Wells Hall Off Topic Board

Shockingly, fallenangel has been calling it like he saw it in regards to this debate. Several posts stating the obvious, that Romney got beaten soundly, and more than that he got "exposed".

It was a big deal in a close election like this one.

Kaiser seems very angry.

regardless if when and who started the program etc, etc, welfare spending has gone up 32% in 4 years.

The people receiving these goodies see Obama as Santa clause regardless of the specifics.

http://youtu.be/tpAOwJvTOio

I remember when Hannity whined about the fact that under Clinton the number of tanks had dropped and thinking "that idiot does realize that tanks are inefficient for future US conflicts, right?". It's the same principle. Saying we have fewer ships ignores the full context. What's really funny is that a CNN online fact check found the number of ships in the Navy had increased from Bush2 to Obama. Either Romney didn't know (which means a staffer hand picked the stat and gave it to him) that portion which makes him comes across as misinformed or he did know and being the opportunist he is still ran with it.

The people receiving those "benefits" would like a job that pays enough to live on...but the wealthy insist on paying them starvation wages...so they get a stipend from the wealthy by way of taxes and food stamps to keep them alive.

Since the economy crashed, I'm glad welfare is there as a safety net for people. And I'll still laugh at the gullible people who express outrage over the "Obamaphones".

We will probably never agree on this issue but let me just say that the government works programs under FDR at least helped to give people a sense of pride that they were working and accomplishing something and even helped people learn skills.

The current welfare system discourages people from working and doesn't help people often times in any way in my estimation.

Also when you give people welfare benefits someone has to pay for them and business shares the burden. The U.S. has some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. That is actually counterproductive in creating jobs for people.

I understand helping people but we are creating a socialist state where people don't think they have to work and think that they are entitled that other people take care of them.

Some People apply for government help for anything and everything they qualify for. My co-worker has 3 daughters (she lives with one of them) and she encourages them to apply for everything and anything they can get (she shares in these benefits by living with one of them). Two of her daughters are getting govt provided or assisted housing (they actually live in their own houses), plus health care, food stamps, etc.

none of her daughters work full time (two of them barely work at all and the other one has is currently failing out of highschool). My co-worker (their mom works but although she works full time and makes a good wage says that she has still applied for assistance but doesnt qualify. she also laments the fact she has to pay for her own eye glasses and prescription.

She says I don't understand because my parents didn't accept food stamps growing up and "if I don't take part in the struggle" I am not qualified to understand.

The thing is I saw my dad work 2 jobs growing up while going to school. Just because my family didn't accept government help doesn't mean we were privileged it just means they had different convictions.

I think in many cases good intentions harm people they are intending to help and welfare is one of them. My co-worker is totally capable of taking care of herself but not only does she try to freeload she encourages all of her daughters to do the same. I don't blame her I blame the system which encourages it.

The answer to your question is quite simple. There are more people receiving assistance because the wealthy corporations moved all the decent paying jobs out of the country and the jobs remaining don't pay enough to support a person, much less a family,anymore. And why in the hell should someone be expected to work 2 or 3 jobs just to survive? Why not pay a person a living wage instead? If someone chooses to work 2 jobs to make extra money to enable them to purchase a luxury item, that's a different situation. Your idiotic notion that someone should just shut up and work themselves to death for slave wages is the real problem. The system doesn't encourage freeloading. The system encourages work. The problem is that the "job creators" insist on paying slave wages, or less, and demanding one person do the work of three for the low wage. Force employers to pay living wages and the issue of people living on assistance goes away.

Outsourcing can be stopped by removing the excess profit garnered by companies that move American manufacturing to slave wage countries. That is done by placing tariffs on those goods once made in America and now made in slave countries. The lie is that consumers will pay more if the jobs don't move. Companies don't move jobs to lower selling cost, they move to lower wages paid and increase the money stuffed into CEO pockets. Every company that moves manufacturing out of the country charges the exact same price for the finished goods as when it was made here. The difference is that the cost of manufacturing allows the CEO to stuff more money in his pocket because the workers making the goods are paid so little. A washing machine that cost 500 dollars when it was made here, still costs 500 dollars when it's made in China. The difference is between paying 20 dollars an hour to an American and 90 cents an hour to a Chinese worker that goes into the CEO's pocket, and the consumer saves NOTHING.

And yes, corporations exist by the grace of the people and DO have a moral and social obligation to pay living wages. If they don't there is no reason to allow their continued existence. The end of the huge military wouldn't be a bad thing either. It's much better to focus spending on people than things that kill.

If a company manufacturing washing machines in the US sells them for 500 dollars and makes a profit of 100 dollars for every one sold while paying living wages to American workers, but chooses to move the manufacturing to China and pay Chinese workers slave wages, then sell the same washing machine in the US for the same 500 dollars and make a profit of 300 dollars for every one sold, THAT is excessive profit. Placing a tariff on the washer to keep the profit at 100 dollars would make the reason to move the jobs to China disappear. Thus the American jobs would be saved. Quite simple.

I have no problem with a Chinese manufacturer going into business making washing machines and selling them globally. That's free enterprise. However, if a Chinese manufacturer is going to sell them in the US, a tariff that keeps the selling price competitive with American manufactured machines needs to be instituted. Much like the Chinese tire industry that tries to dump low priced tires recently faced. A tariff creates a level playing field. We don't need to lower American wages to compete, we need to RAISE Chinese wages. That way we don't lose jobs to what is basically corporate greed. And greed is the reason for moving jobs to slave wage countries, nothing else. As for setting executive compensation levels, maybe it should be regulated by the government and not a dozen people sitting on a board of directors.