Occupy movement... Fall out for supporters?

[Lord Darkstorm]

Again, I'm not talking about giving everyone the good life; I'm talking about giving everyone a basic level of guaranteed survival.

You might want to look at what is currently being provided. America's poverty level is middle class for a good number of the third world countries. I've seen a few 'slums' in other countries, and they look bad. I've seen what is called slums here, and while they might not be a nice place, they have heat and ac, and most come with cable, and far more things than basic survival.

Every 'social' program, for good or bad, has to be paid for by those who work, and for those who don't, it's just another handout they are told they are entitled too.

 

[The Blue Lotus]

You might want to look at what is currently being provided. America's poverty level is middle class for a good number of the third world countries. I've seen a few 'slums' in other countries, and they look bad. I've seen what is called slums here, and while they might not be a nice place, they have heat and ac, and most come with cable, and far more things than basic survival.

Every 'social' program, for good or bad, has to be paid for by those who work, and for those who don't, it's just another handout they are told they are entitled too.

Ok I get your point and I agree to some extent, but why is it that when someone is on social assistance they are not allowed to try and better themselves? I mean really if someone is on welfare and they land a job at a gas station why do we kick them off the services after 4 weeks? That is not nearly long enough to get a foot step in the right direction...

But assistance should not be a life long thing either, training schools, job development etc should be required. As should be Drug testing! Illegales should not be allowed to take part in any program in this country period.
If we fixed even some of these issues things would be a whole lot better.

So why don't we do them, because the left won't allow the little people to get ahead and the right wants to help everyone willynilly. It stinks, it's broken and someone has to fix it before our new Emperor tells us we get one meal of pork dumplings per day and we are allowed 5 gallons of water per person a week.

China owns our sorry butts, they gobbled up everything we had to offer to try and stay afloat and eventualy they will call in their IOU.

Its just freaking sad.

 

[Fnord]

Actually, there are a lot of things made (or assembled) in China that don't crumble when you touch them. Apple products for instance. Lots of components in people's cars. Lots of people's clothes. Certainly there are lots of cheap consumer goods out there that are low quality, but that's the market they're appealing to: people who want a TV or DVD player or clothes or shoes for their kids or whatever but can't afford a fancy name-brand one.

Darkstorm had a good point about wealth and it bears repeating: the fundamental reason why a country like the U.S. has the level of wealth it has is because of its economic system. That's why in the United States, someone with an income at our poverty line is still among the top 12% richest people in the world. Absolute poverty is a much smaller part of our population, and much of that is among first-generation immigrants. And by the time those immigrants get to their second and third generations, most of that is gone too. And if you look at gains in wealth in real terms, over the past 30 years the number of households that fall below the lower-class line has shrunk and the number of households earning above the upper-class line has increased. Have the wealthiest in the U.S. gotten richer faster? They sure have and no one is denying that. But the poor are getting richer too, and I think that's more important. Besides, a lot of the wealth at the top are intangible assets, which can be worth absolutely nothing given certain conditions. They're numbers on a ledger, not gold in a vault.

Is it a perfect system? Certainly not. If there was a perfect system out there someone would be using it by now. Economies, unfortunately, are all about trade-offs of some form or another. That means people will want for *something*. But I'd rather want for a better place to live or a better-working car in the U.S. than want for food or clean water in North Korea. For much of human history (and in parts of the developing world) the difference between rich and poor was the difference between who ate and who starved. In industrial countries the difference is between who drives a Lexus and who drives a Cavalier. Something there is working. And we can certainly point out what isn't working--the mutual entrenchment of government and business. Accelerating healthcare and education costs. Campaign finance. Equality of opportunity. Educational attainment. Where a lot of economists disagree with politicians is on how those problems should actually be addressed.

That being said, a civilized society should have some form of safety net to protect against disasters. It's for our benefit after all lest it lead to armed insurrection. But for all but the most helpless or disabled people, safety nets should be just temporary bridges to cross the chasm of hardship. Many countries in Europe, for example, have people who are terminally unemployed because of generosity of their welfare systems. The longer one is unemployed, the higher the chance they will stay that way. I'm starting to get a little wary of our own extensions of unemployment benefits for this reason. It's preventing the market adjustment.

And I'll fully agree that by the time politicians spit out an economic policy it's generally a pile of poop, but that's not the economist's fault! I remember having dinner with a couple of former presidential economic advisers (from opposing parties no less) and the grim joke was that good economic policy and good political policy rarely align. Or, as Richard Nixon once quipped, "I don't give a good goddamn what Milton Friedman says. He's not running for re-election!" Despite the seemingly vitriolic public discourse, economists actually agree on most things (Greg Mankiw did a fine job of pointing that out for us, too, because even economists need to be reminded from time to time). I've often quipped myself is that the reason why economists don't run the world is that politicians are in the business of telling people what they can have and economists are in the business of telling people what they can't.

Who is going to be more popular?

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

You might want to look at what is currently being provided. America's poverty level is middle class for a good number of the third world countries. I've seen a few 'slums' in other countries, and they look bad. I've seen what is called slums here, and while they might not be a nice place, they have heat and ac, and most come with cable, and far more things than basic survival.

Losing your home and being forced to live on the streets because you can't afford to pay rent because there are no jobs in your community is traumatic and dehumanizing, no matter what the quality of life is for those who do manage to hold on to a residence. Not being able to afford basic medical care that would prevent huge problems (including death) later on, is terrifying. Saying "Well it could be worse" is no excuse for leaving things the way they are.

Please try to get past the belief that the poor are all lazy and shiftless and will gladly suck on the public teat for years rather than do any work. Most of them just want to make something of themselves the same as you, but when the system is built in such a way that it puts its boot on their neck, getting back up can be astonishingly hard.

Try reading something like this, and then stop for a minute and think about what it would feel like to be in that situation. Tell us if you think it'd be easy to just "work hard" and pull yourself out of that death spiral with no problems whatsoever.

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

Try reading something like this, and then stop for a minute and think about what it would feel like to be in that situation. Tell us if you think it'd be easy to just "work hard" and pull yourself out of that death spiral with no problems whatsoever.

Welfare was created to help housewives who lost their husbands and had no skills to get a job that could support themselves and their kids. It did help many people. Move sixty years down the road and you have fourth generation welfare recipients, producing as many children as they could since each child increased the size of the welfare check. Were the children raised on welfare being taught to work hard? For many of them, no. They learned that the system will provide, and there were ways to abuse it so you could live pretty well without having to ever work.

America has always been a generous nation. People give to all kinds of charities to help others. The problem is that when you allow government to control the distribution of money in a charitable fashion, you first remove the right of the people to choose what charities they support, or not support. Instead of volunteers helping people using that money, you have government workers performing a job (which that money has to pay for the salaries), and as has been seen time and again, opens the door for waste, fraud, and abuse.

Medical care, in which you can get from any emergency room without insurance or money. Been that way a long time. Now health insurance should be another right, since people need it, and some don't have it. Ok, so you put everyone in the same bucket, then put the same government workers that will do pretty much the same thing they do with every government program, waste, fraud, and abuse. Then no one really has good health care. Socialized medicine does wonders for countries. Take the UK, who every doctor is a government employee. If you do some looking I'm pretty sure you can find out how well that is working out. Same for Canada. Why do people all over the world want to come to America to pay for health care? Because we are the best, for now. Until you make it a government controlled commodity and devalue it like they have our money.

I agree, people get into bad situations, but is it right to tell everyone else they are responsible for those choices? If I go out and get a million dollar house, and I can't afford it, should anyone else be responsible when I loose it? Yes, I know, it's a bad economy and people are loosing their jobs, and then their homes. What right is it of the government to decide that they need more of my money to help those in need and don't have? What if the people who lost their jobs did nothing to keep it? I work in software development, and I have to spend my own personal time to keep up. If I don't, I will eventually loose my value to my employer and will find myself without a job. Is it your responsibility to pay my bills if I do? This is the problem with government run charity, they make choices based on what is best to get them re-elected, not on any form of reality. If I gain two hundred pounds and have serious health issues, who's fault is it? Should anyone else be liable to pay for my own faults? It's nice to think that everyone is honest, good, and pure. Never would they do anything that might be a bad decision, so making everyone else responsible for those choices shouldn't be a problem?

Let people help each other, let those of us that have enough determine what amount we can afford to give to help others. That way you cut out the very high cost of the government system to waste most of the money by creating a bureaucracy that will eat up most of the money in running the bureaucracy. Money given to local charities almost all end up with the people who needed it, with little going toward the cost of managing it.

Besides, it's harder for someone to abuse a charity run by people who care about what they are doing. Volunteers that have a genuine concern for people will provide far better help to those they are trying to help, in a form that works, not just providing a handout. There are so many ways that people can fix the problems, but first you need to get the government out of the charity business and back to doing the job we need them to do.

I've worked hard for every thing I have, I don't have a college degree, and I had to work my way up to where I am. I've been without a job and a place to live, so I did what I needed to to get by. Not everyone has family that can help out, but a lot of people do. So I lived with my parents a while when I didn't have an income, and they weren't making much themselves. Now I help them when I can with some of the things they need. So if I seem a bit reluctant to accept the grand redistribution concepts the government keeps saying is the answer to all the problems, I will continue to disagree. Sometimes we need to be humbled a bit to realize that we sometimes have to change our perception of reality and come to grips with what we are, and what we aren't. Job skills that are stagnant (outside of the few that never really change) become unneeded. Sadly, ones that can be moved overseas for a fraction of the cost...will. This is a reality for my own field. A programmer in India cost 1/4 what they pay me. Most of them can write code just as functional as mine (ok, they still take twice as long to do it, but that still puts them at 1/2 the cost). I can complain, grumble, and eventually loose my job, or, I can learn the other skills needed to allow me to make even more money telling the programmers in India what I want them to do. So I have to learn more, accept new ideas, and accept that things change. Now, if someone else isn't willing to learn new things, or find new skills, when they loose their job, who's fault is it? There are government programs out there that pay people to learn new skills, and those programs I do support, but too many people don't take them.

Compassion is a good attribute for people to have, but I don't believe it should be a government mandate.

 

[The Blue Lotus]

Ah I love this bit here... it makes a strong case for my next point. "Besides, it's harder for someone to abuse a charity run by people who care about what they are doing. Volunteers that have a genuine concern for people will provide far better help to those they are trying to help, in a form that works, not just providing a handout."



Why is it, that we elect lawyers to confuse matters to the extent that us mere mortals are unable to understand that which is written?

And we do it year after year after year no less! It's shocking to think that we are that stupid to think that if we put pennies in we are somehow going to get gold nuggets out!



Hire normal people, or better yet remove the "Career" in politics. No lobbyists, no special interest groups, NO PAY perhaps and I am just floating an idea that is popular dinner table conversation at our house, if our officials were unpaid aside from housing, security, and basic foods IE what you or I would have on a normal day, perhaps things would get done faster, and more inline with having the best interests of "we the people" at heart. (they would be volunteers themselves.)



No system is perfect, I'm not so blind that I don't understand that, but there has to be a better way...

 

[Leuco]

It's nice to see that the protests everyone trashes on cable news is actually, and sincerely, stirring an open conversation about where America is today-- and perhaps where it may be going.

 

[The Blue Lotus]

The only people I have seen who trash the protests are the rebubs.

Don't get me going on how Ironic I find that since they too were crying about things not working...



Bottom line if it is broken fix it, if you can't fix it tear it down and build a new one. I have no idea which we need to do but I know we have to do something. Our kids, and theirs are counting on us to get it right.





Oh Herman Caine, now there is a real winner. I quote him "if you are poor it is your fault."

"these protest are un-American"



I'd like to start with the first one. I know plenty of people who work their fingers to the bone all their lives but never really get ahead of the game because circumstance won't let them. Anyone who says they are lazy, and are not trying hard enough needs medication for their delusions.



Now the second one makes me LOL, This country was started because the people rose up and said 'No more' I guess the first amendment is only ok for us to exercise so long as we are saying exactly what they want us to. Too bad the sheeple have started to take a hard look around.



You can't pass laws that benefit 1-3% of the population while hurting the rest with out eventually having a serious uprising on your hands. The gov should have known better. History if one does not study and learn from it will repeat its self.



It has happened the world over, starting with the Arab Spring, it won't be long until the whole world is screaming for a huge shift in how we as humans get things done. I only hope that someone steps up with a way to unite everyone in a fair way. How many honestly decent people who don’t have an ulterior motive are there?

 

[Leuco]

Oh Herman Caine, now there is a real winner. I quote him "if you are poor it is your fault."
"these protest are un-American"

I'm not convinced Caine is a real candidate.

I know it sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, but look how many candidates they have running. The more that stay in the election, the smaller the margin of victory. Every month the front runner changes. First it was Bachmann, then it was Romney, then Perry, now Cain. They split the vote four ways and everyone gets 25%. Of course Caine is eventually going to win a straw poll. But this is a clearly divided GOP with everyone representing a different right wing interest. We know Romney represents big business, Bachmann the Tea Party, Perry the Evangelists, but what about Cain? What group of Republican voters are going to back a minority candidate with the name Caine? He has absolutely no political experience and has never held any government office. If you ask me, he's just there to divide the vote so another candidate has a better chance of winning. It's certainly not a new idea. There were suspicions of such a conspiracy in the South Carolina Senate race. I bet Romney's people are somehow pulling Caine's strings.

 

[The Blue Lotus]

Sheesh, I don't want to know whos pulling whos anything over there... Frightning.
So long as they stay out of politics I'm happy.

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

What group of Republican voters are going to back a minority candidate with the name Caine? He has absolutely no political experience and has never held any government office.

I must ask, so you would prefer to keep seeing people elected who have a vast experience in the way the government thinks? I remember the slogan "Hope and Change"...and many people are currently hoping for some change, since they don't have a job, and what is the political solution? Spend more money!?

Personally, I'm tired of politicians. Their only goal is re-election, and on the rare occasion one of them does something that might actually be good for the people they are supposed to be representing, the media crucifies them.

Make up your minds, you can call people right winged, left winged, but if they are a politician, I expect they are more concerned for themselves than anyone else. I can't say I agree with everything Cain says, or even the solutions he has proposed....but at least he has proposed something that I can understand. I have heard so many politicians say "I have a plan", but no one has actually seen the plan, and when asked you get vague political bs when asked for details.

Maybe if we look at what people running for office has done prior to the current round of campaign promises they will likely forget the day they win, we should look at what they have done and see if they even have a clue about real problems. Politicians don't solve problems, I think we need as many non politicians as we can get running the country, then we might actually find some solutions that don't start and end with 'more taxes' and 'more spending' of which I think they have too much.

 

[The Blue Lotus]

No I most def don't want more of the same... But I'd like to see someone who has a grip on reality at least.

This cat is not that.

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

Then who is? The right call the left unqualified, the left call the right unqualified, both thing the other is insane, and all of us suffer for it.

I want to puke ever time I hear some report talk about how one of the candidates "looks so presidential"....What does that mean? We're looking for actors now to look the part?

The whole process disgusts me. Not that it matters, by the time primaries come around for me, it's all but already decided...some farmer in Iowa's opinion on who is good for the country is more important than mine, so the media has told me. It's why they vote first...because otherwise they won't feel important.

Sorry, some of the ideas of equality get to me, usually when there is nothing equal about it. Last major primary the people I thought would be good had all dropped out because all the early voting states had decided they weren't good enough.

I should stick to writing, it doesn't depress me.

 

[The Blue Lotus]

Oh, I know exactly how you feel dear.
I hate the way things are run in the joint, but I do not think a guy who claims that all your ills are your fault regardless of the fact that our GOV has run things into the ground is the right person for the job.

We just have to hang back and hope somene steps up I guess.

 

[Donny Bruso]

The sad fact of the matter is that Presidential Elections in the US are, as George Carlin said, essentially a form of masturbation. I can already tell you that whoever wins the GOP primary is going to take the election. The American people are so angry with Obama for not being able to wave a magic wand and fix decades of idiocy in a single term that I don't believe he stands a chance of re-'election'.

Despite being in the military, which is primarily Republican, I used to consider myself Independent when it came time to vote. Now I just consider myself Apathetic. No one who will actually fix the problems in this country stands a chance of getting 'elected' because you stopped getting 'elected' decades ago. Congress, the presidency, these positions are all bought and paid for. Whoever spends the most gets the job is what it boils down to. And anyone who will actually change the system can't afford to get into it.

I think it was Blue Lotus who said that public servants shouldn't be paid, or should be paid minimum wage. I completely agree with that, but I would go a step further. Not only are they paid federal minimum wage, but their assets are frozen for their term in office, and they have to support themselves on what they earn. Food, clothing, housing, all on federal minimum wage. Want to make some bets on how fast things start changing then? When these rich, self-centered asshats see how difficult it is to support yourself in this country when you didn't inherit millions from mommy and daddy, or marry into it.

The founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if they could see what this country has done to the ideals they set down in the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

Personally I don't believe in, or support the idea of welfare programs. While I understand that people are not unemployed because they are lazy, a sizable portion of them are unemployed because of their own pride. No one wants to go from being VP of marketing to flipping burgers at McDonalds for six hours then selling shoes for another six. Does it suck? Absolutely. Is it fair? Maybe not. But if you had no other choice but to starve would you do it? Of course you would. That is why I don't believe in welfare. It provides people the option to sit on their rear end because they can't find a job they like or want.

I understand that jobs are limited in this economy, but to say there is nothing is grossly overstating the facts. I pass help wanted signs every day on my way to and from work. (different routes, not the same signs twice) I don't know the pay or benefits for these jobs because I haven't asked. For the time being, at least, I have reliable employment. And while I believe wholeheartedly in people's right to assembly and civil disobedience, If they weren't camping on Wall Street, they could be out looking for jobs. Again, maybe not what they went to college for, maybe not something they WANT to do, but something to pay the bills while they continue to look for that.

Yes the government sucks. Yes, they are screwing over the lower-class people, because middle class has become pretty much a fantasy these days. You're either in the rich elite, or you aren't. Yes, the government is allowing companies to get away with making obscene profits at the expense of the American economy. I argue none of those facts. The government is irredeemably corrupt, and needs to be wholly replaced.

What I do argue is that the people themselves are blameless. Simply going to college doesn't guarantee you a job. A good career is like anything else, it takes time and hard work to find one. The government is not obligated to hand you one a silver platter.

Anyway, I think I've rambled long enough. I'm sure people will find all sorts of things to object to, because that's what political discussions do. So enjoy my $0.02.

Cheers,
-D

 

[Leuco]

Make up your minds, you can call people right winged, left winged, but if they are a politician, I expect they are more concerned for themselves than anyone else. I can't say I agree with everything Cain says, or even the solutions he has proposed....but at least he has proposed something that I can understand. I have heard so many politicians say "I have a plan", but no one has actually seen the plan, and when asked you get vague political bs when asked for details.

Sorry if I offended any Cain supporters. And sorry for misspelling his name. I'm sure he is very good at what he does, and I'm sure he is competent enough to hold executive office. I'm just not sure he fully intends to win the primary election. I think he'd be perfectly content with some good publicity or at least a good book deal related to Murdoch's publishing companies. I mean the 2008 election made a hell of a career for Palin. But hey, I could be wrong, and maybe he is the real deal. But right now, I'm just not convinced.

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

Maybe, but I don't think he was poor to start with, and I don't think with two major successes pulling a company out of near bankruptcy would hurt his ability to get more ceo positions. I'm sure if you read some of my political post I'm not a fan of Obama. He, like other politicians "had a plan", and most people believed it. For someone who had done little but campaign, I found his resume thin, and his track record indecisive. If you vote 'present' in the vast majority of state bill votes, that says something about him. Disagree if you wish, but I am in no way surprised at his lack of ability to lead. I have to admit I had no clue how much he could spend.

I don't like Romney, he's too polished, and very much a politician. Tired of them. Does anyone remember what the original requirements for a representative in congress were? They had to own a business that could run itself six months out of the year (why congress only works half a year) and they DID NOT get paid. The country did fairly well up until people decided that the system was totally broken and needed to be changed. Too much trouble to convince a business man to leave his business to help make laws. Let's pay people to do it for the rest of their lives, that will be far better than people who understand the economy and where jobs really come from. Another aspect that was in the original constitution, is who had the right to vote, and it was land owners. While I'm sure someone will call this discrimination, the reason was because they didn't want people who had no stake in the country deciding it's future, they wanted people who were invested in the nation to help pick people to run it.

While I don't agree with everything Cain does, I find him far more real, and so far from a politician, I might consider voting for him. Yes, he still has time to prove he's as wacky as Ron Paul (of whom I do think has a few good ideas, if her were nuts...) I had hopped that Perry might be a decent person with the way Texas has been doing...but after listening to him...he isn't even a good politician. Sigh.

So, my point is this, if we can't get good people to run, maybe we should look at people who might not be the same professional liers that got us into the crap we are currently in. How long until we can't support all the spending? 48 of the states are overspending to the point they would all be bankrupt if it weren't for the fact they are states. Most of them are looking to tax more.

I'm expecting it all to crumble, and everyone is still looking for the smooth talking used car salesman to convince them they can change the world...all they need is 100% of your income and they'll provide you everything they think you need....

 

[Shadoe]

It sounds to me that your company made bad decisions regarding its operations and suffered for it. Outsourcing labor isn't a panacea for inherent structural problems that are hemorrhaging money.

Actually, the company was doing quite well and had been for a hundred years. It was definitely the outsourcing that killed it. They did acknowledge this. Their American factories were safe, fairly comfortable, and counted quality as important to the process. The overseas factories were sweatshops that put together as many products as they could, as quickly as they could, with no other concern. Quality wasn't part of the process. It made the washers and dryers and vacuum cleaners very, very cheap to make, but they were then just very, very... cheap. For a company that was built on being the best quality on the market, that was deadly. The company should have seen that the first time they dipped their toes in the proverbial pond, but no, they could only see the dollar signs. The more they outsourced, the more they sank.

The idea that you can "tariff" your way to prosperity harkens back to the mercantilist days where trade between nations was considered zero-sum and that the end goal was to export as much as possible and import as little as possible.

That wasn't really my point. My point was, we should starve the beast. If a company takes its manufacturing to other countries in order to make massive profits here by selling at outrageously high prices, why should we buy it here? American products don't sell well outside of America, so it's not like the company's just going to take the product and sell it to France. France has its own supply line. So does China. So the manufacturer can (try to) sell elsewhere or pay. Pay is nice, but that's not really the goal. You're going to say that they'll just pass the cost on to the customer. But there's a limit to that. There's only so much a person will pay for a given product. After that, they'll just stop buying. And with the middle class shrinking, the pool of American customers is shrinking, so that price tag will need to shrink to even be able to sell at any decent quantity. I'm not really thinking of recouping money here, I'm thinking of getting rid of the beast altogether. Companies that use cheap foreign labor so they can jack the profits astronomically should just... disappear. Seriously. Starve the beast. To death.

Therefore, on the whole, Reagan's policy actually damaged the economy more than it helped it because it caused the U.S. to be collectively poorer as a result.

Really? There was a Reagan policy that hurt the US economy? (yeah, that was sarcasm you heard.)

The biggest problem we have is illustrated by a news piece I read today about the iPhone. It sells for about $200 and it's produced for about $8. Now, the $200 price tag is cheap for anything Apple, and I'm thinking I probably found an introductory price on it or something. But see, the thing is, if it costs $8 to make, why is anyone selling it for $200? Why not $10? The immorality of it disturbs me, I'll admit that. And if we had a guy here in America who figured out that he could make an iPhone-like critter and make it for $40 each, he could sell it for $80, still make a heck of a profit, and undercut the iPhone market. But he can't do that, because the iPhone is still selling here.

 

[Shadoe]

If you want a generalization that works, try this:

There is enough wealth produced in the United States to guarantee every single person living here housing, food and water, basic clothing, and basic medical care, without doing much more than reducing the number of yachts owned by the super-rich.

Our society has the capability to provide a certain basic comfort to everyone, and a responsibility to do so. It's natural to worry that we'll all drown under freeloaders, but most people want to find something to do with their time. There's plenty of wealth in the system left over to reward people for hard work, above and beyond the basic necessities of survival.

That's the bit that disturbs me. We have so much here in America that this could be a paradise. But it's not. And we're blithely rushing toward third world status by the day. I'm not thinking we should prop up the freeloaders, but there's a way out of this path toward oblivion, if only we were willing to get off the crazy train.

 

[Shadoe]

Darkstorm had a good point about wealth and it bears repeating: the fundamental reason why a country like the U.S. has the level of wealth it has is because of its economic system.

No, it's because of the economic system we had. The wealth we had as a country is now being sent overseas. We have a small pool of very wealthy and a shrinking middle class. We are no longer at the top of the list and every year, we drop further down the list. The percentage of US citizens under the poverty line is growing every year, not shrinking. The poor are getting poorer, the number of homeless is growing, and we're losing our foothold as the leaders in... Well, anything. Like the economic system we had.

That being said, a civilized society should have some form of safety net to protect against disasters. It's for our benefit after all lest it lead to armed insurrection. But for all but the most helpless or disabled people, safety nets should be just temporary bridges to cross the chasm of hardship. Many countries in Europe, for example, have people who are terminally unemployed because of generosity of their welfare systems. The longer one is unemployed, the higher the chance they will stay that way. I'm starting to get a little wary of our own extensions of unemployment benefits for this reason. It's preventing the market adjustment.

Your assumption here is that anyone who is unemployed for a long period (extensions of unemployment) is unemployed by choice. You assume that the only thing keeping them from getting a job is the fact that money is still coming in. Twenty or thirty years ago, that would have been a safe assumption. But with 5,000 applicants for every job available in America, that's not the case. It's the lack of jobs that is keeping people out of work, not the lack of desire for jobs. Certainly there are people who will live by your assumption and sit back and do nothing as long as the money is coming in. But most folks in America have things like house payments and car notes to pay and unemployment doesn't cut it. Why wouldn't they rather have a job so they can do crazy stuff like live with a roof over their heads.

By your assumption, every time I'm unemployed, I just sit around, rolling in the cash that comes my way, hoping that gravy train just keeps rollin'. After all, unemployment pays practically 13.6% of what I get on my usual salary and I could just live like a... No, wait a minute, that can't be right. Why would I want to live on unemployment when a job can give me so much more?

People don't WANT to sit around and do nothing. It's an assumption that just doesn't hold water in the real world. Most folks dream of having time off and a life of ease. But when push comes to shove, most people want something to do every day.