Benefit spending soars to new high

Benefit spending soars to new high - USATODAY.com

...one of every six dollars of Americans' income is now coming in the form of a federal or state check or voucher.

That's the highest percentage since the government began compiling records in 1929.

In all, government spending on benefits will top $2 trillion in 2009 — an average of $17,000 provided to each U.S. household, federal data show.

Click to expand...

And Obama loves it.

The more dependence, the better.
Dependence = Power = Votes.

It's also a tool to smack Republicans with when they seek to gut it.

.

zimmer said:

Benefit spending soars to new high - USATODAY.com



And Obama loves it.

The more dependence, the better.
Dependence = Power = Votes.

It's also a tool to smack Republicans with when they seek to gut it.

.

Click to expand...

From the article linked:

What's driving the $209 billion increase in benefit costs from a year ago:

• Unemployment insurance. One-fourth of the extra spending covers jobless benefits, a program started in the Depression. The stimulus law, passed in February, increased benefits.

Click to expand...

HOLY COW! When there is a recession, unemployment benefit costs go up! Who would of thought it. Not Zimmer obviously.

I do find it amusing how Zimmer takes great glee in bad news.

Redress said:

From the article linked:
HOLY COW! When there is a recession, unemployment benefit costs go up! Who would of thought it. Not Zimmer obviously.

Click to expand...

Not sure how any of this negates what he said...?

zimmer said:

Benefit spending soars to new high - USATODAY.com



And Obama loves it.

The more dependence, the better.
Dependence = Power = Votes.

It's also a tool to smack Republicans with when they seek to gut it.

.

Click to expand...

Which one's are you against the government doing?

• Giving the record number of citizens who lost their jobs in the past few years unemployment benefits.
• Giving those people that paid into Social Security their Social Security checks.
• Giving those people that lost their jobs but can't live of the unemployment benefits food stamps to feed their family.

Gibberish said:

Which one's are you against the government doing?

• Giving the record number of citizens who lost their jobs in the past few years unemployment benefits.
• Giving those people that paid into Social Security their Social Security checks.
• Giving those people that lost their jobs but can't live of the unemployment benefits food stamps to feed their family.

Click to expand...

False choices, it's never that black and white. AND YOU KNOW IT, stop baiting.

American said:

False choices, it's never that black and white. AND YOU KNOW IT, stop baiting.

Click to expand...

I'm not baiting at all. Those are directly from the article and are the specific reasons for the soaring benefits. If you're against soaring benefits then which benefits are you against that are soaring?

From what I can see, the reason for the soaring benefits is the increase of demand. The government doesn't budget to be able to support the amount of people that are currently needing the benefits. So they must increase spending (supply) to meet the demand. If you are against this increase then you essential support the government having a cap on the number of citizens that can utilize the benefits they have all paid into.

Think of it like insurance. Insurance companies project only a specific percentage of individuals will need payout on their insurance policies. If the insurance company projects that number to be 15% but then 45% make claims the insurance company will not have enough funds to pay the 45%. Thus they will need to increase their finances in some way (debt usually) to pay everyone. The government is does the same thing.

The increase in benefit spending will go back down when the demand for the benefits lowers back to a normal rate. This will occur when the unemployment rate drops and when those increased number of active retirees no long qualify to receive a social security check.

There's a reason that the recession of 1920 was so short. Harrison cut the burden of government on people (meaning he cut taxes and expenditures). 10 years later, Hoover and FDR tried the opposite approach and it failed miserably.

Goobieman said:

Not sure how any of this negates what he said...?

Click to expand...

So Obama loves it?

How does his comments prove that Obama loves it?

phattonez said:

There's a reason that the recession of 1920 was so short. Harrison cut the burden of government on people (meaning he cut taxes and expenditures). 10 years later, Hoover and FDR tried the opposite approach and it failed miserably.

Click to expand...

Seriously?

The 1920 recession was due to the end of mass wartime production. There was no longer a supply of military goods/services so jobs were cut and all the returning soldiers and no where to work. It was turned around when industry switched from military goods/services to consumer goods/services and, with women leaving wartime jobs, were then able to increase job availability for the mass amount of soldiers and other unemployed. The consumer demand was there, which helped for the quick turn around.

In 1928 after then economy crashed there was little economy and thus no demand as people couldn't afford anything. This led to the consumer goods marketing crashing. With this there was no demand for either military or consumer goods/services and thus no jobs.

So then let me guess, you think that WWII ended the depression?