Current welfare system ruining our economy

The numbers I used were not 'mine' but those provided by our government, specifically the BLS and Census Bureau.
Per the Census Bureau, the population in 2010 was 308,745,538 and 60 years ago in 1950 was 150,697,361; (308,745,538 - 150,697,361 = 158,048,177), 158,048,177 / 60 = 2,634,136 average population increase per year over the last 60 years. Based on those numbers, the population at the end of 2016 should have been (308,745,538 + (2,634,136 x 6)) or about 324,550,355, and the Census Bureau population clock estimates the population on 31 December 2016 to have been 324,304,407. (324,550,355 - 324,304,407 = 245,94 That's close.

But the point relative to this thread I was making "The problem is that modern societies do not exist in a 'one new consumer equals one new producer' environment any longer.
Per the census bureau there were 129,721,512 persons employed full time in 2000 with a total population of 281,421,906 consumers."

Per the National Vital Statistics Report provided by cdc.gov each year, over the 70 year period from 1946 to 2015, births in the U.S. exceeded 4 million during the 11 year period from 1954 to 1964, also during the 5 year period from 1989 to 1993, and most recently during the 10 year period from 2000 to 2009.
Note: During the 'baby boomer' years 1954-1964, over 100,000 died before reaching 1 year old.

Some persons are working two or more jobs, full and/or part time. And a number of my retired friends living on Social Security are also working full or part time after retiring and finding their pensions and Social Security are not enough to live on.

Footnotes (Source: bls.gov Last Modified Date: January 06, 2017)
(1) Employed full-time workers are persons who usually work 35 hours or more per week.
(2) Employed part-time workers are persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week.

 

Over the last 80 years.

1936 debt $36,424,613,732.29 population 128,053,180 $284.45 per person, minimum wage $0.25/hr or $521.25/yr or 1,137.8 work hours per share of debt
2016 debt $19,573,444,713,936.79 population 323,771,014 $60,454.59, minimum wage $7.25/hr or $15,116.25/yr or 8,338.6 work hours per share of debt
1936 Median 'Household income' 3.7 persons, $1,160 or a debt share = $1,052.47, or a little less than 1 years total income.
2015 Median 'Household income' 2.54 persons, $55,775 or a debt share = $153,554.66, or about 2.75 yrs total income.

The population is 2.528 times as great.
Median household income is 48 times greater.
The debt is 537.368 times as great.
The debt per person is 212.532 times as great.

And the debt today, 10 January 2017, is $19,964,268,875,957.61

 

Nope. Make them illegal and confiscate domestic assets when caught.

 

Spending is not the same as paying back.

Try taking out a bank loan and claim that you've repaid the loan by having spent the money.

 

Two problems with people getting work;

1. People do not live where the jobs are located.

2. People are not qualified for the jobs available.

And a 3rd and more subjective problem is too many people are simply lazy and don't wish to work.

IMO we cannot solve 1 or 2 or 3 so expect a bumpy ride ahead...

 

They almost always do, because where people live is mostly where the work needs doing.

They almost always are qualified, but might not have so much experience that they don't need any training. The millennials are behind the 8-ball because they need experience to get a job, and can't get a job because they don't have experience. Classic Catch-22.

There might be too many such -- but still not a significant number.

 

So you think the 10's of millions of Americans who live in rural areas around the USA have plentiful employers in their areas?

Why do you think the US allows about one million green card workers into the US each year? Because we don't have enough qualified American workers!

 

Oh my god people, turn off fox news. NOthing about the 600 billion we spend on military and policing the world? Nothing about he never ending stream of tax cuts for the rich? The fact billionaires can get away with paying next to nothing. Corporations can pay next to nothing in taxes. Welfare is such a pittance. What a joke. We should spend money on Americans to help americans, not for starting wars to steal other's resources and to benefit corporations globally.

And some of you want to piss away 20 billion on a stupid wall and you want to complain about something that prevents people from starving to death? Or you refuse to raise minimum wage, or demand companies pay livable wages. Fact is, a lot of people on welfare work.

My god, there is so much stupid with posts like the OP, its astounding how people can be so uninformed and absolutely clueless. The power of propaganda is amazing

 

Yes, at least potentially. Tens of millions of them. The problem is not lack of people who need work done and are willing to pay someone to do it. The problem is that legal barriers to employment and the load of rich, greedy, privileged parasites that each working person must carry make it uneconomic to employ them.

No, because it increases land rents while reducing wages. That experiment has already been done.

 

You're again on a diatribe which makes it impossible to give any substantive response to you...

 

Garbage. You just know I am right, and you have no answers.

 

Scrolling through the first 10 or so posts in this thread, I can't help but notice a bipartisan theme;

greed

in the form of envy.

You all want other people's money.

 

Here's why a response is not warranted for your diatribe;

"the load of rich, greedy, privileged parasites"
"because it increases land rents while reducing wages"

Your quoted comments above are diatribe!

 

So you are saying they are rich folks wanting others money?

 

No, we just want our own money back, the money the rich, greedy, privileged parasites have stolen.

 

So you do not want anyone to name the fact that each productive person must carry a load of rich, greedy, privileged parasites. Check.

You also do not want anyone to name that fact, which was proved by the effect of the Black Death on wages and land rents in Europe in the 14th century.

No, they simply name relevant facts that you do not want anyone to name, because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.

 

I had to skip a few, but without going beyond the first page, every single one of these quotes entail the presupposition that some are entitled to the money of others.

This is where everyone gets mad at me for quoting them out of context,

but they all believe that they, by proxy of their government, are entitled to the money of others for one purpose or another.

 

Certainly, when the only thing that made it the "others'" money was legalized theft from those who were rightly entitled to it.

I assume you are aware that governments often make laws that steal from rightful owners to give to others. I also assume you are in favor of this practice when the rightful owners whom government robs are producers, and the others who get legal title to the loot are rich, greedy, privileged parasites.

Why are you quoting them out of context?

No, for one specific REASON: the money was stolen from them by law, and given to those who now have it.

 

You trying to tell me they're all voluntarist who view taxation as crime? I'm pretty sure that's not the way it is. Some of them think stolen tax money should be spent on welfare. Some of them think it should be spent on war. Some of them think it should be spent confining people who sell drugs, or rounding up and expelling Mexicans, building walls,.. I'm pretty sure they all think it should be spent their protection, and that it should be collected in the first place.

If I'm wrong, they can speak for themselves.

 

My full post from the first page:
"Redundant, overlapping programs is a government method of creating jobs. After all, politicians have to provide some rewards for those who help their campaigns and what is better than a government job with lucrative benefits?

"A Republic, if you can keep it." - sadly, we didn't/couldn't."

My words, you quoted, in no way presuppose that some are entitled to the money of others. And the main text of my post on the first page which you referred to were a derisively worded statement, followed by a sardonically worded question.

Do I believe governments are necessary? Yes.
Do I believe taxation is necessary? Yes.
But, as I have posted in various other threads, I believe that sovereignty begins with the individual, NOT the government. Each level of government should ultimately be controlled by the people and that the Federal level of government should only be given responsibility for what State and local governments or the individual members of our societies recognize as being the things they need but are incapable of providing on their own.
Repealing the 16th and 17th amendment would be necessary to return our government back to the people in my opinion, eliminating the IRS and requiring the States to acquire the tax proportionate to their population which would then make both Houses of Congress answerable to their constituents for Federal spending and State government responsible for budgeting the spending within their States AND taxing its citizens for both State and their share of Federal spending. Problems should be solved at their source, if they can be. Problems which can't be solved without outside help would then be left for others to decide if there would be a benefit in providing assistance and if so, how to best provide it without doing harm to themselves.
Welfare assistance, in my opinion should be left totally to the private sector with government(s) only doing what they can to promote job creation where needed.

 

So, you believe it necessary for other people to pay for what you believe to be your protection. You're afraid of what might otherwise happen, so you want to forcibly expropriate other people. In essence; you want other people's money. You highlighted where I said to correct me if I'm wrong, but then you went on to confirm what I said. I'll read the rest of your response now.

 

So the fellow that is anti-war and anti-military shouldn't have to pay taxes to help with running the military?

 

Yes, forcing others to pay for your protection and aggression is wrong.

 

Nobody pays for mine, I payed it forward years ago...

 

IMO the function of many agencies is mainly to provide administrative do-nothing positions for the less ambitious scions of the elite. Such people are often liberal arts graduates with no real skill at anything. Good luck getting rid of them.