• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Census figures show more than one-third of Americans receiving welfare benefits

j-mac said:
You're right, we should abolish the system, just pay me back the money I've put in since age 14 and I'll take it from there....Thanks.
Click to expand...

If you are close to retirement age you will get that back and then some.

As each generation passes, the less they get paid in comparison. Gen x people like myself will never get back what we paid into it, milkenials? Forget it.

Seniors never had it so good, as a result, millenials will be left with the burden
 
The lefties have their panties in a bunch over the article, so they try and skew numbers to make it fit their feeble minds
 
Texmex said:
I guess I'm just too selfish, you know like corporations. I worked 40 years, I paid into SS and now I'm receiving money monthly.

I assume when you reach retirement age you will not accept any SS money.
Click to expand...

By the time i reach retirement age, in 31 years (67), the program will undoubtedly be non existent or so means tested i will receive nothing. So you're welcome
 
Sabanist said:
By the time i reach retirement age, in 31 years (67), the program will undoubtedly be non existent or so means tested i will receive nothing. So you're welcome
Click to expand...

I'm doing my part!
 
Well, again using Red's first link we find more Census data that seems to debunk yet another right wing talking point: namely, that you can make as much or more money on welfare than by working (although given the way blue collar wages have stagnated over the past few decades it is hardly a surprise that welfare, more attuned to inflation adjustments, becomes closer to what is laughingly called a 'living wage' in these days of corporate excess).

If you look at 2012 Table 5: People 16 Years and Over by Labor Force Status and Monthly Household Cash Income: Monthly Averages ◾4th Quarter you'll see that

the Median Household Income inhabited by a person "with job entire month" = $5,778 while

the Median Household Income inhabited by a person "with no labor force activity" = $3,302.

Similarly, households that contained people working part time or laid off or looking for work (presume unemployment benefits in at least some of those cases) had a lower Median Household Income than that the full time worker. It therefore seems clear that work does indeed pay.
 
Sabanist said:
By the time i reach retirement age, in 31 years (67), the program will undoubtedly be non existent or so means tested i will receive nothing. So you're welcome
Click to expand...
Total paranoia and disconnect from reality. I blame right wing media ;)
 
Sabanist said:
The lefties have their panties in a bunch over the article, so they try and skew numbers to make it fit their feeble minds
Click to expand...
LOL... well, Fox didn't really provide any numbers (except they one they wanted their minions to freak out over), and now that we get a look at the numbers we're beginning to see why (which is usually the case then the right wing echo chamber starts throwing 'disconnected' numbers around).

I'm sorry the propaganda is not working out quite as well as Fox, and based upon your post, you, wanted.
 
sangha said:
IMO, the word "welfare" is far more expansive than the list of programs you mentioned. It should include SS, Medicare, not to mention numerous tax subsidies in the form of deductions and credits and all types of govt grants

I don't suppose the focus on "means tested" programs has anything to do with an intent to provoke animosity towards the poor. :shrug:
Click to expand...

SS is not welfare, since the people that typically receive it paid into it. Medicare is also paid into for the vast amount of recipients. Tax subsidies and credits are not considered welfare based on the fact that there isn't money going out from the government coffers, but rather a discount on what goes into the coffers. You are moving the goalposts and ignoring the data the article is pointing to. Maybe I expected a more substantive response from you regarding the topic and the numbers that were provided. My bad.
 
DA60 said:
Not for corrupt Democrats.

The more people on welfare, the more votes they get. It's part of the reason, IMO, why the Dem head honchos keep pushing for more and more social programs.

People on welfare are often afraid of losing that welfare and which party is usually more in favor of not decreasing/increasing welfare?

Hmmmmmm....
Click to expand...

The Republicans could be getting a lot of those votes if they weren't so busy waging war on the elderly, disabled, and working poor.
 
Karl said:
If we look at this from the perspective of households vs people (I haven't found a people breakdown yet, but the household breakdown is readily available) we get the following for September 2012 (latest data shown at Red's first link):

27% of households receive some type of means-tested benefit[sup][1][/sup], or approx. 1/4 of all households vs a claimed 1/3 of all people -- a less impressive headline. Now clearly if your 'news' plan was to foment shock and awe amongst your viewers/readers then you'd go with the most impressive headline, fail to provide any way for the viewer/reader to look at the data you used for y our headline, and not provide any context as to the extent of the 'welfare' involved (say, a $500/month total disability payment for an overweight middle aged slacker (let's make them a minority as well so that the bigoted outrage is maximized) vs $66/month for subsidized school lunches for a poor child).

Which just goes to show that in the 'right' hands, figures can lie... and liars can figure. Personally I'm outraged ;)


_______________________________________________________________________________________
1. Source: http://www.census.gov/sipp/tables/quarterly-est/household-char/2012/4-qtr/Table7.xlsx
Click to expand...

Selective outrage (or lack thereof) on your part, too funny!
 
Karl said:
Total paranoia and disconnect from reality. I blame right wing media ;)
Click to expand...

Read a book, i did. Try the next america. Its a book filled with stats. The author doesnt render opinions.

You are the one who lives in a disconnect.
 
Sabanist said:
Which is? Spending money? Im certain you are. Boomers are without a doubt the worst generation
Click to expand...

I worked longer than you've probably been alive, retire and draw SS like millions of Americans, and my entire generation is the worst one? Son, you need to grow up.

Are your parents part of the Baby Boomer generation?
 
Karl said:
LOL... well, Fox didn't really provide any numbers (except they one they wanted their minions to freak out over), and now that we get a look at the numbers we're beginning to see why (which is usually the case then the right wing echo chamber starts throwing 'disconnected' numbers around).

I'm sorry the propaganda is not working out quite as well as Fox, and based upon your post, you, wanted.
Click to expand...

The link on the source of the data was posted. You ignore it, no surprise.

Who lives in the echo chamber? The guy who sees the data and admits it is a problem, or the guy who sees the data, puts a spin, adds and subtracts at his own will, then calls the opposition racist and disregards the facts?

Im sorry, but you really do not need to speak anout echo chambers
 
Texmex said:
I worked longer than you've probably been alive, retire and draw SS like millions of Americans, and my entire generation is the worst one? Son, you need to grow up.

Are your parents part of the Baby Boomer generation?
Click to expand...

Yes, and?
 
Karl said:
[...] say, a $500/month total disability payment for an overweight middle aged slacker (let's make them a minority as well so that the bigoted outrage is maximized) vs $66/month for subsidized school lunches for a poor child [...]
Click to expand...

Correction: The school lunch/breakfast/milk program costs an average of $30 per child per month[sup][1][/sup].


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. The Federal Education Budget Project: Background & Analysis ($11 billion annually / 30.7 million recipients)
 
Sabanist said:
Read a book, i did. Try the next america. Its a book filled with stats. The author doesnt render opinions. [...]
Click to expand...
Rather than task me to prove your claim, at my expense no less, since you apparently own the book can you cite the page and quote the section of the book where Mr. Taylor says that "by the time you reach retirement age, in 31 years (67), the program will undoubtedly be non existent or so means tested that you will receive nothing"?

But in any case, I am no foe of means testing for Social Security and hardly consider that a deviation from the original intent of the program (a safety net first and foremost). Mitt Romney does not need welfare.
 
Sabanist said:
The link on the source of the data was posted. You ignore it, no surprise. [...]
Click to expand...
It was not posted in the OP or in the OP's link to Fox, which was my point.

It was finally posted by the OP in post #142, shortly after which I addressed it.

I'm at a loss to understand why you didn't comprehend all that before now, but do try to read and understand all the posts before replying attacking; explanations of rather straightforward reality tend to detract from the discussion.
 
RedAkston said:
SS is not welfare, since the people that typically receive it paid into it. Medicare is also paid into for the vast amount of recipients. Tax subsidies and credits are not considered welfare based on the fact that there isn't money going out from the government coffers, but rather a discount on what goes into the coffers. You are moving the goalposts and ignoring the data the article is pointing to. Maybe I expected a more substantive response from you regarding the topic and the numbers that were provided. My bad.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that many of the people on SS and Medicare are receiving more than they put in. I don't know what definition you're using for the word welfare but I'm going with the Oxford dictionary

welfare: definition of welfare in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)
Statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need:
Click to expand...

Note how that definition doesn't distinguish between programs where the recipients contribute to it, and even if you do, the fact is the poor pay taxes too.

Also, there is no functional difference between collecting taxes and then sending a portion back or instead just reducing the tax in the first place with a deduction or credit. People who own homes get a mortgage deduction. People who do not, don't get that deduction. It's "welfare" for homeowners, pure and simple. The only argument for the deduction is that the people are somehow "deserving"

It is clear that, in each and every case, what has been classified as "welfare" has been singled out to portray the recipients as poor, lazy, and undeserving, even though (as Karl's posts demonstrate) the vast majority of the recipients either do work (and contribute tax money to the govt) or are children, seniors, disabled or otherwise unable to work.

IOW, it's not that I'm moving the goalposts; I'm just pointing out the political "dog whistle" that the term "welfare" is. It's an artificial construct designed to distinguish govt programs that help poor people from those that help everyone else (including businesses). If poor people get it, it's "welfare"; Otherwise, it's something else that's not "welfare". In fact, your own definition of "welfare" (ie programs the recipients don't pay into (even if they do)) demonstrates this. After all, they're poor right? So how can they afford to pay into it?

The thing is, just like the other "non-welfare" programs mentioned, many of the recipients *have* paid into and many have not
 
RedAkston said:
Selective outrage (or lack thereof) on your part, too funny!
Click to expand...

Geez, and you just got done criticizing me for what you claimed was a non-sustantive argument.

Is that all you got? You're going to just mock anyone who disagrees with you?
 
Texmex said:
I guess I'm just too selfish, you know like corporations. I worked 40 years, I paid into SS and now I'm receiving money monthly.

I assume when you reach retirement age you will not accept any SS money.
Click to expand...

Such "all or nothing" with you libs isn't it? Why would you think that you worked and paid in are entitled to receive, and I who worked just as long, and will have paid in longer than your own 40 years by the time I retire should not receive?

If you said that we should get back what we put in, plus the 1% or whatever it is return over the time period put in then you'd have a valid point, and I might agree, even though it sucks that I, and everyone else in this country working above board has been forced to contribute to such a crappy investment tool based on the ineptitude of others to plan at all for their own senior years. Hell, even if you said that I had the choice to choose either the government's plan or take that money and put it in an investment tool of my own choosing. I could almost guarantee to do better than 1% or less.

But that aside, I don't have a choice do I? I have to be subject to the force of government to reach in and take an overall 15% (7.5% me, 7.5% employer) from my compensation, my labor to redistribute to people that either didn't plan for their own future, or people like you, and yes, me at some point that will exhaust the original contribution, but still receive payments due to still being alive. It was a ponzi scheme when it was thought up, and even more so now that the funds are kept in the general fund.
 
sangha said:
There is no doubt that many of the people on SS and Medicare are receiving more than they put in. I don't know what definition you're using for the word welfare but I'm going with the Oxford dictionary

welfare: definition of welfare in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)


Note how that definition doesn't distinguish between programs where the recipients contribute to it, and even if you do, the fact is the poor pay taxes too.

Also, there is no functional difference between collecting taxes and then sending a portion back or instead just reducing the tax in the first place with a deduction or credit. People who own homes get a mortgage deduction. People who do not, don't get that deduction. It's "welfare" for homeowners, pure and simple. The only argument for the deduction is that the people are somehow "deserving"

It is clear that, in each and every case, what has been classified as "welfare" has been singled out to portray the recipients as poor, lazy, and undeserving, even though (as Karl's posts demonstrate) the vast majority of the recipients either do work (and contribute tax money to the govt) or are children, seniors, disabled or otherwise unable to work.

IOW, it's not that I'm moving the goalposts; I'm just pointing out the political "dog whistle" that the term "welfare" is. It's an artificial construct designed to distinguish govt programs that help poor people from those that help everyone else (including businesses). If poor people get it, it's "welfare"; Otherwise, it's something else that's not "welfare". In fact, your own definition of "welfare" (ie programs the recipients don't pay into (even if they do)) demonstrates this. After all, they're poor right? So how can they afford to pay into it?

The thing is, just like the other "non-welfare" programs mentioned, many of the recipients *have* paid into and many have not
Click to expand...

Just a question Sangha if I could...When you say that "Welfare recipients" have "paid" into the system through taxation, could you break down what you mean by that, ie, what taxes, and how they are paying if they are receiving their subsistence from the public coffers, (ie the most commonly defined welfare recipient which include food stamp, housing, subsistence, child care, heating, etc.) Thanks.
 
Sabanist said:
If you are close to retirement age you will get that back and then some.

As each generation passes, the less they get paid in comparison. Gen x people like myself will never get back what we paid into it, milkenials? Forget it.

Seniors never had it so good, as a result, millenials will be left with the burden
Click to expand...

That depends on what you mean by close...I figure I am on the bubble....52 years old, at least 15 to 17 years from taking SS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom