18 Stats That Prove That Government Dependence Has Reached Epidemic Levels

Loading

Michael Snyder:

Did you know that the number of Americans getting benefits from the federal government each month exceeds the number of full-time workers in the private sector by more than 60 million?  In other words, the number of people that are taking money out of the system is far greater than the number of people that are putting money into the system.  And did you know that nearly 70 percent of all of the money that the federal government spends goes toward entitlement and welfare programs?  When it comes to the transfer of wealth, nobody does it on a grander scale than the U.S. government.  Most of what the government does involves taking money from some people and giving it to other people.  In fact, at this point that is the primary function of the federal government.

Just check out the chart below.  It comes from the Heritage Foundation, and it shows that 69 percent of all federal money is spent either on entitlements or on welfare programs…

Heritage Foundation

So when people tell you that the main reason why we are being taxed into oblivion is so that we can “build roads” and provide “public services”, they are lying to you.  The main reason why the government taxes you so much is so that they can take your money and give it to someone else.

We have become a nation that is completely and totally addicted to government money.  The following are 18 stats that prove that government dependence has reached epidemic levels…

#1 According to an analysis of U.S. government numbers conducted by Terrence P. Jeffrey, there are 86 million full-time private sector workers in the United States paying taxes to support the government, and nearly 148 million Americans that are receiving benefits from the government each month.  How long can such a lopsided system possibly continue?

#2 Ten years ago, the number of women in the U.S. that had jobs outnumbered the number of women in the U.S. on food stamps by more than a 2 to 1 margin.  But now the number of women in the U.S. on food stamps actually exceedsthe number of women that have jobs.

#3 The U.S. government has spent an astounding 3.7 trillion dollars on welfare programs over the past five years.

#4 Today, the federal government runs about 80 different “means-tested welfare programs”, and almost all of those programs have experienced substantial growth in recent years.

#5 Back in 1960, the ratio of social welfare benefits to salaries and wages was approximately 10 percent.  In the year 2000, the ratio of social welfare benefits to salaries and wages was approximately 21 percent.  Today, the ratio of social welfare benefits to salaries and wages is approximately 35 percent.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
50 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“The main reason why the government taxes you so much is so that they can take your money and give it to someone else.”

Those of us who have been paying attention. KNOW the GOVERNMENT and EVERY DEMOCRAT/ LIBERAL is LYING to US.
Umm…this is no secret to those who have been paying attention….

…then above all we have to deal with whining liberal/dem trolls coming to Conservative sites telling us this just ain’t so. And, for some odd reason, they are of the opinion everyone is as stupid as they are on this issue…

Welfare is a response to need, not a creator of need.

The “need” is growing and unsustainable…. something has to change

@Greg:

Welfare is a bad, unworkable, politically oriented, leftist response to a grossly exaggerated “need” designed specifically to get its victims trapped in prison of dependency. The historical progression of the worthless, dehumanizing essence of welfare proves it.

@Greg: If your statment was anywhere near right, then we’d have no need for welfare because of the huge amount of money spent on ever growing programs. Cut the freebies and see who gets a job. I know it works, I cut off my Son and his family and low and behold his wife got a job. I won’t go into why he screwed up getting a hell of a good paying job.

One of Obama’s first acts was to make a case for not paying your bills.
Pretty soon home mortgage holders were quitting paying their mortgages and ….no real consequences to them personally.
(I knew many who managed to stay in their homes for YEARS after quitting paying. they even bragged about how they could thus afford a better car, clothes, jewelry and more because of their ”savings.”)
College loan holders are begging for ”relief,” meaning they want to have gone to college for FREE.
The unemployed were re-named the FUNemployed!
Yes, live off of the many extensions Obama gave them.
And who can forget the billboard ads telling Americans to come and get it…..free food! EBT cards.
To this day people come door-to-door and call on the phone to see if there are ANY gov’t give-aways you qualify for!
As a result, as the article points out there are “86 million full-time private sector workers in the United States paying taxes to support the government, and nearly 148 million Americans that are receiving benefits from the government each month.”
Now, some might say, yeah, but these welfare recipients aren’t getting full pay levels of entitlements.
True, but neither are any of the full-time workers PAYING 100% of their wages as tax.
The average tax percent of wage is less than 50%.
No, it cannot last.
Weaning the lazy off welfare so only the really needy are left is going to be hard, maybe even violent.
But it will have to be done.

@Nanny G #6 – Your points are totally valid. I remember ‘the won’ making a speech and in that speech he said a bunch of b/s as usual.. but one thing I do remember him saying regarding jobs and employment…he said to the effect…we need jobs for those who want to work…Now, what the hell kind of ‘message’ does that send? I could not believe my ears…. I could not believe this came out of the mouth of a perceived “leader”…

Then we have to listen to a Greg actually try to justify these statistics with pure nonsense.

The hardest part of this ‘Austerity measure’ that WILL BE COMING can, as you say… lead to violence…if the balance is now 84 Million working vs. 148 Million on ‘some kind of Government dependency’ I am wondering WHEN is our government going to take the necessary ‘measures’ to ‘correct’ this?

Never in my life did I ever think I would be seeing such numbers here in America…

@Greg:

Welfare is a response to need,

Yes, Greggie, welfare (as you choose to call the redistribution of the wealth of others) is a respond to a need. Just one problem; nowhere in our Constitution, or the writings of the Founding Fathers, does it suggest that the wealth of one man should be taken to provide for the “welfare” of another man.

As a matter of fact, charity, not wealth redistribution, was advocated by the Founders. One man’s charity helping another individual, or for that matter, through combined charity, helping many. Churches were a great outlet for helping the poor, except along came a Democrat president, and then another, that justified, and legalized, theft from one to give to another. No clearer example of robbing working Peter to pay lazy Paul has been made in the annals of history.

not a creator of need.

And there lies the crux of the problem with your thinking. In a nation that has millions of “rags to riches” stories, why is anyone in this nation “poor?” In a nation even those who subside on the theft of the wealth of others cannot be considered “poor” with their flat screen TVs, their personally owned vehicles, their cell phones, X-boxes, etc.

Welfare, as we know it, is just a financial demand on productive citizens to pay for the non-productive who have consistently made bad decisions in regards to their lives. Quitting school, which can be remedied with free classes to obtain a GED; having children out of wedlock; doing drugs or abusing alcohol, or just flat out refusing to find work; all choices that the left excuses, and even exacerbates by promoting a responsibility free life style for no other reason than to pander for votes from the truly greedy who are willing to live off the labor of others.

Are there those who are truly deserving of our charity? Yes, the lame; the feeble; the aged. But certainly not the millions that now exist simply due to institutionalized, legal theft from others.

@Retire 05#8 –

Welfare, as we know it, is just a financial demand on productive citizens to pay for the non-productive who have consistently made bad decisions in regards to their lives. Quitting school, which can be remedied with free classes to obtain a GED; having children out of wedlock; doing drugs or abusing alcohol, or just flat out refusing to find work; all choices that the left excuses, and even exacerbates by promoting a responsibility free life style for no other reason than to pander for votes from the truly greedy who are willing to live off the labor of others.

In Greg’s world and others who share his world, these things never have, aren’t and isn’t happening…

by denying ‘these’ very things are not happening…this theft can continue…forever…

but the game of gaming the system is coming to a dreadful end…

@Greg: #2

Welfare is a response to need, not a creator of need.

Are you saying that there are families that “need” welfare generation after generation? Should there be a limit on how many generations can get welfare without working? Nobody should get any welfare in an area where employers are looking for help and can’t get any.

Social Security and Medicare should never be listed in any welfare list. People pay into them, and expect something back. Since they both are government programs, the politicians want us to get as little back as possible so they have more to spend on themselves.

Welfare and all it’s related wealth transfer programs are a government dependency mechanism to buy votes. This goes on through multi-generations. I’d like to see some stats on the numbers of those who get out and become self sufficient, my guess is it’s low.

It’s advertised as a helping hand to those in need, but bottom line it’s a vote buying mechanism.

It’s difficult to understand precisely what this blog advocates and what it doesn’t. It promotes plutocracy, austerity, slave wages for workers, gender pay inequality, less taxes for the top (at the obvious expense of the workers), is adamantly anti union, has an abject disdain for the lower class to be able to acquire health insurance, yet complains about government assistance.

We have somewhere to the tune of 40 of the top Fortune 500 companies paying negative taxes (actually being a welfare recipient) and the majority of the rest paying less than1% yet this somehow is acceptable to the general crowd here. We have the most profitable companies raking in billions while paying their full time employees poverty level wages, which tax payers like me has to subsidize.

Common sense dictates that if those companies that are bankrolling the bulk would simply pay their full time employees a living wage (which they could well afford), I wouldn’t have to pay for their children’s food, medicine, shelter, etc.

The Bible, which liberals like Obama love to ”quote” (out of context) when the situation seems like it might help them tug the heartstrings of their ”enemies,” (as they call all Americans who do not buy into their Cloward-Pivin world view) actually has something to say about ”welfare.”
1 Timothy 5:3-8 defines what a worthy welfare recipient is.
It also points out how a family should care for their own.
AND it defines the types of phony would-be welfare recipients who should NOT be helped.
Zechariah 7:10 warns us that we should never defraud the poor.
Notice in James 1:27 the command to ”look after orphans and widows IN THEIR TRIBULATION,…” pointing out that even widows and orphans can have periods of time that they need help but other periods of time when they can stand on their own.
Ruth was a good example of this. (Book of Ruth)
She didn’t sit on her butt, expecting people to take care of her.
She got out to work in fields after the harvest, gleaning all of the leftovers at the edges of each field.
This was God’s arrangement.
Not that all the work be done for the needy, but that some produce be left on the vine, on the tree, at the edge of crop fields, so widows and orphans could go out, collect it and thus have the dignity of working.

@ Greg #2

So, to paraphrase slightly, what you’re advocating is: “From Each According to Their Ability; To Each According to Their Need”?

Of course, the underlying problem with that platitude is who gets to define ‘ability’ and ‘need’.

See Animal Farm and Atlas Shrugged for thoughts on how that typically works out…

@Greg:

Welfare is a response to need, not a creator of need.

It depends on how lucrative the benefits are.

@Ronald J. Ward:

It’s difficult to understand precisely what this blog advocates and what it doesn’t.

This is unsurprising.

But first, it’s important that we correct some of your misunderstandings.

It promotes plutocracy,

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact if you’re looking for evidence of wealthy rule, of “buying democracy,” then look no further than the Democratic Party; the Party of the Rich. Here we find that Democrats, many of whom have happily received campaign contributions from the Koch brothers, that the top 14 out of 25 campaign donors are Democratic supporters, that the Democrats are outraising Republicans, and certainly aren’t strangers to their own sugar daddies.

austerity,

I’m not sure what your beef with austerity might be.

slave wages for workers,

This of course is incorrect. Remember, income is growing faster in Red States. It’s also worth noting here, that states with higher minimum wages, also had higher unemployment.

gender pay inequality,

This is actually a Democratic tenet. Remember, the Democrats and the White House itself pays women less than men. Additionally, we find that only 38% of the jobs created under the Obama Administration have gone to women.

less taxes for the top (at the obvious expense of the workers),

Generally speaking, those right of center support less taxes for everyone. But it’s always important to understand, that wealth belongs to those who generate and earn it, not to government, and certainly not to lazy socialists who envy other people’s wealth and seek to steal it in order to fund pseudoscientific wishful thinking and bizarre social experimentation.

is adamantly anti union,

Sure, why not?

has an abject disdain for the lower class to be able to acquire health insurance,

Unless you can provide us with a direct quote from someone who expresses abject disdain from the lower class to be able to acquire health insurance, this is merely another instance of the Collective arguing passionately against points that no one is making. Remember, generally speaking, conservatives are more charitable than liberals. And while many in the Collective express wanting free health care for all, they also simultaneously don’t want the money coming out of their own pockets for it, as expressed by the following quote: “Of course, I want people to have health care,” Vinson said. “I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”

yet complains about government assistance.

But the complaints aren’t that they exist at all. Rather, the complaints are that they’re too lucrative.

We have somewhere to the tune of 40 of the top Fortune 500 companies paying negative taxes (actually being a welfare recipient) and the majority of the rest paying less than1% yet this somehow is acceptable to the general crowd here. We have the most profitable companies raking in billions while paying their full time employees poverty level wages, which tax payers like me has to subsidize.

Where does this information come from?

Common sense dictates that if those companies that are bankrolling the bulk would simply pay their full time employees a living wage (which they could well afford), I wouldn’t have to pay for their children’s food, medicine, shelter, etc.

Can we see the ledgers and financial statements that you’re basing this opinion on?

@Kraken: You completely ran from the argument that people like me are subsidizing the full time employees of record profit producing employers with food, shelter, medicine etc because said employers aren’t paying them a wage in which they can raise their family.

@Ronald J. Ward:

No, I didn’t. In fact I directly responded to your arguments with questions asking for clarification of said arguments.

You wrote:

We have somewhere to the tune of 40 of the top Fortune 500 companies paying negative taxes (actually being a welfare recipient) and the majority of the rest paying less than1% yet this somehow is acceptable to the general crowd here. We have the most profitable companies raking in billions while paying their full time employees poverty level wages, which tax payers like me has to subsidize.

To which I asked:

Where does this information come from?

Can you answer that question?

You also wrote:

Common sense dictates that if those companies that are bankrolling the bulk would simply pay their full time employees a living wage (which they could well afford), I wouldn’t have to pay for their children’s food, medicine, shelter, etc.

To which I asked:

Can we see the ledgers and financial statements that you’re basing this opinion on?

Can you answer this question as well?

@Kraken: Asking a question, particularly an irrelevant one, is your response of why I should have my tax dollars taken to support the families of full time workers who are underpaid by record profit making millionaires?

And here you are online, poorly arguing on a political blog, yet you admit an ignorance as to how to use an online search engine?

Do you cloned sock puppets even try?

You are a fraud, and much like your cohorts, a poor one at that.

@Ronald J. Ward: Ronald J. Ward says:

@Kraken: Asking a question, particularly an irrelevant one, is your response of why I should have my tax dollars taken to support the families of full time workers who are underpaid by record profit making millionaires?

This is the problem: what full-time worker with a family puts up with a minimum wage?
Unless he/she has intellectual,mental or physical issues or can’t seem to wake up in time to get to work on time, almost every full-time worker moves up in pay scale within 3 months.
IF a family head isn’t able to get that step raise, he/she can find another job elsewhere.
For more.
Here in Utah there are Help Wanted signs all over.
People who want more money switch jobs for better ones all the time.
Lots of jobs are starter-jobs.
They are not meant for raising a family on.

@Ronald J. Ward:

Asking a question, particularly an irrelevant one, is your response of why I should have my tax dollars taken to support the families of full time workers who are underpaid by record profit making millionaires?

You want me to argue against the facts presented in your argument. However, the reason I am asking the questions I am asking, is because I know that you don’t have answers for them. My contention, is that the facts you present in your arguments are purely imaginary; wholly made up. Otherwise, you’d be able to answer my very simple questions, and provide support for your arguments. I suspect you can’t.

And here you are online, poorly arguing on a political blog, yet you admit an ignorance as to how to use an online search engine?

I’m not sure if this sentence makes any sense.

@Nanny G: Your argument is noted Nanny but let me help you out a bit.

In 1979 I made close to $17 an hour. You could buy a new Chevy Silveraldo or Ford Explorer that would turn every head in the neighborhood for less than $9K. I bought my 1st home in 1982, a 2 story on 12 acres for $23K. I could go on but my point is that wages are way out of proportion from what they were then.

A major point that folks here seem to cover their ears to and sing “la la la” to is that any online bring-home -pay calculator will quickly prove that a full time minimum wage worker who pays no state tax and contributes nothing to their 401K (and realistically, how could they?) with 2 dependents will bring home less than $265 a week. Now, argue that point about MW being for high schoolers but near 30% of those MW workers today are main breadwinners of a household. Argue that all you want but when you calculate those making $10-$12 an hour aren’t bringing home enough to cover the basic needs of that 3 family member dwelling. Now consider those talented tradesmen raking in $20 an hour and compare that to the buying power I enjoyed of the late 70s.

The off-the-cuff response from the right seems to want to chastise these folks as non-productive deadbeats looking for a handout. Hell, I recall those deadbeat mooching teachers with master degrees being depicted as greedy for wanting $80K a year. But the reality is that those postmen and ATT operators and coal miners and sanitation department workers ect were able to raise their families and support themselves with very little to no assistance from the government. They weren’t lazy or unmotivated but rather simply willing to get up and provide an honest days work for an honest days pay.

To characterize today’s full time workers as nonproductive is false as they’re producing their employers record profits. For their employers to underpay them while I’m subsidizing them is something I have a problem with. For you and your cohorts to run from that, to troll that argument, to pretend it doesn’t exist, is just so typical of the fraudulent fairyland in which so many of you seem to live in today.

@Ronald J. Ward:

More imaginary facts?

@Kraken: I was hoping to have an education argument with Nanny as you’ve obviously proven to be incapable of. But to your imaginary facts” question, are you doubting my online wage calculator math or are you incapable of finding that on your own? Do you dispute the cost of a Chevy in 1979 or do I need to prove that? Can you not Google the number of minimum wage breadwinners or do you need help with that? What precisely is your argument and why can you not use the simple tools available at your fingertips to make a constructive argument?

My guess is that you can not argue on an adult level so you resort to distracting trolling tactics. Regardless, previous arguments from you have disqualified you of any credible consideration, which seems overwhelmingly consistent with that of several of the regulars here. Accordingly, I’ll disregard your future comments and dismiss them as the expected typical trolling that’s so prevalent on FA.

@Ronald J. Ward: In 1979 I made close to $17 an hour.

And the average minimum wage back then was $2.90/hour.
At that rate, a $23,000 home on property would have been years of payments.
You’d have had only $6,032/year at that rate.
And you’d have to live, too.
So, you were doing exceedingly well in 1979.
Today the minimum wage varies from $5.00 in some states all the way past Obama’s hoped for $10.10 in other states.
Twelve acres and a home on it would be just as hard to pay for today as then for a minimum wage worker.
BUT you were making more than FIVE TIMES the minimum wage when you bought your property.
IF a worker today is making more than 5 times minimum wage he also could afford a nice property and or truck.
After all we all paid taxes back then, too.

@Ronald J. Ward:

I understand that socialists want everyone else around them to do their work for them, but the reality is that if you’re making an argument, it’s your responsibility to provide the accompanying documentation to support your argument. It’s not my job to support your argument for you.

As I’ve already indicated above, I believe the notion that 40 of the top Fortune 500 companies paying negative taxes (actually being a welfare recipient) and the majority of the rest paying less than1% is purely imaginary, made up, manufactured, fabricated, call it what you will.

Likewise, I believe that the notion of the most profitable companies raking in billions while paying their full time employees poverty level wages, which tax payers like me has to subsidize, is based on an erroneous assumption that companies are obligated to pay their workers wages that support whole families, when in fact they aren’t and shouldn’t be expected to. Certain jobs pay only $10/hour because that’s all they’re worth. Such jobs are not meant to provide sustenance for an entire family, so those wanting to have children need to plan to either increase the value of their skills, or not have children that they are incapable of supporting. Companies aren’t in the business to support families.

I also think that the notion that you have to pay for children’s food, shelter, medicine, etc., because Wal-Mart won’t pay their employees more than what they’re worth, is more essentially made-up nonsense.

If a person is bringing home less than $265 a week and has 2 dependents, then they’ve made some really poor life choices that put them in that situation. But regardless, it’s not the fault of any business. If anything, it’s the fault of government who steals a third of that person’s take home pay. End withholding, and require citizens to write a check on April 14th; then you’ll see some real change.

I challenge the notion that $10/hour bread winners is a problem of significance. It’s not that I don’t think such a thing would be a problem, rather I don’t think that the problem you describe exists in any great measure. Again, this is largely a made up scenario.

The fact that you are unable to produce evidence to back your claims indicates that you are a fantasist. This isn’t a trolling tactic, rather it’s common sense amongst rational people. Besides, giving me the cold shoulder won’t prevent me from undermining your explorations fact free creative writing.

@Nanny G: While the minimum wage was $2.9 in that era, it was not only more confined to teenage or beginner or intern workers, that isn’t the case today as more of the educated and displaced workers have been forced to resort to today’s MW. And that doesn’t even address the buying power argument I presented. And even if you want to argue that (haven’t we been here?) it doesn’t reference the progressive pay then where as people are camping out for a shot at a $12 an hour job today. Seriously, surely, I mean, really, you’re not trying to argue that today’s $7 to $12 an hour workers today have the same buying power as the $3 to $7 (not to mention the $17) an hour jobs of the 70s?

Is that your argument?

Are you actually arguing that a, say, $10 or even $14 an hour worker today can shelter, feed, clothe, medicate, and further educate 2 children as they could in the 70s with $3-$7 an hour, without today’s government assistance?

@Kraken: I didn’t read your response and I have no interest in conversing with you.

@Ronald J. Ward: Seriously, surely, I mean, really, you’re not trying to argue that today’s $7 to $12 an hour workers today have the same buying power as the $3 to $7 (not to mention the $17) an hour jobs of the 70s?

If you use 2012 dollars and compare, the minimum wage of 1970 ($2.90/hour) was equivalent to a $9.00/hour wage today.
YOUR old wage was more than five times that!
Or, in today’s dollars, more than $85/hour!

Here’s a fact for you:
As of 2012, 284,000 college graduates were working at or below the minimum wage.
Let’s tie that in with point #1 from this thread’s original post, “[T]here are 86 million full-time private sector workers in the United States.”
That means you seem to be going apoplectic about a problem that affects, at most, one in every 304 workers!
(That’s assuming all college grads in the min wage category are FULL-time! BIG ASSUMPTION!)
But, I was a college grad who took a 7-year break from my career to care for an ailing relative at less than min wage.
Do taxpayers OWE me for that?
College grads today have the same issues as I did.
Plus starting a family, moving to a new place, etc.
We (college grads) make choices.
Informed ones.
Sometimes money is NOT the end-all, be-all behind our choices.

@Nanny G: You seem to be making an argument that today’s at or near minimum wage earners are well compensated

YOUR old wage was more than five times that!
Or, in today’s dollars, more than $85/hour!

yet you fall short of saying that a $7.25 to even a $14 an hour employee can shelter, feed, clothe, medicate, and further educate 2 dependents without government assistance.

Mr Ward – Your #13 comment is intended to blame just about everyone and everything EXCEPT for the CHOICES made not only by PEOPLE, but, also BY GOVERNMENT.

All these ‘problems’ concerning welfare, food stamps and any other number of Government dependency entities and an ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY did NOT appear overnight…in your comments you imply this is all relatively NEW.

Conservatives, which are many on this site do not argue that there are (deserving) people who need assistance and yes, should get it. They get that.

What they argue is All this has been gaining ‘traction’ over 40-50 years…it has ‘evolved’ into an entitlement mentality…as in everyone owes me a life…a living… (yes, the mentality IS there and this IS FACT) and this government has given this a full endorsement where there should have never been one….

People are quite frankly, and I suspect that you are too, TIRED of it. TIRED of subsidizing just about every Government entity that evolves what is now known as “Entitlements.” These entitlements cannot continue indefinitely…they are unsustainable.

Our government pushed by “public policy” has made some pretty darn stupid moves…and expanding the welfare state is just one of them…

It needs to be reigned in… and rather quickly. I can guarantee you…if and when the bird feeder is taken away…people WILL survive. They WILL find a way. And in reality…they will find ‘true freedom’…

@Ronald J. Ward:

yet you fall short of saying that a $7.25 to even a $14 an hour employee can shelter, feed, clothe, medicate, and further educate 2 dependents without government assistance.

You keep repeating the same tired talking points. Perhaps you can show where minimum wage was EVER designed to support of family?

Minimum wage earners are generally high school dropouts with few, if any, marketable skills. Once someone achieves a minimum of a high school education, their earnings go up markedly. Oh, wait, doesn’t that fall under the category of “personal responsibility” to do the things that make someone’s labor more valuable? And I notice you never mention that your taxes go to totally subsidize those who don’t work at all, but yet they seem to manage to buy lottery tickets, booze, cigarettes and drugs.

BTW, the $2.90 minimum wage of 1979 is now equal to $10.00/hr.

@Ronald J. Ward: You seem to be making an argument that today’s at or near minimum wage earners are well compensated

No, simple dollar conversion tables make the point that min wage earners in 1979 made the equivalent of $9/hour today.
I made other points…..
Namely that YOU were very well compensated in 1979.
Also that college grads today taking jobs at min wage are FEW in proportion to all full-time workers: less than 1 in 300.
And lastly that all people, college grads included, make personal choices that might mean lower pay for some of their career.
I did, when I cared for a sick relative.
By personal choice.
I took the consequences.
Don’t you think people ought to be free to make personal choices in life?
Or, do you think a person, for example, with a medical degree, ought to be FORCED to work in medicine?
Nancy Pelosi made a point on this where she said that a young person could chose to learn and play a musical instrument rather than hold down a traditional job.
(Although more often than not playing an instrument pays next to nothing.)
Was she wrong in her opinion?
That people ought to be free to chose?
Or would you FORCE the college student to stay in school and become a …. whatever?
There’s an old saying: Necessity is the mother of invention.
That applies to workers as well as employers.
Just last week I saw a computer that completely takes the place of the minimum wage fast food counter person!
When will it be more worthwhile than the humans?
At what wage point?
A worker who has the responsibility to “shelter, feed, clothe, medicate, and further educate 2 dependents” besides himself either cuts back on his hopes and plans, asks for and gets a raise or starts using his off time to find a better job.
He doesn’t sit there at entry-level pay for 20 years.

@Ronald J. Ward:

In 1979 I made close to $17 an hour.

You were well outside the range of average salaries.

You could buy a new Chevy Silveraldo or Ford Explorer that would turn every head in the neighborhood for less than $9K.

Yet, just 16 short years later I purchased a Ford F-250 diesel super cab, long wheel base, 2 wheel driver with a sticker price of $31,360. Just last week, I purchased a F-350 diesel with a sticker price of $61,710, almost double the cost of my 19 year old truck. So who do you think is getting fat off vehicle prices? Certainly not Government Motors since they required a tax payer bail out, which you never mentioned in your whining about corporations.

I bought my 1st home in 1982, a 2 story on 12 acres for $23K. I could go on but my point is that wages are way out of proportion from what they were then.

Which says nothing. What was the price of the land per acre? Where the mineral rights conveyed? How large was the house? What was its age? What was the condition of the house? Did it have modern amenities like a HVAC system? Too many variables to say that you got a good deal.

@Mully: #12
Another vote buying scheme is the fact that even thought the USA is broke, and the national debt is at $17,542,658,000,000 as I write this, obama has averaged 101 new federal hires since he has ben in office. We will have to pay for their retirement benefits if they stay long enough.

@Ronald J. Ward: #13

It’s difficult to understand precisely what this blog advocates and what it doesn’t.

You know what this blog stands for, but you keep trying to convince others that your leader’s agenda is what the country needs. How is that working out?

@Ronald J. Ward: #20

And here you are online, poorly arguing on a political blog, yet you admit an ignorance as to how to use an online search engine?

I would consider “poorly arguing on a political blog” as not supplying links to things being said to prove a point. Most of the conservatives on this blog give you and other liberals plenty of links to stories so you won’t have to spend possible hours searching the Internet for stories on the subject. I’m guessing you don’t supply the links just so we will spend a lot of time looking for something that might not be there. This is why most of us don’t even comment on things liberals don’t supply links to. We don’t want to waste our time.

@RJW

”We have somewhere to the tune of 40 of the top Fortune 500 companies paying negative taxes (actually being a welfare recipient) and the majority of the rest paying less than1% yet this somehow is acceptable to the general crowd here. We have the most profitable companies raking in billions while paying their full time employees poverty level wages, which tax payers like me has to subsidize.”

Right out of the box you have a significant error, as you claim the ‘majority of the rest pay less than 1%’. According to the Economist, out of 280 companies assessed, 30 enjoyed negative tax rates, while 71 paid over 30%. The average effective tax rate was 18.5%.

Anyway, I held my nose and googled ‘negative tax rate’ and, as expected found links to a number of sites that shall we say have a significant list to port…

Depending on the site, the number of companies claimed to be ‘subsidized’ ranged from 10 to as high as 49. The claimed subsidized amount ran as high as $223B. However, that comparison was to the ‘pre-tax’ profit and the nominal 35% corporate tax rate; which is like being told you weren’t paying your ‘fair share’ on your personal taxes because your ‘Taxable Income’ after deductions was less than your starting ‘Adjusted Gross Income’.

The actual report even pointed this out, with a section heading of “Companies’ Low Taxes Stem from a Variety of Legal Tax Breaks” (emphasis mine). So…while the ‘income equality’ trolls rage, nothing untoward happened – they just (like everyone else – even Warren Buffett), claimed all the deductions they could to minimize their taxes.

Of interest though, was the line – “The most taxpayer-subsidized industries were the financial, utilities, telecommunications and energy industries.”

Remember TARP and renewable energy subsidies? A bit more time on Google and hmmm. One of the top negative tax companies was GE. Wait for it – “How Obama and Senate Democrats Freed GE From Paying Corporate Taxes” http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/how-obama-and-senate-democrats-freed-ge-from-paying-corporate-taxes/

Wells Fargo was on the negative tax list as well, and: “mortgage lender Wells Fargo received the largest slice of the federal pie, at $17.9 billion”…connecting the dots – “Wells Fargo…made it into the top 20 firms with employees donating to President Obama’s campaign.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/wall-street-campaign-donations_n_1858086.html

Murphy Oil was at the top of one list – but Google will tell you “Murphy Oil USA acquired an ethanol production facility in Hankinson, North Dakota in October 2009. In 2010, the Company purchased an ethanol production facility in Hereford, Texas” And in the name of Global Warming, the lefties were pushing subsidies for???

Progress Energy was high on the list, yet “In 2008, the Corporate Responsibility Officer named Progress Energy to its list of 100 Best Corporate Citizens. Progress Energy was named to the Dow Jones Sustainability Index in 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005…The company is investing $300,000 in a UNC Chapel Hill study to map the offshore wind power potential of North Carolina. Progress Energy launched its SunSense-branded solar incentive programs in 2009.” So are they a good actor or a bad actor? Sustainability and renewables…are things that our trolls frequently try to tell us are opposed by the big, bad conservatives, right?

Pepco Holdings was right behind Progress Energy – ”Pepco Energy Services is highly experienced in developing renewable energy projects. It has designed and developed multiple solar, landfill gas and geothermal plant installations and also operates and maintains many of these plants. In 2011 PHI was ranked among the top six U.S. electric utilities by the Carbon Disclosure Project and the top three U.S. electric utilities in Newsweek Magazine’s annual Greenest Big Companies in America…Pepco was the only utility in the nation to achieve certification by the Wildlife Habitat Council for the management of wildlife habitat on its transmission rights-of-ways.” Again, not traits supposedly demonstrated by big business – or at least the stereotype leftist boogie-man big business.

Sempra Energy, also on the list. And what do you find on their corporate website? ”Sempra Energy meets with lawmakers at the federal, state and local level on a range of topics…and makes political contributions…In 2012, we reported lobbying expenditures of $2,953,925 at all levels of government {and} made $1,093,874 in corporate political contributions…The Sempra Energy Employees’ Political Action Committee (SEEPAC) made $176,250 in political contributions…Since 2008, Sempra U.S. Gas & Power has invested more than $2 billion in eight renewable energy projects… This business unit plans to continue developing renewable energy and has set a goal to be invested in 1,850 megawatts of renewable energy projects by 2017.”

It seems that at least a few of the supposed bad actors are in the position to be subsidized either through outright collusion with the left or because of the subsidies for pet lefty issues. Apparently subsidies are good only if you can’t make a profit even with them.

On, #1 in the article: In fairness they should include the part time workers, most of who would like to get full time, but can not, and may be working multiple part time jobs to make ends meet.

Anyone who is currently job hunting knows how dismal the prospects are, with competition high yet business hesitant to hire due to the high costs of Obamacare and the President’s ever expanding flood of regulation. The solution called for by RJW’s Democrats and establishment Republicans is to bring in wave after wave of illegal immigrants to compete for the few jobs that are being created.

I would like RJW to explain how Obama’s cutting full time to 30-hours, resulting in part-time now averaging at around 20-hours, was “better” for all those workers who had their hours and subsequent weekly paychecks cut.

@Smorgasbord:

The sad fact is what our government is doing is not sustainable and no one wants to deal with it. Our entitlement programs MUST be reformed. Welfare programs MUST be reformed. Obiecare will only make it worse for everyone. We are bleeding red ink and all it’s doing is devaluing the dollar. Which really hurts those at the bottom because their buying power is shrinking and they can ill afford that. Raising the minimum wage is just another vote buying ploy. It’s an argument based on emotion. That’s the string the dems pull the most right next to the race card.

Tax reform. Entitlement reform. Those should be at the top of the list for 2016, but they won’t be.

THEY ARE ALREADY IN NEED OF MORE MONEY,
so now the trend is go and take it directly from people,
obama send the thugs into companies or other family businesses to suck them for money,
LIKE A TROUP OF HYENAS ON THE MOVE ,
TO STEAL YOUR MONEY AND TREASURES, SOME OF THEM
HAVE EXPERIENCE ON DOING IT FOR THEMSELVES, HIRED
TO SHOW HOW IT’S DONE, HOW TO INTIMIDATE AND LIE,
THEY ARE PROFESSIONEL ON IT,
stating threats of owing it for anything they can think of,
ruining the people has been going on that route for years,
they are so desperate , they even target the poorer who work for less in a small business they start,
the arrogance know no shame at this point it has escalate to a rythm faster than ever,
WE SEE IT CLEAR NOW BECAUSE THEY DON’T HIDE ANYMORE THEY ARE SURE OF THEIR TREND TO WORK PERFECTLY, BECAUSE PEOPLE PAY TO GET THEM OFF THEIR BACK,
BUT THEY SHOULD KNOW THE SAME WILL COME BACK TO HAUNT THEM, THEY WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT FULL PAY, FULL BENEFITS, THEY EARNED THEIR JOB BY BEING THE BEST EXTORTIONISTS

@Mully: #40
For some unions, their wage is base on the minimum wage. Each time it goes up, so do theirs. They aren’t fighting for the minimum wage worker. They are fighting for themselves.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/082613-668781-unions-seek-minimum-wage-hike-because-it-would-also-boost-union-pay.htm

Try to find a McDonald’s worker in any of the protest pictures. THEY WERE UNION MEMBERS.

@Smorgasbord:

He wants us to argue the points he’s presenting in order to legitimize them, when we really should be questioning the legitimacy of the points to begin with.

With regards to the long list of things he wants to paint this blog, and by extension right wingers, as supporting, I pretty clearly illustrated how he’s stupidly making things up. It’s not a stretch of the imagination to suppose that he’s making everything else up too.

Ronald J Ward
SO what did you bring to this POST?
NIENTE AS USUAL EXCEPT FOR INSULT TO THOSE WHO KNOW MORE THAN YOU,
AND WHERE TRYING TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN FALSE MINDLESS ANSWERS,

@Mully:

Which really hurts those at the bottom because their buying power is shrinking and they can ill afford that.

There is something else overlooked that Republicans should drive home savagely and unrelentingly, clobbering the Democrats with, and that’s that all these schemes (Quantitative Easing, raising the minimum wage, flooding business with new often draconic regulations, Obamacare, student loan management, making fuel and energy more expensive,) result in increased costs all the way around making everything costing more most especially victimizing those on fixed incomes, the vast number of unemployed, and the very low wage earners they “claim” they want to help.

None of their schemes are about helping the worse off in society, it’s all about Orwellian political power grabs, radical social engineering to lead the people around like slaves fearful of retribution by their overlords, and crony capitalism to enrich the Washington political establishment and their elitist friends.

@Ronald J. Ward: “In 1979 I made close to $17 an hour. You could buy a new Chevy Silveraldo or Ford Explorer that would turn every head in the neighborhood for less than $9K. I bought my 1st home in 1982, a 2 story on 12 acres for $23K. I could go on but my point is that wages are way out of proportion from what they were then.”

You know what happened to that purchasing power? Unions and federal regulations jacked up the costs without any benefit to the people making the hourly wage and having to pay the tab. In other words, the left wing unions jacked up their own wages to enhance the political power of the unions (but eventually pricing unions out of the labor market) which jacked up the cost of goods. Federal regulations add costs to the products, usually with no return benefit, courtesy of the left. The left creates the problems while the solutions are clearly conservative values.

@Kraken: #43
I’m guessing that people like this are paid by the obama administration, or one of their big donors, to try to sway people away from the truth. We can’t help but notice that they keep saying the same things over and over, just like their leader does. Like I have mentioned before, the democratic rule is, “We don’t have to fool all of the people all of the time, we just have to fool enough of them long enough to get elected.”

@Smorgasbord:

You’re closer to the truth than you realize.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

@Ditto: #45

There is something else overlooked that Republicans should drive home savagely and unrelentingly, clobbering the Democrats with, and that’s that all these schemes (Quantitative Easing, raising the minimum wage, flooding business with new often draconic regulations, Obamacare, student loan management, making fuel and energy more expensive,) result in increased costs all the way around making everything costing more most especially victimizing those on fixed incomes, the vast number of unemployed, and the very low wage earners they “claim” they want to help.

Isn’t that ONE of the steps to turn a free country into a dictatorship? How many of those steps has obama already enacted?

@Kraken: #48

You’re closer to the truth than you realize.

I’m guessing that most of these tactics were originally created to defeat our enemies, but just like any DEFENSIVE weapon, they can usually be used as an OFFENSIVE weapon against the USA. When you figure an illegal has been put in the white house, and that ALL 50 states agreed that he qualified to run, (even very conservative ones), and that many different agencies have had documents vanish after a FOI request were made, (even the National Archives), and that obama is blocking ALL documents concerning him, anyone with an open mind has to admit that at least something fishy is going on in our government.

How many agencies had to be involved to get an illegal elected as president of the United States, and keep it hidden? How many politicians in each party had to be replaced so that not even ONE of them will investigate the issue. As I have mentioned different times, I have asked all three of my REPUBLICAN politicians, and some other republican politicians, this question: “How does a person who does not have an American birth certificate, who is using someone else’s Social Security number, who has a fake Selective Service application, and probably doesn’t even have a driver’s license, get to be president of the United States?”

NONE OF THEM ANSWERED ME. I asked them the same question a second time and never got an answer. Keep in mind that not even obama has denied he is using someone else’s SS number. Why hasn’t ANY republican looked into that issue? The more I learn about what is going on in congress and the rest of the government, I grow more fearful for MY country.

Why are we allowing known terrorist organizations to have 22 training camps in the USA? Two of them are in Texas. Would we have allowed Hitler to have training camps here? No. But we allow known muslim training camps who’s sole purpose is to defeat their enemies, and THE GREAT SATAN is their main enemy they want to destroy.

A long time ago I wrote a comment about how it wouldn’t surprise me if other countries have gotten together to overthrow the USA, and each of them will get a part of the USA when it falls. Whoever gets the area including Idaho will have a fight on their hands. We are VERY gun friendly, and our mountains have hidden airplanes when they crash.

Look at what is going on with Russia, North Korea, and other countries that are enemies of the USA, and how they are getting bolder against us since obama got elected. Look how obama bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia, and how even the two Bush presidents bowed figuratively to him. Look how obama is reducing the military, how he is taking Christianity away from them. Keep in mind that this in one of the steps to taking over a country: Eliminate Christianity. Look how he won’t let the military fight back without checking with lawyers first. Remember how obama even wanted the military to pay for their own medical insurance?

There isn’t much more stuff like this I can find out about that would surprise me any more. The good thing is that more people are realizing that the obama administration isn’t friendly to the USA, and are starting to question some of the things he is doing. Has the propaganda media finally figured out that if they keep spreading the liberal agenda, and when the country becomes a socialist or muslim country, that they won’t be able to say anything without government approval? In Russia, the entertainers have to submit their scrips to the government to get them approved. It could take up to a year. If approved, the entertainer has to follow the script EXACTLY. I don’t want to live like that.