Conservatives Answer This; Which Costs More?

So nearly every poster here thinks they are poor because of "Welfare Fraud". Let's see if this is racism, or just ignorant propaganda.

Can any Right Winger here tell us how much Unnecessary Welfare Costs America?

The question THEY WON'T ANSWER BECAUSE THEY DON'T RESEARCH, they repeat.

 

Conservatives follow Fox News. A media ran by Australia. They don't look at spending, they look at Corporate interest. Just look at how many Wars Lockheed Martin and others spent big money to ensure war. If you are President and you don't do what you are told, you become Obama.

 

How about illegal tax fraud, which Obama helped by allowing illegals to go back and file for their last 3 years?
That is taking away billions of our tax dollars. [video=youtube;3eQZoXAU7X0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eQZoXAU7X0[/video]

 

to pretend that welfare matters as any sort of topic that matters in the least as regards the federal budget shows a total ignorance of how little we spend on welfare in this country, it is a non topic in terms of dollar amounts.

 

We wouldn't have to worry so much of the cost of welfare if the Democrats knew how to create decent jobs. But with them, they only know how to get rid of good jobs which causes so much welfare.

 

Well sir, that amount will be going up greatly when we take in about 70,000 Syrians and if Obama has his way, millions of new amnesty illegals. How many out of the 47% of the country that make so little they don't pay Federal taxes aare drawing some form of welfare?

 

You answered your own question dork.

Think about what is right and what is wrong. Learn that Presidents are weak and CONGRESS is strong. Blaming Obama is dumb.

Our Congress are salesman. Obama was just the best to sell.

 

Of course we could easily win just about any conflict we ever got involved in just by pressing a button and reducing all the "enemy " to radioactive glass. However, when our ostensible reason for going to the war in the first place is to "liberate" the population from internal factions of their own people that doesn't make lots of sense, does it? You don't rescue people from communism/Islamofascism by killing them. It wasn't our stomach that changed, it was the nature and objectives of warfare itself.

In WWII it was total war from the beginning, we weren't trying to rescue the Germans or Japanese from their own government, (thought that's the way it worked out). Also we didn't have Atomic Bombs until the very end. If we had most of Europe would be uninhabitable to this very day.

 

the point you like to ignore is that welfare is a small percent of the budget not to mention the fact that what you are saying is just plain pulled out of thin air.

 

I don't mean to poke fun at you, but you obviously don't know the cost of War. I have no doubt unnecessary War costs us the same as THIS PERSON in .5 seconds.

Welcome to the debate.

 

More babies to chop up for parts!

 

No, it says common defense(warfare when necessary) and "general" welfare. Neither of which include securing an individuals personal needs for food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education or incomes.

General means interstate highways, not driveways. You are bastardizing the intent of the Constitution.

 

And what is my party? I think I addressed your silly generalization the last time around you claimed I was GOP (LOL), sounds like you are going down the same road again.

 

You are right that removing the reasons to come here (work) will cut way down on illegal immigration. Assuming the system works an ID check based on a nation wide identifier. I'd be worried about how such power would be used in the future though. First the illegals, then the sex offenders, then whatever other social pariah. Still, not a bad solution.

As for the "Americans don't want to pick fruit" thing, it's not racist at all. It's the fact that fruit, vegatables, etc, are seasonal. You are hiring people for a few weeks to pick berries and other items that can't be picked by machinery and then that's it, you're down with them, leaving them without work for the rest of the year. Great if you're a teen, not so good if you're older. You're not going to be able to pay your bills all year long with say $3000 for your farming time. That's where a guest worker program would be helpful as we could get seasonal labor.

 

are you kidding... I know many people who only work seasonal with a great range of ages... and many teachers take summer jobs, many I don't know why they would bother when I know how much they make, but they claim they get bored and just want to do something... many construction jobs are seasonal and people end up not working all winter long, and last I checked these were full grown adults and not some teens only or retirees working for the summer... so if adults can do all these other seasonal or part-time jobs successfully, why would picking fruit off a plant be any different of an industry... I mean there are people with multiple part-time jobs now, why wouldn't this just be another one they can (to make a horrible pun) hang their basket on...

think about what you're saying too... you're saying only illegals do this work... so if illegals did this work, how could they afford to travel all the way to all these farms across the country, for just a few short weeks? I mean they aren't getting paid even minimum wage in many instances... so think about the mathematics in your equation... they couldn't afford to make such low wages for only a couple weeks a year... they'd spend more in traveling then they would make in those few weeks... so clearly there is a massive disconnect in what you think happens, and what really does... because somehow they are magically still able to live here... sure there are some that travel and forth, but those are very few and far in between the grand scale of all illegals... we don't have 30 million fruit pickers illegally in america... working seasonally for a few weeks... think it through...

P.S. I know people who pay good money to seasonal pick fruit on farms... I call them customers... you call them your neighbors... apples, strawberries, and pumpkins, OH MY... I've never hired anyone to pick my fields, they pay me! welcome to america...

 

The fact that you are asking the question tells me you haven't seriously even looked at the math. And your answer demonstrates that fact quite gloriously.

 

OK then, welfare goes. Sounds good to me.

 

It's not that cutting military spending would harm the economy, it's that it would harm the bottom line of companies which make military weapons, ammo, and equipment. These companies have lobbyists, and pay billions in campaign donations each year, and so politicians do not want to touch the budget, and let's get one thing straight. They have no issues with cutting soldiers' pay and benefits. They did that without a second thought during the shutdown. They only care about the subsidies and other benefits going to the military-industrial complex.

 

You and others say it is against the constitution, yet we have done it since FDR, so it is clearly not against the constitution.

Everything that a nation can do, was not meant to be detailed in that constitution. That is why the language is as it is. The general welfare clause can cover whatever a later America needed it to cover. What that constitution did, was to supposedly protect the rights of the people, from a bad gov't that would take those rights away. Which has happened over the course of our history, and fear was used to take rights away. That is what you should worry about, not a nation collectively under the federal gov't, insuring its own citizens do not starve to death, since we do not live in the same America that was here when that document was written. You cannot head west now and stake out your own land, raise your food, and care for yourself. You gotta have money to go to the food store. Few people can even grow their own food, for the world has changed. And that constitution has to be able to keep up with change, and not handcuff us to a time long gone, never to return.

When it comes to welfare, which some of the loons on the right detest, they see it through contrived ideological blinders, that says more about their own lack of morals and character than anything else. Sure, there are some people who will fraud the system, and we have always had such people. But to believe that everyone on welfare are doing this, is utter nonsense, and wreaks of simple stupidity, caused by a deficient in character.

We have cut welfare, when in fact it should have been increased. Because free trade, open borders, globalization, will inevitably drive up the numbers needing welfare. And the reason is obvious, if there are some active brain cells operating in the brain. For any nation can only employ the max number of people, keeping them off of welfare, if they are allowed to make what the nation consumes. If you take that away, which the neoliberal GOP and dems did, then of course you will have a growth in welfare numbers. No way out of it. So to call all people on welfare lazy, or frauds, is certain evidence that some of these right wing brains are broken, and perhaps not fixable. They are no different than the local village idiots we all have and feel sorry for. And should be seen, and not heard. Not every American has a decent level of intelligence. Those that do, must fix what the idiots broke.

 

So... looking at the numbers:

The average migrant worker is a twenty-eight-year-old male, born in Mexico, who earns about $5,000 a year for twenty-five weeks of farm work.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/11/in-the-strawberry-fields/305754/

That's $200 a week, $5 an hour assuming a 40 hour week which we both know is not the case. You are not going to get people to get into a field for 25 weeks at $5 an hour. That wage is going to have to at least double if not triple, and it still doesn't solve the issue of year round employment.

As for why illegals can survive on small wages remember they often live in communal housing. Each one isn't renting a single bedroom apartment. There's also the option of crossing the border, living with a group in a house or in the field if you're allowed, then going right back down south.

 

well using that data, you just changed the "couple weeks a year" to a job thats half the year! thats a tremendous boost that many people would love to do seasonally... like I said, americans won't do the work for so little, I've already acknowledged and accepted that fact, but if we create the labor shortage by getting rid of all the illegals and imported cheap labor, we'll finally force the market to readdress the cost of those wages... of course the cost of those goods will go up, I fully expect that, and I fully expect it to get passed on to the consumer... but the end result is, americans will be working, americans will be doing the jobs, and americans will have a reason to find a way to make a better life... this whole concept and story is about helping AMERICANS, not everyone else...

what happens when we make all the illegals legal... they'll now compete with americans for legal jobs... forcing wages DOWN and harming poor america even more than before, because now the estimated 30 million illegals and seasonal workers will now be taking regular jobs for people... and guess what, farmers will encourage MORE illegals to cross over and MORE seasonal workers to fill all those empty jobs... so we solved NOTHING in the end with this whole "feel good" scheme being proposed... sides when you factored the wages of these illegals, you forgot the housing costs and food costs farmers nail the illegals with, I know, I've been on some of these farms that bring in seasonal and illegals and house and feed them in military style bunk houses, most will have two, to keep men and women separate... and if they are lucky they get air conditioning for 8 hours a night during sleep, most don't offer that though heh...

anyhow... nobody wants to force farming to a market adjusted reality, they all want to keep it cheap, with excuses such as they can't afford to do it, or nobody will work for that little... and you're right on both accounts actually... some farms won't afford it and will fold up... and some farms will struggle to get workers at minimum wage... but guess what, they're farmers, they'll do what they've done for centuries, adjust prices and move forward... I mean if we accepted your excuses how have farmers ever been able to exist in america with the cost of things from the 1800's to today... they'd all be gone if we accepted your arguments...or they'd still all pay people pennies a day, and sell things for a little more than that... but they don't, they all pay more... so clearly a different reality must and is possible... not to pull a crazy example out of the air, but how on earth do the amish still manage to farm without equipment and without illegals... so clearly its possible, we'll just have to adjust to market conditions and what it will bear for employee wages and product costs to the consumer... happens EVERY SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA IN EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY... they will survive...

 

Everything you use is obsolete the minute it rolls of the production line this is unavoidable because technology never stands still 20% of the budget is currently spent on the military the remainder on one sort of welfare or the other and the overwhelming majority of the welfare budget goes to support the bureaucracy that runs it.

As for Eisenhower there was comparatively little spent on welfare. When he was in office and the spending was roughly 65% military and 25% infrastructure and 10% welfare. Now welfare and its attendant infrastucture and bureaucracy eats nearly 7 out of every 10 dollars.

 

The only places we should be spending money is the Marines/Navy, Coast Guard, a modest Army and Air Force standing and larger reserves and National Guards but we should develop a next generation of nuclear bomb and delivery systems and retrofit every land based silo we have. By cutting the budget say 2% annually until total costs are down to say 60% what we spend now. A largely defensive posture with special operations for policing actions. And a standing policy any war with an chance of invasion we will respond to the attackers with a devastating and total commitment nuclear strike. MAD for years does work as a deterrent from invasion unless your talking aliens.

As for welfare I'm on permanent SSI Disability and am not ashamed for being on said benefits that I get along with other help from local charities and my family, but how many like me get it on the first application or second appeal - 25% more or less so you have to be seriously messed up to get it that soon without seeing a judge. I'd work but I'm so messed up it would be hard for me to work enough to support myself and pay my medical costs just my basic medications costs around $2500 a month retail plus doctor visits, specialists, physical therapy and psychiatric care (my drugs there need very careful monitoring). I'd be dead without my benefits and in constant pain until then.

 

Stupid post for 2 reasons:

Warfare vs. Welfare is not a political question

Warfare and welfare (in some forms) are sometimes mandatory, its not an either-or subject.

Warfare and welfare are not mutually exclusive and in fact sometimes overlap.

Go refine your trolling please.

 

So it's half a year, what do they do the other half? It's still seasonal work. It still requires pay to double if not triple. It will negatively affect the poor and middle class. I don't see the advantage with that vs bringing foreign labor up and regulating it. I also don't see Americans deciding "hey, I should just do seasonal work for half the year then hope to hell that money lasts the rest of the year!"