No surprise here. (Boston Marathon bombers got Federal & State Aid)

Reply

  #1  
Old 04-30-13, 01:10 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,188
No surprise here. (Boston Marathon bombers got Federal & State Aid)

Family of Boston Marathon bombers got big bucks - from us! LINK

Notice the part where it says the guy's American wife (another sucker and a possible accomplice) worked 80 hours a week while he sat on his a**.
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 04-30-13, 01:37 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,353
E-N-T-I-T-L-E-M-E-N-T

Got a problem with it?

Yup, me too.
 
  #3  
Old 04-30-13, 01:49 PM
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 43,044
I agree with SS and medicare and even welfare to an extent. The food stamp program could be good if it was managed right. Everyone has to eat but those that can't afford to feed themselves should be grateful for the food they get for free - limit the steaks, junk food and such they can buy. There is no reason for a person on food stamps to eat better than [or be more picky about what they'll eat] than someone who works hard for what they have! They need an incentive to work and better themselves!!
 
  #4  
Old 04-30-13, 02:43 PM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 9,806
Living the free life has become far too easy. I won't deny that some people need assistance, heck we spend thousands saving 3 or 4 whales trapped in the ice. But once free they were off to fend for themselves. The freeloaders in this country have learned how to play the game, assisted by those who maintain their jobs by signing up more people.

A friend of mine told me many years ago that his youngest son (deaf) had moved to my town, just down the street from me. Oh, what brings him to my neighborhood, I asked? He said my town pays for his apartment and gives him an allowance because he is deaf. Deaf is an inconvenience, no legs is a disability. If you offer the freebies, they will come, like flies to horse buns.

Bud
 
  #5  
Old 04-30-13, 04:48 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,940
They don't say over how many years they received assistance. A $100,000 isn't much over 4 years.

People make a big stink over these programs. I think the money helps far more people that deserve it than goes to people that work angles and game the system. I don't see the motivation to live on entitlements anyhow. It's quite a low standard of living.

I'm pretty sure these programs are run at the state level except SS and medicare.
 
  #6  
Old 04-30-13, 04:53 PM
Group Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: WI/MN
Posts: 18,497
I had a patient who told me her schedule was opening up so coming into the office would be easier - she was having to cut the hours she worked or she was going to lose some of her welfare benefits
This was someone who was willing to work but did not want to end up with less overall and the answer to that was to work less. That's my issue with the system, it's not structured to encourage people to work and become self sufficient.
 
  #7  
Old 04-30-13, 05:16 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
I agree mitch17 these welfare programs now just encourage people to work less rather than try to help people actually find work and even encourage them to work. I remember during the early years of the Oprah Winfrey show where she had a welfare mother on who wanted to stay pregnant all of the time so she could keep on receiving welfare. She didn't care who the fathers were just so she could stay on welfare. A fellow in the audience yelled out at her and said to her you make me sick your disgusting. I had to agree with him at the time.

It wasn't long after that show and during the Reagan administration that president Reagan said from now on anyone who gets welfare will have to work while on welfare and welfare will not continue forever. Of course that didn't apply to those who absolutely couldn't work and were ill but if they could still do things they worked. After Reagan both Bush administrations kept that promise and to his credit Clinton did a good job of keeping the same promise. Lately though sadly I have seen a backslide.
 
  #8  
Old 05-01-13, 04:06 AM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
lose some of her welfare benefits
No different than with Social Security.....and that's not Welfare, but my own money I have to make sure my bottom line stays within certain criteria so as not to reduce my "benefit". I hate to call that a "benefit", but my early morning thesaurus is not working well.

I had the article up and was reading it when wifey passed by my chair......her comments shall not be posted here verbatim. But basically she was wondering why we had to work our selves to the bone to make less than they made sitting on their butts.
 
  #9  
Old 05-01-13, 05:38 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,188
Chandler is absolutely right about Social Security - its our money. Unfortunately its taken from us without our consent and mismanaged by the government. The welfare part of SS is in the medicaid and disability portions of the system that are getting out of control.

An increasingly large portion of the SS pie is eaten up by disability and medicaid. Over the 40 years that SSI has been in existence the number of claimants has nearly tripled, yet the population has increased only 30%. Tired of working - just find the right doctor, the right lawyer and you're home free.


Droop - I agree that 100K may not be much when spread over a period of several years, but that isn't the point. Why are taxpayers being forced to foot the bill for healthy adults?
 
  #10  
Old 05-01-13, 05:48 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,541
I had a patient who told me her schedule was opening up so coming into the office would be easier - she was having to cut the hours she worked or she was going to lose some of her welfare benefits
This was someone who was willing to work but did not want to end up with less overall and the answer to that was to work less. That's my issue with the system, it's not structured to encourage people to work and become self sufficient.
This right here is a huge issue locally (in Ontario anyway).
I can go on and on about this, but I'll spare everyone.
 
  #11  
Old 05-02-13, 07:16 AM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,940
Social security is hardly your money. It's actual my money and everyone else working and paying social security taxes. You will quickly consume the portion that you paid in when you were working.

Droop - I agree that 100K may not be much when spread over a period of several years, but that isn't the point. Why are taxpayers being forced to foot the bill for healthy adults?
Because the people of this country do not want the poor out in the streets and starving. Was this guy a total POS taking advantage of the system? Maybe. But that shouldn't take away from people that really need the help. I certainly wonder why he was home for so long while his wife worked 80 hours. There is obviously something wrong with him. Or maybe that was the best solution when it came to providing for the family. Maybe his wife was able to get better paying jobs than he was. Yet they needed someone to stay home with the kids because childcare is too expensive. Who knows! We can only guess. And know is going to like this guy anyway. He's a terrorist.
 
  #12  
Old 05-02-13, 09:15 AM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 9,806
drooplug?? "Social security is hardly your money". That will get some arguments. The fact that our government has borrowed all of those funds for other purposes does not negate the fact that we paid it in and our right to believe it is our money. There are far too many programs out there where people can collect when they paid nothing into them, but SS, for those of us who have been paying in for all of our lives is NOT one of them. It is not part of the entitlements that need to be cut and it IS our money.

The reason it looks like your money and those currently paying in is that you are all re-paying the loan. Our government in their underhanded way has converted SS to a pay as you go program and is using those funds (or has used) to balance a budget that otherwise should have been funded by the tax payers. Easier to steal money from SS than to raise taxes. If you want to hear some screaming, let a good accountant figure out how much taxes would need to go up to replenish SS to where it would have been before the crooks got to it.

Bud
 
  #13  
Old 05-02-13, 10:02 AM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,940
Bud, that is not entirely accurate. SS is pay-as-you-go. Taxes paid in a given year are used for benefits paid in that same year. Any money that is paid into SS and not needed to pay benefits goes into the "trust fund". The money in that fund is "invested" in US treasuries. That is how the government is using SS tax to fund general operations. The only time money was taken out of the trust fund to pay benefits was, I think, in 2009. The money you paid into SS is long gone. There is no account set aside for you. By the time you die, you will have collected far more in SS than you paid into it.

Part of the reason there are so many more people on SS is because of the baby boomers. That generation had a much smaller birth rate. So now you have fewer workers paying into the system per beneficiary.
 
  #14  
Old 05-02-13, 10:36 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,188
I am drawing a social security pension. A few years ago my BIL, a CPA, compared my mandated contributions over nearly 50 years of working. He compared the results with what those contributions would be worth had I simply invested them into a Dow tracking fund. Actually SS didn't fare too badly.

Then he did a second set of calculations adding my employer's mandated matching contributions. Based on those more correct numbers SS really sucked as an investment.

Social welfare programs are necessary. Nobody wants to see starving children. Unfortunately, they have been so corrupted and abused that a huge portion of the population is living on the entitlement system.
 
  #15  
Old 05-02-13, 10:47 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,353
Despite my displeasure with uncontrolled spending, such as we have at the federal level, my wife and I do recognize that there are people who honestly do need various types of assistance, so we are involved with a number of local organizations that provide such. We were at one such meeting last spring, maybe a dozen of us, planning some home maintenance projects for area seniors and handicapped persons, and, as the meeting wrapped up, we moved onto general chit chat. Social securrity came up, and at some point, one of our more senior members chuckled to himself, so someone asked him what was so funny. He then told us that he just happened to remember the day when his boss told him that his paycheck was going to be a little light that week. So, he said that he told his boss he thought he had been doing real good by him, and wondered why his pay was being cut. His boss then explained that he wasn't cutting his pay, but that he had to start deducting something called social security. I guess it's one of those things where you had to be there, and it's not all that far back, so I'm sure that we all know someone who was in that position, but it was comical getting a firsthand view of the initial reaction to social security.
 
  #16  
Old 05-02-13, 12:11 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,940
I am drawing a social security pension. A few years ago my BIL, a CPA, compared my mandated contributions over nearly 50 years of working. He compared the results with what those contributions would be worth had I simply invested them into a Dow tracking fund. Actually SS didn't fare too badly.
This is why I think SS should be phased out. My idea is for a mandated retirement account for everyone. The day you start working some minimum amount of money gets put it in out of every pay check. Then you have an option to put more in above that. This is different from Bush's SS privatization because it is out of the hands of the government the way IRAs are.

I consider the employer contribution to be part of your salary. They certainly use those numbers to decide if they will pay you your desired salary. It certainly came into play when I was laid off.

Unfortunately, they have been so corrupted and abused that a huge portion of the population is living on the entitlement system.
Really? What do you consider to be a large portion?
 
  #17  
Old 05-02-13, 03:12 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
I guess Margaret Thatcher had it right......the problem with Socialism is you soon run out of everyone else's money.

Saying it was "my money" was really only meant to segregate it from "hand out" money such as welfare. I paid into the system. They do not, will not, ever. I get so riled when it is referred to as an "entitlement". It is not.
 
  #18  
Old 05-02-13, 03:37 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,188
The number of Americans recriving welfare benefits is a really slippery number however, most conservative estimates that I have read is that it is probably around 8%-10%.That is the number of persons whose entire income is based on federal welfare. Trying to pin down real numbers is almost impossible because of the varied definition of welfare.

Here's an article in Forbes that addresses the growing welfare state and the problems that are created. In 2010, 42 million Americans got food stamps. 275 billion was spent funding medicaid. Another 77 billion funded federal housing.

Why get a job, taxpayers will buy your groceries? Why go without so that you can pay for health insurance, rich uncle Sam will take care of you. Why save for your kid's education? Just borrow it from the government you don't have to pay it back if you're on welfare.

Where is the tipping point. When do welfare expenditures reach the point where the economy can no longer support the expense. The really scary part is the growth in welfare spending.
 
  #19  
Old 05-02-13, 04:01 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,940
8%-10%? That is a huge number. I find it hard to believe that many people get 100% of their income from a federal handout. I don't have anything to say otherwise, but with that many people, I would have know several that are on welfare. I can't say that I do or have ever. That's not to say the people didn't kept it to themselves.

I don't understand this illusion that living on just handouts is a desirable way to live. If 8%-10% of americans are living on just welfare, I would have ot say most of them don't want to be. But that's just my opinion.

Saying it was "my money" was really only meant to segregate it from "hand out" money such as welfare. I paid into the system. They do not, will not, ever. I get so riled when it is referred to as an "entitlement". It is not
Well. This argument would only apply to people that have never worked a job and had payroll taxes taken from their check, right? Because if I worked and paid taxes, then I paid into all of the entitlement programs in a way that isn't any different that SS. So if I decided to never work a day in my life again and take every welfare check and all the food stamps I could, then it's not a handout like SS, right?
 
  #20  
Old 05-03-13, 01:17 AM
Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 1,452
Where To Begin?

8%-10%? That is a huge number. I find it hard to believe that many people get 100% of their income from a federal handout.

Well, you have to consider the source. Peter Ferrara, Heritage Foundation, FOX News, all together they aren't worth a bucket of spit as far as I'm concerned.

The number of Americans recriving welfare benefits is a really slippery number however, most conservative estimates that I have read is that it is probably around 8%-10%.That is the number of persons whose entire income is based on federal welfare. Trying to pin down real numbers is almost impossible because of the varied definition of welfare.
In other words, they're just pulling numbers out of their arse? Typical for a certain bunch I guess.


I know one person that just had to go on welfare so I'll stick to that. After working with 'disadvantaged adults' (I think that's the PC term today) most of her adult life, which is gratifying yet low pay, she could hardly walk. Turns out her femur was dying so she needed a hip transplant....hello welfare.

Her kids checked on assistance but in MN you can't get squat unless you're almost penniless. I can understand that, people would light their hair on fire if a person had a few thousand in the bank and get assistance. Then again, how does a person get ahead if you can't having any money? What to do? I've no idea.

Unfortunately, because she had all of 12k in a 401k she couldn't get assistance, she'd have to spend it. Okay, pay off the credit cards she was using to get by till SS and have a couple thousand left.

Ah yes, all them thar steaks. She gets a whopping $200 a month for groceries. I don't know how much groceries cost elsewhere but that ain't much up here.

I suppose if she had 6 screaming little brats (real abuse of the system) running around the house she'd get a nice big check but at 59 I just don't see that happening.
 
  #21  
Old 05-03-13, 02:51 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
I think 8 or 10% of the population being on welfare is a fairly conservative figure and I have heard those same figures from other sources other than Fox news myself.

I personally think there are many more people out there who might not be on welfare but are so poor they could qualify but will not accept the money. Some of those people probably even worked for fairly good businesses at one time only to find out the business was going bankrupt. Those are people who are too proud to accept welfare and can't find a job anywhere decent as no one is hiring.

Trouble is even if they were to accept food stamps which is now actually a card you swipe they would hardly have enough money to feed themselves and sometimes would actually go hungry.

Interestingly shadow representative of congress Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia did an experiment with help from the federal government she only used money out of her own pocket that would have been on the food stamp card for a family of one.

This was for one week and she told employees at the grocery what she was doing so they treated her debit card like a food stamp card. Many things she had to put back they were not allowed on her fake food stamp card. She was also limited in the amount of things that were allowed and couldn't go over her limit.

At the end of the week she said you mean this is how it really is? She then went on to say this is disgusting and something has to be done. To that I do agree with her something does have to be done and soon.

I know at my church and at many other churches around the country they are always asking for food donations and gift card donations to help feed and clothe people. The requests for help every day come from more and more people who either can't find jobs or have a job that barely pays the bills. Add to that too the number of personal bankruptcies every year goes up to staggering numbers. I fear it will get worse before it gets better.
 
  #22  
Old 05-03-13, 04:23 AM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,940
I did find a page with some numbers on it. I think it was something like 4.6 million on welfare. That's just over 1% of the population. It is the food stamp program that has the big numbers, like 46 million. As already mentioned, the food stamp program isn't a very big benefit. You don't have to be penniless to be on it either. I'm not sure what the other details are. A lot of people are on food stamps now because they economy is so bad. I don't think it's appropriate the use current numbers to argue against these programs because this is a time where many people truly need it. The bums and fraudsters are not going to be a significant portion.
 
  #23  
Old 05-03-13, 04:58 AM
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 43,044
Over the yrs I've know various families that were on food stamps. As stated before, I have nothing against a deserving person/family getting food stamps. I've taken food stamp recipients to the store before and they seemed to be too good to eat the store brand and cheaper stuff that I bought for my family. I've seen folks at the grocery store on many occasions that had brands/cuts that I couldn't afford but had their buggy filled up with expensive items... and paid with food stamps.

I don't know how the food stamp amount works but I fail to see how anyone can claim that the amount isn't enough when I've ate well for less. Beans are cheaper than steaks but just as nutritious and probably healthier. When you don't have a lot to spend on groceries you don't buy a lot of sodas, junk food or already prepared meals. If I could feed my family on less when I was working 50+ hrs a week, surely those in need can do the same.
 
  #24  
Old 05-03-13, 06:54 AM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,940
I don't know how the food stamp amount works but I fail to see how anyone can claim that the amount isn't enough when I've ate well for less. Beans are cheaper than steaks but just as nutritious and probably healthier. When you don't have a lot to spend on groceries you don't buy a lot of sodas, junk food or already prepared meals. If I could feed my family on less when I was working 50+ hrs a week, surely those in need can do the same.
Food prices have gone up a lot in the last decade. $200 for one person a month is probably just enough to get by. But you aren't going to have a diet of fresh foods with that.
 
  #25  
Old 05-03-13, 07:46 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,541
Food prices have gone up a lot in the last decade. $200 for one person a month is probably just enough to get by. But you aren't going to have a diet of fresh foods with that.
This is true even here.
You need to be smart about how and what you buy. If you can do some items in bulk, you can save a lot. Mac & Cheese (stuff that comes in a box) can be replaced with bulk maccoroni and bulk cheese powder. Taste the same and produces a lot more.
Some bakeries or factories have a small store front. We buy our bread products from the bakery that makes/packages the bread for the stores directly from their store front for 1/4 the retail price.
As marksr mentioned, beans are cheap.

I (as well as my wife) grew up when our parent's where going through tough times (high interest rates, job losses, etc). We ate a lot of beans and wheeners, pasta (flour or tomato based sauses are cheap to make leaving out the fancy ingredients). It's actually interesting comparing the foods I grew up with compared to my wife (whos from the east cost). Some stuff is the same, but then there is the lobster and other east coast twists.
 
  #26  
Old 05-03-13, 07:53 AM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 9,806
The sad stories do (honestly) pull at our conscience, but they shouldn't be considered as representative of any entire program. If we move to the bottom line, the real issue is, we don't have the money to continue funding everything we want. That means, either taking a closer look at where the money is currently going, which might cost more than it saves, or simply eliminating many programs. Until we can, first, balance our budget, we have zero hope of avoiding national bankruptcy. I've already posted that the sequestration that has all kinds of people all riled up is mere pennies compared to the cuts that would be necessary to just balance our budget. Then to start repaying the $12,000,000,000,000 we owe and our economy collapses. For those who actually have a positive income with a nest egg, that would be somewhere between a quarter and half a million dollars each. Try buying groceries after paying that bill.

For those who can remember picking up items and looking for the "made in Japan" label on the bottom, we need to start looking again. If it isn't made in America, put it back on the shelf and do without. Yes, we will all hurt to some degree, either paying more or doing without, but 10 years from now, mfg will have moved back to our shores and jobs will abound. With jobs comes people spending money and paying taxes and that debt will be within reach of being paid. And we will have the money to sort out and help those in need. The part I like is that this is something that we the people can do. We just have to do it.

Bud
 
  #27  
Old 05-03-13, 08:32 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,541
For those who can remember picking up items and looking for the "made in Japan" label on the bottom, we need to start looking again. If it isn't made in America, put it back on the shelf and do without. Yes, we will all hurt to some degree, either paying more or doing without, but 10 years from now, mfg will have moved back to our shores and jobs will abound. With jobs comes people spending money and paying taxes and that debt will be within reach of being paid. And we will have the money to sort out and help those in need. The part I like is that this is something that we the people can do. We just have to do it.

Bud
I won't go on about my views on the "Buy American".
I will however complain about the manufactures that use these foreign made products, then sell them for as high or higher then locally made products.

My wife and I are in the process of starting to manufacture a couple different products for backpack camping (canoe, kayak, hike, bike, etc). For one particular product line, all our competitor products are made in India, china, etc. This product isn't expensive to make, nor complicated (once the design is identified). There is no reason to charge what they charge considering labour costs they are paying. Provided I can generate the sales contracts, I could pay my wife and myself the wage I currently make, and still make money. These are American brand name companies btw.

I'm not a buy American/Canadian kind of guy. I'm a support my locals/neighbors kind of guy.


Anyway, way off topic of the OP.
 
  #28  
Old 05-03-13, 01:33 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
Bud9051 and Northern Mike you both make valid points. I think there can and has to be a balance between what is made in the Americas and I include Canada and south America and here the United States in that balance and what is made overseas China etc. Certainly we should buy American where possible but some things just sadly are not made here anymore. I take one example television sets can anyone name one brand that is still made here? No I didn't think so, so if we can't keep some companies here why not try to lure foreign companies here. It has already worked with Toyota as they make some of their cars here. Trouble is with our current tax,tax tax attitude no foreign company right now is too interested in investing here. It probably will not happen anytime soon either and certainly not with the current congress and administration in office at least not in the United States.
 
  #29  
Old 05-03-13, 01:48 PM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 9,806
Mike is actually on the same track as I am, just on the other side of the boarder and Canada isn't the the problem. But where I'm headed is that once we really understand the pain we are going to be suffering as that debt comes due, the pain of paying a bit more or going without will be far less. Plus, it will open the door for manufacturers to recognize that there is a buying market if they move production back to our shores.

With the clouds forming overhead and signs of another cold war, it may also be an opportunity for congress to tax the dickens out of imports. Same effect, just different approach.

Bud
 
  #30  
Old 05-03-13, 04:28 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,188
Just a quick comment for those that think welfare spending is no big deal or even inadequate.

According to the senate budget committee's 2012 CRS report, welfare spending is now the biggest item in the federal budget. It has surpassed defense, social security and medicare. The 2011 means tested welfare spending was $1.03 Trillion dollars to support more than 80 different welfare programs. That's $3,311 per person and its growing at an alarming rate, up 32% is just 4 years.

The kicker - "Meanwhile, the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security have effectively waived the legal requirement that those seeking admittance into the U.S. not be welfare reliant."
 
  #31  
Old 05-03-13, 05:21 PM
Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 1,452
I take one example television sets can anyone name one brand that is still made here? No I didn't think so....
I can! My kids bought me a 32" Vizio for Christmas, great HD TV. If someone (me) had never seen a HD TV before you can't believe how sharp the picture is.


Vizio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
  #32  
Old 05-03-13, 06:53 PM
Gunguy45's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 20,800
Vizio's major partner in the consumer electronics arena is AmTran Technology, a Taiwan-based OEM/ODM that manufactures more than half of the televisions sold by Vizio and owns a 23% stake in the company. Vizio also manufactures its products in Mexico and China under agreements with ODM assemblers in those countries.
When they started...they were mostly assembled in AZ as I remember, but it was still with most components manufactured overseas.

Sorry......
 
  #33  
Old 05-04-13, 02:48 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
Not many things actually are made here anymore and that is the real sad thing as most things at one time were made here. Vizio isn't a bad brand Baldwin but Gunguy45 is right a good deal of the components are made overseas so you only get half or so made here and at time some sets may be made overseas entirely.

A while back ABC news actually did a very interesting test how many American made items could they find in a volunteers home. They were told that if ABC news found anything that wasn't American made that it would be put in a truck and hauled away with ABC news compensating them for their loss. Guess what they didn't find one thing in that house that was made in America except for some of their clothes. This was a two part challenge though the next thing they did was go shopping to find an American made item. For some things like furniture they found American made but many other things were made elsewhere. People want to buy cheap things so labor costs will have to go down for us to be able to compete.
 
  #34  
Old 05-04-13, 03:36 AM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 9,806
hc "People want to buy cheap things so labor costs will have to go down for us to be able to compete. " And as labor costs go down, so must the standard of living. Asl we level the playing field the current trading practices with low labor cost nations will destroy what we enjoy.

If, however we learn to choose the most American products we can find and change those shopping habits, we will send a message to other mfgs to bring those jobs back home. Once the media starts reporting that America has gone wild with "made in America" you will start seeing changes.

Bud
 
  #35  
Old 05-04-13, 06:00 AM
Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 1,452
Ah Vic, you peed on my parade. Kids told me it was made in California so I looked in the back last night..."Made in China." Oh well.
 
  #36  
Old 05-04-13, 06:22 AM
Gunguy45's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 20,800
Well...you could buy a Bose surround sound system. That's US made I'm pretty sure.
 
  #37  
Old 05-04-13, 01:56 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
Bud9051 you are right our standard of living will go down but not if we have lower prices for everything else. That means lower insurance premiums,Lower doctors and hospital fees,Lower food prices etc. If everyone lowered their prices for things then having a lower wage wouldn't be an issue it could be done and has been done by stores like Walmart for instance. The leadership in Washington though apparently doesn't see that as they should have addressed health care costs more before they made the health care law as just one example of poor leadership. I agree though we should buy more American made things and tell stores that we shop that is what we want. The more vocal we are about what we want to see the more we will see things made in America.
 
  #38  
Old 05-07-13, 08:56 AM
Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 1,452
....ABC news actually did a very interesting test....
Another segment of their 'made in America' series last night. This time they were in Mexico and looked at a train load of new cars that just arrived, all the stickers said made in Tennessee. Seems they prefer ones made here cause "there're made better".
 
  #39  
Old 05-07-13, 03:03 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
I didn't see that Baldwin as I rarely watch ABC News I am glad you did though. I think it proves that if we all stick together and buy things only made in the Americas that we eventually will defeat China in their game of trade.
 
  #40  
Old 05-07-13, 07:40 PM
Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 1,452
I think one of the biggest things is the Chinese are waking up, internet perhaps, and realizing that $40 a month just doesn't cut it. That and the cost to ship it a lot of companies are coming back home where they belong.
 
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes
'