraint

So if you meet me, have some courtesy
Have some sympathy and some taste
Use all your well learned politics
Or I'll lay your soul to waste, mmm yeah

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, mmm yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game




by: Rolling up the bonuses.

Too late!  The entitlement balance has tipped.  With more than 1/2 the people receiveing some sort of Gov. handout, they will never vote to take that handout away.  They will only vote for Reps. who will give more handouts.

I feel for my grandkids! :'(

Bob P wrote on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 7:44am:

Too late!  The entitlement balance has tipped.  With more than 1/2 the people receiveing some sort of Gov. handout, they will never vote to take that handout away.  They will only vote for Reps. who will give more handouts. I feel for my grandkids! :'(

Well, one needs to take into consideration that those *government handouts* are not all food stamps and/or welfare.  There are other programs that are a part of that 50%.


Quote:

Nearly half, 48.5%, of the population lived in a household that received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2010, according to Census data. Those numbers have risen since the middle of the recession when 44.4% lived households receiving benefits in the third quarter of 2008. The share of people relying on government benefits has reached a historic high, in large part from the deep recession and meager recovery, but also because of the expansion of government programs over the years. (See a timeline on the history of government benefits programs here.) Means-tested programs, designed to help the needy, accounted for the largest share of recipients last year. Some 34.2% of Americans lived in a household that received benefits such as food stamps, subsidized housing, cash welfare or Medicaid (the federal-state health care program for the poor). Another 14.5% lived in homes where someone was on Medicare (the health care program for the elderly). Nearly 16% lived in households receiving Social Security.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

As to Food Stamps (SNAP)


Quote:

Most SNAP participants were children or elderly. Nearly half (47 percent) were under age 18 and another 8 percent were age 60 or older. Working-age women represented 28 percent of the caseload, while working-age men represented 17 percent. Many SNAP participants had jobs. Nearly 30 percent of SNAP households had earnings in 2010, and 41 percent of all SNAP participants lived in a household with earnings. For most of these households, earnings were the primary source of income.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE