Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/who-benefits-from-the-safety-net/?hp
"The center’s study found that the poorest American households, the bottom fifth, received just 32 cents of every dollar of government benefits distributed in 2010."
Other interesting things from the study itself:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3677
"Some conservative critics of federal social programs, including leading presidential candidates, are sounding an alarm that the United States is rapidly becoming an “entitlement society†in which social programs are undermining the work ethic and creating a large class of Americans who prefer to depend on government benefits rather than work. A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs[1] spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work. (See Figure 1.) This figure has changed little in the past few years."
"If we broaden the universe of programs examined to include the principal discretionary programs that provide benefits — low-income housing programs, the WIC nutrition program for low-income women and young children, and low-income energy assistance — the result is essentially unchanged. Some 90 percent of the benefit dollars still go to the elderly, the disabled, and working households.
This figure also changes little if we tweak the definition of a “working household†or of who is “disabled.†This analysis defines a working household as one in which an individual works at least 1,000 hours in a year; raising the threshold to 1,500 hours makes little difference. This analysis defines a disabled person as one who receives Social Security disability benefits or the disability component of the Supplemental Security Income program (SSI) or who qualifies for Medicare on the basis of disability; modifying the definition to include disabled people who are not in one of these categories also makes little difference."
So much for welfare queens and the lazy poor, eh?
What the report does show is that disability is quickly becoming the way we deal with marginal working-age individuals. One of the more troubling trends in benefits spending is how quickly disability is growing. A portion of this growth probably is attributable to people who realistically will not work again but may not be 100% disabled being catagorized as disabled, whereas in the past they may have collected the dole.
edit: Post wasn't done when I hit post. Edited to reflect sources and the main conclusion.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Brother_Tempus
Title: Patriot
Posts:
48,624
Registered:
Jan 9, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 48,310
User ID: 61,868
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
|
That's because the poverty line has been raised to reflect the devaluation of the currency
-----signature-----
You win ACF, dude - Osmenthe
BT is usually right - Onslaught
i think we need more BT on page 1 - FighterUSAF
Yep, BT is right - Aerlinthian
Got guns & ammo? Food? Precious metals?
|
|
Link to this post
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius
Title: Retired Theurgist TL
Posts:
25,187
Registered:
Dec 21, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 25,057
User ID: 568,022
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Kindof surprising how Yuki's title doesn't really match the supporting post.
Oh wait. No it isn't surprising.
-----signature-----
In the immortal words of Socrates - "I drank what?"
"God you guys suck at the internet - how can you fail to locate porn?!" - Eternal_Midnight
"Knowing means nothing." - Fat-badger
|
|
Link to this post
|
Tych2
Title: Obama Appointed Outpost Czar
Posts:
40,411
Registered:
Mar 1, '05
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 33,378
User ID: 1,032,223
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
|
Probably because there are more in the middle class than in the poor? I find it amusing that you don't think there are welfare queens. People live entire generations on welfare. We need to make sure they get education for the parents and the children so they can be productive members of society.
-----signature-----
We have enough youth. What we need is a fountain of smart.
Drill Anwar!
Kapie
Drevid in Tanks
|
|
Link to this post
|
Sansfear
Posts:
7,232
Registered:
Aug 31, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 7,182
User ID: 1,318,423
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius posted:
Kindof surprising how Yuki's title doesn't really match the supporting post.
Oh wait. No it isn't surprising.
Exactly. Considering that most government benefits are composed of Social Security and Medicare (>$1T/year)
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Tych2 posted:
Probably because there are more in the middle class than in the poor?
Sort of. The bottom 20% gets 30% of the benefits, which is disproportionate. But not nearly as much as you might think from a lot of the rhetoric.
It's also been steadily declining for the past 30+ years. Less and less of the total is going to poor folks and more and more is going to middle class folks.
The security net of government spending is becoming more and more a security net for the working middle class.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
ZigmundZag
Title: Grammar Nazi
Posts:
25,948
Registered:
Mar 25, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 22,707
User ID: 661,552
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
True, but isn't that because there are a lot more middle class senior citizens receiving benefits these days?
Saying the very poor are receiving less and less isn't exactly accurate when the entire pie is growing, and what is shrinking is their size of it relative to the whole thing.
-----signature-----
"Take the cheese to sickbay!"
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
ZigmundZag posted:
True, but isn't that because there are a lot more middle class senior citizens receiving benefits these days?
Saying the very poor are receiving less and less isn't exactly accurate when the entire pie is growing, and what is shrinking is their size of it relative to the whole thing.
That's the single biggest driving force, but hardly the only one.
Also, the poor are receiving less than they used to in absolute as well as relative terms (controlled for inflation). Although the more dramatic effect is the shift in priorities in relative terms. I don't think the point of the study is to say "poor people are getting screwed in a way they didn't used to be," though. The point is that all this rhetoric about how we're creating a class of useless welfare dependents is overblown. Government policy has shifted sharply AWAY from that model in recent years, not toward it.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Fist_de_Yuma
Posts:
24,444
Registered:
Dec 20, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 21,971
User ID: 566,471
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
|
So even when the "poor" are getting much more they are not getting much because the disabled and old cost even more? The flawed logic of the left is always good for a laugh.
-----signature-----
There are three kind of liberals;
Stupid, ignorant or evil
The result is always evil but the intent is not always evil. Not that it makes much difference in the long run.
No one here is exactly as they seem. - G'Kar
|
|
Link to this post
|
Tych2
Title: Obama Appointed Outpost Czar
Posts:
40,411
Registered:
Mar 1, '05
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 33,378
User ID: 1,032,223
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
It would be easy to substantiate...
Whats the total number of poor getting government benefits and what percentage of those poor are getting them.
Whats the total number of middle class getting government benefits and what percentage of those middle class getting them?
Everything else is just noise.
-----signature-----
We have enough youth. What we need is a fountain of smart.
Drill Anwar!
Kapie
Drevid in Tanks
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Fist_de_Yuma posted:
So even when the "poor" are getting much more
They arn't. Your initial premise is failed. In absolute terms the amount of benefits going to poor people is essentally steady over recent years - and down from 30 years ago.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Tych2 posted:
It would be easy to substantiate...
Whats the total number of poor getting government benefits and what percentage of those poor are getting them.
Whats the total number of middle class getting government benefits and what percentage of those middle class getting them?
Everything else is just noise.
I'm not sure that's the right metric, but the number is right there in the original. 30% of benefits go to the poorest 20%. So poor people still get more benefits per capita than middle class people. It's just much less than it used to be. 30 years ago poor people got something like 40% of the benefits.
The point is our "welfare state" is no longer aimed at securing the welfare of poor people. Most of our benefit spending goes to old people and disabled people, not poor people.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Tych2
Title: Obama Appointed Outpost Czar
Posts:
40,411
Registered:
Mar 1, '05
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 33,378
User ID: 1,032,223
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
If more middle class are getting government benefits then they are sliding into the poor and no longer middle class, but no one benefits from labeling more middle class as poor, especially politicians.
Lets be honest here, the point is to make political hay against the other side.
Again it's just noise to me.
-----signature-----
We have enough youth. What we need is a fountain of smart.
Drill Anwar!
Kapie
Drevid in Tanks
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Tych2 posted:
Lets be honest here, the point is to make political hay against the other side.
I think the study was pretty clear about its point. The point is that the American "welfare state" is moving away from focusing on helping poor people, not toward focusing on helping poor people. That's just a fact. You can use it to make partisan hay if you want but I don't think reporting a fact is partisan on its own.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Tych2
Title: Obama Appointed Outpost Czar
Posts:
40,411
Registered:
Mar 1, '05
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 33,378
User ID: 1,032,223
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
You aren't reporting facts. You are hoping no one pays attention to the obvious. Common sense says more middle class are moving towards poor and just aren't being called poor they are still being called middle class because it doesn't help anyone to have a bigger labeled poor class.
There is only one person here making political hay and it isn't me. Just look at your first post to see who is calling who out. No one is trying to help anyone.
-----signature-----
We have enough youth. What we need is a fountain of smart.
Drill Anwar!
Kapie
Drevid in Tanks
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Tych2 posted:
You aren't reporting facts. You are hoping no one pays attention to the obvious. Common sense says more middle class are moving towards poor and just aren't being called poor they are still being called middle class because it doesn't help anyone to have a bigger labeled poor class.
I think it's interesting you think this is "common sense" and accepted wisdom. I suspect lots of people would vehemently disagree with you. That seems at least as controversial an assertion as anything the study made.
It's also not really supported by the data. The biggest change in benefits is that we're giving more of the money to old people. Few of the benefits given to old people are means tested - in fact, rich older people get MORE benefits than poor older people.
The big difference is that the welfare state is moving more towards shifting money from young to old than from rich to poor.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Tych2
Title: Obama Appointed Outpost Czar
Posts:
40,411
Registered:
Mar 1, '05
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 33,378
User ID: 1,032,223
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
|
Okay
-----signature-----
We have enough youth. What we need is a fountain of smart.
Drill Anwar!
Kapie
Drevid in Tanks
|
|
Link to this post
|
theredkay1
Posts:
6,731
Registered:
May 16, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,729
User ID: 1,297,378
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Tych2 posted:
Lets be honest here, the point is to make political hay against the other side.
Again it's just noise to me.
There is an ongoing debate in this country over taxes and government spending. Its been going on for a long time.
That debate is often very heavy on morality and very light on facts/data. Throwing a few facts back into the discussion seems like a good thing.
When facts/data are used, it is often done so without any reference point....a spending program is $275 billion over 10 years....or $20 trillion unfunded liability over the indefinate future....and few add enough info to judge the size of those figures...like revenues, amount of total spending, size of the economy, etc.
The provided numbers dont make a value judgement as to whether or not this is useful spending...but they do counter some of the lazy arguments made by those who want to cut spending.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
paulg_68
Posts:
30,961
Registered:
Jul 27, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 30,669
User ID: 1,364,918
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Why do we care which group gets more?
-----signature-----
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc "Everyone has a chance to become rich." - Groucho48 "Most of the human wealth on earth exists between the ears of live human beings." - theredkay1
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
paulg_68 posted:
Why do we care which group gets more?
Who the government spends benefit money on is irrelevant?
I have to admit I wasn't expecting that.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius
Title: Retired Theurgist TL
Posts:
25,187
Registered:
Dec 21, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 25,057
User ID: 568,022
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
I don't know what you're angling toward here, Yuki.
The problem is 'mandatory' benefits/entitlement spending that is not (medicare, etc), and the continued ballooning of SS as a redistributive mechanism rather than the 'emergency insurance 2-to-5 year' safety net for the needy elderly it was designed to be.
-----signature-----
In the immortal words of Socrates - "I drank what?"
"God you guys suck at the internet - how can you fail to locate porn?!" - Eternal_Midnight
"Knowing means nothing." - Fat-badger
|
|
Link to this post
|
paulg_68
Posts:
30,961
Registered:
Jul 27, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 30,669
User ID: 1,364,918
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Yukishiro1 posted:
paulg_68 posted:
Why do we care which group gets more?
Who the government spends benefit money on is irrelevant?
Either a program is justified or it's not.
-----signature-----
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc "Everyone has a chance to become rich." - Groucho48 "Most of the human wealth on earth exists between the ears of live human beings." - theredkay1
|
|
Link to this post
|
Cawlin
Posts:
20,754
Registered:
Feb 22, '05
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 20,667
User ID: 1,030,445
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Does this study consider tax writeoffs for mortgages and whatnot part of government "benefit"?
Oh, and when we speak of the bottom fifth of the population are we speaking about numbers of people - as in 20% of the population or are we talking about the people whose income is in the bottom 20% of the income curve (which group may make up more or less than 20% of the overall population).
-----signature-----
If ignorance were painful, half the posters here would be on morphine drips.
Everyone playing WoW knows everything about playing two classes: 1) their own and 2) Hunters
|
|
Link to this post
|
theredkay1
Posts:
6,731
Registered:
May 16, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,729
User ID: 1,297,378
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius posted:
I don't know what you're angling toward here, Yuki.
The problem is 'mandatory' benefits/entitlement spending that is not (medicare, etc), and the continued ballooning of SS as a redistributive mechanism rather than the 'emergency insurance 2-to-5 year' safety net for the needy elderly it was designed to be.
What do you mean by 'the problem'?
These things are not budgetary problems...ie 'how can we pay for this?'...but they may be directional problems...ie 'I dont care about the numbers, we shouldnt be paying for this.'
Directional problems can cover just about any gov't program. But the budgetary problem is entirely medicare. People confuse this in their arguments all the time.
SS finances are not a long term problem of any magnitude and SS is acting exactly as it was designed to. You may not like this design but you should make that argument. Insurance policies are always redistributive and SS is not designed to work as a 2-5 year income patch.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Aerlinthian
Posts:
66,222
Registered:
May 7, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 65,491
User ID: 94,919
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Clearly we need more poor people.
And Obamney is just the establishment figurehead to give them to us.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius
Title: Retired Theurgist TL
Posts:
25,187
Registered:
Dec 21, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 25,057
User ID: 568,022
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
theredkay1 posted:
SS finances are not a long term problem of any magnitude and SS is acting exactly as it was designed to. You may not like this design...
Thanks, as usual, for saving me the trouble of reading to the end.
No, it isn't. That's a flat out lie that renders whatever else you're saying moot. We (and I) posted dozens of sources about the origins of SS, the pay-in pay-out ratios of persons and monies being altered over the years, the rising redistributive nature, the repeated extension of the expected duration of coverage at the end of one's life, etc.
So you can exit the thread that way --->
-----signature-----
In the immortal words of Socrates - "I drank what?"
"God you guys suck at the internet - how can you fail to locate porn?!" - Eternal_Midnight
"Knowing means nothing." - Fat-badger
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
|
SS wasn't originally envisioned to be paying for 10+ years of retirement for an average American. But it was budgeted so conservatively that it still is working out ok even though things have changed a lot. It needs a few very minor tweaks to be fine.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius
Title: Retired Theurgist TL
Posts:
25,187
Registered:
Dec 21, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 25,057
User ID: 568,022
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Yeah. Minor tweaks like, funding only 4-6 years of elder care.
And, REPLACING ALL THE MONEY THAT WAS RAIDED FROM IT OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS.
Just wee little tweaks...
-----signature-----
In the immortal words of Socrates - "I drank what?"
"God you guys suck at the internet - how can you fail to locate porn?!" - Eternal_Midnight
"Knowing means nothing." - Fat-badger
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
No. It doesn't need to be changed to only cover 4-6 years. The minor tweaks basically amount to some combination of either or all of (1) raising the eligibility age by 2-3 years over the next 30 years or (2) cutting benefits by 2-5% or (3) means-testing. Pretty minor stuff. And most of the problems are only for the next generation because of there being so many boomers.
It is all pretty minor. SS is working remarkably well actually. It had to be budgeted to cover the costs of the free ride all the seniors alive at the time got, so that ended up giving it a big cushion once those people died.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius
Title: Retired Theurgist TL
Posts:
25,187
Registered:
Dec 21, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 25,057
User ID: 568,022
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Yukishiro1 posted:
No. It doesn't need to be changed to only cover 4-6 years.
Why? That's its original intent... cover those impoverished and without other means, for the last 4-6 years of their lives, when they lived more than a few years past a realistic retirement age. (Which is about 72 now, btw, and rising).
So, why? Because even though it is doing far more than it is supposed to, it can AFFORD NOT to be cut, standing on its own, independent of the rest of the budget mess? (Which btw is fueled by spending the money in that fund on a mountain of other unnecessary crap).
I see.
You're clearly not getting it.
-----signature-----
In the immortal words of Socrates - "I drank what?"
"God you guys suck at the internet - how can you fail to locate porn?!" - Eternal_Midnight
"Knowing means nothing." - Fat-badger
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
SS is independently funded and you were just ranting about taking money from it to pay for other stuff.
Now you are in favor of taking money from it to give to other stuff and cutting the benefits to do it? 
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius
Title: Retired Theurgist TL
Posts:
25,187
Registered:
Dec 21, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 25,057
User ID: 568,022
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
You know exactly what I'm in favor of.
Reference my 10+ posts on balancing the budget and precisely how, over the last 5 years.
-----signature-----
In the immortal words of Socrates - "I drank what?"
"God you guys suck at the internet - how can you fail to locate porn?!" - Eternal_Midnight
"Knowing means nothing." - Fat-badger
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
I have no idea what you are for or not. If you think anyone remembers any of the boring crap you type you're flattering yourself.
You just ranted about taking money from SS and using it to pay for other stuff. And yet the only way to read your comments coherently is you want to cut SS benefits and use the surplus generated from SS to pay for other stuff. Because there is no need to cut SS the way you want to cut if if the goal is simply to make it self-financing in the future as well as right now.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Bobvillas
Posts:
1,099
Registered:
Nov 19, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,099
User ID: 1,338,010
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Payroll taxes kept Social Security mainly at break even until ~1975-1981 when expenses began to exceed revenue.
Reforms that cut average benefits by 5%, raised tax rates by 2.3%, and increased the full retirement age by 3%(67) restored the system's stability for the next 25 years, but the demographic outlook is poor for its pay as you go funding structure.
In 1950, 100 workers supported six beneficiaries. Today, 100 workers support 33 beneficiaries.
Conclusion: If this program is not reformed again, it is not sustainable.
-----signature-----
"well honestly i didnt learn "jw" on the net i learned it from multiple females that have texted me. but keep on truckin broheim." Thorikos http://fluffytit.mybrute.com
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Bobvillas posted:
Conclusion: If this program is not reformed again, it is not sustainable.
No one disputes that there need to be tweaks. But math is math. The tweaks are not as large as people seem to think. Raising the age by a couple years over the next 30 and maybe meanstesting benefits for wealthy americans is all you need to do. Or you could not means-test benefits and collect SS on all income, not just the first 107k. That would solve the problem practically on its own.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
eodoll
Posts:
17,153
Registered:
Feb 14, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,943
User ID: 645,592
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
If someone puts in zero and gets back 1 then they got a lot more than someone who put in 10 and got back 5.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Crooq_Lionfang
Title: Master Zergling
Posts:
14,555
Registered:
Mar 11, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 13,354
User ID: 778,501
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Yukishiro1 posted:
-----signature-----
If you have one foot in tomorrow and one foot in yesterday all you're going to do is piss on today
|
|
Link to this post
|
Bobvillas
Posts:
1,099
Registered:
Nov 19, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,099
User ID: 1,338,010
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
It will need to be a combination if we expect reform.
While the tweaks as you put it, do not necessarily need to be large, in the eyes of the public they will be.
Hence, it is a large tweak.
Raising the age is a great start.
Edit: Just looked and since SS began in 1935, the life expectancy has risen 26% (to 78), but the retirement age for full benefits has increased only 3%.
I am open to removing a cap on SS revenues as well.
-----signature-----
"well honestly i didnt learn "jw" on the net i learned it from multiple females that have texted me. but keep on truckin broheim." Thorikos http://fluffytit.mybrute.com
|
|
Link to this post
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius
Title: Retired Theurgist TL
Posts:
25,187
Registered:
Dec 21, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 25,057
User ID: 568,022
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Yukishiro1 posted:
I have no idea what you are for or not...
Unlikely. I've set up that context in every major argument. If you haven't been paying attention... too bad. Feel free to sit and spin.
I won't take SS in a vacuum, any more than anything else we're doing. You start with a cap and balance amendment. Then move forward from there.
In the process, that which SS is NOT SUPPOSED to be doing will be defunded, and the net savings reallocated to other vital activities we SHOULD be doing in our radically downsized federal government.
Nibbling around the edges program by program without that framework is nothing but mental masturbation.
-----signature-----
In the immortal words of Socrates - "I drank what?"
"God you guys suck at the internet - how can you fail to locate porn?!" - Eternal_Midnight
"Knowing means nothing." - Fat-badger
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius posted:
In the process, that which SS is NOT SUPPOSED to be doing will be defunded, and the net savings reallocated to other vital activities we SHOULD be doing in our radically downsized federal government.
Got it. You want to cut SS and take the SS tax revenues and spend it on something else. Which is just what you were ranting about before.
Glad we cleared that up.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
ZigmundZag
Title: Grammar Nazi
Posts:
25,948
Registered:
Mar 25, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 22,707
User ID: 661,552
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
|
/inb4goldfishpic
-----signature-----
"Take the cheese to sickbay!"
|
|
Link to this post
|
Sansfear
Posts:
7,232
Registered:
Aug 31, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 7,182
User ID: 1,318,423
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
SS and Medicare should be separated from the main budget and balanced independently.
Including them in the overall budget deforms the view of just how badly we are overspending.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius
Title: Retired Theurgist TL
Posts:
25,187
Registered:
Dec 21, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 25,057
User ID: 568,022
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
ZigmundZag posted:
/inb4goldfishpic
Yup.
Yuki posted:
-----signature-----
In the immortal words of Socrates - "I drank what?"
"God you guys suck at the internet - how can you fail to locate porn?!" - Eternal_Midnight
"Knowing means nothing." - Fat-badger
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius posted:
ZigmundZag posted:
/inb4goldfishpic
Yup.
Yuki posted:
 
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
theredkay1
Posts:
6,731
Registered:
May 16, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,729
User ID: 1,297,378
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius posted:
theredkay1 posted:
SS finances are not a long term problem of any magnitude and SS is acting exactly as it was designed to. You may not like this design but you should make that argument. Insurance policies are always redistributive and SS is not designed to work as a 2-5 year income patch.[..
Thanks, as usual, for saving me the trouble of reading to the end.
No, it isn't. That's a flat out lie that renders whatever else you're saying moot. We (and I) posted dozens of sources about the origins of SS, the pay-in pay-out ratios of persons and monies being altered over the years, the rising redistributive nature, the repeated extension of the expected duration of coverage at the end of one's life, etc.
So you can exit the thread that way --->
SS has been changed. It is currently operating exactly as its designed to do. It was never designed as a 2-5 year income patch. You need to make an argument why any changes are a bad thing and need to be repealed. Simply stating that something was changed as evidence that it needs to be blown up is stupid.
SS finances are ok. There is no SS budget problem. The change in expected duration of coverage is almost zero...but that is one of those things that people easily misread stats (avg lifespan) and draw a bad conclusion because they are looking for a certain conclusion and will jump at any number that might help them.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
_Enkidu_
Title: Zen Badger
Posts:
11,159
Registered:
Dec 24, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 10,462
User ID: 572,873
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Lol, glad I don't have to worry about SS.
I still find it insane that most people cannot opt out of it.
-----signature-----
(( )) ......Portrait
o.O ..........of
|||| ....Muhammad
|
|
Link to this post
|
the_great_intex
Title: This is what cool looks like
Posts:
30,622
Registered:
Jun 27, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 27,363
User ID: 692,453
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
|
I don't like social security. I think people should be given the ability to opt out of it.
-----signature-----
Only those who dare to fail greatly, can ever achieve greatly
In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity
The only thing in life achieved without effort is failure
Time Circuits... On. Flux Capacitor.... fluxxing.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius
Title: Retired Theurgist TL
Posts:
25,187
Registered:
Dec 21, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 25,057
User ID: 568,022
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
theredkay1 posted:
SS has been changed. It is currently operating exactly as its designed to do.
SS finances are ok. There is no SS budget problem.
-----signature-----
In the immortal words of Socrates - "I drank what?"
"God you guys suck at the internet - how can you fail to locate porn?!" - Eternal_Midnight
"Knowing means nothing." - Fat-badger
|
|
Link to this post
|
theredkay1
Posts:
6,731
Registered:
May 16, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,729
User ID: 1,297,378
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Bobvillas posted:
In 1950, 100 workers supported six beneficiaries. Today, 100 workers support 33 beneficiaries.
Conclusion: If this program is not reformed again, it is not sustainable.
Its been about 100 to 30 since the mid 70's. 1950 was the beginning of the program and is a bad reference point. By 1961 the ratio was 100-22. In 2011 it was 100-34.
Worker productivity is up dramatically (over 100%) over the same time period meaning 1 worker can support more people in 2011 than he could in 1961.
Productivity will increase into the future as well meaning 1 worker will be able to support even more retirees in the future. And this population bulge is a one time. SS is projected to be able to pay full benefits with no changes for another 25+ years. To bring the system into balance for the next 75 years we need a 1% increase in taxes.
Pair the 1% tax increase with the rise in productivity in the future and there is no emergency.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
theredkay1
Posts:
6,731
Registered:
May 16, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,729
User ID: 1,297,378
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Bobvillas posted:
Raising the age is a great start.
Edit: Just looked and since SS began in 1935, the life expectancy has risen 26% (to 78), but the retirement age for full benefits has increased only 3%.
Life expectancy is not the statistic you are looking for.
If country A has 2 people, one dies at birth and the other lives to 100....avg life expectancy is 50 years.
If country B has 2 people, both live to 100, life expectancy is 100.
A & B are in the exact same situation with regards to a SS system.
The change in life expectancy over the last 50+ years is almost exclusively improvements in birth and a reduction in childhood deaths. Life expectancy for those people who live into their 20's (and would be working) has only increased a few years...and SS age has moved up a couple years.
Changes in life expectancy plays no significant role in the SS budget picture.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
theredkay1
Posts:
6,731
Registered:
May 16, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,729
User ID: 1,297,378
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius posted:
theredkay1 posted:
SS has been changed. It is currently operating exactly as its designed to do.
SS finances are ok. There is no SS budget problem.
You need to make an argument
NO!!!!!!!! 
I just want to gut the countries retirement insurance program so we can afford tax cuts for rich people! Why pretend to have an argument?
alrighty!
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
DemonicXH
Title: Camelot Vault Staff
News Editor
Posts:
3,822
Registered:
Dec 1, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 3,766
User ID: 863,352
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
theredkay1 posted:
Bobvillas posted:
Raising the age is a great start.
Edit: Just looked and since SS began in 1935, the life expectancy has risen 26% (to 78), but the retirement age for full benefits has increased only 3%.
Life expectancy is not the statistic you are looking for.
If country A has 2 people, one dies at birth and the other lives to 100....avg life expectancy is 50 years.
If country B has 2 people, both live to 100, life expectancy is 100.
A & B are in the exact same situation with regards to a SS system.
The change in life expectancy over the last 50+ years is almost exclusively improvements in birth and a reduction in childhood deaths. Life expectancy for those people who live into their 20's (and would be working) has only increased a few years...and SS age has moved up a couple years.
Changes in life expectancy plays no significant role in the SS budget picture.
Even if you take out infant mortality the life expectancy after attaining adulthood was still in the low 60s when SS was started.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Groucho48
Posts:
11,206
Registered:
Oct 22, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 11,136
User ID: 847,611
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Bobvillas posted:
Payroll taxes kept Social Security mainly at break even until ~1975-1981 when expenses began to exceed revenue.
Reforms that cut average benefits by 5%, raised tax rates by 2.3%, and increased the full retirement age by 3%(67) restored the system's stability for the next 25 years, but the demographic outlook is poor for its pay as you go funding structure.
In 1950, 100 workers supported six beneficiaries. Today, 100 workers support 33 beneficiaries.
Conclusion: If this program is not reformed again, it is not sustainable.
That is a major right wing argument against SS. Naturally, it is totally wrong. Every SS recipient funded his or her own SS. Or, their spouse did. I am collecting SS now. I paid into SS for about 45 years. Actuarially, if I live exactly as long as I am supposed to, I will have have exactly paid for my whole SS benefit. Over the last decade or so a couple things happened to cause some problems. Life expectancies extended a tad more than expected and, much more importantly, the economy blew up, cutting payments to SS dramatically. Those are the reasons SS is in trouble. It has nothing to do with the number of workers, as each worker is paying just about his or her fair share. A minor increase in the payroll tax can fix that.
Fixing the economy is a much bigger problem, especially as the right wing answer is to shrink it by cutting spending, eviscerating the safety net that many consumers need if they are going to be consumers, and to make it easier and easier to cut pay and benefits for workers so that their payroll tax also goes down, meaning they will collect even less than today's recipients do.
Now, of course, the other thing going on is that the government used SS revenue to pay for everything else and now doesn't want to pay SS back. It doesn't matter that SS has notes backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Right wingers, being fiscally irresponsible, do not want to pay back this borrowed money. Nor, do they want to suffer any consequences for not paying it back. They want the folks who have paid into SS their entire lives to suffer all the consequences of doing things like fighting two wars completely off budget and giving huge tax cuts to the rich, will using SS revenue to hide how completely fiscally irresponsible they were.
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
It was 65. That's why they set it at 65. 
But that was more for political that mathematic reasons. The math is set up in such a way that we really have had almost no problem with the increase in life expectency we've seen. Modest corrections have been plenty in the past and will be plenty in the future as well.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Aerlinthian
Posts:
66,222
Registered:
May 7, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 65,491
User ID: 94,919
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
the_great_intex posted:
I don't like social security. I think people should be given the ability to opt out of it.
That's CRAZEEEE talk!!
You mean actual freedom of choice?! 
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
|
What do you do with the people who opt out, squander their savings, and have nothing to live on in old age? Just let them starve?
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Bobvillas
Posts:
1,099
Registered:
Nov 19, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,099
User ID: 1,338,010
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Groucho48 posted:
Bobvillas posted:
Payroll taxes kept Social Security mainly at break even until ~1975-1981 when expenses began to exceed revenue.
Reforms that cut average benefits by 5%, raised tax rates by 2.3%, and increased the full retirement age by 3%(67) restored the system's stability for the next 25 years, but the demographic outlook is poor for its pay as you go funding structure.
In 1950, 100 workers supported six beneficiaries. Today, 100 workers support 33 beneficiaries.
Conclusion: If this program is not reformed again, it is not sustainable.
That is a major right wing argument against SS. Naturally, it is totally wrong.
This is the argument made by the CBO. You are looking for someone to argue with and that is why you fail.
I don't care to play your silly partisan games. I do care about our countries economic future.
CBO disagrees with you and everyone else that says raising the age would not help SS.
It was used in the past and was successful conjoined with other tools.
The underfunding could be addressed through some or all of the following mechanical changes imo:
~Increase the full retirement age
~Reduce average annual SS benefits
~Increase SS tax rate
~ American's change their poor personal savings rates (It is currently at 3% of disposable income. It was 10% from 1965-1985) *My favorite*
We are looking to help SS, not argue against why it is needed. 
-----signature-----
"well honestly i didnt learn "jw" on the net i learned it from multiple females that have texted me. but keep on truckin broheim." Thorikos http://fluffytit.mybrute.com
|
|
Link to this post
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius
Title: Retired Theurgist TL
Posts:
25,187
Registered:
Dec 21, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 25,057
User ID: 568,022
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Yukishiro1 posted:
What do you do with the people who opt out, squander their savings, and have nothing to live on in old age? Just let them starve?
We have a variety of options on the menu tonight...
-----signature-----
In the immortal words of Socrates - "I drank what?"
"God you guys suck at the internet - how can you fail to locate porn?!" - Eternal_Midnight
"Knowing means nothing." - Fat-badger
|
|
Link to this post
|
Groucho48
Posts:
11,206
Registered:
Oct 22, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 11,136
User ID: 847,611
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
CBO disagrees with you and everyone else that says raising the age would not help SS.
It was used in the past and was successful conjoined with other tools.
The underfunding could be addressed through some or all of the following mechanical changes imo:
~Increase the full retirement age
~Reduce average annual SS benefits
~Increase SS tax rate
~ American's change their poor personal savings rates (It is currently at 3% of disposable income. It was 10% from 1965-1985) *My favorite*
Point to anything I've ever said that denies that raising the age to get benefits wouldn't "help" SS. My argument is that it doesn't need that much help and surveys show folks would much rather pay a bit more in payroll taxes and keep the same retirement age. I've said that consistently for years. Better yet would be a booming economy. I forget the exact numbers, but, if wages went up some single digit % (adjusted for inflation), in the next 5 or 6 or 7 years and stayed at that rate, the underfunding would also disappear.
Another possibility would be to require the government pay a bit more interest on the money it gets from SS premiums and uses on other stuff. This would have the added benefit of making it tougher for the government to finance the deficit with SS funds. Fiscally responsible.
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman
|
|
Link to this post
|
__Bonk__
Posts:
53,947
Registered:
Jul 25, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 53,339
User ID: 1,364,654
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Its becasue the middle class votes and they are buying votes with taxpayer money
-----signature-----
I keep my eyes fixed on the sun!
A change in feeling is a change in destiny.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Bobvillas
Posts:
1,099
Registered:
Nov 19, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,099
User ID: 1,338,010
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Groucho48 posted:
My argument is that it doesn't need that much help and surveys show folks would much rather pay a bit more in payroll taxes and keep the same retirement age.
Yes that would work.
2% increase to Payroll Tax Rate over a 20 year period would reduce the SS deficit 100%.
The question then is are you willing to wait 20 years in a vacuum for that to work.
I would rather combine the options in order to catalyze the process.
-----signature-----
"well honestly i didnt learn "jw" on the net i learned it from multiple females that have texted me. but keep on truckin broheim." Thorikos http://fluffytit.mybrute.com
|
|
Link to this post
|
theredkay1
Posts:
6,731
Registered:
May 16, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,729
User ID: 1,297,378
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
DemonicXH posted:
theredkay1 posted:
Bobvillas posted:
Raising the age is a great start.
Edit: Just looked and since SS began in 1935, the life expectancy has risen 26% (to 78), but the retirement age for full benefits has increased only 3%.
Life expectancy is not the statistic you are looking for.
If country A has 2 people, one dies at birth and the other lives to 100....avg life expectancy is 50 years.
If country B has 2 people, both live to 100, life expectancy is 100.
A & B are in the exact same situation with regards to a SS system.
The change in life expectancy over the last 50+ years is almost exclusively improvements in birth and a reduction in childhood deaths. Life expectancy for those people who live into their 20's (and would be working) has only increased a few years...and SS age has moved up a couple years.
Changes in life expectancy plays no significant role in the SS budget picture.
Even if you take out infant mortality the life expectancy after attaining adulthood was still in the low 60s when SS was started.
That doesnt seem correct.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v67n3/v67n3p1.html
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Groucho48
Posts:
11,206
Registered:
Oct 22, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 11,136
User ID: 847,611
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Bobvillas posted:
Groucho48 posted:
My argument is that it doesn't need that much help and surveys show folks would much rather pay a bit more in payroll taxes and keep the same retirement age.
Yes that would work.
2% increase to Payroll Tax Rate over a 20 year period would reduce the SS deficit 100%.
The question then is are you willing to wait 20 years in a vacuum for that to work.
I would rather combine the options in order to catalyze the process.
SS can pay 100% benefits until around 2035. After that, it can still pay out something like 75% of benefits. That's if we do absolutely nothing. It really won't take much to fix it and there is no super hurry, though, we shouldn't lollygag, either.
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman
|
|
Link to this post
|
paulg_68
Posts:
30,961
Registered:
Jul 27, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 30,669
User ID: 1,364,918
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Social Security doesn't have a plug nickel beyond what they collect each month.
They will probably have to dip into the general fund just to make current payments this year.
-----signature-----
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc "Everyone has a chance to become rich." - Groucho48 "Most of the human wealth on earth exists between the ears of live human beings." - theredkay1
|
|
Link to this post
|
Groucho48
Posts:
11,206
Registered:
Oct 22, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 11,136
User ID: 847,611
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Going back to the original topic. Here's a long article that discusses the subject. Basically, very little entitlement money goes to able-bodied non-workers. Less than 10%, a number which hasn't changed in decades. Of course, this doesn't stop right wingers from screaming about how government entitlements are destroying the moral fiber of the country.
In a December 2011 op-ed, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney warned ominously of the dangers that the nation faces from the encroachment of the “Entitlement Society,†predicting that in a few years, “we will have created a society that contains a sizable contingent of long-term jobless, dependent on government benefits for survival.†“Government dependency,†he wrote, “can only foster passivity and sloth.â€[2] Similarly, former Senator Rick Santorum said that recent expansions in the “reach of government†and the spending behind them are “systematically destroying the work ethic.â€[3]
The claim behind these critiques is clear: federal spending on entitlements and other mandatory programs through which individuals receive benefits is promoting laziness, creating a dependent class of Americans who are losing the desire to work and would rather collect government benefits than find a job.
Such beliefs are starkly at odds with the basic facts regarding social programs, the analysis finds. Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.
Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3677#_ftn2
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman
|
|
Link to this post
|
GrilledCheez
Title: The Lord's Balls
Posts:
37,872
Registered:
Mar 22, '06
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 26,537
User ID: 1,125,840
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
|
Yuki is constantly trying to defeat an argument no one is making. I'm not sure what that's a sign of. TBH, I think this says more bad things than good.
-----signature-----
Another word for expensive is successful.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Groucho48
Posts:
11,206
Registered:
Oct 22, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 11,136
User ID: 847,611
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
GrilledCheez posted:
Yuki is constantly trying to defeat an argument no one is making. I'm not sure what that's a sign of. TBH, I think this says more bad things than good.
No one except the Republican Party. They blow up the economy, then blame the fact that 6 or 7 more million people are unemployed and need unemployment benefits on the fact that these workers are lazy and unemployment checks just makes them lazier.
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
GrilledCheez posted:
Yuki is constantly trying to defeat an argument no one is making.
Except all the people who do.
If you asked most people to guess what % of federal benefits went to people who can work but arn't working I doubt you'd find most people getting it right. Or that most people would know we've been moving further and further away from a system that just gives people money to sit around even though they could do something else.
The first step to any discussion about benefits is to understand who is actually getting paid what for what.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius
Title: Retired Theurgist TL
Posts:
25,187
Registered:
Dec 21, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 25,057
User ID: 568,022
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Yukishiro1 posted:
The first step to any discussion about benefits is to understand who is actually getting paid what for what.
No. The first step is to realize they're not "getting paid."
They're getting a "forcibly extracted gift of charity", inefficiently redistributed from me and a steadily decreasing number of other productive citizens.
-----signature-----
In the immortal words of Socrates - "I drank what?"
"God you guys suck at the internet - how can you fail to locate porn?!" - Eternal_Midnight
"Knowing means nothing." - Fat-badger
|
|
Link to this post
|
Bobvillas
Posts:
1,099
Registered:
Nov 19, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,099
User ID: 1,338,010
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Yukishiro1 posted:
GrilledCheez posted:
Yuki is constantly trying to defeat an argument no one is making.
Except all the people who do.
If you asked most people to guess what % of federal benefits went to people who can work but arn't working I doubt you'd find most people getting it right. Or that most people would know we've been moving further and further away from a system that just gives people money to sit around even though they could do something else.
The first step to any discussion about benefits is to understand who is actually getting paid what for what.
I am ok with you laying this foundation as long as you are willing to come to the table.
The public debt to GDP ratio is likely to triple to 146% over the next 20 years, per CBO.
Why? Mainly entitlement expenses.
The costs of these have grown 5.5 times faster than GDP, while revenues have lagged. (Some red meat for you ~ especially corporate tax revenues) Yes this needs reform.
Theoretically, Cumulative deficits from SS could add another 11.6 trillion to the public debt in 25 years.
-----signature-----
"well honestly i didnt learn "jw" on the net i learned it from multiple females that have texted me. but keep on truckin broheim." Thorikos http://fluffytit.mybrute.com
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
No. SS is not much of the reason we have such huge deficits and debt over the past 30 years.
Medicare is a problem, although it's not much of a problem yet.
But yes, SS will need some minor tweaks over the next decade, and medicare will need some much larger ones.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
imaloon1
Posts:
25,153
Registered:
Sep 15, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 19,758
User ID: 838,293
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Yukishiro1 posted:
What do you do with the people who opt out, squander their savings, and have nothing to live on in old age? Just let them starve?
There are literally hundreds of mechanisms in place to help those who are too stupid to help themselves.
-----signature-----
The time draws nearer to your fate
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
And they don't have to pay for dumb seniors because dumb seniors get a SS check.
If you let people opt out of SS someone is going to have to pay for the millions of Americans who invest poorly and don't have enough to live on. SS isn't supposed to be a massive investment income, it's supposed to guarantee a basic level of benefits. If you change SS to be something else you'll just have to pay for them some other way.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
theredkay1
Posts:
6,731
Registered:
May 16, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,729
User ID: 1,297,378
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Bobvillas posted:
Theoretically, Cumulative deficits from SS could add another 11.6 trillion to the public debt in 25 years.
This is not theoretically possible unless the law is changed so that SS can add to the deficit. Currently it cannot do that.
SS can use its surplus to buy Federal Debt. It can cover shortfalls by trading in that Debt for cash. This does not add or subtract from the debt, it only changes who is holding the note.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Bobvillas
Posts:
1,099
Registered:
Nov 19, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,099
User ID: 1,338,010
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
SS is the easiest argument to stand on.
Yes it is currently the best funded. (other than Unemployment Insurance)
Entitlement spending however as a whole is not.
And even SS needs to be reformed. As you have admitted.
The Social Security Administration projects that on our current path in three years we will be at a permanent negative cash flow. (Underfunded)
By 2022 it will be underfunded 100 Billion with a B.
Comparing it to medicare and medicaid it is much better off.
But that is still not good.
I hope our country can actually agree to make the changes that are going to impact all of us in order to right the current mess.
-----signature-----
"well honestly i didnt learn "jw" on the net i learned it from multiple females that have texted me. but keep on truckin broheim." Thorikos http://fluffytit.mybrute.com
|
|
Link to this post
|
Bobvillas
Posts:
1,099
Registered:
Nov 19, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,099
User ID: 1,338,010
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
theredkay1 posted:
Bobvillas posted:
Theoretically, Cumulative deficits from SS could add another 11.6 trillion to the public debt in 25 years.
This is not theoretically possible unless the law is changed so that SS can add to the deficit. Currently it cannot do that.
SS can use its surplus to buy Federal Debt. It can cover shortfalls by trading in that Debt for cash. This does not add or subtract from the debt, it only changes who is holding the note.
It is theoretical and I don't feel like explaining it because really it is just a catch eye to get your attention.
-----signature-----
"well honestly i didnt learn "jw" on the net i learned it from multiple females that have texted me. but keep on truckin broheim." Thorikos http://fluffytit.mybrute.com
|
|
Link to this post
|
theredkay1
Posts:
6,731
Registered:
May 16, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,729
User ID: 1,297,378
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
While we are at it why not talk about the theoretical possibility of SS having an eleventy trillion dollar surplus every year. Anything is possible if you use your imagination! 
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
GrilledCheez
Title: The Lord's Balls
Posts:
37,872
Registered:
Mar 22, '06
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 26,537
User ID: 1,125,840
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
checks do make people lazier, more selective and less frantic. Believing otherwise is stupid.
The idea that "middle class" people receive a lot of gov't benefits should be more bothersome to people than the idea that the poor are. plus a comparison of benefits does ZERO to evaluate whether it's too much or not.
it just cracks me up the way any data point will be used to pound message. no matter how stupid it makes you look.
-----signature-----
Another word for expensive is successful.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Bobvillas
Posts:
1,099
Registered:
Nov 19, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,099
User ID: 1,338,010
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
theredkay1 posted:
While we are at it why not talk about the theoretical possibility of SS having an eleventy trillion dollar surplus every year. Anything is possible if you use your imagination!
Well since you want to go there here you go.
With a 26% longer life expectancy but a 3% increase in retirement age (Since Social Security was created in 1935 mind you), deficits from SS could add 11.6 Trillion (or 140%) to the public debt by 2037.
This is per the Congressional Budget Office.(CBO)
If you would like to disagree with them feel free to send your email.
I will continue to take their word over yours 
-----signature-----
"well honestly i didnt learn "jw" on the net i learned it from multiple females that have texted me. but keep on truckin broheim." Thorikos http://fluffytit.mybrute.com
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
GrilledCheez posted:
The idea that "middle class" people receive a lot of gov't benefits should be more bothersome to people than the idea that the poor are.
I don't disagree. I think you are kinda confused about what you think I'm saying or not saying.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
GrilledCheez
Title: The Lord's Balls
Posts:
37,872
Registered:
Mar 22, '06
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 26,537
User ID: 1,125,840
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Yukishiro1 posted:
GrilledCheez posted:
The idea that "middle class" people receive a lot of gov't benefits should be more bothersome to people than the idea that the poor are.
I don't disagree. I think you are kinda confused about what you think I'm saying or not saying.
hahaha i know what you are saying. the same thing that groucho is saying. Conservatives are wrong to be saying gov't entitlement programs have a negative affect on the classes that receive them.
You are just saying it very badly. As is groucho, and have the added handicap of being completely wrong as well.
the proper argument to make is that in spite of the bad the good is so vastly critical that we shoudl spend it anyway and more, but be cognizant of the problems we are acerbating or creating and work to fix them as well as the root cause of the poverty in the first place. If you'd make that argument you'd be right, and stand a chance of supporting an idea that might make the country better off instead of worse off. unfortunately the dem message is clear and it is a message of failure. All the way around.
-----signature-----
Another word for expensive is successful.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Groucho48
Posts:
11,206
Registered:
Oct 22, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 11,136
User ID: 847,611
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Bobvillas posted:
theredkay1 posted:
While we are at it why not talk about the theoretical possibility of SS having an eleventy trillion dollar surplus every year. Anything is possible if you use your imagination!
Well since you want to go there here you go.
With a 26% longer life expectancy but a 3% increase in retirement age (Since Social Security was created in 1935 mind you), deficits from SS could add 11.6 Trillion (or 140%) to the public debt by 2037.
This is per the Congressional Budget Office.(CBO)
If you would like to disagree with them feel free to send your email.
I will continue to take their word over yours
Could you post a link to that, please?
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
GrilledCheez posted:
hahaha i know what you are saying. the same thing that groucho is saying. Conservatives are wrong to be saying gov't entitlement programs have a negative affect on the classes that receive them.
See, when you don't read this is what happens.
I haven't said that anywhere. I said conservatives are wrong when they insist we're creating some class of welfare beneficiaries who do nothing like they have in many european countries. Because if anything we've moved away from that model over the past 30 years, not towards it.
Of course paying people not to work will lower their desire to work.
The idea I'm ignoring the problem is silly when in my original post I pointed out that disability is taking over the role of paying people not to work that welfare payments used to and we need to be cognizant of that when coming up with disability policy.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
DemonicXH
Title: Camelot Vault Staff
News Editor
Posts:
3,822
Registered:
Dec 1, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 3,766
User ID: 863,352
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
theredkay1 posted:
That doesnt seem correct.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v67n3/v67n3p1.html
I'll try and find the link that I saw.
I believe it came from the CDC, when doing a search for life expectancy after attaining adulthood.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Sin_of_Onin
Posts:
35,113
Registered:
Jun 29, '05
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 23,763
User ID: 1,062,657
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
GrilledCheez posted:
checks do make people lazier, more selective and less frantic. Believing otherwise is stupid.
The idea that "middle class" people receive a lot of gov't benefits should be more bothersome to people than the idea that the poor are. plus a comparison of benefits does ZERO to evaluate whether it's too much or not.
it just cracks me up the way any data point will be used to pound message. no matter how stupid it makes you look.
Yeah most of the benefits the middle class see are things they paid for or mostly paid for. ie SS and Medicare.
The biggest benefit given to poor is probably Medicaid which accounts for a massive portion of any state's budget. If you consider education a benefit then the middle class and poor are receiving a lot of that as well. They are also paying for a lot of it.
Both Medicaid and Education are about the kids and I don't see the US backing off on that. Even health for adults is not going away. The stand against UHC in this country is a joke.
-----signature-----
"Okay... I'm with you fellas" --Delmar
F is for Fake-believe
"We apologise for the inconvenience" --God
"What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem"--Reg
Run, Forrest! Run!
|
|
Link to this post
|
Groucho48
Posts:
11,206
Registered:
Oct 22, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 11,136
User ID: 847,611
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
hahaha i know what you are saying. the same thing that groucho is saying. Conservatives are wrong to be saying gov't entitlement programs have a negative affect on the classes that receive them.
You are just saying it very badly. As is groucho, and have the added handicap of being completely wrong as well.
Mainly what Yuki and I are saying is that the conservative premise that government handouts to able bodied non-working folks is sapping them of their precious bodily fluids is false because only a very small % of government handouts is going to able bodied non-working folks and that % hasn't changed in decades and is down from what it used to be before welfare reform.
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman
|
|
Link to this post
|
DemonicXH
Title: Camelot Vault Staff
News Editor
Posts:
3,822
Registered:
Dec 1, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 3,766
User ID: 863,352
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Never mind, I didn't check the source that I used. It came from the chairman of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. 
Based on SS charts the average male lived for another 12.7 years after making it to age 65.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Bobvillas
Posts:
1,099
Registered:
Nov 19, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,099
User ID: 1,338,010
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
|
http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11579
-----signature-----
"well honestly i didnt learn "jw" on the net i learned it from multiple females that have texted me. but keep on truckin broheim." Thorikos http://fluffytit.mybrute.com
|
|
Link to this post
|
theredkay1
Posts:
6,731
Registered:
May 16, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,729
User ID: 1,297,378
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Bobvillas posted:
theredkay1 posted:
While we are at it why not talk about the theoretical possibility of SS having an eleventy trillion dollar surplus every year. Anything is possible if you use your imagination!
Well since you want to go there here you go.
With a 26% longer life expectancy but a 3% increase in retirement age (Since Social Security was created in 1935 mind you), deficits from SS could add 11.6 Trillion (or 140%) to the public debt by 2037.
This is per the Congressional Budget Office.(CBO)
If you would like to disagree with them feel free to send your email.
I will continue to take their word over yours
You misunderstood my objection.
SS cannot add to the public debt even if people start living to 155 tomorrow. You misunderstand how SS finances work....and youre not alone on that one.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Bobvillas
Posts:
1,099
Registered:
Nov 19, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,099
User ID: 1,338,010
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
The General Accounting Office says public debt deals with all debts owed by the federal government, including "inter-governmental" debt, such as that held by trust funds like Social Security or government.
The GAO, generally speaks of "trust fund" debt as the only real difference between general public and specific federal debt at the national level. There are many "off-budget" items that can be excluded from official federal figures but still remain owed to the public.
http://www.gao.gov/
I feel pretty good about my definition.
-----signature-----
"well honestly i didnt learn "jw" on the net i learned it from multiple females that have texted me. but keep on truckin broheim." Thorikos http://fluffytit.mybrute.com
|
|
Link to this post
|
Bobvillas
Posts:
1,099
Registered:
Nov 19, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,099
User ID: 1,338,010
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
To be fair I know what you are saying though.
-----signature-----
"well honestly i didnt learn "jw" on the net i learned it from multiple females that have texted me. but keep on truckin broheim." Thorikos http://fluffytit.mybrute.com
|
|
Link to this post
|
Groucho48
Posts:
11,206
Registered:
Oct 22, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 11,136
User ID: 847,611
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
I checked out the link. I read the first few pages of the SS section in their entirety and skimmed through the rest. I didn't find anything that implied "With a 26% longer life expectancy but a 3% increase in retirement age (Since Social Security was created in 1935 mind you), deficits from SS could add 11.6 Trillion (or 140%) to the public debt by 2037."
What I read did say this...
A commonly used measure of the sustainability of a program
that has a trust fund and a dedicated revenue source
is its actuarial balance—that is, the sum of the present
value of revenues and the current trust fund balance
minus the sum of the present value of outlays and a
target balance at the end of the period—over a specified
period.7 For Social Security, that difference is traditionally
presented as a percentage of the present value of taxable
payroll over the period under consideration. CBO estimates that
over the next 75 years, dedicated revenues—
payroll taxes and taxes on benefits—will fall short
of scheduled benefits in Social Security by 1.6 percent of
taxable payroll under the extended-baseline scenario (see
Table 3-1). That shortfall equals 0.6 percent of GDP. In
other words, to bring the program into actuarial balance
over the next 75 years, payroll taxes could be immediately
increased by 1.6 percent of taxable payroll and kept at
that higher rate, or scheduled benefits could be reduced
by an equivalent amount. Under the alternative fiscal
scenario, the shortfall would be 2.1 percent of taxable
payroll, or 0.8 percent of GDP.
Which is pretty much what I've been saying. SS needs only minor tweaking. Also, that 26% increase in life expectancy but 3% increase in retirement age is a bit disingenuous as it ignores the fact that payroll taxes have gone up significantly since 1935, in large part to cover the increase in life expectancies. That's why I asked for the link.
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman
|
|
Link to this post
|
Bobvillas
Posts:
1,099
Registered:
Nov 19, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,099
User ID: 1,338,010
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
I think we are saying the same thing.
I am ok with you feeling that is disingenuous.
It is a theoretical.
The SS needs reform.
Is it a huge reform comparatively?
No.
It still needs to be reformed before it gets out of control.
-----signature-----
"well honestly i didnt learn "jw" on the net i learned it from multiple females that have texted me. but keep on truckin broheim." Thorikos http://fluffytit.mybrute.com
|
|
Link to this post
|
Groucho48
Posts:
11,206
Registered:
Oct 22, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 11,136
User ID: 847,611
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
Bobvillas posted:
I think we are saying the same thing.
I am ok with you feeling that is disingenuous.
It is a theoretical.
The SS needs reform.
Is it a huge reform comparatively?
No.
It still needs to be reformed before it gets out of control.
I guess we do agree then.
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman
|
|
Link to this post
|
Fist_de_Yuma
Posts:
24,444
Registered:
Dec 20, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 21,971
User ID: 566,471
|
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor
|
|
If you count "not taking" and make it equal to "giving" then this lie makes sense. The "Bush tax cuts" worked. People seem to forget that until the crash things were going very well. Too many fools and too many poverty pimps with congress trying to be Santa caused the crash. The crash was not caused by congress not getting more money to waste. For that matter who can tell what revenue would have been without the tax cuts? Liberals have trouble with simple math. 100% of nothing is nothing.
-----signature-----
There are three kind of liberals;
Stupid, ignorant or evil
The result is always evil but the intent is not always evil. Not that it makes much difference in the long run.
No one here is exactly as they seem. - G'Kar
|
|
Link to this post
|
