Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You definitely would not be considered to be on welfare. All the Social Security I'm now receiving I paid for by mandatory pay deductions I've made over decades of work since a teenager. It is not a government "hand-out" like many conservatives here feel. Social security alone is sub-subsistence level. You need savings to supplement it.I am unfamiliar with US welfare. Old age pensioners are considered welfare recipients?
I remember talking about subsides with my kids. It is easy for 95 people out of a 100 to support the other 5. Not so easy for 75 to support 25.
Did your census numbers say how many people are net taxpayers compared to tax recipients? The last time I saw any figures like this the bottom half of the population were net negative. Just sayin'. I am all for taking care of people but I don't think we should demonize the people who foot the bill either.
In five years I will collect the Canadian Old Age Pension. Between paying taxes for all my pensions, property taxes, income taxes, etc, I doubt I will become a net negative taxpayer. Will I still be a welfare recipient in your eyes?
Welfare in the US is largelyAid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Medicaid
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Food and nutrition programs (SNAP) (Food stamps)
Welfare does not includeUnemployment insurance (Very temporary)
Social Security (Old age pensions paid by lifetime salary deductions)
Medicare (Generally over 65)
Poverty trends analyst, LaDonna Pavetti:
In an "average" year, about one-half of the AFDC caseload leaves the welfare rolls. The best available estimates indicate that between one-half and two-thirds of those who leave do so because they have found paid employment.I don't know exactly how many are in the negative tax bracket here. I believe around 45% do pay zero or less taxes. There are lots of problems looming up on how to handle the increasing subsistence level people, but that's another story.
You definitely would not be considered to be on welfare. All the Social Security I'm now receiving I paid for by mandatory pay deductions I've made over decades of work since a teenager. It is not a government "hand-out" like many conservatives here feel. Social security alone is sub-subsistence level. You need savings to supplement it.I am unfamiliar with US welfare. Old age pensioners are considered welfare recipients?
I remember talking about subsides with my kids. It is easy for 95 people out of a 100 to support the other 5. Not so easy for 75 to support 25.
Did your census numbers say how many people are net taxpayers compared to tax recipients? The last time I saw any figures like this the bottom half of the population were net negative. Just sayin'. I am all for taking care of people but I don't think we should demonize the people who foot the bill either.
In five years I will collect the Canadian Old Age Pension. Between paying taxes for all my pensions, property taxes, income taxes, etc, I doubt I will become a net negative taxpayer. Will I still be a welfare recipient in your eyes?
Welfare in the US is largelyAid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Medicaid
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Food and nutrition programs (SNAP) (Food stamps)
Welfare does not includeUnemployment insurance (Very temporary)
Social Security (Old age pensions paid by lifetime salary deductions)
Medicare (Generally over 65)
Poverty trends analyst, LaDonna Pavetti:
In an "average" year, about one-half of the AFDC caseload leaves the welfare rolls. The best available estimates indicate that between one-half and two-thirds of those who leave do so because they have found paid employment.I don't know exactly how many are in the negative tax bracket here. I believe around 45% do pay zero or less taxes. There are lots of problems looming up on how to handle the increasing subsistence level people, but that's another story.
People who can't afford kids shouldn't have ten and then cry,I also don't see why those who get welfare money can't actually do community work.I really hate to belabor this off-topic sidetrack, but I really hate it when right-wingers have such a simplistic view of just who welfare recipients are.Fair enough. Perhaps we both agree that climate science has taken on the characteristics of a welfare recipient. Lose your individuality and tick off the right boxes on the form and you will get paid.
Federal budget and Census data show that with welfare recipients,
53% of people are 65 and up.
20% of people are disabled.
18% have jobs with sub-survival pay.
9% goes to households with non-elderly, non-disabled people, without jobs.
Much of that 9% involves health care and unemployment insurance.
A small fraction of of that 9% are "welfare queens". Yet the right wing acts as though they are the majority of welfare recipients.
If you think too much money is diverted to welfare, I am not going to argue that point. But you really need to look at the wider problem of what to do with these people. "Get a job" does not answer the problem since only 9% are without a job when you subtract those who are too old to work, too disabled, or receiving sub-survival pay.
People who can't afford kids shouldn't have ten and then cry,I also don't see why those who get welfare money can't actually do community work.I really hate to belabor this off-topic sidetrack, but I really hate it when right-wingers have such a simplistic view of just who welfare recipients are.Fair enough. Perhaps we both agree that climate science has taken on the characteristics of a welfare recipient. Lose your individuality and tick off the right boxes on the form and you will get paid.
Federal budget and Census data show that with welfare recipients,
53% of people are 65 and up.
20% of people are disabled.
18% have jobs with sub-survival pay.
9% goes to households with non-elderly, non-disabled people, without jobs.
Much of that 9% involves health care and unemployment insurance.
A small fraction of of that 9% are "welfare queens". Yet the right wing acts as though they are the majority of welfare recipients.
If you think too much money is diverted to welfare, I am not going to argue that point. But you really need to look at the wider problem of what to do with these people. "Get a job" does not answer the problem since only 9% are without a job when you subtract those who are too old to work, too disabled, or receiving sub-survival pay.
Well, the asshole conservatives want to give kids the opportunity to choose a good school and the libturds here call them evil. It's called vouchers, read about it. It's fkn amazing how US libturds want to suppress young poor kidsPeople who can't afford kids shouldn't have ten and then cry,I also don't see why those who get welfare money can't actually do community work.I really hate to belabor this off-topic sidetrack, but I really hate it when right-wingers have such a simplistic view of just who welfare recipients are.Fair enough. Perhaps we both agree that climate science has taken on the characteristics of a welfare recipient. Lose your individuality and tick off the right boxes on the form and you will get paid.
Federal budget and Census data show that with welfare recipients,
53% of people are 65 and up.
20% of people are disabled.
18% have jobs with sub-survival pay.
9% goes to households with non-elderly, non-disabled people, without jobs.
Much of that 9% involves health care and unemployment insurance.
A small fraction of of that 9% are "welfare queens". Yet the right wing acts as though they are the majority of welfare recipients.
If you think too much money is diverted to welfare, I am not going to argue that point. But you really need to look at the wider problem of what to do with these people. "Get a job" does not answer the problem since only 9% are without a job when you subtract those who are too old to work, too disabled, or receiving sub-survival pay.
All kids should have enough to eat and a basic education.
Again, what pisses me off is when people think it is unfair for me to give my three children my time and resources.
I spent ten years actively supporting my local elementary school, very multicultural I might add, before seeing the light and sending them off to private school.
I am not rich but I thought it was the best choice. I may be liberal but I'm not stupid.
but I’m coming to the conclusion that the statute of limitations for applying scientific rigor to dendro papers is exactly equal the time delay in releasing data necessary to perform such analysis.
Rob W says: NO MORE TIME SHOULD BE WASTED ON A STUDY THAT IS 10 YEARS OLD AND A NEW SUBSTANTIAL UPDATE IS NOW AVAILABLE.
Steve M says:One of the problems with saying this is that it took more than 8 years to archive the measurement data and chronologies for D’Arrigo et al 2006, so that it was impossible to comment on it at the time.
but I’m coming to the conclusion that the statute of limitations for applying scientific rigor to dendro papers is exactly equal the time delay in releasing data necessary to perform such analysis.
hahahahaha. astute comment from the gallery in response to -
Rob W says: NO MORE TIME SHOULD BE WASTED ON A STUDY THAT IS 10 YEARS OLD AND A NEW SUBSTANTIAL UPDATE IS NOW AVAILABLE.
Steve M says:One of the problems with saying this is that it took more than 8 years to archive the measurement data and chronologies for D’Arrigo et al 2006, so that it was impossible to comment on it at the time.
(for those who dont know the backstory, D'arrigo 2006 data was withheld from McIntyre when he was invited to be an expert reviewer for AR4. the climategate emails detailed the furious behind closed doors efforts to block any release of data)
I also don't see why those who get welfare money can't actually do community work.I really hate to belabor this off-topic sidetrack, but I really hate it when right-wingers have such a simplistic view of just who welfare recipients are.Fair enough. Perhaps we both agree that climate science has taken on the characteristics of a welfare recipient. Lose your individuality and tick off the right boxes on the form and you will get paid.
Federal budget and Census data show that with welfare recipients,
53% of people are 65 and up.
20% of people are disabled.
18% have jobs with sub-survival pay.
9% goes to households with non-elderly, non-disabled people, without jobs.
Much of that 9% involves health care and unemployment insurance.
A small fraction of of that 9% are "welfare queens". Yet the right wing acts as though they are the majority of welfare recipients.
If you think too much money is diverted to welfare, I am not going to argue that point. But you really need to look at the wider problem of what to do with these people. "Get a job" does not answer the problem since only 9% are without a job when you subtract those who are too old to work, too disabled, or receiving sub-survival pay.
Just who is ignorant? You are really ignorant of what welfare is. You are drawing conclusions based on the smell of your farts. Read my post #19 on this thread. Here I will re-post it verbatim for you. Be sure to read the bold faced phrase below.So by your estimation of people who paid into social security all of their lives, once drawing it are welfare recipients? And the same goes for medicare?
you really are ignorant.
Crick had a tread called 'where is the confession'. I keep showing him the proof and he keeps ignoring it.
You can't fix willful stupidity.
Crick had a tread called 'where is the confession'. I keep showing him the proof and he keeps ignoring it.
I just scanned that whole thread. The only two "confessions" presented by deniers concerned a guy named "Ottmar", and a joke email from 1996.
You can't fix willful stupidity.
Being you brought up that thread as an example of deniers producing a confession, you must believe it contained such examples.
Do you consider the conspiracy theory about how Dread Lord Ottmar is forcing socialism on the world to be the "confession"?
Or is it the conspiracy theory that "a joke email from 1996 was actually a nefarious plot" that you believe to be the "confession"?
Why are you so anti-science?No, it's a way of saying don't use defective data.
No, it's called confirmation bias. And if you cannot understand that it is not sound science you simply lack the ability to think logically.No, it's a way of saying don't use defective data.
No, it's called confirmation bias. And if you cannot understand that it is not sound science you simply lack the ability to think logically.No, it's a way of saying don't use defective data.
Crick, Old Rocks and mamooth think that holding climate science to normal scientific standards is unfair.
Why? Because if they couldn't cherrypick then there wouldn't be anything scary enough to stampede the govts or the populace.
As Wegman showed, climate scientists are unwilling to go down the corridor and ask the statisticians whether their methodologies are defendable. Or perhaps they have and didn't like the answers they got.
Crick, Old Rocks and mamooth think that holding climate science to normal scientific standards is unfair.
Actually, we think you're a deluded cult hack who parrots cherrypicked nonsense, being that's what the evidence indicates. We think of you much like we'd think of an antivaxxer screaming about how bad vaccine science is. Scream all you want, but nobody has to pay attention.
Why? Because if they couldn't cherrypick then there wouldn't be anything scary enough to stampede the govts or the populace.
Then maybe you should stop your chronic cherrypicking, no? Just a thought. Of course, you wouldn't be able to post if you stopped cherrypicking, so that is a problem for you.
As Wegman showed, climate scientists are unwilling to go down the corridor and ask the statisticians whether their methodologies are defendable. Or perhaps they have and didn't like the answers they got.
Or perhaps Wegman was a fraud. Why yes, that was the case.
Wegman Report - RationalWiki
Even deniers even used to be willing to admit to that. Alas, with pickins' now being so slim in Denierstan, deniers can't be choosy about their talking points, so some of them have been reduced to embracing the 10-year-old Wegman fraud.
