1st time since Depression- Gov. govs pays more to households than they get in revenue

[kiwiman127]

Just maybe if workers were paid for their high productivity that highly contributed to profits, the chart would look vastly different.
Its a fact that wages have been stagnant despite almost 90% growth in worker productivity since the
80s and the economy has grown over 90%! Somebody profited greatly and those same people forgot who helped generate their wealth.
As you noted, it's the first time since the depression and prior to the depression the wealth gap was as wide as it is now. Now think about it and what exactly does that tell you about the coincident.

 

[svnt]

Just maybe if workers were paid for their high productivity that highly contributed to profits, the chart would look vastly different.
Its a fact that wages have been stagnant despite almost 90% growth in worker productivity since the
80s and the economy has grown over 90%! Somebody profited greatly and those same people forgot who helped generate their wealth.
As you noted, it's the first time since the depression and prior to the depression the wealth gap was as wide as it is now. Now think about it and what exactly does that tell you about the coincident.

It doesn't actually work that way. Just saying.

Worker productivity increases are not the result of workers stepping up and becoming more productive. Productivity increases are a function of more capital investment into robotics, computers etc. Actual worker effort is probably at a century low in the USA, but technology and capital investment in infrastructure is at an all time high here.

Hence the reduction in the US employment roles and increased profitability in the corporate world.

US workers have nearly nothing to do with productivity increase unless their jobs are committed to that task. And the myth that workers should be compensated for productivity increases are ass backwards.

 

[svnt]

That $2.7 Trillion isn't from the baby boomers' payments, it's from the current workers and businesses paying into the system now but won't get shit out of this ponzi scheme.

Wrong. You have been seriously misinformed.

Social security has been LENDING the FED money for my entire adult lifetime.

That is where that $2.7 Trillion number comes from.

That is the amount of dough that the FED borrowed from the SOCIAL SECURITY INSURANCE system to give the rich nice big fat tax breaks while at the same time this nation got involved with one stupid fucking war for EMPIRE after the other.

If SSI goes down, so does every pension fund (holding trillions in US bonds) bank (holding US bonds) insurance company )(holding US bonds) and BILLIONARIE (holding US bonds)

That is EXACTLY why we see the GOP demanding that social security bennies get cut down to nothing.

Because they now don't want to REPAY the debts to the US people.

Oh they don't mind paying the banks, private insurance companies, and so forth.

Note how they do NOT say we ought to renege on the Government bonds?

No, but they do want to renege on the debt by not paying the citizen's insurance company..Social Security.

Typical of the GOP isn't it?

Fuck the public over and over, lie to them (BY CALLING SOCIAL SECURITY WELFARE AND TELLING PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT SSI HAS NO MONEY) and explain that the PEOPLE have to take it on the neck and not get THEIR money back because otherwise the RICH won't stay rich.

generally speaking the world hates a genius unless they happen to mollify an existing need, like serving as savior, leader, whipping boy, idealogue.......

Almost nobody is interested in truth for truth's sake. The general public tends to martyr anybody who speaks the naked truth without giving a belly rub to the ignorant, unwashed masses.

The "GOP" as a rule wants to cut spending that isn't of their liking. But they still want to increase spending for their wish lists. The sooner SS is defunded the sooner the "GOP" can liberate $2.6 trillion in funds for their agenda.

 

[Old Rocks]

We clearly see the effects of the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, which never trickled down, grew the economy, and resulted in "higher tax receipts" (republican lie), and the Great Recession that started in 2007 (killing jobs and income tax revenue with it). Interest rates on overnight Fed money was dropped to zero, killing the income of all fixed income investors and dropping those tax receipts. Many 62 year olds and higher who lost their jobs could not find another one so they HAD to start taking a lower Social Security pay out in order to live (some hope to get another job, suspend SS payouts to let the payout rise for their real retirement).

It's a perfect storm, everything bad hitting at the same time; dramatically lower income (loss of 500 Billion per year of income tax receipts), combined with higher expenses to SS recipients that were not planned to happen for a few more years. But its ultimately caused by the housing bubble the repubs blew up in 2001-2006, and the repub failure in those years to regulate the mortgage lenders and the big money center banks who invented the collateralized mortgage obligations and sold them to everyone.

It would not have been so bad for the normal folks if they would have saved some money and read there paper work when they bought the house they could not afford. To go on about who, what and why it happened is nothing but fodder for political message forums. The politicians, Republican and Democrat are only going to do the bare minimum to fix it. They need to grow some nuts and cut like crazy.

At the beginning of this debacle, that arguement had some traction. However, by now, that segment of the market has been long gone. What you have today are people with good loans, paid on faithfully for years, that have no jobs, have used up their savings, and are still seeing a job market with four applicants for every opening. Not only that, the opening are at much lower wages than they had in the past.

Since I am about to retire, and have properties, which have lost about 20% of value, I understand where many of these people are. The fact that I still have about 40% equity is just a matter of luck, and the fact that I have had a steady good paying job for the whole time of this downturn. The area in which I am looking to retire has seen many properties drop as much as 50%. Think what that means to someone who had most of their investment tied up in their home, even if they owned it outright.

 

[Old Rocks]

The big questions are where to slash and by how much


foreign welfare queens?

:cuckoo:Get a real chart idiot that one makes it look like we spend half of the total budget on defense..


[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png/800px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

Why don't you get a real chart? Since when is SS taken out of income tax? It does not even belong in that chart. It is seperate, and funded by the people that work for a living. Putting on the chart in that manner is a lie.

 

[hortysir]

the above is partisan BS,

Wnat to know why?

Because the above includes numbers like social security.

Social security is not a handout.

It is a PAYOFF.

And MOST of what the author of this political LIE is calling handouts is in fact Social Security payments.


I will remeind you that social security has $2.7 TRILLION dollars in assets thanks to the BABY BOOMERS having paid premiums during their entirely working lives.

Characterizing social security as welfare is nothing but ring wing CRANKSPEAK, folks.

Oh the government is broke?

Not social security's fault.

No more than it is the failt of the pension funds, banks, insurance companies or megawealth indivbiduals who bought US bonds.

We have a problem with out doubt.

Social security is NOT the source of it.

Penatgon spending on the other hand, most certainly is.

The Pentagon is an ongoing unfunded expense.

Social security is an insurance plan that is not REMOTELY broke.

The only mention of Social Security, in the article, was in the context as an income. Not a pension:

In 2010, households received $2.3 trillion in income support from unemployment benefits, Social Security, disability insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans’ benefits, education assistance and other cash transfers of government funds to individuals.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes)




Nice try though

 

[sparky]

The big questions are where to slash and by how much


foreign welfare queens?

:cuckoo:Get a real chart idiot that one makes it look like we spend half of the total budget on defense..


[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png/800px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

Why don't you get a real chart? Since when is SS taken out of income tax? It does not even belong in that chart. It is seperate, and funded by the people that work for a living. Putting on the chart in that manner is a lie.

because budgetary chart wars always end up with who creates them, and what category expenditures are defined and placed in Rocks

but all you need do is look around the world, and note we've our d*cks in every corner of it to come to certain budgetary realities

does it seem odd to you that so many are willing to close off our borders with .50 cal firepower and have nothing whatsoever to do whatsoever with those on the other side here are also the same one's willing to send it all overseas to help oust tin pot dictators


the jist here should really be, do we help our fellow Americans first and foremost , and before aliens or not?

 

[editec]

That $2.7 Trillion isn't from the baby boomers' payments, it's from the current workers and businesses paying into the system now but won't get shit out of this ponzi scheme.

Wrong. You have been seriously misinformed.

Social security has been LENDING the FED money for my entire adult lifetime.

That is where that $2.7 Trillion number comes from.

That is the amount of dough that the FED borrowed from the SOCIAL SECURITY INSURANCE system to give the rich nice big fat tax breaks while at the same time this nation got involved with one stupid fucking war for EMPIRE after the other.

If SSI goes down, so does every pension fund (holding trillions in US bonds) bank (holding US bonds) insurance company )(holding US bonds) and BILLIONARIE (holding US bonds)

That is EXACTLY why we see the GOP demanding that social security bennies get cut down to nothing.

Because they now don't want to REPAY the debts to the US people.

Oh they don't mind paying the banks, private insurance companies, and so forth.

Note how they do NOT say we ought to renege on the Government bonds?

No, but they do want to renege on the debt by not paying the citizen's insurance company..Social Security.

Typical of the GOP isn't it?

Fuck the public over and over, lie to them (BY CALLING SOCIAL SECURITY WELFARE AND TELLING PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT SSI HAS NO MONEY) and explain that the PEOPLE have to take it on the neck and not get THEIR money back because otherwise the RICH won't stay rich.

Show me how your conclusion fits with the SSA's own data.

Lad I just did.

SSI is holding $2.7 TRILLION in US securities. They are holding those because the BOUGHT them from the FEDS.

Do you or do you not understand the above?

Additionally SS is not a welfare program, it is a self funded public INSURANCE plan.

If the government cannot pay SS the $2.7 TRILLION it owes to SS, it ALSO cannot pay the 12.3 TRILLION it owes to PRIVATE banks, PRIVATE companies, PRIVATE pension funds and the SUPER WELATHY who are also holding the US debt instruments.

Basically, everything you think you know about SS is wrong, asterism.

Do some basic research and stop depending on TV talking hatemongers to inform you.

They lie, amigo, they LIE.

 

[editec]

The big questions are where to slash and by how much


foreign welfare queens?

:cuckoo:Get a real chart idiot that one makes it look like we spend half of the total budget on defense..


[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png/800px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

Why don't you get a real chart? Since when is SS taken out of income tax? It does not even belong in that chart. It is seperate, and funded by the people that work for a living. Putting on the chart in that manner is a lie.

You want tpo know why the second chart is partians propaganda?

The social security charges (which do exist obviously) ought to be included in the net interest on the debt" segment of the pie.

Why?

Because the cost of SS to the FED isn't GIVING SS money, it is paying the interest on the debt the FED owes it.

SS isn't an expense it is a DEBT the government owes the people who contributed to it.

 

[Spoonman]

The big questions are where to slash and by how much


foreign welfare queens?

Get rid of world hunger, human services, comunity dev, housing and what ever that red x is

 

[NYcarbineer]

well, here we are; loopholes, deductions and transfer payments etc....the madness has got to stop.


Budget Deficit: Government Handouts Top Tax Income

snip-
The difference was about $150 billion, equivalent to more than 1 percentage point of overall personal income and about four times the amount Republicans and Democrats agreed to cut from government spending through Sept. 30.

With President Obama’s deficit-reduction plan now on the table, the political left, right and center are ready to rumble over how to assure long-term fiscal stability. The big questions are where to slash and by how much, but over the next year or two, the most important question for the economy might well be how quickly the cutting should begin. Households have become unusually dependent on the government for income support and removing that prop too fast could put the recovery at risk.

For the first time since the Great Depression, households are receiving more income from the government than they are paying the government in taxes. The combination of more cash from various programs, called transfer payments, and lower taxes has been a double-barreled boost to consumers’ buying power, while also blowing a hole in the deficit. The 1930s offer a cautionary tale: The only other time government income support exceeded taxes paid was from 1931 to 1936. That trend reversed in 1936, after a recovery was underway, and the economy fell back into a second leg of recession during 1937 and 1938.

more at-
Budget Deficit: Government Handouts Top Tax Income

Looks like a rather precipitous drop in revenue began about the time George Bush and the Republicans took control.

 

[Brutus]

Households have become unusually dependent on the government for income support and removing that prop too fast could put the recovery at risk.

thats crazy!! welfare does not help the economy!!! If it did we'd never have economic problems. All we'd need would be welfare programs. Thats so easy.

Of course real economic growth is harmed by welfare bubbles; so the sooner they end the better.

 

[Brutus]

Fuck the public over and over, lie to them (BY CALLING SOCIAL SECURITY WELFARE AND TELLING PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT SSI HAS NO MONEY)


Brutus:

1) SS is in fact a liberal idiotic welfare rip-off scam. 15% of lifetime income would make all Americans rich, instead the libtard crooks give you no principle and $1000/month if you live to collect a penny

2) SS is in fact dead broke too as any institution would be if its only source of funds was a government $14 trillion in debt; heading toward $50 trillion in debt!!

 

[Brutus]

True and a half ! We could do some serious cutting in defense alone and still keep our troops paid with benefits and superbly equipped.

thats a rather bizarre conclusion considering we barely had enough to fight little ole Iraq, but typical of a liberal I'm sure!!