• 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:
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?
Click to expand...

I ask if you would accept it. I didn't even imply that you should not receive SS.

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.
Click to expand...

Gripe, gripe, gripe. You think SS started with me or my generation? Bitch at your father or grandfather. Social Security was here long before I started working.
 
j-mac said:
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.
Click to expand...

They have paid the same taxes most other people pay like sales taxes, payroll taxes, real estate taxes, income taxes, etc. Just because they are at one time in need of public assistance that doesn't mean that they have never worked. The stats show that the overwhelming majority of people who receive some form of public assistance (children and the disabled excepted) have worked or do work.
 
Texmex said:
I ask if you would accept it.
Click to expand...

I would be some kind of fool that would just say that the government can keep what I have paid in for decades wouldn't I? Accept? or Expect?

I expect it back, that was the deal. No?

I didn't even imply that you should not receive SS.
Click to expand...

You didn't? You did say "I assume when you reach retirement age you will not accept any SS money." did you not?

Gripe, gripe, gripe. You think SS started with me or my generation? Bitch at your father or grandfather. Social Security was here long before I started working.
Click to expand...

My father, and grandfather are both long gone, as I am sure your's are as well....Maybe....But I see no real response to what I was saying....I'll take it as non responsive. Thanks.
 
j-mac said:
You didn't? You did say "I assume when you reach retirement age you will not accept any SS money." did you not?
Click to expand...

To assume something is not to wish it to be so.

My father, and grandfather are both long gone, as I am sure your's are as well....Maybe....But I see no real response to what I was saying....I'll take it as non responsive. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I apologize. It appeared, judging by your posting history, that you were much younger than you are. My mistake.
 
sangha said:
They have paid the same taxes most other people pay like sales taxes, payroll taxes, real estate taxes, income taxes, etc. Just because they are at one time in need of public assistance that doesn't mean that they have never worked. The stats show that the overwhelming majority of people who receive some form of public assistance (children and the disabled excepted) have worked or do work.
Click to expand...

First, thanks for the answer...But let me clarify if I could...When I am speaking of "welfare recipients" I am generally speaking of those that don't have jobs, and receive Housing, food stamps, subsistence, energy, medicaid, etc. I am NOT speaking of those that work, and make so little that they need help like food stamps, or energy, or any combination of those while they work. Maybe I wasn't clear enough and for that I apologize. But, of the people I am speaking of, they are NOT paying sales tax on anything because they are using money we provide them, same with real estate, income, or payroll because it is likely that they don't have any of that.

So what are they contributing?
 
Texmex said:
To assume something is not to wish it to be so.
Click to expand...

Look, you either said that or you didn't, but it is in black and white, and pretty clear...So.....?

I apologize. It appeared, judging by your posting history, that you were much younger than you are. My mistake.
Click to expand...

No worries Tex...I may not be the most knowledgeable, or articulate poster here, but one thing is for sure, as much as I wish, my younger years are behind me.
 
j-mac said:
Look, you either said that or you didn't, but it is in black and white, and pretty clear...So.....?
Click to expand...

That's OK, I'll just assume you don't know what the definition of the word assume is. No harm, no foul.



No worries Tex...I may not be the most knowledgeable, or articulate poster here, but one thing is for sure, as much as I wish, my younger years are behind me.
Click to expand...

Me too.
 
j-mac said:
First, thanks for the answer...But let me clarify if I could...When I am speaking of "welfare recipients" I am generally speaking of those that don't have jobs, and receive Housing, food stamps, subsistence, energy, medicaid, etc. I am NOT speaking of those that work, and make so little that they need help like food stamps, or energy, or any combination of those while they work. Maybe I wasn't clear enough and for that I apologize. But, of the people I am speaking of, they are NOT paying sales tax on anything because they are using money we provide them, same with real estate, income, or payroll because it is likely that they don't have any of that.

So what are they contributing?
Click to expand...

You are wrong. That is not what "welfare recipients" mean. Most of the people who receive benefits from the programs you mention do have jobs. And even if they are not working now, most of them have worked at some time and will work in the future.

Finally, we aren't just talking about those who have never worked. Read the OP again. If you want to talk about people who hhave never worked, start a new thread. I'm not going to engage in framing this discussion according to your daffynition of "welfare recipient"
 
Texmex said:
That's OK, I'll just assume you don't know what the definition of the word assume is. No harm, no foul.
Click to expand...

Not trying to belabor the point, but you were the one "assuming" in the statement....What you were doing is using it as a rhetorical slap as to say that because I have a problem with SS withholding that I wouldn't be taking it...Or that I disagreed with your take on it that I wouldn't be taking it...Either assumption was wrong....
 
sangha said:
You are wrong. That is not what "welfare recipients" mean. Most of the people who receive benefits from the programs you mention do have jobs. And even if they are not working now, most of them have worked at some time and will work in the future.

Finally, we aren't just talking about those who have never worked. Read the OP again. If you want to talk about people who hhave never worked, start a new thread. I'm not going to engage in framing this discussion according to your daffynition of "welfare recipient"
Click to expand...

:shrug: Ok, have a nice day then....
 
RedAkston said:
Census figures show more than one-third of Americans receiving welfare benefits | Fox News



This should be shocking to everyone, no matter which way they lean.
Click to expand...

Since it includes the subsidies for Obamacare and expanded Medicaid, I'm not surprised. Or shocked. Nor do I think assistance is bad, when it's needed.

What should shock you is that that many people are poor in our supposedly wealthy nation.

Also, what matters most is the amount of $$$. Not how many are receiving a little of this or that, or whether it's permanent or temporary. Someone getting food stamps for a month is included.

When the min. wage is increased, the # of people getting assistance will decrease.
 
Middleground said:
Pat Robertson is a flaming liberal compared to you, so maybe it's your judgement that is off?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to say your comment or opinion isn't respected by me - therefore ignored. Have a nice day.
 
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...

So because you worked means you are entitled to benefits that we cannot afford forever?

Yea, you are the worst.

Because of your generation, your childrens will be saddled with a burden they cannot bear.

Read up on it. Drop your entitled attitude.

I dont expect any benefits, i can take care of myself
 
Texmex said:
I guess the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.
Click to expand...

Whatever the hell that means. What, you thought i would say my parents were different? No, they arent. I have discussed it with them before. They were horrified when paul ryan brought up the subject of altering entitlements to preserve them. Hands off my g cheese eh?

Thats the problem with boomers, they are a very selfish generation
 
j-mac said:
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.
Click to expand...

You likely will not receive what you paid in.
 
Sabanist said:
...

Because of your generation, your childrens will be saddled with a burden they cannot bear. ...
Click to expand...

Every generation makes that same claim. Back in the 1970's, when I was a child, I heard that crap over and over again, and my parents heard that in the 40's and 50's, and their parents before them. I'm sure when the national debt first hit $10,000 people were saying that, and then again when it was $1 million, then ten million and one hundred million and a billion...

You do realize that we have had a national debt for all but one year of the existence of this country don't you? And that we create money by debt. If 100% of all debt was repaid, there would be no more US Dollars.

Our national standard of living isn't really effected by the national debt. Our standard of living is based upon how much we produce. Unless you expect that we will start producing less, which is highly unlikely considering how fast we are becoming more productive due to technology, then our average standard of living should continue to increase, regardless of the national debt. The national debt is nothing more than an accounting issue, and it's not really that big of an issue because it never has to be paid off (unless we desire another depression).

Oh, and that one year that we had no national debt - we had a depression.
 
imagep said:
Every generation makes that same claim. Back in the 1970's, when I was a child, I heard that crap over and over again, and my parents heard that in the 40's and 50's, and their parents before them. I'm sure when the national debt first hit $10,000 people were saying that, and then again when it was $1 million, then ten million and one hundred million and a billion...

You do realize that we have had a national debt for all but one year of the existence of this country don't you? And that we create money by debt. If 100% of all debt was repaid, there would be no more US Dollars.

Our national standard of living isn't really effected by the national debt. Our standard of living is based upon how much we produce. Unless you expect that we will start producing less, which is highly unlikely considering how fast we are becoming more productive due to technology, then our average standard of living should continue to increase, regardless of the national debt. The national debt is nothing more than an accounting issue, and it's not really that big of an issue because it never has to be paid off (unless we desire another depression).

Oh, and that one year that we had no national debt - we had a depression.
Click to expand...

Every generation was right. Every year our debt rises and more of our tax money goes to pay on that debt. I didn't say pay it off or pay it down because we never do that. And just like a household that increases its debt every year the debt will eventually take us down.
 
Stoney said:
Every generation was right. Every year our debt rises and more of our tax money goes to pay on that debt. I didn't say pay it off or pay it down because we never do that. And just like a household that increases its debt every year the debt will eventually take us down.
Click to expand...

Yet every generation has managed to have a higher standard of living.

Like I said, our aggregate standard of living is based upon how productive we are in aggregate, not on how much our federal debt is.
 
Stoney said:
Every generation was right. Every year our debt rises and more of our tax money goes to pay on that debt. I didn't say pay it off or pay it down because we never do that. And just like a household that increases its debt every year the debt will eventually take us down.
Click to expand...

He's not really addressing the issue, it's a bit of misinformation. No one is saying that we should not have any debt. But doubling the debt every few years, and with little or nothing to show for it, is not going to end well. As more and more people are encouraged by the left to get government hand out (really just redistribution) there are less producers to support them. As Thatcher said, the problem is that you eventually run out of other people's money. And that is something they don't want to address, because they have no answers.
 
Anthony60 said:
He's not really addressing the issue, it's a bit of misinformation. No one is saying that we should not have any debt. But doubling the debt every few years, and with little or nothing to show for it, is not going to end well. As more and more people are encouraged by the left to get government hand out (really just redistribution) there are less producers to support them. As Thatcher said, the problem is that you eventually run out of other people's money. And that is something they don't want to address, because they have no answers.
Click to expand...

We have a great deal to show for out debt.

Our infrastructure, our country relatively free from terrorism and foriegn attack. Our protection of our citizens and their property. Our infrastructure and technology and education. Our assets far exceed our debt.

The growth rate of our debt under Reagan was far far higher than it is today, yet our economy did fairly well under Reagan, or at least that is what conservatives tell me. At this point, the growth of our debt has significantly declined. We have 17 trillion in debt, and we are adding less than 500 billion to it. It would take 34 years at this rate to double our debt again (Reagan tripled it in just 8 years).

Chill out about the debt, it's an issue, but not a significant issue. The bigger issue is getting economic growth back, and the only way we can do that is if we can figure out a way to increase demand.
 
imagep said:
We have a great deal to show for out debt.

Our infrastructure, our country relatively free from terrorism and foriegn attack. Our protection of our citizens and their property. Our infrastructure and technology and education. Our assets far exceed our debt.

The growth rate of our debt under Reagan was far far higher than it is today, yet our economy did fairly well under Reagan, or at least that is what conservatives tell me. At this point, the growth of our debt has significantly declined. We have 17 trillion in debt, and we are adding less than 500 billion to it. It would take 34 years at this rate to double our debt again (Reagan tripled it in just 8 years).

Chill out about the debt, it's an issue, but not a significant issue. The bigger issue is getting economic growth back, and the only way we can do that is if we can figure out a way to increase demand.
Click to expand...

No, we don't have much to show for it. We don't need to add $7 Trillion to our debt for "infrastructure". Remember, the government already spends Trillions of dollars before the debt, and then there is State spending on top of that. Then there is some reasonable debt added to that, plenty of money to keep us going.

And yes, the lack of growth and jobs is an issue, debt growth is not as much of a problem if your economy is growing enough to cover it. Ours isn't, and most jobs are part time.
 
Anthony60 said:
No, we don't have much to show for it. We don't need to add $7 Trillion to our debt for "infrastructure". Remember, the government already spends Trillions of dollars before the debt, and then there is State spending on top of that. Then there is some reasonable debt added to that, plenty of money to keep us going.

And yes, the lack of growth and jobs is an issue, debt growth is not as much of a problem if your economy is growing enough to cover it. Ours isn't, and most jobs are part time.
Click to expand...

What we call part time today will soon be the new full time, just like today's 40 hour per week job would have been considered "part time" a hundred years ago.
 
imagep said:
What we call part time today will soon be the new full time, just like today's 40 hour per week job would have been considered "part time" a hundred years ago.
Click to expand...

Yeah, see... it's a good thing! Obama is just way ahead of the times. We'll also have part time electricity, food, and lives, just like North Korea.
 
Anthony60 said:
Yeah, see... it's a good thing! Obama is just way ahead of the times. We'll also have part time electricity, food, and lives, just like North Korea.
Click to expand...

More leisure time and less back breaking work is indeed a good thing.

Would you prefer to work longer hours to shorter hours? One of the things that most of us demand is leisure time. In a world where technology is rapidly increasing our ability to produce, there is no need for longer work hours, and filling our demand for leisure time only makes sense.

There is no reason for part time electricity, food or anything else, unless you believe that we will start to become less productive per work hour. We work far fewer hours today than we did 100 years ago, yet we have more today.

Sorry historic reality doesn't fit with your right wing outlook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom