[vision-master]

While the fat wigs who produce nothing set around and smoke big cigars...... lol

[PrestonSturges]

TO: Honorable Secretary of Agriculture
Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir;

My friend, Ed Peterson, over at Wells Iowa, received a check for $1,000 from the government for not raising hogs. So, I want to go into the "not raising hogs" business next year.

What I want to know is, in your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to raise hogs on, and what is the best breed of hogs not to raise? I want to be sure that I approach this endeavor in keeping with all governmental policies. I would prefer not to raise razorbacks, but if that is not a good breed not to raise, then I will just as gladly not raise Yorkshires or Durocs.

As I see it, the hardest part of this program will be in keeping an accurate inventory of how many hogs I haven't raised.

Well you can subcontract that to me, and I'll count the hogs you haven't raised for a very reasonable rate, as well creating an enterprise software system for tracking them. I would suggest SAP software.

Hey Mattduke, what's that thumbnail photo you use? Just curious.....

[deMolay]

Quote VM.

While the fat wigs who produce nothing set around and smoke big cigars......lol

Kinda like the fat commie Hogs Fidel and Raul.

[eastbay]

Or as the Communists used to say. No Labour No Bread.

Sounds reasonable to me. We could use more of that basic philosophy these days instead of offering no strings attached handouts.

[Sixstrings]

Sounds reasonable to me. We could use more of that basic philosophy these days instead of offering no strings attached handouts.

I think the UK doesn't have a time limit for the unemployment checks.. they call it "the dole." So requiring some kind of volunteer-type work seems reasonable to me -- it's much better than the situation here in the US, where the 99ers are going to just be cut off with nothing and no hope of there being a jobs recovery (Obama's new military deals with India aside).

So I really don't see the point of this thread. There's no outrage here. A little "manual labor" sure beats "get lost, go eat cake, sleep in the street, God Bless the USA."

[Fiddlerdave]

What's next soup kitchen's, bread lines? Vision Master riding the rails to Florida? The Grapes of Wrath?

On Oct 30, a night with cable filled with horror movies, one channel presented a REAL horror movie - "Bound for Glory", the story of Woody Guthrie and the depression and union labor growth, filled with company cops busting up people in meetings or picnics, and employers showing up and picking a few workers from a mob of starving homeless to work for barely enough money to eat that day. But it did have an happy ending, of sorts, as unions grew and the economy took off with a war and government support.

While the current transition to the Depression as far as working people are concerned, has been happening slowly, when unemployment is cut back to 26 weeks that is the America we will be living in. Desperate people willing to work for sub-minimum wage will heavily cut the wages of the working, and employer profits will skyrocket but so will homeless tent slums! Still, even then most working-class Americans will not understand we are all in this together, and continue to think they personally can out negotiate corporations and thus oppose wage laws and collective bargaining, which did force a small share of the pay downward.

But unlike the UK, the USA "will not be able to afford work programs", and instead will eliminate the minimum wage to "inrease the number of jobs". And so it will go. The Grapes of wrath, 21st Century style.

[FairMaiden]

I think this would be fantastic if it can pass politically. I really hope it would open the door for Canada. I've thought this would be great. I used to work for a related gov't agency that helped educate welfare recipients for free...it was my job to tabulate the success of our programs by how many folks actually got jobs. During the course of my research, I "caught" many ppl claiming benefits while still working. I was SHOCKED to find their worker didn't cut them off - even after I reported it!! I finally confronted one and she said, "they need time to get on their feet - relax"...this particular person was making $25/hr!!! This was the early '90s and that was almost double what I was making.

Then I worked for a charity for 10 years where we could have used volunteers to help us.

The articles says that ppl will be targeted to flush cheaters out of the system. I think that's great. When you work in these fields (and I'm back to a related field of work), you can pretty easily tell which ones you'd like to test.

[davep]

This is just an attempt to get 'the lazy' into work. They seem to think there is a huge subspecies who wants to live on 75 stirling per week. It's funny that this is not a problem when things are going well economically.

[Tyler_JC]

There is work that needs to be done.

We have lots of surplus workers willing to do it.

Why not pay them to fix the bridges and repave the roads?

It's really not that controversial.

[Ludi]

There is work that needs to be done.

We have lots of surplus workers willing to do it.

Why not pay them to fix the bridges and repave the roads?

It's really not that controversial.

Looks good to me!

[Ludi]

This is just an attempt to get 'the lazy' into work.

Wait a second, if they're willing to work, then they aren't lazy, are they?

[davep]

There is work that needs to be done.

We have lots of surplus workers willing to do it.

Why not pay them to fix the bridges and repave the roads?

It's really not that controversial.

Looks good to me!

While being paid 1/4 of the minimum wage?

[davep]

This is just an attempt to get 'the lazy' into work.

Wait a second, if they're willing to work, then they aren't lazy, are they?

That was my point. There are plenty willing to work in certain areas where there are too few jobs. This kind of scheme doesn't help those people at all. Of course it will help root out the lazy bums, but I question whether those are anywhere near the majority of those seeking work.

[Ludi]

Oh, ok. I see it is just a scheme to depress wages.

Never mind.

[Sixstrings]

There is work that needs to be done.

We have lots of surplus workers willing to do it.

Why not pay them to fix the bridges and repave the roads?

If it were a jobs program, so a real job, then that's one thing. But work required for unemployment checks.. you wouldn't want to work them more than maybe 15 hrs a week or they wouldn't have time to keep looking for a real job.

[yeahbut]

Anyone who has lived in a country with an effective social safety net knows that there are a significant number of people who abuse the system. I met a lot of them when I lived in England, I even worked with two guys who 'signed on' every thursday afternoon to claim the dole under another name while fully employed. Here in NZ, there are families where no one has worked thru three generations, there are a ton of people claiming sickness benefit when there is nothing wrong with them, and lots of other abuses. The system is humane, it makes it harder for members of society to fall thru the cracks, but some take advantage of it. Schemes to make long-term unemployment less palatable are a good idea. I don't know if this is that scheme, but it's at least looking in the right direction IMO

[Ludi]

Some people are going to cheat in any system which rewards cheaters. Our society rewards cheaters on a massive scale - many corporations pay no taxes at all and some even get subsidies while making huge profits. Corporations themselves are a way of cheating (not taking personal responsibility). Personally, I don't mind supporting a few "welfare" cheaters with my tax dollars (my self-employment tax specifically) but I am not pleased with the idea of supporting millionaire and billionaire cheaters. It's interesting you hardly ever hear conservatives complaining about corporate and billionaire cheaters, but they are very worried about the "welfare bums" who are probably less detrimental to society as a whole.

[vtsnowedin]

Some people are going to cheat in any system which rewards cheaters. Our society rewards cheaters on a massive scale - many corporations pay no taxes at all and some even get subsidies while making huge profits. Corporations themselves are a way of cheating (not taking personal responsibility). Personally, I don't mind supporting a few "welfare" cheaters with my tax dollars (my self-employment tax specifically) but I am not pleased with the idea of supporting millionaire and billionaire cheaters. It's interesting you hardly ever hear conservatives complaining about corporate and billionaire cheaters, but they are very worried about the "welfare bums" who are probably less detrimental to society as a whole.

Well said Ludi!!
I would like to see a reworking of tax code so that corporations could not pay out bonuses to executives when they are taking bailouts or are generating a loss. I also think that the present 35% top tax rate is enough. I would work at eliminating all the ways the truly rich avoid that tax rate but 35% is ENOUGH.And when it comes to estate tax I want to see that every dollar is taxed ONE TIME. None of this trust fund and foundation slight of hand.
Back to the tax code.
It needs to allow adequate provision for reinvestment of profits to create growth but at the same time it needs to make it advantagous to pay out profits to stockholders (including your pension fund) rather then hoarding cash and over paying executives. The largest portion of a CEOs pay should come from his dividends on common stock that he owened at the beginning of the year. When you get paid , He gets paid.

[Ludi]

Looks good to me, vtsnowedin. The truly wealthy generally pay about 15% tax rate because virtually all of their income is investment income, not earned income. Warren Buffett famously talked about how his tax rate was/is lower than his secretary's.

Our tax laws are a total mess.

[Pretorian]

Looks good to me, vtsnowedin. The truly wealthy generally pay about 15% tax rate because virtually all of their income is investment income, not earned income. Warren Buffett famously talked about how his tax rate was/is lower than his secretary's.

Our tax laws are a total mess.

really, you'd prefer them not to invest?