That'$ becau$e welfare is only for corporation$ in a free market $ociety.

Dumba$$.

Robert Rector, a prominent welfare researcher who was one of the architects of Clinton's 1996 reform bill, warned last week that Obama's stimulus plan was a "welfare spendathon" that would amount to the largest one-year increase in government handouts in American history.

we also have the largest growth in unemployment seen in this country since the Great Depression. do you REALLY want lots of unemployed people milling around with no money, no hope of a job and watching bankers and CEOs wallowing in TARP money and pissing on their heads?

Weaver95: Robert Rector, a prominent welfare researcher who was one of the architects of Clinton's 1996 reform bill, warned last week that Obama's stimulus plan was a "welfare spendathon" that would amount to the largest one-year increase in government handouts in American history.

we also have the largest growth in unemployment seen in this country since the Great Depression. do you REALLY want lots of unemployed people milling around with no money, no hope of a job and watching bankers and CEOs wallowing in TARP money and pissing on their heads?

Well shiat, when you put it that way.

robomonkster: Well shiat, when you put it that way.


I don't like the increase in welfare handouts either - but geez...unemployment figures are through the roof. either we find these people jobs, or we make sure that they don't starve to death while we figure out what to do. Large numbers of unemployed people who think they've been screwed over is a dangerous thing for any society. esp if those people think there is nothing to lose by murdering a few TARP fund CEOs.

Extending EI benefits and food stamps are dollar for dollar the best items money can buy in the package.

You think unemployment figures are through the roof at ~8.3% Weaver95?

Buckle up pal, you're in for a stunner

Il Douchey: You think unemployment figures are through the roof at ~8.3% Weaver95?

Buckle up pal, you're in for a stunner

actually, all the data isn't in yet. But that's not what I was talking about. I'm still stunned at how FAST unemployment hit the businesss sector. We dumped quite a lot of people onto the street VERY rapidly. And those people aren't getting replacement jobs either. Or if they do find employment, it's not at the same pay as their previous job.

We haven't seen such shifts in a long time. that is what really concerns me.

Weaver95: We haven't seen such shifts in a long time. that is what really concerns me.

I think your concerns are valid, but I don't think the TARP/stimulus plans are the remedy. It's like we've gone all-in on the first hand of the poker game. It may or may not ease unemployment, but either way, we're tapped out. And that's assuming there's not another terror attack, there's not a major natural disaster, no new wars develop (basically assuming that the world stops so that we can focus entirely on this problem)

Il Douchey: Weaver95: We haven't seen such shifts in a long time. that is what really concerns me.

I think your concerns are valid, but I don't think the TARP/stimulus plans are the remedy. It's like we've gone all-in on the first hand of the poker game. It may or may not ease unemployment, but either way, we're tapped out. And that's assuming there's not another terror attack, there's not a major natural disaster, no new wars develop (basically assuming that the world stops so that we can focus entirely on this problem)

no, TARP and bank bailouts weren't the answer. But it was the only solution that our government could think of and get passed into law. Scary enough on it's own, but the reponse of the business community was even worse - they took the TARP funds and gave themselves pay raises and fired a bunch of lower tier workers.

so here's where we are:

1. congress is on the road towards nationalization.
2. wall street has proven they cannot be trusted to put the good of the nation ahead of their greed.
3. unemployment is going to get worse.

I'm not sure where we go from here but I don't like the choices to date. we cannot trust congress, because they'll play favorites with any bailout money. we cannot trust wall street, because they're acting like a bunch of greedy 10 year olds stealing candy when they think nobody is watching.

Agreed

FDR started it. LBJ made it unworkable.

I'm still stunned at how fast unemployment numbers spiked. that kind of shift is very very bad.

Weaver95: I'm still stunned at how fast unemployment numbers spiked. that kind of shift is very very bad.

I'd blame it squarely on how much importance we place on stock performance as a company performance metric. Firing people makes the stock jump in value, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of executive compensation packages have a quarterly bonus for big stock price jumps.

Il Douchey: You think unemployment figures are through the roof at ~8.3% Weaver95?

Buckle up pal, you're in for a stunner

Unemployment figures don't count how many people were switched from full-time to part-time. They're still employed, but lost income and benefits.

brigid_fitch: Il Douchey: You think unemployment figures are through the roof at ~8.3% Weaver95?

Buckle up pal, you're in for a stunner

Unemployment figures don't count how many people were switched from full-time to part-time. They're still employed, but lost income and benefits.

This. I got my hours scaled back from 20-30 a week to 5. I'm not unemployed, but I've only been kept from falling over the edge because of sheer luck at this point. Hopefully I don't catch Mr. Murphy's attention, knock on wood, otherwise I am royally farked. And I wonder how many more people are in the same situation as me.

You can spend $X to keep them housed and fed during this recession, or you can spend $10X to keep them jailed, housed, and fed during this recession.

Take your pick.

Bored Horde: I'd blame it squarely on how much importance we place on stock performance as a company performance metric. Firing people makes the stock jump in value, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of executive compensation packages have a quarterly bonus for big stock price jumps.

This was a big part. Before they laid off people to compensate for losses, this time they anticipated losses and laid off people before they even went into the negative. I don't think that ever happened in past recessions.

RobertBruce: FDR started it. LBJ made it unworkable.

Subby meant dismantling it. But it wasn't, the names just changed and you have to be trying to get a job. There is a large sate run nursing home near me that goes through about 100 of these people a year.

How is a work requirement possible when we are in a recession and there aren't jobs to get?

GAT_00: Bored Horde: I'd blame it squarely on how much importance we place on stock performance as a company performance metric. Firing people makes the stock jump in value, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of executive compensation packages have a quarterly bonus for big stock price jumps.

This was a big part. Before they laid off people to compensate for losses, this time they anticipated losses and laid off people before they even went into the negative. I don't think that ever happened in past recessions.

And people are blind if they think the electorate won't figure that out. corporations lay them off in case they MIGHT take a 2nd quarter loss, then suck down a bunch of taxpayer bailout money and don't rehire anyone. that tends to make voters a little cranky.

damn, hit submit too fast....

Some people truly do need help with things like food stamps and other types of assistance for short periods of time. It's the dumbfarks who never bother to get off their ass and look for a job that don't deserve it. I don't know why they don't put a time limit on certain things for healthy capable people like they do with unemployment insurance. 26 weeks and you are out.

Weaver95: GAT_00: Bored Horde: I'd blame it squarely on how much importance we place on stock performance as a company performance metric. Firing people makes the stock jump in value, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of executive compensation packages have a quarterly bonus for big stock price jumps.

This was a big part. Before they laid off people to compensate for losses, this time they anticipated losses and laid off people before they even went into the negative. I don't think that ever happened in past recessions.

And people are blind if they think the electorate won't figure that out. corporations lay them off in case they MIGHT take a 2nd quarter loss, then suck down a bunch of taxpayer bailout money and don't rehire anyone. that tends to make voters a little cranky.

I can honestly say that if a few pissed-off unemployed people have a nice, friendly chat with some of the TARP executives, I won't lose any sleep over it.

ragekage: I can honestly say that if a few pissed-off unemployed people have a nice, friendly chat with some of the TARP executives, I won't lose any sleep over it.

typically, when the rich and powerful feel threatened by us dirty peasants - they pass laws restricting our actions. And so the cycle begins again...

I think we should try a trickle up approach to solve our economic woes. Go to your nearest banker and break his finger. Tell him to go ahead and pass that on up to the next level. It will undoubtedly become more nasty (snowball effect with reverse gravity?) and by the end the bankers responsible for their share of this mess will be little more than goo spots on their yacht. Their money will then go back into the banks, now in much better hands, and solve all of our economic woes. Rinse, repeat with politicians.

Weaver95: Robert Rector, a prominent welfare researcher who was one of the architects of Clinton's 1996 reform bill, warned last week that Obama's stimulus plan was a "welfare spendathon" that would amount to the largest one-year increase in government handouts in American history.

we also have the largest growth in unemployment seen in this country since the Great Depression. do you REALLY want lots of unemployed people milling around with no money, no hope of a job and watching bankers and CEOs wallowing in TARP money and pissing on their heads?

You're the last person I expected to say that, but you are totally right. Maybe we have a record in handouts because we have a record need for them.

ragekage: Weaver95: GAT_00: Bored Horde: I'd blame it squarely on how much importance we place on stock performance as a company performance metric. Firing people makes the stock jump in value, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of executive compensation packages have a quarterly bonus for big stock price jumps.

This was a big part. Before they laid off people to compensate for losses, this time they anticipated losses and laid off people before they even went into the negative. I don't think that ever happened in past recessions.

And people are blind if they think the electorate won't figure that out. corporations lay them off in case they MIGHT take a 2nd quarter loss, then suck down a bunch of taxpayer bailout money and don't rehire anyone. that tends to make voters a little cranky.

I can honestly say that if a few pissed-off unemployed people have a nice, friendly chat with some of the TARP executives, I won't lose any sleep over it.



That's what it made me think of, well, that and Fight Club.

If welfare's good enough for wall street its good enough for me.

/but seriously, this wouldn't be good.

Bored Horde: I'd blame it squarely on how much importance we place on stock performance as a company performance metric.

Stock performance isn't being used as a measure of company performance. No one cares how the company does, only the stock.

RemyDuron: You're the last person I expected to say that, but you are totally right. Maybe we have a record in handouts because we have a record need for them.

i'm a pragmatic person. And having large amounts of angry, hungry and bitter unemployed people milling around smartly while their former bosses enjoy TARP funds and trips to the bahamas with a favorite senator or two is a recipe for disaster.

Believe me, I despise welfare more than you will ever know. But right now, I can't think of a better solution to prevent massive civil unrest.

Weaver95 2009-02-15 02:27:24 PM
robomonkster: Well shiat, when you put it that way.


I don't like the increase in welfare handouts either - but geez...unemployment figures are through the roof. either we find these people jobs, or we make sure that they don't starve to death while we figure out what to do. Large numbers of unemployed people who think they've been screwed over is a dangerous thing for any society. esp if those people think there is nothing to lose by murdering a few TARP fund CEOs.

I don't disagree with your arguement, but I would have liked to see some type of sunset provision included in these additional welfare provisions.

Weaver95: Believe me, I despise welfare more than you will ever know. But right now, I can't think of a better solution to prevent massive civil unrest.

Public executions?

That's ya'll man up there. Screwing America like he promised.

What is a cheeseburger?

Weaver95: I can't think of a better solution to prevent massive civil unrest.

Massive civil unrest is the only thing that's going to change this mess.

If we spend too much money on people who need it, they'll be nothing left over for the billionaires to get richer on.

Well, let's see, we've got a few problems in the country. The infrastructure is crumbling and needs replaced, and we've got lots of people out of work needing money.

So have them show up, hand them a pick, a shovel, a rake, a broom, whatever, and they work for the day rebuilding bridges, cleaning up roadsides, mucking out storm drains, repainting schools, etc.

What's wrong with that?

/or we could do this the new Big Gov't way, where we spend $500,000 to build an outhouse.
//At least FDR killed two birds with one stone with the WPA
///still thinks he was an ass and it didn't really fix anything.
////but they're going down that road anyway, why not do it for half price

Should make for an interesting "line-in-the sand' issue in the mid-terms. Might just be the impetus for a lot of (R)'s to come out in force in 2010 - the ones that were pissed off at GWB, less than enthusiastic at John McCain, and decided to stay home this election.

brigid_fitch: Il Douchey: You think unemployment figures are through the roof at ~8.3% Weaver95?

Buckle up pal, you're in for a stunner

Unemployment figures don't count how many people were switched from full-time to part-time. They're still employed, but lost income and benefits.

I also seem to recall reading (probably here on Fark) that they have recalibrated the way we handle unemployment numbers now as opposed to the Great Depression - basically they just stop counting you after a year or something if you are still out of work. Can anyone confirm that?

This is SUCH a non-issue. No one is undoing progress in welfare. The "stimulus package", which I have plenty of problems with as well, recognizes the inevitability of an increase in people eligible for AFDC, food stamps, and the like. It also recognizes that, through no fault of state programs, there is simply not going to be enough work to go around for states to maintain the benefits they gained for having successful welfare-to-work programs and waives the penalties they would have faced for failing to do the impossible with nothing.

It's called a depression folks. I know there aren't a lot of people on here who remember one of those -- I don't either -- but we're going to be whole loads of farked, and there's nothing at this point that can be done to completely stop it. Some of the provisions of the stimulus package will likely help. Others won't do squat. But we're headed for utter crap, and the fact that the package recognizes that is a GOOD thing. It's the first thing our government has done in along time that shows a genuine ability to think past next month.

Weaver95: i'm a pragmatic person. And having large amounts of angry, hungry and bitter unemployed people milling around smartly while their former bosses enjoy TARP funds and trips to the bahamas with a favorite senator or two is a recipe for disaster.

Believe me, I despise welfare more than you will ever know. But right now, I can't think of a better solution to prevent massive civil unrest.

You're correct. Been there, done that.

I grew up in the isolated depression of what is now known as the Rust Belt. Suicide, domestic violence, burglary, robbery, black market.... all became commonplace.

There were no jobs. When I was 16, there was a fast-food job opening in my small town. Word spread quickly. I went down and there was a line that went out the door for applications. For *one* job.

A man came down the line and said, "If you don't have a family to support, leave now, please."

It was that bad. I'm hoping we can stem the tide this time.

sitting on our thumbs and hoping for the best is not an option

It sounds great in theory when you can talk about letting it burn and your awesome fiscal conservative free market ideas on Fark, but it is not a viable option for society.

We should be spending this money killing Iraqis!

paygun: Weaver95: I can't think of a better solution to prevent massive civil unrest.

Massive civil unrest is the only thing that's going to change this mess.

No, education is going to fix this mess. So is effective regulation and a commitment to principal and ethical behavior. Neither wall street OR congress are ethical, and that's what got us to this point.

it's okay. when we have 30 percent unemployment in this country, no manufacturing base, no consumption then people will say what we need is some sort of government program that distributes money to people who can't find work, who have no money to spend, who have no property left, etc.

but we have to wait till things get really bad...

/things are really bad
/consumers have decided it is no longer in their interest to consume
/it's okay. the rich will help the poor. they always do.

Can someone please describe to me, a time in history, when Wall Street put honesty above greed?

BiblioTech: I also seem to recall reading (probably here on Fark) that they have recalibrated the way we handle unemployment numbers now as opposed to the Great Depression - basically they just stop counting you after a year or something if you are still out of work. Can anyone confirm that?

Yup. It's an apples to oranges argument now. Both parties seemed to go along with the change. IIRC, it was almost 30 years ago. Instead of having a category of "long-term unemployed" they just get tossed down the memory hole and disappear from the records. Doesn't mean they don't exist.

There are a lot more unemployed people today than in 1996... or 1983 for that matter. Personal responsibility can only go so far.

missiv: Can someone please describe to me, a time in history, when Wall Street put honesty above greed?

Whenever there was an active SEC investigation into allegations of fraud. everyone behaves themselves until the target of the investigation is announced.

Weaver95: But right now, I can't think of a better solution to prevent massive civil unrest.

I'm starting to think a bit of civil unrest would be a good shot in the arm for our federal government.

Weaver95: Whenever there was an active SEC investigation into allegations of fraud. everyone behaves themselves until the target of the investigation is announced.

Or certain administrations hamstring the SEC for any number of years because it is politically advantageous.