U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-08-2014, 08:00 AM
 
66,243 posts, read 30,179,132 times
Reputation: 8609

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Driller1 View Post
Those shareholder aren't "folks".
The shareholders are overwhelmingly large institutional investors, i.e. union pension systems such as CalPERS, etc.

I've already told them that they can make low-wage corporate employees' lives better if they get union members to agree to substantially reduce their pensions.

 
Old 04-08-2014, 08:10 AM
 
2,777 posts, read 3,021,346 times
Reputation: 2312
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart View Post
^^^^

But according to historians Steven Mintz and Sara McNeil, the number of cases of starvation in New York City alone had increased from 20 in 1931 to 110 in 1934.
How was the cause of death determined? Were their other mitigating factors?

Quote:
And malnutrition was a much larger problem. One 1933 study of 514 children in New York found that more than one-third were in "poor" or "very poor" health.
Sample taken from....? Compared to....?


Quote:
Ever heard of indian schools?
Tribal lands set their own rules.

Quote:
The above stats are small compaired to what really happened before welfare. Diseases were also more common, from lack of shots.
Medical technology was also much more primitive back then; the germ theory of disease wasn't fully accepted until after 1920 after all and medicine was still taught via apprenticeship until the mid 1920's.
 
Old 04-08-2014, 08:15 AM
 
Location: California
262 posts, read 131,769 times
Reputation: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoniDanko View Post
I do not have a problem with welfare for those who need it, and I rather my tax dollar be spent on people who need help rather than on wars, raises for congress and other government officials, and/or being given to foreign countries. I do have a problem with the implementation Obamacare, Social Security, and I do have a problem with those who abuse the system, but I can't understand why most are soooooOOooooOOOoo much more upset over this than they are with our government handing our money over to foreign nations... Also to be exact, your tax dollars aren't really being spent on these programs or foreign aid and/or wars because we're borrowing money that we will never be able to pay back to be able to fund it all.
Welfare (as in $'s from the government) SHOULD be a local issue and certainly never above State level. The Feds have no business whatsoever in the area of welfare...actually our Constitution does not give the Feds that jurisdiction. "Local" welfare puts this issue in the hands of those living close to the recipients where cheating can be exposed quickly. One size does NOT fit all from the Fed level.

As for Social Security and Medicare, neither of these programs should ever be put in the same category as the rest of the "freebies" and "give aways" from the Feds. In both these programs "working" people pay into these programs from $'s earned by them. Please understand that if these withholdings had been deposited to earn interest instead of allowing Congress to "ahem...borrow" the $'s for their pet and usually foolish expenditures and then replace $'s with I.O.U.'s (which cannot earn interest) neither of those programs would have a problem. That's what happens when Feds are allowed to "play games" with our money.

Bottom line...keep the Feds out of all areas EXCEPT those provided by the Constitution.

Oh, yes, Congress constantly goes outside their boundaries by claiming "In the name of the general welfare." What is ignored is that "general welfare" means that whatever provision is passed to give welfare, phones, etc., etc., the Feds can ONLY make such provisions IF said provision is granted to every single citizen...not just a selected group. This is a lawyer line of crap deliberately misinterpreted from the "preamble" of our Constitution that has helped get us into financial trouble, destroyed segments of society by degrading them into the "gimme, gimme" world and has caused tremendous destruction to our American society that should remember the Constitution is set up to guarantee everyone the right to take responsibility for themselves...not expect government to give them what they want.
 
Old 04-08-2014, 08:18 AM
 
24,843 posts, read 32,313,685 times
Reputation: 11452
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
The shareholders are overwhelmingly large institutional investors, i.e. union pension systems such as CalPERS, etc.

I've already told them that they can make low-wage corporate employees' lives better if they get union members to agree to substantially reduce their pensions.
But...at the end on the line they too are "folks".

Folks that earned the money to buy those shares.
 
Old 04-08-2014, 08:21 AM
 
2,777 posts, read 3,021,346 times
Reputation: 2312
Quote:
Originally Posted by sindey View Post
I have no clue what the #'s are Informed but, it is something that can't be denied. Maybe someone on here can give you the exact #s.
You don't deny that the separation between the very richest American & the poor has grown more recently than ever before, do you?
I will bet my entire lifes savings you vote Democrat.
 
Old 04-08-2014, 08:23 AM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,270,218 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Why are they working low-wage jobs if that's not meeting their expenses? Alternatively, if they want more than a low-wage job, why aren't they leveraging their skills to work their way up and out? And why aren't they reducing their expenses by living with roommates, cutting out unnecessary expenses like cable TV, cell phones, etc.?


...the answer to welfare is not simply "get a new job."

People working minimum wage are working minimum wage because they have no skills. Skills are not free, especially not in conservative la la land. How do you propose someone on food stamps increase their skills? Maybe they should starve until they finish training...?
 
Old 04-08-2014, 08:28 AM
 
66,243 posts, read 30,179,132 times
Reputation: 8609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Driller1 View Post
But...at the end on the line they too are "folks".

Folks that earned the money to buy those shares.
No. They didn't earn the money to buy the shares. They actually contribute only a very small percentage to their pensions. Taxpayers pay the bulk of the expense. For example, interesting chart for Illinois public employee pensions:
Illinois taxpayers bear the brunt of rising pension costs

Quote:
"A common refrain sounded by public sector unions is that government workers have consistently “paid their share” into Illinois’ pension systems and the state has not.

However, the facts tell a different story.

While government worker contributions to Illinois’ five pension systems have increased by 75 percent since 1998, taxpayer contributions have increased by 427 percent over the same period. In 2012 alone, Illinois taxpayers contributed $3.5 billion more to the pension systems than state workers did."
Illinois taxpayers bear the brunt of rising pension costs
 
Old 04-08-2014, 08:36 AM
 
66,243 posts, read 30,179,132 times
Reputation: 8609
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikBEggs View Post
...the answer to welfare is not simply "get a new job."
No. It's "get a better job." Work your way up and out of government handout-dependence.

Quote:
People working minimum wage are working minimum wage because they have no skills. Skills are not free
No. They actually require effort to acquire, such as via additional education, or on-the-job skills acquisition.

Billionaires Who Came From Nothing
 
Old 04-08-2014, 08:36 AM
 
24,843 posts, read 32,313,685 times
Reputation: 11452
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No. They didn't earn the money to buy the shares. They actually contribute only a very small percentage to their pensions. Taxpayers pay the bulk of the expense. For example, interesting chart for Illinois public employee pensions:
Illinois taxpayers bear the brunt of rising pension costs

Illinois taxpayers bear the brunt of rising pension costs
Then it had to be figured into their wages as a benefit.
 
Old 04-08-2014, 08:38 AM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,270,218 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No. It's "get a better job." Work your way up and out of government handout-dependence.

No. They actually require effort to acquire, such as via additional education, or on-the-job skills acquisition.

Billionaires Who Came From Nothing
Stop with your strawmen.

You are completely missing the point.

These people getting government handouts are working!!!!!

Government handouts are designed to be temporary assistance for the unemployed, not to feed people who work!
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top