Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Take a wild guess what would happen to the prices of goods and services if corporate welfare were ended. Who do you think the resultant necessary price increases would hurt the most?
Hint: the no/low-income.
Pop tarts may go out of business though.
Emoticons aside, the price would drop.
If no one buys the goods prices will come down. Think of welfare as helping the corporations make artificial profits.
The recent "milk will cost $8 a gallon" scare made me chuckle.
Here's an idea to cover the starving people issue.
A food bank staffed by people who NEED the food to feed their families. You will be required to work 2 days a week, 5 hours a day, stocking shelves, cleaning up, etc etc.
The food banks would purchase healthy foods in bulk, fresh fruit and vegetables, canned foods, mac and cheese, hamburger, fruit juice, milk, etc.
Nope. Increased costs of doing business causes prices to rise. End user always pays. Econ 101. End corporate subsidies and you increase the costs of doing business. Prices therefore increase.
Quote:
The recent "milk will cost $8 a gallon" scare made me chuckle.
Look at what happened to food prices after the cost of energy (another cost of doing business) rose: Food Prices
Those receiving public assistance have a birth rate 3 times higher than those who don't. Explain how that's sustainable.
I never said anything about sustainable. My point to you was that birth rates among the poor, while higher than the rest of the population, are lower today with welfare than back in the old days with very little of it.
I would agree there would be a lot of violence but those that can work would seek out jobs at some point, hunger is a very big motivator. You'd be left with the needy and the criminals.
I agree, but I wouldn't minimize the massive rioting and violence. Congress should definitely bunker down.
I never said anything about sustainable. My point to you was that birth rates among the poor, while higher than the rest of the population, are lower today with welfare than back in the old days with very little of it.
Yet far more babies are being born to welfare households than ever before, in some parts of the country, the births to Medicaid and food stamp families greatly outnumber births to working taxpaying couples. In many cities over 80% of children in public schools qualify for the free breakfasts and lunches.
The welfare population has risen very fast under Obama, and we now have more people living on government handouts than many nations have of people -- even combined. We have truly become a welfare nation.
And Obama has just spent $30 billion more dollars which will be added to the national debt to keep people on unemployment handouts yet another year. However at the same time, he's planning a very big and very generous amnesty to add millions of foreigners to the pool, and allow them to bring in family members -- whether they can afford them or not. If they can't afford them, they will be added to the welfare recipients.
Welfare of course meaning more than just TANF which is the free cash welfare handout. Welfare should include Section 8, food stamps, WIC, Medicaid and all the other entitlement programs.
Let's say that, in a radical attempt to balance the budget, Congress entirely cut spending on SNAP (food stamps), Section 8 (subsidized housing), and Medicaid (and they found a loophole around these "mandatory programs" that allowed them to be cut, or declared a special state of emergency).
In addition, in the same year, several states that also fund these programs separately cut their funding by 100% of near that.
What would be the result?
My guess is some or all of the following:
- Huge lines at private relief agencies
- A moderate to dramatic rise in private giving
- Massive rioting in poorer districts of cities, leading to looting, arson, and other crimes
- A rise in "flashmob" and other attacks on stores / gas stations / etc., coordinated by social media
- Attempted assassinations of politicians
- Flood of evictions leading to crime against landlords, mass eviction resistance movements (coordinated by Facebook, Twitter, etc.), rebellious occupation of property by swatters, homelessness
- A drastic rise in property crime rates
- A sharp rise in violent crime rates, often related to property (e.g. assault during robberies)
- A slight uptick in overall employment (including the informal economy)
- An unprecedented boom in the private security industry
- The closure of numerous inner-city grocery stores and corner markets
- Decrease in revenue for supermarkets and food producers in general, but:
- Expanded markets for cheaper food items and discounters
- Decreased prices for medical services and increased incidence of doctors providing "charity care"
- Rises in property, city, and state taxes to fund or expand programs instituted because of the above effects of cutting federal spending
I think some of these concerns are valid, but short short term. I think the longern term benefits far outweigh the negatives.
We benefit from having people produce, people that just consume are a drag on society. Don't get me wrong, some people need to be helped, and even i'm willing to help where needed.
Having said that, we eat bananas because someone produced it and so forth. Having some one just consume is a net loss as the person is consuming production without providing anything in return. Stopping welfare on these folks would mean immediate lower wage costs to employers as they increase the pool of workers, lower consumer prices especially food and increased productivity.
And it's not only welfare, it's also military spending, subsidies to medical industry, sudsidies to education. You fix these and we would return to the fastest economy ever seen, not this entitlement, blob society.
Nope. Increased costs of doing business causes prices to rise. End user always pays. Econ 101. End corporate subsidies and you increase the costs of doing business. Prices therefore increase.
Look at what happened to food prices after the cost of energy (another cost of doing business) rose: Food Prices
Less demand lower price.
The end user will decide the fate of that product, if the price increases and the end user doesn't see the value in the product, they won't buy it. That would drive the price down or force the company to make it valuable again.
Like I said earlier artificially increasing the prices of goods isn't a good thing. In reference to the milk it's as if magically it now doesn't costs $8 a gallon.
If no one buys the goods prices will come down. Think of welfare as helping the corporations make artificial profits.
The recent "milk will cost $8 a gallon" scare made me chuckle.
Yes but FUD propaganda prevents that from actually happening.
Tuition would come down if no one could afford college.
Medical expenses would come down if no one could afford to pay.
Prices would come down if no one bought the goods.
Everywhere in society where "it costs too much on our own dime" is subsidized by a government program.
Older folks though may be the only ones that remember it was affordable before government got involved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
