• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Too Big To Fail" "Welfare Queens"

Are These Banks The New "WELFARE QUEENS?"


  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
We got some. Why didn’t you get yours? We had some of our investments in bank stocks, part of our portfolio. We sold our AZ house near peak and replaced it with an MI house purchased from a distressed seller (their fault). In the past three years we have bought four houses (3 and 1 condo) in the Phoenix area. Getting ready to sell one that was purchased for 92k a year ago from banks (short & 2 lenders) that we think will go for about 150K now. I’d ‘guess’ that the banks took a bath. Our guess it that the first lender had loaned a little over 200K a few years before we purchased it and there was a second loan. We’ll wait a bit longer to sell. So some of our tax money went to rescue the banks? Damn! But we had somebody to deal with instead of dead banks and no one to deal with.
 
Pointing fingers is just fine as long as you are pointing it at the RIGHT people. In order to SOLVE a problem you have to first IDENTIFY the problem. Proclaiming the innocence of the "Welfare Queen" (to include all citizens acting reckless and irresponsible running around with their hands out because its not FAIR) while berating the banks or the feds doesn't address the WHOLE problem. There is a complete mindset change that MUST happen. Feeding one problem while ignoring the other is irresponsible at best and corrupt at least.

Not only did I NOT say the welfare recipient was guiltless but I said they should take or be forced to take responsibility for their lives. But they're not the whole problem either. We're not that far off in agreement about the problem. We can sustain some debt and still function but we can't continue to add too it.

I believe the whole *model* of success has to be redefined because we're entering a new era of unsustainable growth with the current consumer consumption and investment market. The uber rich will have to concede, while the welfare level must slow up and shrink, so the middle can prosper again.
 
Not only did I NOT say the welfare recipient was guiltless but I said they should take or be forced to take responsibility for their lives. But they're not the whole problem either. We're not that far off in agreement about the problem. We can sustain some debt and still function but we can't continue to add too it.

I believe the whole *model* of success has to be redefined because we're entering a new era of unsustainable growth with the current consumer consumption and investment market. The uber rich will have to concede, while the welfare level must slow up and shrink, so the middle can prosper again.

I'm ok with that position. The problem is...it's not happening nor will it happen as log as politicians continue to excuse, justify, and ultimately, exploit.
 
Calling it 'corporate capitalism' makes for a great rallying cry...but its not an accurate term.

It's exactly the correct term. It's the Corporate State, that's Corporate Capitalism; a hallmark and cornerstone to Fascism. And to say that destroying the economy, rewarding those who destroyed the economy, and then doing nothing to fix the economy for the People and allowing us to wallow in exceptionally high and sustained unemployment doesn't impact the poor...I'm not 100% sure that would be accurate assessment.
 
Its not 'the WH'...its both houses of congress and the WH and it has been going on for a looooooooong long time.

Nope. It has been going on since 2009.
 
Which is part of the reason why I think welfare is intentionally designed to create and perpetuate dependence upon the government. The problem you mention could be easily overcome by creating a program that turns welfare recipients (largely high school drop-outs or (occasionally) graduates/GED earners w/no college education or marketable skills) into highly-skilled potential workers for in-demand fields....or a program that doesn't perpetually reward you for having children you can't afford by increasing benefits each time you pop one out.

It is. Specifically designed to entrap people thus enslaving them to the government. That way they don't try to buck the trend when government gets out of hand. I wouldn't necessarily completely nix programs like welfare; but there's no such thing as a free lunch. So as long as you're going to be living off the taxpayer's dime; you're gonna be doing a significant amount of community service.
 
I'm ok with that position. The problem is...it's not happening nor will it happen as log as politicians continue to excuse, justify, and ultimately, exploit.

You've got to follow the money trail and the name of the game is "get the money". The corporations are simply better at it. They're sitting on $32 trillion of cash in offshore accounts alone, that's not including domestic cash or assets. It's twice the size of the Natl Debt. All they'd have to do is reinfuse a fraction of that cash back into society in the form of more and higher paying jobs, so the middle would grow again and spend. Not only would that create growth but they would get a huge dividend for their investment in the form of profits and increased production.

The economy is like a machine that runs on fuel and the fuel is money. If it doesn't get recirculated the machine runs out and crashes. That's what's happening because everybody is blinded by greedy self interest from the bottom up, though the up has more control of the situation. The gov are suppose to be the umpires but they've become a bunch of corrupted kooks who can't see past their own hubris.
 
You've got to follow the money trail and the name of the game is "get the money". The corporations are simply better at it. They're sitting on $32 trillion of cash in offshore accounts alone, that's not including domestic cash or assets. It's twice the size of the Natl Debt. All they'd have to do is reinfuse a fraction of that cash back into society in the form of more and higher paying jobs, so the middle would grow again and spend. Not only would that create growth but they would get a huge dividend for their investment in the form of profits and increased production.

The economy is like a machine that runs on fuel and the fuel is money. If it doesn't get recirculated the machine runs out and crashes. That's what's happening because everybody is blinded by greedy self interest from the bottom up, though the up has more control of the situation.

Corporations know how to play the game with politicians. That won't change. The poor are seen as a valuable voting bloc. There is no investment in changing that either. Which means....a continuation of status quo as long as voters keep putting the same people in DC.
 
Really well stated, but what can we do about it? I, personally, feel helpless. If it weren't for the discussion boards, I'd feel completely screwed, but at least here we can inform, educate, whatever and Ol' Don Quixote gets his due. I think all our terrorism is internal and just used to subsidize the greatest Welfare Queen of all, the Military Offense Industry, in all its' many manifestations. Since 9-11, all the terrorists in the Big Media look like they were encouraged, setup, perhaps even, victimized by the FBI. The FBI's specialty seems to be arranging big media events like Meth labs where the FBI supplied the equipment and formulas and organized the bust as the first batch is finished to the tune of maximum TV cameras, or terrorists that some FBI informer encouraged groups by suggesting they could get them bombs, missiles, etc., and again big TV cameras for maximum exposure. Seems like entrapment to me, but what the hell do I know?
I feel like nothing will ever substantially change as long as the re-election rate of Senators and Representatives is over 90%.
 
Which is part of the reason why I think welfare is intentionally designed to create and perpetuate dependence upon the government. The problem you mention could be easily overcome by creating a program that turns welfare recipients (largely high school drop-outs or (occasionally) graduates/GED earners w/no college education or marketable skills) into highly-skilled potential workers for in-demand fields....or a program that doesn't perpetually reward you for having children you can't afford by increasing benefits each time you pop one out.

"Intentional design" is a strong word. America's welfare system was designed to be non-intrusive because (1) government intrusiveness is uniquely unpopular in the United States and (2) it is assumed the "Protestant work ethic" powers American labor, compelling everyone to become self-sufficient and off welfare as soon as possible. While it is easy for politicians and lower incomes to work in collusion to exploit the system, it certainly was not designed to work that way.

Fact is, the death of the "Protestant work ethic "relates to the general loss of opportunity due to globalism. There is no opportunity, and where there is opportunity, it is so shallow there is basically no benefit to pursuing it. Our education system (1) does not outfit the lower income brackets to be able to participate in the new economy and (2) it is probably impossible to outfit them anyway.
 
Yes.
Corporations and big banks have always been the welfare queens.
 
"Intentional design" is a strong word. America's welfare system was designed to be non-intrusive because (1) government intrusiveness is uniquely unpopular in the United States and (2) it is assumed the "Protestant work ethic" powers American labor, compelling everyone to become self-sufficient and off welfare as soon as possible. While it is easy for politicians and lower incomes to work in collusion to exploit the system, it certainly was not designed to work that way.

Fact is, the death of the "Protestant work ethic "relates to the general loss of opportunity due to globalism. There is no opportunity, and where there is opportunity, it is so shallow there is basically no benefit to pursuing it. Our education system (1) does not outfit the lower income brackets to be able to participate in the new economy and (2) it is probably impossible to outfit them anyway.

To say "there is no opportunity" is extremely hyperbolic.
 
To say "there is no opportunity" is extremely hyperbolic.

There is an average of three million jobs available (most of them incapable of supporting middle class living standards) and upwards fifty million unemployed. And the latter number is based on a working population that is already smaller than a economic superpower should support. The lack of opportunity is pretty straightforward in that context.
 
Last edited:
There is an average of three million jobs available (most of them incapable of supporting middle class living standards) and upwards fifty million unemployed. And the latter number is based on a working population that is already smaller than a economic superpower should support. The lack of opportunity is pretty straightforward in that context.

You realize 50 million people would equate to 16% unemployment. I assume you argue against the BLS numbers that cite unemployment at 7.8%? Or is using total unemployment (under-employed/given up/expired benefits) just convenient to the argument you're making right now?

Regardless of that, training the under-educated and under-skilled in areas of high demand wouldn't subject them to the same difficulties in finding employment that they experienced while still under-educated and under-employed. We lack available workers in many technical fields...fields with would only require 2-3 years of training (at max) in almost any trade school/community college program.

My solution is feasible. Your hyperbole is dishonest.
 
You realize 50 million people would equate to 16% unemployment. I assume you argue against the BLS numbers that cite unemployment at 7.8%? Or is using total unemployment (under-employed/given up/expired benefits) just convenient to the argument you're making right now?

Regardless of that, training the under-educated and under-skilled in areas of high demand wouldn't subject them to the same difficulties in finding employment that they experienced while still under-educated and under-employed. We lack available workers in many technical fields...fields with would only require 2-3 years of training (at max) in almost any trade school/community college program.

My solution is feasible. Your hyperbole is dishonest.
This does make it higher than the official numbers, certainly, but exactly how high nobody really knows.
 
This does make it higher than the official numbers, certainly, but exactly how high nobody really knows.

TBH, I don't think any number we're gathering is accurate. The methodology is flawed. It's nice to have an unemployment measure as an economic indicator, but anybody to takes either the BLS number or the "true" unemployment number as gospel is being a little silly, IMO. And using unemployment as an argument against job training for welfare recipients is just as ridiculous. There are unfilled jobs in skilled professions all over the country. The reason welfare recipients have trouble finding adequate employment is because of a lack of skills more than anything else.
 
You realize 50 million people would equate to 16% unemployment. I assume you argue against the BLS numbers that cite unemployment at 7.8%? Or is using total unemployment (under-employed/given up/expired benefits) just convenient to the argument you're making right now?

Regardless of that, training the under-educated and under-skilled in areas of high demand wouldn't subject them to the same difficulties in finding employment that they experienced while still under-educated and under-employed. We lack available workers in many technical fields...fields with would only require 2-3 years of training (at max) in almost any trade school/community college program.

My solution is feasible. Your hyperbole is dishonest.

Far more than 16% of Americans don't work. The estimated total numbers of jobs is less than half our population.

My observations don't relate strongly to the unemployment rate (except that those unemployed are included under the umbrella of fifty million), as not everyone in the working population currently unemployed fits under that statistic, just the people looking for work.

Fifty million includes the tens of millions of welfare dependents who have been out of work too long to count as unemployed under the employment rate: welfare dynasties as conservatives would consider them, who are only passively engaged in the labor force.

This does make it higher than the official numbers, certainly, but exactly how high nobody really knows.

Comparing census projections to the employed and making adjustments for aged, young, and infirm (who would not be expected to work) it is upwards fifty million.
 
Last edited:
Far more than 16% of Americans don't work. The estimated total numbers of jobs is less than half our population.

My observations don't relate strongly to the unemployment rate (except that those unemployed are included under the umbrella of fifty million), as not everyone in the working population currently unemployed fits under that statistic, just the people looking for work.

Fifty million includes the tens of millions of welfare dependents who have been out of work too long to count as unemployed under the employment rate: welfare dynasties as conservatives would consider them.



Comparing census projections to the employed and making adjustments for aged, young, and infirm (who would not be expected to work) it is upwards fifty million.

You realize there are 113 million people under 18 and over 62, right? That's 36% of the population.
There are currently about 131 million jobs FILLED. That's 42% of the population.

So we've got let's say 70% of the population accounted for in teenagers that don't "need" jobs, elderly that are at or close to retirement, and people working.

So 30% of working-age citizens aren't working. Among those you have the independently wealthy, the housewives/homemakers (about 26 million women, based on best estimates, which equates to 8% of the total population), and the unemployed seeking work. At BEST, you might be able to say 1/4 of the population needs work and can't find it. But claiming that unemployment is 50% as your above post does is a bit dishonest.
 
You realize there are 113 million people under 18 and over 62, right? That's 36% of the population.
There are currently about 131 million jobs FILLED. That's 42% of the population.

So we've got let's say 70% of the population accounted for in teenagers that don't "need" jobs, elderly that are at or close to retirement, and people working.

So 30% of working-age citizens aren't working. Among those you have the independently wealthy, the housewives/homemakers (about 26 million women, based on best estimates, which equates to 8% of the total population), and the unemployed seeking work. At BEST, you might be able to say 1/4 of the population needs work and can't find it. But claiming that unemployment is 50% as your above post does is a bit dishonest.
Let me add: I personally know people that used to work at a large corporation that are now officially unemployed. They are cash 'consultants' for small companies that are supporting large corporations. The wife’s have a real, on the record, job at low pay but with benefits. I wonder how much of this is going on. I also know people that have a real on the record job, but occasionally do construction on the weekends for cash.
Also note my post #26 on this thread where I was unemployed (not collecting unemployment) but making money by investing.
 
Last edited:
You realize there are 113 million people under 18 and over 62, right? That's 36% of the population.
There are currently about 131 million jobs FILLED. That's 42% of the population.


So we've got let's say 70% of the population accounted for in teenagers that don't "need" jobs, elderly that are at or close to retirement, and people working.


So 30% of working-age citizens aren't working. Among those you have the independently wealthy, the housewives/homemakers (about 26 million women, based on best estimates, which equates to 8% of the total population), and the unemployed seeking work. At BEST, you might be able to say 1/4 of the population needs work and can't find it. But claiming that unemployment is 50% as your above post does is a bit dishonest.


Not exactly sure where the 50% allegation is coming from. I said "upwards fifty million" of a 308,000,000 legal population, which is a relative number indicating tens of millions going upwards to fifty or so million, partially because the number is subject to mild fluctuations ranging from the millions or tens of millions based on the year or decade. That number is broadly correct.


While you can challenge the inclusion of specific demographics, it comes down to the mathematics. Fact is, most families with a "housewife" (unemployed spouse as far as I'm concerned) probably can't afford the convenience in today's economy, as excessive private debt and rising costs of living indicates a single employed adult rarely generates anywhere near enough capital to meet the various expenses of a nuclear family -- even with an equally excessive public debt providing food stamps and other services to compensate.


When it comes down to it, there are also millions (possibly tens of millions) of jobs that are not filed with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, such as under-the-table construction work (not all of which goes to illegal immigrants). However, while not having to pay taxes offsets the low wages of such employment, it is not a consistent or reliable source of employment capable of supporting middle class living standards for yourself or a family.
 
I ain't seen JPMorgan Chase spending any excess monies in my neighborhood.
My only argument here is that, at least the crack "ho" with the 3 kids spends her money in the local economy to her dealer for Meth and her dealer for baby things. She's good for the local economy and JPMorganChase is not.

I don't think you can prove any of this, much less show us the benefit of criminal activity.
 
I don't think you can prove any of this, much less show us the benefit of criminal activity.

Well, in industrially important cities in the 19th and early 20th centuries, organized crime syndicates provided stability to the neighborhoods of the ethnic poor where the authority of police was strongly resisted, often as part of a working relationship with their contacts in municipal politics to create a safer living/working environment. A double edged sword, but it did help the ethnic majority deny minority populations access to the economic and cultural mainstream, which at the time was a social goal.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you can prove any of this, much less show us the benefit of criminal activity.



It would appear to me that JPMorganCHASE is the one involved in the larger criminal activity. Didn't they just pay a $75 billion dollar fine to the gov't? Bogus mortgages, LIBOR rates, etc. That fine should reduce my personal tax burden minimally and that is an undeniable benefit. The crack "ho" and her dealer are gonna keep eatin' and feedin' da' babies and that helps my buddy two fingers at the slightly soiled diaper store as well as my buddy "Fingers" McKee, who regularly shares in the crack dealers good fortune by liberating much of his profits in a locally owned and operated back room poker game.
 
It would appear to me that JPMorganCHASE is the one involved in the larger criminal activity. Didn't they just pay a $75 billion dollar fine to the gov't? Bogus mortgages, LIBOR rates, etc. That fine should reduce my personal tax burden minimally and that is an undeniable benefit. The crack "ho" and her dealer are gonna keep eatin' and feedin' da' babies and that helps my buddy two fingers at the slightly soiled diaper store as well as my buddy "Fingers" McKee, who regularly shares in the crack dealers good fortune by liberating much of his profits in a locally owned and operated back room poker game.

Remaking the Federal Reserve, Building Public Banks and Opting Out of Wall Street

"The most obvious reason for a public bank is to allow a state to use its resources to build the economy of the state by keeping resources in-state and not sending them to Wall Street, but there are other reasons. The events in Cyprus, where depositors were forced to bail out the banks through seizure of their savings, show there needs to be a banking system that protects people. Cyprus-like seizures of accounts can happen in the United States.

In fact, Ellen Brown reports that as part of the "living wills" banks are required to prepare under Dodd-Frank - which describe how they will survive an economic crisis - the banks include "bail-in" provisions. These plans require depositors (who are unsecured creditors, with fewer rights than derivative investors) to bail out the banks by turning their savings into bank stock, which could be worth only pennies on the dollar in a crash."

Do yourself a favor and read the entire article. It is eye-opening and truly informative that simply states how the current system operates.
 
I don't think you can prove any of this, much less show us the benefit of criminal activity.

I would suggest that the illegal war in Iraq made the banks huge money. I would suggest it made those that fueled the war, energy corporations, huge money. I would suggest it made weapons manufacturers huge money and I consider it all criminal activity, even if it is the backbone of "War is good business" corporatism. JPMorgan is always trying to collect another dime in my neighborhood and the crack ho' is feeding her babies.
 
Back
Top Bottom