More Than 100 Million Americans Are On Welfare

[John F Kennedy III]

More Than 100 Million Americans Are On Welfare


Michael Snyder
American Dream
Aug 9, 2012

There are more Americans dependent on the federal government than ever before in U.S. history.


According to the Survey of Income and Program Participation conducted by the U.S. Census, well over 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government. Many are enrolled in more than one. That is about a third of the entire population of the country. Sadly, that figure does not even include Social Security or Medicare. Today the federal government runs almost 80 different “means-tested welfare programs”, and almost all of those programs have experienced substantial growth in recent years. Yes, we will always need a “safety net” for those that cannot take care of themselves, but it is absolutely ridiculous that the federal government is financially supporting one-third of all Americans. How much farther do things really need to go before we finally admit that we have become a socialist nation? At the rate we are going, it will not be too long before half the nation is on welfare. Unfortunately, we will likely never get to that point because the gigantic debt that we are currently running up will probably destroy our financial system before that ever happens.

It is really hard to believe how rapidly some of these federal welfare programs have grown.

For example, the number of Americans on food stamps has grown from about 17 million in 2000 to 31.9 million when Barack Obama took office to 46.4 million today.

The federal government spent a staggering 71.8 billion dollars on the food stamp program in 2011.

That sure is a lot of money to spend on food.

And I thought that my grocery bills were high.


Medicaid is also growing like crazy.

The number of Americans on Medicaid grew from 34 million in 2000 to 54 million in 2011.

Once upon a time, Medicaid was supposed to help the poorest of the poor get medical care. In fact, back in 1965 only about one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid.

But now about one-sixth of the entire country is on Medicaid.

Will we all eventually be on Medicaid?

As I mentioned recently, It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.

And we all know that projections like that are usually way too low.

Other federal welfare programs are exploding in size as well.

For example, federal housing assistance increased by a whopping 42 percent between 2006 and 2010.

The chart posted below was produced by Senate Budget Committee Republican staff. As you can see, the number of Americans on welfare just continues to grow and grow and grow….

http://endoftheamericandream.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/More-Than-100-Million-Americans-Are-On-Welfare-460x334.png


Keep in mind that the chart posted above does not even take into account the huge numbers of Americans that are on Social Security and Medicare.

In the United States today, more than 61 million Americans receive some form of Social Security benefits.

Just think about that.

That means that nearly one out of every five Americans is drawing on Social Security.

That is just crazy.

And in the years ahead we are going to see wave after wave of Baby Boomers retire and so the number of Americans drawing on Social Security is just going to keep going up.

The same kind of thing is happening with Medicare.

As I wrote about the other day, it is being projected that the number of Americans on Medicare will grow from 50.7 million in 2012 to 73.2 million in 2025.

Ouch.

That sure does sound expensive.

If you can believe it, Medicare is facing unfunded liabilities of more than 38 trillion dollars over the next 75 years.

That comes to approximately $328,404 for each and every household in the United States.

Will you be able to pay your share?

And that is just for Medicare.

The federal government just keeps becoming a bigger and bigger part of the health care industry.

Back in 1990, the federal government accounted for just 32 percent of all health care spending in America.

This year, it is being projected that the federal government will account for more than 50 percent of all health care spending in the United States.

Americans have become completely and totally addicted to government money, and word has gotten out to other nations that the U.S. is a place where you can live the high life at the expense of the government.

According to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, 43 percent of all immigrants that have been in the United States for at least 20 years are still on welfare.

Keep in mind that the study only looked at immigrants that have been in the country for at least two decades.

Nearly half of them are still on welfare.

Needless to say, the system is fundamentally broken.

And there is no way in the world that we can afford all of this. We have rolled up the biggest pile of debt in the history of the world and our children and our grandchildren are facing a lifetime of endless debt slavery.

Once again this year we are facing a federal budget deficit of well over a trillion dollars, and very few of our politicians even seem to care.

We just continue to spend money as if it was going out of style.

At this point, spending by the federal government accounts for more than 25 percent of U.S. GDP.

The last time that happened was during World War II when we were trying to rescue the world from the tyranny of the Germans and the Japanese.

If you divided up the U.S. national debt equally, it would come to more than $134,000 for every single household in the United States.

Ack.

Overall, the U.S. national debt has gotten more than 37 times larger than it was when Nixon took us off the gold standard.

We are a nation of debt addicts, and both political parties have been responsible for getting us into this mess.

We simply cannot afford to continue to go down this road. We need to significantly reduce all categories of government spending.

And yes, we will always need a safety net.

But we simply cannot afford to financially support more than 100 million Americans.

That is absolute madness and it must stop.

So what do you think about all of this?


original article here:
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/more-than-100-million-americans-are-on-welfare

[tttppp]

We are getting closer and closer to pure communism.

[John F Kennedy III]

We are getting closer and closer to pure communism.

By the second...

[AuH20]

The dirty little secret is that you can't save them all. It's like being on a makeshift rescue tube in the middle of the ocean. You must forcefully remove the hanger-ons from the over-stressed floatation device or it will capsize.

[jbauer]

Fine by me, when do we get to start shoving them off without being called class-warfare or racist?


The dirty little secret is that you can't save them all. It's like being on a makeshift rescue tube in the middle of the ocean. You must forcefully remove the hanger-ons from the over-stressed floatation device or it will capsize.

[brandon]

Really infuriating to think how drastically my standard of living has been depressed by all of these parasites.

[Nickels]

another Michael Snyder article *shakes head*

Today the federal government runs almost 80 different “means-tested welfare programs”, and almost all of those programs have experienced substantial growth in recent years. Yes, we will always need a “safety net” for those that cannot take care of themselves, but it is absolutely ridiculous that the federal government is financially supporting one-third of all Americans

How does he know 100 million Americans don't actually need it? Isn't this the same guy that told us last week that 100 million Americans are poor? Is he mad because there's 100 million that need it? Or that the government is assisting too many people? Or not enough? It's hard to understand what this guy really wants when you read what he says in totality.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?384359-Ha!-Drudge-Report-fell-for-Alex-Jones-article-without-fact-checking

[Danke]

Really infuriating to think how drastically my standard of living has been depressed by all of these parasites.

Pay back for how you treated them in school (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?385596-Bullied-14-Year-Old-Girl-Gets-Plastic-Surgery-to-Fix-Ears-Nose-Chin&p=4573038&viewfull=1#post4573038).

[Zippyjuan]

The chart over-counts people. Read the description below it- if even one person in the household receives some sort of government benefit, everybody in the house is counted as receiving benefits. If there is say a family of five and one is a student on student aid, all five are counted as receiving benefits. Same family and Grannie moves in and is on food stamps then instead of counting one person who is actually receiving benefits, six are counted.

"Figures include anyone residing in a household in which at least one person received a benefit".

[Nickels]

The chart over-counts people.


Michael Snyder would never do that! If he did, he'd have no credibility and nobody here would repost his articles!



Read the description below it- if even one person in the household receives some sort of government benefit, everybody in the house is counted as receiving benefits.


Yeah, ever heard of "trickle in the family"?



If there is say a family of five and one is a student on student aid, all five are counted as receiving benefits. Same family and Grannie moves in and is on food stamps then instead of counting one person who is actually receiving benefits, six are counted.

"Figures include anyone residing in a household in which at least one person received a benefit".

it probably evens out when that one person recieves more than one benefit. By the way, when a parent recieves welfare, don't they ask how many kids they have, and pay them accordingly? If so, wouldn't this in effect be giving the kids benefit, even if it was on one applicant's name?

[oyarde]

Fine by me, when do we get to start shoving them off without being called class-warfare or racist? I am not racist , could give a shit about class , no person is entitled to my earnings .Simple as that.

[oyarde]

The chart over-counts people. Read the description below it- if even one person in the household receives some sort of government benefit, everybody in the house is counted as receiving benefits. If there is say a family of five and one is a student on student aid, all five are counted as receiving benefits. Same family and Grannie moves in and is on food stamps then instead of counting one person who is actually receiving benefits, six are counted.

"Figures include anyone residing in a household in which at least one person received a benefit". Sounds about right to me , tax tick in the house ? tax tick house....

[shane77m]

Just wait until the coffers run dry. 100 million people not getting their handout. Then again though, I guess as long as the gubment is able to steal from me then the coffers should have money in them.

[tod evans]

Isn't there "only" 300M people in the US?

That's fully 1/3 !

Disgraceful..

[jbauer]

Just wait until the coffers run dry. 100 million people not getting their handout. Then again though, I guess as long as the gubment is able to steal from me then the coffers should have money in them.

Yeah but the problem with that is its 100 MILLION people. 1 out of 3, with those types of numbers we don't have enough ammunition to hold them all off. Thankfully they'll probably be to lazy to get off the couch and look for food.

[jbauer]

I am not racist , could give a shit about class , no person is entitled to my earnings .Simple as that.

I hear you, but if we put this into the national media we'd be called all kinds of names.

[oyarde]

Time to deal with the truth

[John F Kennedy III]

Yeah but the problem with that is its 100 MILLION people. 1 out of 3, with those types of numbers we don't have enough ammunition to hold them all off. Thankfully they'll probably be to lazy to get off the couch and look for food.

Or at least too fat to chase us.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

The chart over-counts people. Read the description below it- if even one person in the household receives some sort of government benefit, everybody in the house is counted as receiving benefits. If there is say a family of five and one is a student on student aid, all five are counted as receiving benefits. Same family and Grannie moves in and is on food stamps then instead of counting one person who is actually receiving benefits, six are counted.

"Figures include anyone residing in a household in which at least one person received a benefit".


I don't have a problem with them counting it that way since families pool money and resources. Let's say a daughter is on food stamps, it lessens the family's food bill, and actually subsidizes mom or dad's new car.

I appreciate your attention to detail, but I also think this can be one way of legitimately looking at the issue.

[RabbitMan]

I'm pretty sure that if a student is on subsidized student loans, their entire 6-member family should not be labeled "tax-ticks". That is just blatantly offensive. Why don't we stop with retarded name-calling worthy of the Stormfront forum, and talk about what's the underlying cause of this or how the source is a moron? I know people and families on food-stamps, and its used as a replacement for a social support network since they are not religious and their parents/relatives are a mixed bag, pretty much how it is currently intended to be used.

On the other hand, I don't know many families that are scheming on how to most efficiently milk the Gov. of its Welfare programs, but having worked at a convenience store I can tell there is a LOT of wasteful use of food stamps. It pained me to see it spent on over-priced beef-jerky, coca-cola, and two bags of cheetos. Frequently. Anyways.

What we are likely looking at is 1 in 10 people being on some sort of welfare. Welfare is typically used by families, families where the parents work near min. wage jobs and so are the most financially stressed, so these numbers have to be pretty inflated. I've heard some here talk about how the safety-net should only be there for the poorest of the poor, how could programs like these be changed to reflect this goal?

[ShaneEnochs]

We receive food stamps and WIC.

[seraphson]

No worries, once the government credit card breaks from over-swipping (Fed Reserve bought nearly 3/4 of our debt last year, I guess China finds our debt less attractive, gee can't imagine why) due to having too many unfunded liabilities such as "promoting democracy" (undeclared wars), foreign "aid", fake housing/college bubbles, welfare (medicare/caid, foodstamps, section 8, etc.) all of this propped up illusion of upside down pyramided "wealth" will evaporate, and with it all the bogus shit I just mentioned.

On the topic of welfare wasn't it originally intended for something like 1 in 50 Americans? Now it's more like 1 in 15? I forget the location a link that ran an article on this. Either way even without the exact empirical data, just look around, we can see yet another iteration of another failed euphemism that was to lead us to greener fields. Isn't the definition of insanity repeating the same exact thing over and over and expecting different results?

[showpan]

Once again, most people attack the symptom while very few attack the disease....so how's NAFTA working out for us now?

[Zippyjuan]

Once again, most people attack the symptom while very few attack the disease....so how's NAFTA working out for us now?

Let's see.
http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta

On January 1, 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico (NAFTA) entered into force.

All remaining duties and quantitative restrictions were eliminated, as scheduled, on January 1, 2008.

NAFTA created the world's largest free trade area, which now links 450 million people producing $17 trillion worth of goods and services.

Trade between the United States and its NAFTA partners has soared since the agreement entered into force.

U.S. goods and services trade with NAFTA totaled $1.6 trillion in 2009 (latest data available for goods and services trade combined). Exports totaled $397 billion. Imports totaled $438 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with NAFTA was $41 billion in 2009.

The United States has $918 billion in total (two ways) goods trade with NAFTA countries (Canada and Mexico) during 2010. Goods exports totaled $412 billion; Goods imports totaled $506 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with NAFTA was $95 billion in 2010.

Trade in services with NAFTA (exports and imports) totaled $99 billion in 2009 (latest data available for services trade). Services exports were $63.8 billion. Services imports were $35.5 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with NAFTA was $28.3 billion in 2009.
Exports
The NAFTA countries (Canada and Mexico), were the top two purchasers of U.S. exports in 2010. (Canada $248.2 billion and Mexico $163.3 billion).

U.S. goods exports to NAFTA in 2010 were $411.5 billion, up 23.4% ($78 billion) from 2009, and 149% from 1994 (the year prior to Uruguay Round) and up 190% from 1993 (the year prior to NAFTA). U.S. exports to NAFTA accounted for 32.2% of overall U.S. exports in 2010.

The top export categories (2-digit HS) in 2010 were: Machinery ($63.3 billion), Vehicles (parts) ($56.7 billion), Electrical Machinery ($56.2 billion), Mineral Fuel and Oil ($26.7 billion), and Plastic ($22.6 billion).

U.S. exports of agricultural products to NAFTA countries totaled $31.4 billion in 2010. Leading categories include: red meats, fresh/chilled/frozen ($2.7 billion), coarse grains ($2.2 million), fresh fruit ($1.9 billion), snack foods (excluding nuts) ($1.8 billion), and fresh vegetables ($1.7 billion).

U.S. exports of private commercial services* (i.e., excluding military and government) to NAFTA were $63.8 billion in 2009 (latest data available), down 7% ($4.6 billion) from 2008, but up 125% since 1994.
Imports
The NAFTA countries were the second and third largest suppliers of goods imports to the United States in 2010. (Canada $276.5 billon, and Mexico $229.7 billion).

U.S. goods imports from NAFTA totaled $506.1 billion in 2010, up 25.6% ($103 billion), from 2009, and up 184% from 1994, and up 235% from 1993. U.S. imports from NAFTA accounted for 26.5% of overall U.S. imports in 2010.

The five largest categories in 2010 were Mineral Fuel and Oil (crude oil) ($116.2 billion), Vehicles ($86.3 billion), Electrical Machinery ($61.8 billion), Machinery ($51.2 billion), and Precious Stones (gold) ($13.9).

U.S. imports of agricultural products from NAFTA countries totaled $29.8 billion in 2010. Leading categories include: fresh vegetables ($4.6 billion), snack foods, (including chocolate) ($4.0 billion), fresh fruit (excluding bananas) ($2.4 billion), live animals ($2.0 billion), and red meats, fresh/chilled/frozen ($2.0 billion).

U.S. imports of private commercial services* (i.e., excluding military and government) were $35.5 billion in 2009 (latest data available), down 11.2% ($4.5 billion) from 2008, but up 100% since 1994.

[Nickels]

Isn't there "only" 300M people in the US?

That's fully 1/3 !

Disgraceful..

if it were true, yes it would be, you'd know a few people around you that take it.

But do you? Is it true?

Snyder is known for shoddy math and bad statistical data, just the few articles posted here shows that. This is the same guy who was telling us 100 million Americans are "poor".

[1stAmendguy]

You can add the drastically smaller amount of a few hundred or thousands that are on corporate welfare to that total.;)

[Elwar]

I wonder if that includes the 56 million on social security/welfare.

[Nickels]

I wonder if that includes the 56 million on social security/welfare.

it does not count social security or medicare, BUT, like Zippy pointed out, it counts as family of 4 as "recieving" if only one person living in the house was the reciever. The numbers are pointless, and I'm not even sure, even if they were true, what his point is.

[pcosmar]

Have any of you read,

The Economic Elite Vs. The People of the United States of America
http://ampedstatus.org/full-report-the-economic-elite-vs-the-people-of-the-united-states-of-america/

Well worth the read,, worth your time.

[showpan]

Interesting how the numbers don't really add up or how people always present one side of the coin. Did they even bother to look at the historical exports of those industries to see if they had only grown at the same rate they had been before NAFTA? Highly unlikely. Our biggest export today is Waste to China....yeah, it's working real well with over 25 MILLION people who need a job.


Ballooning Trade Deficit Under the NAFTA-WTO Model

Prior to the establishment of Fast Track and the trade agreements it enabled, the United States had balanced trade; since then, the U.S. trade deficit has exploded. The pre-Fast Track period (before 1973) was one of balanced U.S. trade and rising living standards for most Americans. In fact, in 1973, the United States had a slight trade surplus, as it did in nearly every year between World War II and 1975. But in every year since Fast Track was first implemented in 1975, the United States has run a trade deficit. And since establishment of NAFTA and the WTO in the mid-1990s, the U.S. trade deficit jumped exponentially from under $100 billion to over $700 billion — over 5 percent of national income. The establishment of the extraordinary Fast Track trade procedure coincided with President Nixon’s decision to abandon managed exchange rates — the so-called gold standard — which had helped ensure balanced trade over time. In the new economy that would emerge from these policy shifts, companies that produce abroad (or produce nothing at all, in the case of finance) would replace domestic employment and rising wages as the driving force of economic policy. From Federal Reserve officials to Nobel Laureates, there is nearly unanimous agreement among economists that this huge trade deficit is unsustainable: unless the United States implements policies to shrink it, the U.S. and global economies are exposed to risk of crisis, shock and instability.

http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=2126

Snapshot for November 5, 2003.

U.S. NAFTA trade deficit surging again

Since the U.S. entered into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico and Canada, the trade deficit with these countries has grown rapidly (see chart below). U.S. firms moved plants to Mexico and Canada to take advantage of lower wages and new rules providing unheard of levels of protection for foreign investors. The combined U.S. trade balance with the other two NAFTA countries (the difference between U.S. exports and imports) was a small, stable deficit prior to NAFTA. Since NAFTA that combined deficit has grown rapidly. U.S. imports have been growing more rapidly than exports, so the trade deficit has expanded. When the growth of this deficit eased in 2002, some claimed that U.S. trade with China and other lower-wage countries was displacing NAFTA trade. Contrary to this view, the U.S. NAFTA deficit has increased 12.2% so far this year, evidence that deficits with Mexico and Canada are a continuing drag on U.S. growth and job creation.

http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/images/snap20031105.gif

Exports, which expand domestic production, increase the number of U.S. industrial jobs, while imports, which replace goods that could have been produced in the United States, eliminate jobs. The rise in the U.S. deficit with Canada and Mexico from 1993 to 2000 displaced production supported by 766,000 U.S. jobs. Most of those jobs would have been high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The sustained growth of this deficit suggests that NAFTA continues to eliminate more jobs in the United States, which worsens the current economic downturn.

Further study of NAFTA by researchers in Canada and Mexico has shown that workers in all three countries have been hurt, but for different reasons. In Mexico, real wages have fallen sharply and there has been a sharp drop in the number of people holding regular jobs in paid positions. Many workers have been shifted into subsistence-level work in the “informal sector,” frequently unpaid work in family retail trade or restaurant businesses. In Canada, a decade of heightened competition with the U.S. is eroding social investment in public spending on education, health care, unemployment compensation, and a wide range of other public services. This experience suggests that workers have good reasons to be concerned as we enter NAFTA’s second decade.

http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_11052003/

Note: the numbers posted for manufacturing losses are wrong because they don't take into account the effects of NAICS which started counting Big Macs and Fries among other things as part of manufacturing starting in 1995.

[micahnelson]

If the government is rigging the system to benefit the 1% in a major way, doesn't it make sense that they would create a social safety net to prevent riots?

Edit: It isn't the government rigging the system, as if it was their idea, it is the wealthy buying the government. They get laws passed in their favor, in return they insure there is a social safety net paid for by the middle class to cover the poor.

[donnay]

This is all done by design. More people on the system dole easier to take over a nation. The question is how long before we see 300 million depending on government?

[tod evans]

This is all done by design. More people on the system dole easier to take over a nation. The question is how long before we see 300 million depending on government?

Of the 200M who supposedly "work" for a living how many do you think draw their pay-check directly or indirectly from "The-Gov."?

[donnay]

Of the 200M who supposedly "work" for a living how many do you think draw their pay-check directly or indirectly from "The-Gov."?


Good question. A good majority of them. I don't know the numbers exactly--but I read an article a couple of years ago that said, "by 2020 the government will be the biggest employer."

[BSU kid]

This is completely pathetic, no wonder an African Island has been rated more free then the United States.

[oyarde]

This is complet pathetic, no wonder an African Island has been rated more free then the United States. Which one ??

[BSU kid]

^Mauritius

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/mauritius?utm_source=heatmap&utm_medium=countrypage&utm_campaign=indexofeconomicfreedom

[oyarde]

^Mauritius

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/mauritius?utm_source=heatmap&utm_medium=countrypage&utm_campaign=indexofeconomicfreedom I have not been there yet , have to check it out when I retire .

[BSU kid]

I have not been there yet , have to check it out when I retire .

Apparently it is a bastion of freedom and development in that region + it has nice beaches :p

[oyarde]

Apparently it is a bastion of freedom and development in that region + it has nice beaches :p Looks like it would be easy for me to talk the little Lady into checking out the fishing and having a drink :)

[Anti Federalist]

Great post.

And, as is usually the case, somebody will post a counter argument that all is well and everything is rosy.

As middle class incomes continue to fall, young men live in their parents basement until they are 45, and unemployment for young people, even using the government's cooked numbers, hovers around 20 percent.


Interesting how the numbers don't really add up or how people always present one side of the coin. Did they even bother to look at the historical exports of those industries to see if they had only grown at the same rate they had been before NAFTA? Highly unlikely. Our biggest export today is Waste to China....yeah, it's working real well with over 25 MILLION people who need a job.


Ballooning Trade Deficit Under the NAFTA-WTO Model

Prior to the establishment of Fast Track and the trade agreements it enabled, the United States had balanced trade; since then, the U.S. trade deficit has exploded. The pre-Fast Track period (before 1973) was one of balanced U.S. trade and rising living standards for most Americans. In fact, in 1973, the United States had a slight trade surplus, as it did in nearly every year between World War II and 1975. But in every year since Fast Track was first implemented in 1975, the United States has run a trade deficit. And since establishment of NAFTA and the WTO in the mid-1990s, the U.S. trade deficit jumped exponentially from under $100 billion to over $700 billion — over 5 percent of national income. The establishment of the extraordinary Fast Track trade procedure coincided with President Nixon’s decision to abandon managed exchange rates — the so-called gold standard — which had helped ensure balanced trade over time. In the new economy that would emerge from these policy shifts, companies that produce abroad (or produce nothing at all, in the case of finance) would replace domestic employment and rising wages as the driving force of economic policy. From Federal Reserve officials to Nobel Laureates, there is nearly unanimous agreement among economists that this huge trade deficit is unsustainable: unless the United States implements policies to shrink it, the U.S. and global economies are exposed to risk of crisis, shock and instability.

http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=2126

Snapshot for November 5, 2003.

U.S. NAFTA trade deficit surging again

Since the U.S. entered into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico and Canada, the trade deficit with these countries has grown rapidly (see chart below). U.S. firms moved plants to Mexico and Canada to take advantage of lower wages and new rules providing unheard of levels of protection for foreign investors. The combined U.S. trade balance with the other two NAFTA countries (the difference between U.S. exports and imports) was a small, stable deficit prior to NAFTA. Since NAFTA that combined deficit has grown rapidly. U.S. imports have been growing more rapidly than exports, so the trade deficit has expanded. When the growth of this deficit eased in 2002, some claimed that U.S. trade with China and other lower-wage countries was displacing NAFTA trade. Contrary to this view, the U.S. NAFTA deficit has increased 12.2% so far this year, evidence that deficits with Mexico and Canada are a continuing drag on U.S. growth and job creation.

http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/images/snap20031105.gif

Exports, which expand domestic production, increase the number of U.S. industrial jobs, while imports, which replace goods that could have been produced in the United States, eliminate jobs. The rise in the U.S. deficit with Canada and Mexico from 1993 to 2000 displaced production supported by 766,000 U.S. jobs. Most of those jobs would have been high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The sustained growth of this deficit suggests that NAFTA continues to eliminate more jobs in the United States, which worsens the current economic downturn.

Further study of NAFTA by researchers in Canada and Mexico has shown that workers in all three countries have been hurt, but for different reasons. In Mexico, real wages have fallen sharply and there has been a sharp drop in the number of people holding regular jobs in paid positions. Many workers have been shifted into subsistence-level work in the “informal sector,” frequently unpaid work in family retail trade or restaurant businesses. In Canada, a decade of heightened competition with the U.S. is eroding social investment in public spending on education, health care, unemployment compensation, and a wide range of other public services. This experience suggests that workers have good reasons to be concerned as we enter NAFTA’s second decade.

http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_11052003/

Note: the numbers posted for manufacturing losses are wrong because they don't take into account the effects of NAICS which started counting Big Macs and Fries among other things as part of manufacturing starting in 1995.

[pcosmar]

Have any of you read,

The Economic Elite Vs. The People of the United States of America
http://ampedstatus.org/full-report-the-economic-elite-vs-the-people-of-the-united-states-of-america/

Well worth the read,, worth your time.
Anyone?

[micahnelson]

Of the 200M who supposedly "work" for a living how many do you think draw their pay-check directly or indirectly from "The-Gov."?

Policemen, Firefighters, Teachers, and the military all work for the people via the people's government. Contractors that build roads and bridges also get money from taxpayers. You could make an argument that the guy who runs the coffee shop next to the police station is making money off the government as well.

Do we need more private sector innovation and growth? Yes, absolutely. That doesn't mean the workers who get paid by the government aren't working. Yes, there are individual examples of slackers, but its unfair to assume all government employees are that way.

[tod evans]

Unfair my ass!

Each and every one of those whom you list is providing a "service" of some sort to the taxpayer...

Get the federal dollars out of the equation (remember we're broke) and let's see which government employees the folks who earn money without government contracts choose to retain..

I'll give you 10-1 odds that more than 85% of those currently sucking on the federal tit would be flipping burgers or doing assembly line work...

Give them a decade of actually producing "something" to earn their money and see if they'd vote the same system back in.


Policemen, Firefighters, Teachers, and the military all work for the people via the people's government. Contractors that build roads and bridges also get money from taxpayers. You could make an argument that the guy who runs the coffee shop next to the police station is making money off the government as well.

Do we need more private sector innovation and growth? Yes, absolutely. That doesn't mean the workers who get paid by the government aren't working. Yes, there are individual examples of slackers, but its unfair to assume all government employees are that way.

[heavenlyboy34]

Great post.

And, as is usually the case, somebody will post a counter argument that all is well and everything is rosy.

As middle class incomes continue to fall, young men live in their parents basement until they are 45, and unemployment for young people, even using the government's cooked numbers, hovers around 20 percent.
For many, this will be seen as a return to "the good old days" of multi-generational households-which was the norm until quite a ways past the Industrial Revolution. (not to mention the obliteration of the middle class will be much like a return to "the good old days" of the 2-class society-which dominated American society for ~the first half of its history)

[tod evans]

This in and of itself is horrific!

Equating fast food with actual manufacturing:eek:

But wait.............Some fellow earlier argued how we need to better ourselves as a nation and face the fact that other nations produce our goods for us.....We're so good as a nation we can rule the world using our intellect...



Note: the numbers posted for manufacturing losses are wrong because they don't take into account the effects of NAICS which started counting Big Macs and Fries among other things as part of manufacturing starting in 1995.

[heavenlyboy34]

This in and of itself is horrific!

Equating fast food with actual manufacturing:eek:

But wait.............Some fellow earlier argued how we need to better ourselves as a nation and face the fact that other nations produce our goods for us.....We're so good as a nation we can rule the world using our intellect...
lolz :D
http://www.all4ed.org/files/IntlComp_FactSheet.pdf
The following details how fifteen-year-old students from the United States compare with fifteen-year-olds in other OECD member countries in the Programme for International Student Achievement (PISA) measures of academic proficiency.*
Reading Literacy
In 2003, the United States ranked 15th of 29 OECD countries in reading literacy, and with a score of 495, came in near the OECD average of 500 (U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics 2004). However, a printing error invalidated the U.S. reading section of the 2006 PISA assessment, so the current U.S. standing is unknown.
Scientific Literacy
The United States ranks 21st of 30 OECD countries in scientific literacy, and the U.S. score of 489 fell below the OECD average of 500 (OECD 2007b). One quarter (24.4 percent) of U.S. fifteen-year-olds do not reach the baseline level of science achievement. This is the level at which students begin to demonstrate the science competencies that will enable them to use science and technology in life situations (OECD 2007b).
Mathematics Literacy
The United States ranks 25th of 30 OECD countries in mathematics literacy, and the average score of 474 fell well below the OECD average of 498. Scores have not measurably changed since 2003, when the United States ranked 24th of 29 countries (OECD 2007b). Over one quarter (28.1 percent) of American fifteen-year-olds performed below the baseline level of mathematics proficiency at which students begin to demonstrate the kind of skills that enable them to use mathematics actively in daily life (OECD 2007b).
Problem Solving
In 2003, the U.S. ranked 24th of 29 OECD countries in problem solving, and the average score of 477 fell well below the OECD average of 500 (OECD 2004). Half of American students fell below the threshold of problem-solving skills considered necessary to meet emerging workforce demands (OECD 2004). National surveys corroborate this finding; for example, 46 percent of American manufacturers say that their employees have inadequate problem-solving skills (NAM 2005).
Equity in Achievement The United States has an average number of students who perform at the highest proficiency levels, but a much larger proportion who perform at the lowest levels. The United States is the only member country to have relatively high proportions of both top and bottom performers (OECD 2007b). Although American white students’ average science score of 523 ranked above the OECD average, Hispanic American (439), American Indian and Native Alaskan (436), and African American (409) students all fell far below (U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics 2007). These groups scored similarly to the national averages of Turkey and Mexico, the two lowest-performing OECD member countries. The difference between the science scores of two students of different socioeconomic backgrounds is higher in the United States than in almost any other country (OECD 2007b). First-generation immigrant students in the United States lag an average of 57 points behind their native counterparts, which is the equivalent of nearly two years of schooling. Second-generation U.S. immigrants perform no better than first-generation immigrant students (OECD 2007b). Four of the five member countries that have higher proportions of immigrants than the United States also have higher national scores than the United States (OECD 2007b).

[tod evans]

lolz :D


I was being facetious..;)

[showpan]

Education is another example that has been tampered with. Before No Child Left behind, this country had one of the highest education systems in the world. NCLB was enacted by Bush to shift the money into Christian Academy's who were already privately funded. Now there are a lot of them that are getting government money that was intended for public schools. The elite do not want us educated. It's obvious how most universities only hire part time professors and keep very few who are tenured.

The same ones who sent the jobs overseas also make millions from the welfare system. If you look at everything they have done as a whole, you start to get the sense that conspiracy theories might not be all that far off.


Chase Bank Collecting Hundreds Of Thousands In ATM Fees From Welfare Clients (IN EACH STATE!!!)

May 8, 2011 from N3
OLYMPIA, Wash. – Public records show JP Morgan Chase is collecting more than $100,000 a month in ATM fees from welfare recipients in Washington. But the bank doesn't disclose the fee at the cash machine. This is happening at the same time the state has cut the monthly benefit for families on welfare and individuals in the Disability Lifeline program.
A few months ago Therese McLeod went to her local Chase ATM to take out some of the cash assistance she gets each month from the state. She swiped her Electronic Benefits Card and punched in her PIN. Out came the money and a receipt.
Therese McLeod: "And I looked at the receipt and there was no indication of any fee of any kind."
But McLeod had heard there was an 85-cent transaction fee charged by Chase for ATM withdrawals using an EBT card.
Therese McLeod: "So I went to the library and I looked up the account, which I had never done before and sure enough..."
Her online account showed an 85-cent charge. McLeod is outraged that Chase can levy the fee without warning the cardholder at the time of the transaction.
Therese McLeod: "Sounds like a racket to me. Don't we have laws against that?"
A Chase spokeswoman responds the bank is following a contract negotiated by the state of Washington. That contract has two parts. The state pays a monthly maintenance fee of about $700,000. While the client also pays the 85 cents per cash withdrawal.
The Chase spokeswoman adds it's not "technically feasible" to program the ATM network to warn welfare recipients of the charge.
At Washington's Department of Social and Health Services, Babs Roberts notes EBT clients are advised of the fee when they get their cards.
Babs Roberts: "They are given a brochure and they are told their cash withdrawals, they will be charged an 85-cent fee."
Roberts acknowledges the fee is a burden to poor people living on just a few hundred dollars a month in cash assistance.
DSHS officials recently met with Chase to discuss ways to get the cost of the contract down. In the meantime, the fee is adding up.
In the first four months of this year, Chase collected more than $465,000 in ATM charges from Washington welfare recipients.
As we reported in December, Electronic Benefit Card holders are also racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in ATM surcharges each month at non-Chase cash machines. Those surcharges totaled more than $890,000 in the first four months of this year.
Advocates for the poor wanted lawmakers to address this issue in the 2011 session, but that hasn't happened.

On the Web:
EBT card information:

http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/Publications/22-310.pdf

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=136072292

[tod evans]

Simple solution to both welfare and politicians.........Stop funding them!

[Liberty74]

Before LBJ' s Great Society -----> 14% poverty rate

After spending $16 trillion dollars to "end poverty,"....

Today's poverty rate -----> 14.3%

EPIC FAILURE!!!

[AuH20]

Education is another example that has been tampered with. Before No Child Left behind, this country had one of the highest education systems in the world. NCLB was enacted by Bush to shift the money into Christian Academy's who were already privately funded. Now there are a lot of them that are getting government money that was intended for public schools. The elite do not want us educated. It's obvious how most universities only hire part time professors and keep very few who are tenured.

The same ones who sent the jobs overseas also make millions from the welfare system. If you look at everything they have done as a whole, you start to get the sense that conspiracy theories might not be all that far off.


Chase Bank Collecting Hundreds Of Thousands In ATM Fees From Welfare Clients (IN EACH STATE!!!)

May 8, 2011 from N3
OLYMPIA, Wash. – Public records show JP Morgan Chase is collecting more than $100,000 a month in ATM fees from welfare recipients in Washington. But the bank doesn't disclose the fee at the cash machine. This is happening at the same time the state has cut the monthly benefit for families on welfare and individuals in the Disability Lifeline program.
A few months ago Therese McLeod went to her local Chase ATM to take out some of the cash assistance she gets each month from the state. She swiped her Electronic Benefits Card and punched in her PIN. Out came the money and a receipt.
Therese McLeod: "And I looked at the receipt and there was no indication of any fee of any kind."
But McLeod had heard there was an 85-cent transaction fee charged by Chase for ATM withdrawals using an EBT card.
Therese McLeod: "So I went to the library and I looked up the account, which I had never done before and sure enough..."
Her online account showed an 85-cent charge. McLeod is outraged that Chase can levy the fee without warning the cardholder at the time of the transaction.
Therese McLeod: "Sounds like a racket to me. Don't we have laws against that?"
A Chase spokeswoman responds the bank is following a contract negotiated by the state of Washington. That contract has two parts. The state pays a monthly maintenance fee of about $700,000. While the client also pays the 85 cents per cash withdrawal.
The Chase spokeswoman adds it's not "technically feasible" to program the ATM network to warn welfare recipients of the charge.
At Washington's Department of Social and Health Services, Babs Roberts notes EBT clients are advised of the fee when they get their cards.
Babs Roberts: "They are given a brochure and they are told their cash withdrawals, they will be charged an 85-cent fee."
Roberts acknowledges the fee is a burden to poor people living on just a few hundred dollars a month in cash assistance.
DSHS officials recently met with Chase to discuss ways to get the cost of the contract down. In the meantime, the fee is adding up.
In the first four months of this year, Chase collected more than $465,000 in ATM charges from Washington welfare recipients.
As we reported in December, Electronic Benefit Card holders are also racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in ATM surcharges each month at non-Chase cash machines. Those surcharges totaled more than $890,000 in the first four months of this year.
Advocates for the poor wanted lawmakers to address this issue in the 2011 session, but that hasn't happened.

On the Web:
EBT card information:

http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/Publications/22-310.pdf

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=136072292

?????? You really think the educational system went hopelessly awry during the Bush years?? It's been steadily sliding since as far back as the 1920s. The thrust of the public school system is to create docile servants as opposed to independent minded citizens. It was based on the Prussian system of teaching methodology.

[heavenlyboy34]

?????? You really think the educational system went hopelessly awry during the Bush years?? It's been steadily sliding since as far back as the 1920s. The thrust of the public school system is to create docile servants as opposed to independent minded citizens. It was based on the Prussian system of teaching methodology.
Truth.

[showpan]

I stand by what I stated. Prior to NCLB, our test scores were some of the highest in the world. Of course Japan leads the way, we were in the top ten for many years which is why people from all across the globe came here for an education. I do agree that our system is flawed and changes were needed, but not as bad as it is now teaching kids only to be test taking dummies. It was actually funny how Bush claimed that private schools were doing such a better job but when the standardized tests hit them, those chartered schools were much worse than the public schools...lol...then he used it as an excuse to give them even more money.

The main point however also stands, they are trying to dismantle education for a reason. Most people cannot afford private schooling. Especially minorities.

[MelissaWV]

I stand by what I stated. Prior to NCLB, our test scores were some of the highest in the world. Of course Japan leads the way, we were in the top ten for many years which is why people from all across the globe came here for an education. I do agree that our system is flawed and changes were needed, but not as bad as it is now teaching kids only to be test taking dummies. It was actually funny how Bush claimed that private schools were doing such a better job but when the standardized tests hit them, those chartered schools were much worse than the public schools...lol...then he used it as an excuse to give them even more money.

Your first error: tying "highest education" to "high test scores." That same mentality is what leads to teaching kids only what they need to pass the test, and not what they are likely to need out in an actual career.

[tttppp]

I stand by what I stated. Prior to NCLB, our test scores were some of the highest in the world. Of course Japan leads the way, we were in the top ten for many years which is why people from all across the globe came here for an education. I do agree that our system is flawed and changes were needed, but not as bad as it is now teaching kids only to be test taking dummies. It was actually funny how Bush claimed that private schools were doing such a better job but when the standardized tests hit them, those chartered schools were much worse than the public schools...lol...then he used it as an excuse to give them even more money.

The main point however also stands, they are trying to dismantle education for a reason. Most people cannot afford private schooling. Especially minorities.

Actually most people, minorities, and poor people can afford private education if it was online, bullshit rules were removed, and were not taxed to pay for other people's public education.

[showpan]

Your first error: tying "highest education" to "high test scores." That same mentality is what leads to teaching kids only what they need to pass the test, and not what they are likely to need out in an actual career.

Again, I'm not disputing that. However, NCLB did bring it down to the level it is today. When Bush came out with NCLB, the recommendations from our educators who were soon fired, wanted to introduce a system that challenged a student at various levels and not just clumped them all into one or two classrooms. They wanted to place students into various groups depending on their particular level and developmental pace. They also recommended that classes should also be available to students who would chose a particular field of study much like our colleges do. At least they recognized that some students learn much faster than others and that there was not enough of a "real world" curriculum. Now, many high schools are just starting to offer a curriculum based on a students choices. My daughter for example, has chosen to go into health care. The school she attended offered classes to realize that goal. Now she will be going to a new school in a different state and they also offer an even better curriculum centered around her choice. So at least many areas are in fact realizing the future needs of our children.

[MelissaWV]

Having been educated before NCLB, I can say that test scores were emphasized even then. I just don't see it as a huge turning point. Public school has been trending toward minimal teacher effort and variation, maximum measurable benchmarks, and extended school days (to provide a babysitting service to the parents) for many decades.

[showpan]

Actually most people, minorities, and poor people can afford private education if it was online, bullshit rules were removed, and were not taxed to pay for other people's public education.

really, and who is it that's going to pay for their internet?

[tttppp]

really, and who is it that's going to pay for their internet?

I said MOST people. I would put in a system that encouraged companies to educate poor people that way ALL people can be educated.

You have to consider, what is the cost of a computer? 500 dollars. That's less than the taxes they have to pay to cover their "free" education. If they can afford to pay taxes, they can afford to pay for private education.

[showpan]

I was also educated before NCLB. Our test scores compared to the rest of the world were much higher then. Since test scores are used as the benchmark, it is relevant. The turning point came as funding was taken away for NOT scoring well on their newly developed tests that were rigged. What sense does that make? A school that is doing poorly gets it's funding reduced. Also, they included special education students among other things into the total which brings the scores down in order to make the claim that public schools were a failure. Talk to most teachers about this. Go to their forums and read what they have to say. I have been active in my children's education and see first hand what they now teach. if it isn't on those tests, then there isn't time spent in other areas like it was when I went to school. Of course, I went to a Vocational Tech and was taught a trade. But many schools used to have shops, sex ed, homemaking, etc, etc. Those programs have all been cut due to the shift in the funding. As far as babysitting goes, you are right, that is the fault of the many parents who simply don't give a shit.

[showpan]

I said MOST people. I would put in a system that encouraged companies to educate poor people that way ALL people can be educated.

You have to consider, what is the cost of a computer? 500 dollars. That's less than the taxes they have to pay to cover their "free" education. If they can afford to pay taxes, they can afford to pay for private education.

Again, poor people don't pay taxes. Also, corporations teaching my children....no thanks



note: we have successfully hijacked this thread...lol

I'm sorry now that I brought up the point that welfare and other things were part of the plan...lol

[pcosmar]

really, and who is it that's going to pay for their internet?

Or their computer..

And I could really use one,, got mine some years ago,,before shit went south.

[tttppp]

Again, poor people don't pay taxes. Also, corporations teaching my children....no thanks

My brother makes roughy 20 thousand a year and can't even afford his place on his own, yet he still pays taxes. Any minimum wage job can make you 20 thousand a year...so poor people do pay taxes.

Id rather have the market determine what to teach that the government which tries to brainwash people. Additionally, public education is a waste of time as its mostly used as day care.

[MelissaWV]

My brother makes roughy 20 thousand a year and can't even afford his place on his own, yet he still pays taxes. Any minimum wage job can make you 20 thousand a year...so poor people do pay taxes.

Id rather have the market determine what to teach that the government which tries to brainwash people. Additionally, public education is a waste of time as its mostly used as day care.

does he get a refund?

[tttppp]

does he get a refund?

Actually I think he owed money to the government. I think it had somthing to do with his employer placing as an independent contractor. I don't know how it was resolved.

[showpan]

My brother makes roughy 20 thousand a year and can't even afford his place on his own, yet he still pays taxes. Any minimum wage job can make you 20 thousand a year...so poor people do pay taxes.

Id rather have the market determine what to teach that the government which tries to brainwash people. Additionally, public education is a waste of time as its mostly used as day care.

At $20k it's a few hundred unless he claims 0

I agree with that also, the government does brainwash them, but I wouldn't want my kids being "brainwashed" by today's corporations either. They are worse since they are the ones who actually shape government policy. Therefore it not only would be no difference, but probably more extreme. The private contractors now running some municipalities are fairing worse than the public schools....lol

There must be a better solution rather than turning our kids lives into little Haliburton or socialized puppets. I would home school except somebody has to work and to be fair, we must think of the millions who also do not have that option and also cannot afford private schools. Also, most private schools are "faith" based which is completely biased.

[tttppp]

At $20k it's a few hundred unless he claims 0

I agree with that also, the government does brainwash them, but I wouldn't want my kids being "brainwashed" by today's corporations either. They are worse since they are the ones who actually shape government policy. Therefore it not only would be no difference, but probably more extreme. The private contractors now running some municipalities are fairing worse than the public schools....lol

There must be a better solution rather than turning our kids lives into little Haliburton or socialized puppets. I would home school except somebody has to work and to be fair, we must think of the millions who also do not have that option and also cannot afford private schools. Also, most private schools are "faith" based which is completely biased.

I believe my brother had owed roughly $3,000. The last I heard he was trying to get his employer to pay it.

If you get the government out of the way and remove all regulations, you can have the option of sending your kids to a smaller, better run company than some large, corrupt corporation. Worst case scenario, the education stays the same, but at least it won't cost as much. That of course is assuming the government stays out of it.

Based on the way things are today, I'd send your kids to public school until they learn to read and write, and learn basic math. Then buy them text books each year and have them read and study them at home instead of going to school. They will be better off because the average student doesn't have time to read the books because they waste all their time at day care (school). Of course you still have to pay the taxes that fund everyone elses "free" education.

I agree that the private schools today are mostly crap. The only value they offer is allowing your kids to go to school with rich, connected students.

[micahnelson]

Id rather have the market determine what to teach that the government which tries to brainwash people.

You lost me here. I believe the market has something called market-ing, wherein they attempt to convince people of things that are not objectively true and use that belief to coerce them into a purchase. If parents alone choose schools for their kids, the smart families will choose well and smart kids will remain unchanged. The uneducated families will make uneducated decisions and we create a gulf. I like the idea of having schools competing for students, but the charter for a school needs to be issued by a body of college level educators to ensure we don't end up with Nike Shoe Making Elementary School or Walmart School for Smart Shoppers.

[MelissaWV]

You lost me here. I believe the market has something called market-ing, wherein they attempt to convince people of things that are not objectively true and use that belief to coerce them into a purchase. If parents alone choose schools for their kids, the smart families will choose well and smart kids will remain unchanged. The uneducated families will make uneducated decisions and we create a gulf. I like the idea of having schools competing for students, but the charter for a school needs to be issued by a body of college level educators to ensure we don't end up with Nike Shoe Making Elementary School or Walmart School for Smart Shoppers.

Yes, then we might actually have shoe makers or smart shoppers lol

College-level educators often cannot tell their ass from a hole in the ground without several grants, a few studies, a lively debate, tenure, and a glass of wine. I get the point you're trying to make, but man, I would not depend on college-level educators to do anything other than drive people to become college enrolled.

[heavenlyboy34]

I believe my brother had owed roughly $3,000. The last I heard he was trying to get his employer to pay it.

If you get the government out of the way and remove all regulations, you can have the option of sending your kids to a smaller, better run company than some large, corrupt corporation. Worst case scenario, the education stays the same, but at least it won't cost as much. That of course is assuming the government stays out of it.

Based on the way things are today, I'd send your kids to public school until they learn to read and write, and learn basic math. Then buy them text books each year and have them read and study them at home instead of going to school. They will be better off because the average student doesn't have time to read the books because they waste all their time at day care (school). Of course you still have to pay the taxes that fund everyone elses "free" education.

I agree that the private schools today are mostly crap. The only value they offer is allowing your kids to go to school with rich, connected students.
I learned to read and write at home. I was thus far ahead of my peers and reading stories to them. Why would you need or even want the school to do that (public or private)?

[tttppp]

I learned to read and write at home. I was thus far ahead of my peers and reading stories to them. Why would you need or even want the school to do that (public or private)?

I was just assuming the parents would have little or no time to teach their kids. If I had recommended students learn how to read at home, someone on here would have complained that they don't have enough time for that. If it becaume popular for parents to keep their kids at home, there would definetly be companies starting up that would teach your kids to read and online schools after that. But I was just assuming what you can do now, assuming things don't change and you have very little time to teach your kids.

[tttppp]

You lost me here. I believe the market has something called market-ing, wherein they attempt to convince people of things that are not objectively true and use that belief to coerce them into a purchase. If parents alone choose schools for their kids, the smart families will choose well and smart kids will remain unchanged. The uneducated families will make uneducated decisions and we create a gulf. I like the idea of having schools competing for students, but the charter for a school needs to be issued by a body of college level educators to ensure we don't end up with Nike Shoe Making Elementary School or Walmart School for Smart Shoppers.

Its amazing how so many people on here want smaller government and market solutions, but everytime I present a market solution, someone argues for more government.

College professors are complete losers. They only take those jobs because they were not a success in the real world, wanted high pay, low hours, and no accountability. A school would be much better if it was run by people who had success in the real world.

[pcosmar]

Anyone?

:confused:

No one?