• 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

reinoe said:
SS is welfare. Your ignorance of how SS works doesn't change the fact that SS is a form of welfare.
Click to expand...

If it is not generally means tested, then it's not welfare.

You could argue that having military (or any other government service) is welfare also, but that would be an equally bogus argument.
 
tres borrachos said:
I'm 2 years younger than you, and I'm starting to think what we paid into it all these years won't leave enough for people our age. And that sucks because I'm sure you like me paid a lot into it. I would have invested that money myself instead but I had no choice in the matter.
Click to expand...

That's why it is important that we keep social security. It's a contract between generations. Older folks fulfilled their end of the contract, so the guberment should fulfill it's end. We should honor our contracts.
 
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...

I'd have no issue with an "opt out" provision. Just don't ask for government assistance when you are 104 years old.
 
imagep said:
It's a generational contract. If they fulfilled their end of the contract, then they paid for themselves.
Click to expand...

I like Jefferson believe in generational sovereignty. That when one generation binds the next to their contract they are in violation of their rights.
 
tres borrachos said:
I'm 2 years younger than you, and I'm starting to think what we paid into it all these years won't leave enough for people our age. And that sucks because I'm sure you like me paid a lot into it. I would have invested that money myself instead but I had no choice in the matter.
Click to expand...

The surplus fund is expected to run dry the year I retire (close to you). However, that doesn't mean that new tax revenue will stop, new revenue will still pay for about 75% of our benefits.

SS only needs fairly small adjustments to make it last forever. If we were to raise the contribution rate by 1% today (on the employee and employer side), the trust fund wouldn't run dry for another 60 years, and even then new revenue would pay for about 87% of benefits. If we were to double that increase in the contribution rate, it would last forever, and then some.

Even if we waited until the day that the trust fund ran dry (most likely scenario), we would only need to raise the contribution rate by a third in order to fully fund the program.

Or we could increase the age at which we make benefits available, by a year or two, that would be the easiest solution, but in an age where we have an abundance of labor and not enough demand to employ all that labor, increasing the normal work age range doesn't make a lot of sense - it would just result in higher unemployment, and more spending on unemployment benefits, that that's not a real solution at all.
 
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...

Asking for your money back is not a reasonable request, but asking to not be involved in the program I feel is more than reasonable.
 
Jaaaman said:
They [Fox] are not any more biased than MSNBC or several other well known media outlets. Give me a break.
Click to expand...

Excusing a liar by offering up examples of other (supposed) liars? Tsk, tsk.
 
Henrin said:
I like Jefferson believe in generational sovereignty. That when one generation binds the next to their contract they are in violation of their rights.
Click to expand...

Then I deserve reparations for the damage caused to me by the contract that I was unfairly bound to. Those reparations should be a monthly check starting at age 65.
 
mak2 said:
Fox's point is not hard to understand. Reminds me of Romney.

"You can't in the long run have a society in which you have to rely on a smaller and smaller group of wealth producers who have to support more and more people who are not contributing to that wealth," Tanner said.
Click to expand...
That would be a false maxim.... simple math should tell you that. Beware of intellectual subservience to talking heads.
 
imagep said:
I only consider it welfare if it is means tested. Government benefits in themselves aren't a discouragement to being productive. But means testing those government benefits are.
Click to expand...

Lots of people seem to want SS to be means tested. I don't agree with them.

I agree with your overall statement that government assistance is only "welfare" when it's means tested. Welfare to me has a narrow definition.

I've seen people on here say that deducting interest for mortgages on your taxes is a form of welfare.
 
tres borrachos said:
Lots of people seem to want SS to be means tested. I don't agree with them.

I agree with your overall statement that government assistance is only "welfare" when it's means tested. Welfare to me has a narrow definition.

I've seen people on here say that deducting interest for mortgages on your taxes is a form of welfare.
Click to expand...

Sure, then we think alike on that issue.

As far as deducting morgage interest, that's not means tested, so it's not welfare, although it is a subsidy.

What I don't like about it is that it is as much a subsidy to the bank and the construction company and the real estate agent, as it is to the home owner. I don''t believe in subsidies as they distort our economy. Of course I don't support means tested welfare either.

I have no issue with providing for the profoundly handicapped however, or for infrastructure or protection of life and property.
 
imagep said:
Then I deserve reparations for the damage caused to me by the contract that I was unfairly bound to. Those reparations should be a monthly check starting at age 65.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't solve the problem.
 
Texmex said:
I've already spent it all, too bad! :lamo
Click to expand...

You laugh about it, sadly you are telling the truth here unabashedly I might add...You really feel no remorse that you have spent others money, til it is gone eh...I guess that goes to character.
 
TeleKat said:
It certainly seems problematic, but bear in mind this may include things like Veterans' benefits and college aid. "Receiving government assistance of some kind" is rather vague.
Click to expand...

That is a very valid point and with the number of veterans the US produces annually, the GI Bill and so forth, that alters the equation substantially.

And add pensioners...
 
j-mac said:
You laugh about it, sadly you are telling the truth here unabashedly I might add...You really feel no remorse that you have spent others money, til it is gone eh...I guess that goes to character.
Click to expand...

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.
 
For all those attacking FOX News, this is where they got their data and it is pretty damning - Economic Characteristics of Households in the United States

This link provides you with the spreadsheet they got their data from - http://www.census.gov/sipp/tables/quarterly-est/household-char/2012/4-qtr/Table2.xlsx

The numbers they used came from means tested programs (public or subsidized rental housing, SSI, food stamps (SNAP), TANF, WIC, Medicaid and other cash assistance). The numbers they used did NOT include SS or Medicare. The numbers are all there to see and it appears as though the FOX News haters are wrong, yet again. These are the numbers directly from the US Census Bureau.
 
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...

There is a difference between being selfish with what is yours and demanding other people give you their property. Your position is in fact not out of the ordinary for you.

Compare demanding people give you their property with people desiring to keep what is theirs is something I have come to expect from people on this forum. Not only are the two things being compared in many ways opposites, but the people making the comparison are trying to sell the former as good and the later as bad.
 
Last edited:
I really did look but I did not see the word welfare.
RedAkston said:
For all those attacking FOX News, this is where they got their data and it is pretty damning - Economic Characteristics of Households in the United States

This link provides you with the spreadsheet they got their data from - http://www.census.gov/sipp/tables/quarterly-est/household-char/2012/4-qtr/Table2.xlsx

The numbers they used came from means tested programs (public or subsidized rental housing, SSI, food stamps (SNAP), TANF, WIC, Medicaid and other cash assistance). The numbers they used did NOT include SS or Medicare. The numbers are all there to see and it appears as though the FOX News haters are wrong, yet again. These are the numbers directly from the US Census Bureau.
Click to expand...
 
Henrin said:
There is a difference between being selfish with what is yours and demanding other people give you their property. Your position is in fact not out of the ordinary for you.

Compare demanding people give you their property with people desiring to keep what is theirs is something I have come to expect from people on this forum. Not only are the two things being compared in many ways opposites, but the people making the comparison are trying to sell the former as good and the later as bad.
Click to expand...

So are you refusing your SS when you reach retirement?
 
mak2 said:
I really did look but I did not see the word welfare.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that public or subsidized rental housing, SSI, food stamps (SNAP), TANF, WIC and Medicaid are not considered "welfare"?
 
RedAkston said:
For all those attacking FOX News, this is where they got their data and it is pretty damning - Economic Characteristics of Households in the United States

This link provides you with the spreadsheet they got their data from - http://www.census.gov/sipp/tables/quarterly-est/household-char/2012/4-qtr/Table2.xlsx

The numbers they used came from means tested programs (public or subsidized rental housing, SSI, food stamps (SNAP), TANF, WIC, Medicaid and other cash assistance). The numbers they used did NOT include SS or Medicare. The numbers are all there to see and it appears as though the FOX News haters are wrong, yet again. These are the numbers directly from the US Census Bureau.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the links. I find it rather dishonest that Fox themselves did not provide a link to the underlying data upon which they based their claims (normally I consider such an omission a sign of dishonesty when so-called journalism is involved).

I find labeling of skeptics, especially when such skepticism is warranted by historical example and/or by tactical omisssion, as "haters" another dishonest tactic that is unconducive to productive discussion.

In any case, I submit the following prior to taking a look at the underlying data myself:

Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percent of 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.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Click to expand...
 
RedAkston said:
[...] This link provides you with the spreadsheet they got their data from - http://www.census.gov/sipp/tables/quarterly-est/household-char/2012/4-qtr/Table2.xlsx [...]
Click to expand...
And that spreadsheet begins to point out of some the problems with Fox's hysterical claims...

(1) Includes free or reduced-price lunch or breakfast, [...]
Click to expand...

The kids getting a dollar or two discount off their school meal -- freeloading leaches intent on destroying the country -- obviously need to be put to work earning that money by cleaning the toilets used by their betters. No, that's not my idea, that's Newt Gingrich's idea . . . .

(3) Now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP. [...]
Click to expand...

More leaches kids that need to swab some toilets in order to learn the work ethic of those born into a rich household.

What say we ask Fox to produce a report on the number of "working age" "adults" that actually could be working but instead are freeloading off of welfare... or would that number be insufficient to outrage their viewers? Instead of hating on kids, the truly disabled, and the truly disadvantaged (even if that disadvantage is caused by bad decisions made earlier in their life). Anybody think such an honest assessment of the welfare situation in the U.S. would be forthcoming from them?

In 2011, the National School Lunch Program fed [via low-cost or free lunches to children across the nation] more than 31 million children each day. Most students benefit from the NSLP because it subsidizes even full-price meals in the majority of U.S. schools (link).
Click to expand...

Now assuming a worst-case (for the alarmist) number crunching scenario, that would reduce the "nearly 110 million" figure to "nearly 79 million". Hardly as impressive . . . .
 
Last edited:
RedAkston said:
Are you saying that public or subsidized rental housing, SSI, food stamps (SNAP), TANF, WIC and Medicaid are not considered "welfare"?
Click to expand...

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:
 
Last edited:
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom