Monday, January 20, 2014

"Wall Street" Explained

"Follow the Money."  That's almost always a sound course of action if you want to know what's really going on. And where it leads, far too often, is into the heart of darkness collectively known as "Wall Street."  A term that also includes people like the Koch Brothers, Exxon, Wal-Mart, or any Mega-Mega enterprise.  Somewhere, in the center of those entities are clones of the author of this confessional piece, or a variant thereof. As near as I can tell, reading this, the author is not a sociopath.  So, there's clearly hope for him that his epiphany, his moment of grace, will stick, and he will be able to save his soul.  But for the sociopathic money addict, alas, there will never be a moment of grace.  That's what makes them so dangerous to civilized life.  Or, with climate change already upon us, so utterly deadly to life on this planet.

Follow the money.  Follow the money addict. Always.  At the link below.


Bob from San Luis said...

In my semi-daily routine that usually includes a walk, many times I pass by a few offices in town with a sign indicating that the business inside is a "Wealth Management" service; I understand that there are some who have worked very hard, been very smart in their spending and have amassed enough money that they need the services of a wealth manager; perhaps there are some who don't have a whole lot of money, but they do have some they want to protect; and then there are those who are part of the "lucky sperm" club, born into wealth and privilege, either being a trust-fund baby or inheriting enough money that they never have to worry about making a house payment or where their next meal is coming from, ever. In conjunction with this posting by Ann with the link to the very powerful article, (which you really need to read) I would like to ask anyone who utilizes the services of a wealth manager, what is your goal? How much is enough? When you are lying on your deathbed, do you think you will be proudest of all the accumulation you were able to gather, or the lives of people, including strangers, that you have helped immensely by donations, grants or direct investments in someone who really needed a hand?

Churadogs said...

Excellent question, Bob. If you don't know when "enough" is, then "enough" will never, ever be "enough." Sadly, we've built a country on that endless hunger, a kind of winner take all ethos, where the original point gets lost and all you're left with is the impossibility of feeding that addiction, which can never be fed.

The contrast between the Koch Brothers, for example, and Bill Gates is remarkably striking. Bill has "enough." And is doing some wonderful things with his "excess." The Koch's? Slash and grab, amass more power (What for? Why?) and f--k everyone else.

People like that are dangerous to civilization, dangerous to life itself, and when a whole country buys into that insanity, well . . . .

Ron said...

The nature of addiction is a VERY scary thing, and it's very, very real: The rush of dopamine to the pleasure center of the brain.

Sex, gambling, drugs, and, of course, "a monetary reward."

They ALL do the exact same thing: Dopamine to the pleasure center of the brain.

A simple biological process.

When you're a gambling addict, that simple biological process only ruins the lives of you, and your family.

When you're a wealth addict, that simple biological process ruins the world.

Here's how:

In his NY Times article, Polk writes:

"Wealth addicts are, more than anybody, specifically responsible for the ever widening rift that is tearing apart our once great country. Wealth addicts are responsible for the vast and toxic disparity between the rich and the poor and the annihilation of the middle class. "

And in this article...

... from yesterday's USA Today:

... titled, "Richest 1% own nearly half of world's wealth," it reads:

"Instead of moving forward together, people are increasingly separated by economic and political power, inevitably heightening social tensions and increasing the risk of societal breakdown," the report says.

The World Economic Forum has identified income inequality as one of the greatest risks facing the world in 2014..."

A simple biological process -- Dopamine to the pleasure center of the brain -- is on the verge of ruining the world (if it hasn't already):

"A monetary reward" --> wealth addiction --> "inevitably heightening social tensions and increasing the risk of societal breakdown" --> "one of the greatest risks facing the world in 2014."

Polk's brilliant idea of Wealth Addicts Anonymous needs to happen FAST.

Ann asks:
"The Koch's? Slash and grab, amass more power (What for? Why?)"

I'm going to play therapist. The answer to that question is: The Koch brothers are addicts.

Easy diagnosis.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Ann says, "People like that are dangerous to civilization, dangerous to life itself, and when a whole country buys into that insanity, well . . . ."

Right on point. The whole country.

Some in the "poor" category have become poor advocates for themselves, playing the lottery and somehow believing they can magically step out of their situation into the top tier with a bit of luck, so they don't vote for what would be best for themselves. Is denial an addiction? They don't know how to inform themselves on candidates that would be their advocates, or worse, they don't even bother to vote at all. Sad, sad, sad! Huge and increasing voting block, the poor.

So much more money needs to be put into bad schools and more important, just as much money into mentoring programs—needed for kids where parents are indifferent or don't know themselves what to do to help, or they are too uneducated themselves to help. The stories of success in education when these things are done are just amazing. They need to be spread to give more hope.

This is only half of what needs to be done. I don't see how the illness of greed can be addressed. No idea.

I really believe in a two party system, but both parties have to be sane! It is scary—the divide. Meanwhile, the environment is falling apart, states are cutting off rights (voting and women's), the really rich keep getting richer and the rest of us, not in the thrall of distractions like TV and wacky religions, are left wide-eyed and feeling kind of helpless.

One foot in front of the other I guess.

Churadogs said...

All comments very true. In a sane country, greed is recognized as aberrant behavior and publicly condemned (and taxed) and so its ability to damage society with its excesses can be controlled. In America, it's been celebrated and rewarded and the impulse is fed continuously. Yes, the poor are often uneducated, but they're not dumb. They know the system itself is rigged against them from the start so a kind of conditioned hopelessness sets in. Why bother? This continues the status quo. Weirdly enough, the working class is often laboring under the delusion that THEY are going to be rich someday, hence they don't link to the "poor" since the "Poor" are . . . the Other. That psychological impulse to separate oneself from . . . well, THOSE people,is fed and fueled by the very people who are rigging the game. Divide and conquer, and so the game continues.

As many world leaders are now beginning to acknowledge, the end result -- massive income inequality -- is a destabilizing force in the world. And not in a good way. As Voltaire noted, "History is filled with the sound of silken slippers going downstairs and wooden shoes coming up."

And history shows that most often, the people wearing the wooden shoes are armed with very sharp knives. And there's a lot of them. And they're desperate. And angry. Never a good situation.

Ron said...

'toons writes:

"I don't see how the illness of greed can be addressed."

I do -- treat it like any other addiction. There's no difference between a gambling addict, a heroin addict, and a wealth addict. Addiction is addiction.

You know who is VERY familiar with the nature of addiction (dopamine to the pleasure center of the brain)? Casinos.

I saw a report about a year ago, that showed casinos actually identify, and then prey on, gambling addicts.

The casinos identify gambling addicts, and then send them (and even phone them) offers for free stays and meals... knowing that they are gambling addicts. Preying on the predictable pattern of addiction It's a disgusting practice.

I see the same thing in Polk's article, with the Wall Street firms offering, at first, a "small" bonus -- "a monetary reward" -- then, larger, and larger bonuses, just to get their "derivatives traders," for example, to chase the high, like ALL addicts do.

Wall Street firms, it appears, are ALSO aware of the nature of addiction, and use it to their advantage.

I don't see a difference between what the casinos do with the gambling addicts, and what the Wall Street firms do with the wealth addicts.

But, like I wrote above, gambling addicts only destroy their lives, and the lives of their families. Wealth addicts destroy the world.

It's scary, scary stuff. Our world as we know it is coming to an end due to a simple, treatable, addiction problem.

Polk writes:

"Ever see what a drug addict is like when he’s used up his junk? He’ll do anything — walk 20 miles in the snow, rob a grandma — to get a fix. Wall Street was like that."

"WAS" like that? No. IS like that.

That's what's so scary -- junkies don't care about... well, anything, except their fix, and if you're a wealth junkie, you don't care about the consequences of your addiction, you just want your next fix.

Like Ann writes, "... 'enough' will never, ever be 'enough.'"

That's how junkies are.

And that's why THE scariest word in that report that I link to above, is "inevitably," in, "inevitably heightening social tensions and increasing the risk of societal breakdown."

Ann writes:

"... people wearing the wooden shoes are armed with very sharp knives. And there's a lot of them. And they're desperate. And angry. Never a good situation."

A horrible situation, that will "inevitably" come to pass, UNLESS the wealth addiction is simply treated.

Wealth addicts need help with their addiction, just as heroin addicts, and gambling addicts, and ALL addicts need help with their addictions.

That's how the illness can be addressed. We already know how to do it, but, we just aren't helping the wealth addicts, and, because of that, the world is about to change, in very, very bad ways.

Without treating the wealth addiction, it's "inevitable."

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Addicts of any kind need first to recognize that they have a problem, and then they can get help. That is why fixing this problem will be so difficult. It would be nice if Congress would stop being the enablers for creating more addicts by changing back the rules on Wall Street, but we can all see how well that has gone.....

Churadogs said...

Street junkies go to jail over their addictions; Wall Street junkies crash the economy and get huge bonuses.

Ron, your comparison of Wall Street to a Casino is so correct. Wall Street has become a casino. In the Good Old Days, stocks and bonds were usually attached to something tangible and productive -- actual businesses that made something, sold something, built something. Their value was tied to how well the company was doing in the real world. But today? Too much of it is just fake money chasing fake money -- pure gambling tied to nothing of value.

Sadly, our society is also addicted -- booze, drugs, sex, guns, violence, money, power, fame! --so "curing" Wall Street addicts will require our society also curing itself. Not a good prospect, near as I can see.

The tragedy of all of this is We the People, We Americans, have a system of government, self-created, and so, of all the nations on earth, have the best mechanism and opportunity to create a decent society for ourselves.

And this is the best we can come up with?


Anonymous said...

We could try communism, everyone would be equal, have equal food shelter, medical treatment and wealth, but who would be the top dog, our leader?

Equal equality for all sounds laudable, but would you really want to go for that? Or do you want you piece of the pie, after all, you're smarter than most?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Is isn't either or......

Anonymous said...

Just how "equal" do you want every individual in the American society to be?

How much government regulation should there be in seeing that every individual is "equal"?

Would the government regulators then be "more equal" than the individuals? Would they have more privileges' and prestige than individuals?

Would there then be a master regulator? An even "more equal" individual? Just who would decide what is "equal"?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

The voters.

Churadogs said...

Anon, I think the tripping point here is the word "equal." We are none of us equal in the sense of being "the same." We all have unique talents and unique differences. What the founders had in mind was the elimination of the rigid (and legal) social constructs that kept certain people locked into "their place." If you were an Aristocrat, you had rights. If you weren't, you didn't. The key here is "equal rights," to life, liberty, persuit of happiness, etc., i.e. a system of government where, under law, the hedge cutter had the same rights as the Lord of the Manner. The hedge cutter and the Lord were not "equal," i.e. identical in their qualities and talents and abilities. But they would have equal rights within that society.

And I have to say, under law, (with a wink, sadly) because we all know that in reality, this notion is more often than not observed more in the breach.

But living up to that ideal -- equal rights, equal opportunities, is how we work to make a more perfect union of We, the People.

Churadogs said...

Oops, I meant Lord of the Manor.

Anonymous said...

So there can still be the rich bastards as well as those who don't want to work.

The real question remains, why should those who have worked be required to support those who don't?

Ron said...

Ann writes:

"Ron, your comparison of Wall Street to a Casino is so correct."

And, like I write, the really disgusting thing is that they both understand the nature of addiction, and then use that nature to prey on the addicts.

Again, when the casinos do it, it only ruins the gambling addict's life, but when Wall Street firms do it, it ruins everything.

I keep meaning to bring up, The Wolf of Wall Street, in these comments.

That amazing movie sums up (albeit, in three hours) my points here, perfectly.

Dicaprio's character is not only a wealth addict, but a sex addict, AND a drug addict.

As if Scorsese (who is a friggin' genius) is telling us exactly what I'm saying in these comments: Look, there's no difference between a wealth addict, a drug addict, and a gambling/sex addict. Addiction is addiction. The only difference with the wealth addiction, is, not only is it NOT being treated, it's celebrated.

Then, towards the beginning of the movie, Matthew McConaughey's character even tells DiCaprio's character that selling crappy stock is easy, because the person you're selling it to "is addicted."

So here we are, we have the sleazy Wall Street firms preying on the wealth addicts -- like the "derivatives traders" (whatever that is) -- to do the firm's dirty work, and then those wealth addicts get THEIR wealth addiction fix by preying on OTHER wealth addicts.

And this is sustainable... uhhhh... how?

I just can't get over it -- our entire economic system is based on the nature of addiction -- dopamine to the pleasure center of the brain.


Ya know, I remember the Occupy Wall Streeters taking a lot of heat because the couldn't point to a central goal of their "movement."

Well, I have one: "Our goal is to cure wealth addiction."

It'll save to world.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

"The real question remains, why should those who have worked be required to support those who don't?"

And just what are those numbers please (and don't pull them off Faux "news").

What about the elderly, the disabled, those millions wishing like mad that they could even FIND a job?

Just what sort of society do you want to live in Anon 7:43 AM? Some third world country where people die in the streets for lack of food and shelter?

Anonymous said...

I'd rather live in a society where there is no welfare! What is wrong with families only having children that they can support through working for a wage? Why should society have to support the millions on welfare, they had choices, having a brood of welfare children was their choice. Let nature run without artificial stimulus and weed out the unfit. Cold? Damn right, tired of the give-away programs.

It does start with couples and can stop if they know they won't have food for themselves, much less their convenient brood. As for the elderly, I don't know what your family unit does, but mine still takes care of our 90+ yr old parents and the children help each other and their children.

We grew up poor, but we didn't take welfare, we didn't resort to theft or drugs. But we all work and half of us have advanced degrees. Get of your pious wallet and stop the welfare proliferation!

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Wall Street's goal is to provide a major mechanism that pays those enormous welfare costs.

Shut down Wall Street and see how long taxes will be paid to fund the government give away programs.

Bob from San Luis said...

anon @ 4:38: A society with no welfare is not a "society" at all, IMO. What you are seeming to wish for is a situation where it is "every man/woman for him/herself"; doesn't sound very much like what Jesus preached to me. Now that would be okay for you to feel that way if you are an agnostic, atheist or something other than a Christian, but if you think of yourself as a Christian, how can you even spew such nonsense?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Notice please, in the preamble to our Constitution above, that in the wording of "promote the general Welfare," that the word Welfare is capitalized; do you think that our founding fathers felt it was important enough to capitalize that word, that that word had any special meaning due to that capitalization?

The manner in which you have written suggests to me that you are, or have, a lot of Libertarian philosophy in how you view the word and our political system; if you truly want to live in such a world that seems to have no real functioning central government, that has no protections for anyone, citizen or visitor, where those with the ability to purchase "protection" for themselves can live in relative peace, why don't you go ahead move to Somalia? I'm sure you would fit right in.

Here in the USA, we the citizens elected officials to represent us and they, as a majority of those representing us voted in certain programs to help those less fortunate, to provide for those who cannot (the elderly, the crippled, the infirm, etc., ), have also allowed those in power to bend to the will of those with the most money. And as such, many laws are not enforced, many laws have been changed to benefit the ultra rich, and that is how this posting by Ann even started, in talking about those whose pursuit of wealth has weakened our country and taken from those who can least afford it.

To anon @ 5:41: "Perhaps Wall Street's goal is to provide a major mechanism that pays those enormous welfare costs." I just about spit out my soup reading that baloney. "Shut down Wall Street and see how long taxes will be paid to fund the government give away programs."
I don't believe that anyone is suggesting that we "shut down" Wall Street; what I for one would like to see is those that use Wall Street to become so wealthy pay for that usage; they currently DO NOT. Do yourself a favor and read a little bit before you respond; google something like "fortune 500 companies that pay no corporate taxes" ; educate yourself on how little is paid for the privilege of having of Wall Street to use the infrastructure of the USA, and let's talk about instituting a transaction tax on those who use the newest super computers to make hundreds of thousands of trades in a second that they currently pay next to nothing to do. Wall Street has never "paid its way", ever. If you wish to present evidence to the contrary, please do so using actual news sources or government sites; blogs and such really don't count as a resource when trying to present FACTS.

Anonymous said...

lololo You can climb down off your cross at any time. You should be crippled in agony by now with the direction this country is headed. Have you noticed that the liberals have stolen our liberties and given them to those who are only there with their hands out? Their are millions who need to get off there asses and contribute something for the society who is feeding and keeping them sheltered. Hell, they don't even need insurance to go for medical care. But by God, those of us with jobs and have worked to improve our lots have to pay and pay and pay!

No, God Damn It!! I do not "owe" those who will not try, not one damn cent. Let them drug themselves to death and the sooner the better!

Hope you do CHOKE (capitalized so you can understand the meaning!) when you think Wall Street does not contribute to the taxes fueling our government! I'm sure you are either a welfare child or that you enjoy giving away 50% of your wages in taxes!

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Anon 9:21, how about supporting abortions and birth control and sex education in schools? Maybe that would help? Not quite the Tea Party line these days though, is it?

How about the mentally/physically unfit with no family to care for them? I overheard someone once say, "just shoot them." Would that have been you?

"Have you noticed that the liberals have stolen our liberties and given them to those who are only there with their hands out?"

Really? Disabled Vets that are having trouble re-entering society?

Maybe you should try going to church in the morning. Do you tithe or is it every person for themselves there too?

Remember that song, "Heart of Stone." Must have been about you.

Churadogs said...

In Anon 9:21's song is the theme that fuels the Tea Party: White working-class/lower middle-class, primarily Male Resentment, Fear and Anger, that MINE (jobs, status, power, societal position, cultural values) is slipping away, being TAKEN from me by THEM (blacks, women, Mexicans with "broods", moochers of all kinds).

Here's the sad truth of it: Public policies that were written by the wealthy in order to maximize and shelter THEIR wealth effectively gutted the rest of OURS. And We The People, asleep at the switch, let them do it.

There are all kinds of ways to build a society. There's
the Somali model and there's the Danish model. Since Ronald Reagan's "Reagan Revolution," we've been conned into believing that the Somali model was the way to go. We're now finding out just how well that version works for us.And here's the odd thing. A recent study ranked the "happiness/contentedness" factor in various countries (things like health, education levels, longevity, satisfaction, etc.) Guess where Denmark came in comparison to the U.S., never mind Somalia? Right.
I would argue that when each one of us realizes that "Enough is as good as a feast," and that my own welfare is better served when my neighbor is not hungry, mentally ill, angry, desperate, raging . . . and armed, then and only then will we have a shot at "promoting the general welfare" and perfecting our more perfect union.

Also, Anon, I note you say that "millions of people need to get off their asses and contribute something . . " I would suggest you google the demographic breakdown of just who those "millions" are. I'm sure you're picturing black Welfare Queens with their boxes of chocolates or "lazy" Mexicans with their "broods." (Why not say "litters?" Isn't that what you're really thinking?) Instead, you'll find serving military families on food stamps, ditto working poor because we refuse to pay a decent working wage (might cut down on corporate profits a tiny amount), and millions of decent hard working folks desperate for a job that's been off shored so a handful of people (the 85) can make mo' money to feed their addiction.

This is not a "decent" society, Anon. Oh, and when I hear you spewing about people with "broods," I keep thinking about you, despite your best laid plans, being laid low by one of life's nasty tricks, bankrupt, on food stamps and Medicaid, in the charity ward of a nursing home, your helpless bottom being cleaned up by a kind, minimum-wage, food-stamp-supplementing, hard-working nurse's aide, who has a "brood" of kids at home. Should Life have such a nasty trick in store for you and that scenario comes to pass, I hope you will at least have the decency to say, "Thank You" to her.

Anonymous said...

Again, nothing but the expected blind view from Ann.

Ann appears to being the only one playing the race card. The other anonymous posts talked about welfare recipients' in general, no race or culture was mentioned. So why the rush to make it sound as if all welfare was predicated on race?

It also seems the only way to the utopian society is by raising all wages, again to provide even more welfare for the lazy. You also hinted that corporate leadership should work for the same wage as the work force.

As for those in need of medical assistance, the previous poster(s) never mentioned not assisting the elderly or physically impaired. I also suspect at least one of the posters (4:38) served in the military and is well aware of the wages and the positive benefits as well as the negatives. In case you are unaware Ann, there is some very good medical and mental treatment available for those seeking it.

I too feel there should be no government assistance short of prison for drug and alcohol abuse. Having been exposed to both, I feel there is no such thing as recreational drugs, tobacco or alcohol. I do enjoy a occasional glass of good wine, but don't want anything to become a habit. I do enjoy the habit of earning a good wage, having a wonderful family, home and health. Wall Street has been good to me.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

You have a very opinion of many Americans Anon 8:59. Just how many "welfare" people do you think there are—as opposed to those, who due to the poor economy, outsourcing and lack of jobs, or illness need help from the government?

Better still, being ill and jobless, what do you propose that those do to support themselves?

Anonymous said...

Nothing, let them eat cake and drink Kool-Aid.

Please keep in mind that this "blog' is meaningless. It's only purpose is to allow Ann to vent the many frustrations of her failed life.

Anonymous said...

I'm always fascinated by how people dislike Ann so much, yet feel compelled to write on here to express that specific viewpoint over and over again.

By the end of the day, the right doesn't have the solutions. It boils down to "drink Kool-Aid." Figures.

Bob from San Luis said...

Anon @9:21 1/25/14: You wrote: "Have you noticed that the liberals have stolen our liberties and given them to those who are only there with their hands out?"

List, if you can lower your blood pressure enough to make a coherent attempt, at all of "the liberties" that have been stolen, please. And do you personally "know" anyone who is getting government assistance (you know, the ones with their "hands out"?). How many of them work at McDonalds or Wal-Mart and have been instructed or informed by their employer that they qualify for federal assistance and are given suggestions as to how to apply for that assistance?
And you didn't seem to hint as to whether or not you consider yourself a Christian, so let me ask you directly; are you a Christian? It really doesn't matter a whole lot to me, but it would inform us all here about your mindset if you think of yourself as a Christian, but cannot seem to come to grips with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Well?

To Anon @ 8:59 1/26/14; Am I correct in assuming that you are the anon from 5:41 on 1/25/14? You did mention in your last comment that "Wall Street has been good to me." ; have you bothered to look up who is paying taxes in the Fortune 500 companies that I asked you to look up? Are you just too embarrassed to admit that Wall Street is actually the largest group of "takers" in the US? If Wall Street ran like it did some fifty years ago, trading mostly blue chip stocks that most have had as steady investments, living off of the dividends instead of the current model of micro-second trades for the guys sitting around looking at their monitors and clicking their mouses and the large companies executing those hundreds of thousands of trades in a single second, and they were restricted from inventing out of thin air bullcrap like "derivatives" that the regulators didn't have an idea of what they were when they were first introduced, perhaps we could have a discussion about how much "good" Wall Street has accomplished. But the only "good" that is done their is to enrich already rich people by taking that wealth away from someone who isn't so rich, raiding pension funds, retirement funds and holdings of cities and counties that have invested as a means of being able to pay their obligations. Wall Street is a scam, a racket, a casino, period. If it has "been good to you", have you ever thought about where the money you made came from? Your "wins" are usually someone else's losses. But you probably don't care about anyone else. Sad.

Churadogs said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nothing, let them eat cake and drink Kool-Aid.

Please keep in mind that this "blog' is meaningless. It's only purpose is to allow Ann to vent the many frustrations of her failed life.

4:48 PM, January 26, 2014

This type of Anonnymouse is really fascinating. "Meaningless" blog? Really? Yet here is/she is, again and again. Or the blatant Big Lie: "venting frustrations of a failed life?" Really? You know, Anonny, your lies might have more effect if they had a shred of credibility to them, but you go for the most ridiculous which just makes them a joke and makes most sane people ask, "Why is this person wasting their time making up crap and posting it on a "meaningless" blog?" Makes no sense.

Unless you're addicted?

As for the drink Kool Aide and die comment. I'm sorry to say, I think you actually do believe that. It certainly is a very thrifty way of dealing with the human condition. I can only hope that if you or your loved ones happen to inadvertently fall into that unfortunate "condition" some day, you'll help them drink up and when the cup comes to you, swallow it all down without a murmur.

bunchadogs said...

I am one of those bleeding heart liberals who believe in us taking care of each other.

I worked with welfare parents and in my 20 years I only met one who tried to milk the system. the others wanted to work, but the government took away perks that would allow them to train to get a job. you cannot support a family on minimum wage. and sometimes, often, tragedies of some kind create a situation resulting in a one-parent family, often a female.

I have nothing against welfare, but I believe it should be INCREASED while someone is trying to get a job.

being unwilling to take a hand out just makes you stupid, not honorable. especially if that hand out will allow you to get on your feet, maintain, and then help someone else.


Anonymous said...

BS! One parent families should NOT have any welfare! It still takes TWO to create a third life. Instead of only the female raising the brat, REQUIRE the father AND his family to support the kid. NO exceptions!

To do otherwise is to condone the promiscuous. Otherwise welfare becomes a way of life. Opps, it's already out of control and the bleeding heart liberals are so ready to make every working family have to make further sacrifices in their own struggles to support the bastards you liberals think are so cute. All you have done is create an endless path to even more welfare. It's too damn easy to get that "helping hand" and no way off the train!

How about every liberal donating 90% of YOUR wages, savings and potential earnings to support those who you so highly hold up as needy? What? That's too difficult? BS, you created this mess, now is the time to start fixing the root causes or are you too stuck on the welfare train to more welfare? Your own industry, more and more welfare. You really should get real jobs instead of sucking at the liberal teat of give-aways. You really are a very big part of the problem!

Churadogs said...

Anon 3;28,
Your angry rant makes it clear you didn't bother to read yesterday's Tribune story on the economy, with this interesting note: "Food stamp participation since 1980 has grown the fastest among WORKERS with some college training, a sign that the safety net has stretched further to cover America's former middle class . . ." WORKERS, Anon 3:28. WORKERS.

You might want to read the comment by San Luis Bob in my last Can(n)on posting "Dressing Room." The changes to the middle class had nothing to do with your Welfare Queen memes. But, I suspect the 30-year economic structural changes Bob discusses may account for your fear which is what I suspect is generating, in part, the fury you direct at those "others," with their broods and brats that you see as threatening to engulf YOUR status and drag you down to their economic level.

That's certainly a scary prospect for millions of Americans, one they're living through daily. One job loss away from a slip down that ladder. But you're venting against he wrong folks. Better you should ask why and who rigged this system to begin the Great Drain. It wasn't that lady with her "brood."