The problem with that statement, is government taking over the job of taking care of people, is going to kill more people in the end then if they just let us do it.

When government was not feeding and housing people, people in this country were not dying in the streets. They were being well fed, well houses, and in much safer environments. A larger portion of this group of people also contributed in some fashion.

It was a much better system. I hate it when people think because I don't want government doing something, that it means I don't want it done (I know that's not you Kasz). 

Compare and contrast the growth rate and standards of living in countries that are supposedly being "exploited" by western powers to those that are free from western influence. Would you rather have the average standard of living of Zimbabwe or Japan, Haiti or South Korea, Guinea or China, Gambia or India?

Are the citizens of Japan worse off for being "exploited" by American industry after World War II?

Are the citizens of South Korea worse off for being "exploited" by American industry after the Korean War?

Are the citizens of North Korea well off for being free from Capitalist influence?

Now to make my point on how the citizens of these countries feel about being "exploited" ... If a company moves to your town, hires you with little or no education or experience, and started paying you $250,000 per year would you be upset if people in another part of the world who have a dramatically higher cost of living earn far more than you?

I'd like some statistics on that, definitely.

I'd like some statistics on that, definitely.

Sadly, I am trying to find starvation statistics in the US.

The ironic thing is....We don't have any sort of tangible statistics in the US for such things. The truth is, even during the great depression, few died from hunger. So you gotta wonder what all these food cards do today, when things are infinitely better on average, yet we still pay out billions in such things.

Just a quick question:

When I was young, my family was pretty poor for boston standards. We were probably slightly above the poverty line. So, of course, we could never afford things like Nike's or a car or a nice tv etc etc. However, people who were on foodstamps and welfare that I knew always had the new air jordans (250$), multiple big screen tvs, civics or other such 16k$ cars, went to the movies, bought new clothes all the time, and had new computers compared to my DOS based tandy.

If increasing the profits of a company increases the wealth and income of its board and brand, then how is welfare worse than just barely living above the poverty line?

From what cursory research I've done, about 1.2 trillion gets pumped into welfare systems every year, and for food based benefits, for every dollar the state gives, 1.50$ gets put into the state economy.

So I'm curious to know why welfare is such a bad thing, when it seems like the 1.2 trillion that gets sent out goes directly into big business and banking, whereas the family budget we had barely went anywhere. All we bought were groceries, medical, insurance, and clothes from salvation army.

We also didn't pay for rent since my family just did repairs and maintenance on the apartment building

The money people who are paid welfare put into the economy would have been put into the economy anyways.

If your economy has 100% of its workforce doing productive work everyone will be better off than an economy where 75% of people do productive work and 25% of people are paid to do no work at all. In this case the 25% of people are given money to buy goods or services from the other 75% of the people, but they do not produce any goods or services of their own; and as a result the total quantity of goods and services produced is lower (and more sparsely distributed throughout the population).

I'm confused. Take now for a setting. Businesses aren't hiring because they aren't making enough revenue to cover the overhead. Welfare seems like it gives money to the consumers, and the consumers put money into the products that are popular, which in turn increases revenues and profits leading hiring more workers to open more stores and continue increasing revenue as is the capitalist formula.

Ah, but the problem is: Where do these people get the money for Welfare? It does not come from thin air. It is taken from somewhere - from treasury notes, from taxes, from elsewhere. The money is not free. Its taken from other areas that would of been invested in the businesses in other ways.

Now, you may say 'but Welfare at least gives them a product' - this may be true, but I would argue that welfare can artificially inflate questionable businesses and markets. This was seen in the huge housing collapse we had in 2007. Many of the bad mortgages were backed by government 'welfare' programs that tried to give out loans to people unable to recieve traditional loans. The result was bankruptcy at an all-time rate...Somewhere in the area of 20-30% of all 'welfare loans' went bad which made the market worse for everyone.

If the govment got rid of welfare or even worse, things like unemployment, They would be effectively taking 1.2 trillion dollars away from businesses. According to 2002 census, there are 23.3 million businesses in the US http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html

Again, money comes from somewhere. It is not created out of thin air. If the $1.2 trillion was not given to these people via unemployment or welfare, it would show up somewhere else in America. Most likely in more productive areas, honestly.

But I've also heard that it's closer to 31 million now. So, we are looking at a loss per business of 38,000k on average. Many big box stores, retailers, and others, can afford to pay at least one person to work for each 38,000 in revenue. (Assuming 14,000$ worth of associated costs), which would equal 31 million jobs.

...So? Americans spend more on luxury items and stupid garbage than any other country. Maybe our consumption culture isn't a good thing? Maybe becoming ridden with debt has had an overall negative impact on our society? Maybe the money shouldn't be there for retailers that have bad business models, expensive products, and selling them to people that don't need it.

(as a fun fact, the tax collected on those purchases is 60B$ at a 5% sales tax that goes right into the state economies)

What I'm curious about, is what do you think the government should do instead? It seems pretty obvious that the government is "subsidizing" business through welfare.

Government should ensure that it is not the problem in and of itself. It can do that by reducing bad regulations, and reforming good ones to be even better. It can reduce the footprint of running.

Let me give you a very simple example of this:

Businesses have to pay taxes to the government each time a person gets a pay check, as well as the employee itself. When I make $10/hr, I have to pay $2/hr out in payroll taxes. Likewise, the business is forced to pay into government programs which add up to another $2/hr in taxes.

Lets say the government reduces taxes, and reforms regulations to make it simply cheaper on these employees and businesses. Lets say it reduces payroll taxes by 50% on me and 50% on the business.

Suddenly, the business can hire 10% more employees since the cost of hiring dropped 10%. I have 10% more money in my pocket ($1/hr more), and I can spend it. Think of it as 'welfare for everyone'. Taxes and burdensom regulations can be the silent killer when it comes to growing businesses, and having more money to spend.

I agree that more people should be working and producing more product, but conversely, if there is too much product, doesn't that also lower profit margin?

It depends on why they have too much product. It also depends on the productivity of the business. For example, if a company can produce 10 widgets at $1 each, and for some reason (through better employees, technology, management, ect), it can then produce 10 widgets at $0.90 each, then it may devalue the product. Of course, it may lower the price and result in more demand for the product, allowing the company to keep its margin. Every business has a different margin. For example, some car dealerships survive on Corvettes and Ferraris. Others survive on Accents and Fiestas. Some use quanity as a way to ensure a smaller, but steadier, profit margin.

Also, what do you mean it would be put back into the economy anyway? It's taken out of taxes, right? What should they do? Lower taxes? And if so, who should they lower taxes for?

First off, they need to ensure that if taxes are lowered, there isn't a higher deficit, which will cost interest in the end. There is a lot of bloat in the US federal system, so cuts should be the priority, not just the taxes.

As for lowering taxes...It'd  be best to, really, reform the system to end loopholes and subsidies first, which would ensure good across-the-board competitiveness. I mean this in the fact that, depending on your accountant and how 'special' you are, you may get significant discounts. It can encourage mischevous behavior, or bad behavior. Fix that, and you may level the playing field more, and make it better on everyone.

For full tax cuts, I would like to see a significant reduction in said payroll taxes. Again, I may 'make' $30,000 a year, but after taxes, its closer to $22,000. If they lower taxes on the business I work for, as well as my payroll taxes, I could save the money and spend it on products to encourage new businesses. IMO, I would use a flat tax of 10-15% on everyone making under $1m/yr, and an additional 5-10% income tax on those making over $1m/yr. That way, those that are honest will pay 60% less than they do now at the top tier, and those doing very questionable things will still be paying into the system. Of course, in my fantasy world, I'm paying into health and retirement myself, and merely paying federal and state taxes for very little.

The percentage of wealth owned by the top 1% of the nation grew in large percentages throughout the Bush years, following policies laid in motion during Reagan and Bush Sr.  There is no debating that.  Find me a reliable source that says otherwise.  It doesn't exist.  

The middle class is rapidly shrinking, and it's not because people are moving up the ladder.  Under Bush II was the first time in U.S. history that children could expect to end up worse off than their parents.  And the economy tanked, and people want to pursue the exact same principles that exacerbated the problem in the first place.   Ludicrous.