So how much does the US spend on social welfare? And who exactly SHOULD pay?

[Sunshine]

So how much does the US spend on social welfare? The answer to that question may differ according to one's political leaning.

It seems that there are some who think the richer we can keep rich people, the more job possibilities there will be out there for them. Those same ones completely discount that ALL of the social welfare money goes right back into the economy because the recipients spend it all almost immediately. And this creates jobs as well.

There also seems to be some misconception that social welfare recipients are able to work but choose not to work. Is this really the case? Are you aware that you can disable someone by giving them cradle to grave protection. I've worked with a fairly large cohort of this population and, yes, some have given up their freedom for security, as Maslow describes in his seminal work about the hierarchy of needs. But once they have crossed that break I see very little possibility of EVER getting them back into the work force again. And most truly need the social welfare due to mental illness, low IQ, or just being 'stuck' where they are. Think about it. They can't ALL work at the local fast food joint. Some, maybe yes, but the rest who have no transportation would have to spend the biggest part of their income on work expenses like transportation. That is VERY stifling to the motivation to work.

IMO, it seems to me that care for this contingent of people, whether they need it or not, and most DO need it, has fallen to the middle class, and yet, it isn't really the middle class that has created the demographic. Bearing that in mind, then why doesn't the richest 1% just directly support the poorest 10% of the American population and leave the middle class competely out of it. After all that richest 1% holds roughly 95% of the wealth of the US.

I was thinking about this yesterday when contemplating an income tax in the town where I work. I don't live in that town, and I don't get to vote on anything there, yet that town taxes me 2% of my earnings there just because I work on their soil. Then I hauled out my pay stub and added up ALL the taxes I paid for one month. When I compared that to what SS estimates I will have to live on when I retire, I pay $1000 more a month in taxes than I will have as income as a Social Security recipient. What's wrong with this picture?

 

[Sunshine]

This thread has possibilities for discussion on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[MikeK]

Sunshine,

The answer to the question you've posed is staring us in the face. But the eyes of the indoctrinated right-wing acolytes have been closed to it.


The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

The decades between the 50s and the 80s were the most prosperous years in our history as well as the time when the American middle class came to power. Then came Reaganomics and here we are.

Keep in mind that Clinton left the economy with a projected surplus. George W. Bush, acting in the interest of the emerging corporatocracy, set about to cripple the middle class by destroying the economy, which he deliberately and methodically did by initiating two major, un-budgeted military adventures and imposing drastic tax reductions on the upper income levels.

If he had not done those things we would not be having these problems.

 

[Anachronism]

Sunshine, I would suggest that the only LEGITIMATE Social Welfare spending by the Federal Government is for military retirees, disabled veterans, and pensions for the small handful of individuals who have spent their entire career in the limited number of legitimate Federal Jobs (FBI, Secret Service, USPS, etc...)

 

[Sunshine]

Sunshine,

The answer to the question you've posed is staring us in the face. But the eyes of the indoctrinated right-wing acolytes have been closed to it.


The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

The decades between the 50s and the 80s were the most prosperous years in our history as well as the time when the American middle class came to power. Then came Reaganomics and here we are.

Keep in mind that Clinton left the economy with a projected surplus. George W. Bush, acting in the interest of the emerging corporatocracy, set about to cripple the middle class by destroying the economy, which he deliberately and methodically did by initiating two major, un-budgeted military adventures and imposing drastic tax reductions on the upper income levels.

If he had not done those things we would not be having these problems.

Interesting take. I find it amazing that as this critical time in our history plays out, the bail outs of both businesses and individuals over the last few years are completely ignored, once again putting those middle class people who are still actually working on the hot seat.

I find it disgusting that I pay 1K more in taxes each month that I will have to live on as a retired person. And that I have to pay taxes to a city where I have no representation. That is patently wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As everyone benefits, everyone should ‘pay.’

Consumers enjoy low prices at Walmart and Target benefit of public assistance. Food Stamps and Medicaid allow retailers to pay their employees who are on public assistance low wages and avoid providing comprehensive health insurance. The tiny percentage that comes out of your paycheck to fund public assistance programs is far less than what you’d pay at Walmart or Target if those and other employers had to pay their employees a living wage.

Consequently, public assistance is a great bargain for consumers, no one should be complaining.

 

[Sunshine]

As everyone benefits, everyone should ‘pay.’

Consumers enjoy low prices at Walmart and Target benefit of public assistance. Food Stamps and Medicaid allow retailers to pay their employees who are on public assistance low wages and avoid providing comprehensive health insurance. The tiny percentage that comes out of your paycheck to fund public assistance programs is far less than what you’d pay at Walmart or Target if those and other employers had to pay their employees a living wage.

Consequently, public assistance is a great bargain for consumers, no one should be complaining.

I am willing to acknowledge that public assistance in the past has had a stabilizing impact during economic downturns.

But comparing the 3 cents I save on shampoo to the income of that company or the manufacturer is ridiculous. It is not the middle class that benefits so greatly.

 

[Wiseacre]

Let me focus on the 2nd question. Regardless of how much we decide to spend on social welfare, how and who should pay for it? Here's the deal: liberals always think about SHOULD, and FAIR, instead of wise and effective. They expect to tax the wealthier people more and more, as though those people have an endless supply of money and they can't or won't go elsewhere and take that money with them. Both notions are false, there are many other countries on Earth where money can be made and taxed a lot less. There are also lawyers and tax experts that can find all sorts of ways to avoid paying higher taxes.

The upshot is, if you raise taxes on the rich you disincentivize people with the most capital to invest it here in our economy, now how dumb is that? It's a global economy now, and money will flow to places where it provides the greatest return on investment.

What we really need is to shrink the financial burden for that social contract. People are better off with a job than they are with a gov't handout, we should be pursuing policies that get as many people as possible off the dole. Instead of trying to increase the tax load onto the most successful among us, we oughta be focused on growing the economy and creating as many new jobs as possible. Liberals want a bigger slice of the same pie; I want the same slice out of a bigger pie. Why is that better? Cuz a bigger pie means more people with a job.

 

[Leweman]

Sunshine,

The answer to the question you've posed is staring us in the face. But the eyes of the indoctrinated right-wing acolytes have been closed to it.


The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

The decades between the 50s and the 80s were the most prosperous years in our history as well as the time when the American middle class came to power. Then came Reaganomics and here we are.

Keep in mind that Clinton left the economy with a projected surplus. George W. Bush, acting in the interest of the emerging corporatocracy, set about to cripple the middle class by destroying the economy, which he deliberately and methodically did by initiating two major, un-budgeted military adventures and imposing drastic tax reductions on the upper income levels.

If he had not done those things we would not be having these problems.

Things were socially a lot different in the 1950's are you willing to go back to everything as it was including tax rates? hmmmmmmmmmm? Also I think youre forgetting some years there in the late 70's early 80's were things weren't so great. I'm sure it slipped your mind.

 

[Sunshine]

Let me focus on the 2nd question. Regardless of how much we decide to spend on social welfare, how and who should pay for it? Here's the deal: liberals always think about SHOULD, and FAIR, instead of wise and effective. They expect to tax the wealthier people more and more, as though those people have an endless supply of money and they can't or won't go elsewhere and take that money with them. Both notions are false, there are many other countries on Earth where money can be made and taxed a lot less. There are also lawyers and tax experts that can find all sorts of ways to avoid paying higher taxes.

The upshot is, if you raise taxes on the rich you disincentivize people with the most capital to invest it here in our economy, now how dumb is that? It's a global economy now, and money will flow to places where it provides the greatest return on investment.

What we really need is to shrink the financial burden for that social contract. People are better off with a job than they are with a gov't handout, we should be pursuing policies that get as many people as possible off the dole. Instead of trying to increase the tax load onto the most successful among us, we oughta be focused on growing the economy and creating as many new jobs as possible. Liberals want a bigger slice of the same pie; I want the same slice out of a bigger pie. Why is that better? Cuz a bigger pie means more people with a job.

I have seen many 'policies to get people off the dole.' They don't work because those people are secure in what they have and they have decided to live on it. Besides, they have no skills. By the time they pay their work expenses, their earning power is less than what they get on the 'dole.' You live in a dream world if you think you can change what is.

As to taking jobs off shore......did you sleep through the last 20 years?

1% of the population holds 95% of the wealth. They couldn't care less if you or I have a job or not.

 

[Wiseacre]

Let me focus on the 2nd question. Regardless of how much we decide to spend on social welfare, how and who should pay for it? Here's the deal: liberals always think about SHOULD, and FAIR, instead of wise and effective. They expect to tax the wealthier people more and more, as though those people have an endless supply of money and they can't or won't go elsewhere and take that money with them. Both notions are false, there are many other countries on Earth where money can be made and taxed a lot less. There are also lawyers and tax experts that can find all sorts of ways to avoid paying higher taxes.

The upshot is, if you raise taxes on the rich you disincentivize people with the most capital to invest it here in our economy, now how dumb is that? It's a global economy now, and money will flow to places where it provides the greatest return on investment.

What we really need is to shrink the financial burden for that social contract. People are better off with a job than they are with a gov't handout, we should be pursuing policies that get as many people as possible off the dole. Instead of trying to increase the tax load onto the most successful among us, we oughta be focused on growing the economy and creating as many new jobs as possible. Liberals want a bigger slice of the same pie; I want the same slice out of a bigger pie. Why is that better? Cuz a bigger pie means more people with a job.

I have seen many 'policies to get people off the dole.' They don't work because those people are secure in what they have and they have decided to live on it. Besides, they have no skills. By the time they pay their work expenses, their earning power is less than what they get on the 'dole.' You live in a dream world if you think you can change what is.

As to taking jobs off shore......did you sleep through the last 20 years?

1% of the population holds 95% of the wealth. They couldn't care less if you or I have a job or not.

Watch that lip sweetie, I made a serious response to your thread and you're giving me crap for it?

I seem to recall back in the lates 90's a significant reform was done to welfare and a lot of people WERE moved off the 'dole'. It can be done if we can crearte an economy that produces more jobs for them to work.

Wasn't talking about shipping jobs overseas, I was talking about US and foreign investors who are not investing here any more. We need to change that, and no I did not sleep through the last 20 years.

I don't give a rat's ass what the rich guys think. The bottom line is, jobs will be created if and when it becomes profitable to do so. When the likelihood of more profit is greater than the possibilityof losing money then you'll see a pickup. Right now, the reverse is true and as long as that is the case then northing good is going to happen.

 

[Sunshine]

Let me focus on the 2nd question. Regardless of how much we decide to spend on social welfare, how and who should pay for it? Here's the deal: liberals always think about SHOULD, and FAIR, instead of wise and effective. They expect to tax the wealthier people more and more, as though those people have an endless supply of money and they can't or won't go elsewhere and take that money with them. Both notions are false, there are many other countries on Earth where money can be made and taxed a lot less. There are also lawyers and tax experts that can find all sorts of ways to avoid paying higher taxes.

The upshot is, if you raise taxes on the rich you disincentivize people with the most capital to invest it here in our economy, now how dumb is that? It's a global economy now, and money will flow to places where it provides the greatest return on investment.

What we really need is to shrink the financial burden for that social contract. People are better off with a job than they are with a gov't handout, we should be pursuing policies that get as many people as possible off the dole. Instead of trying to increase the tax load onto the most successful among us, we oughta be focused on growing the economy and creating as many new jobs as possible. Liberals want a bigger slice of the same pie; I want the same slice out of a bigger pie. Why is that better? Cuz a bigger pie means more people with a job.

I have seen many 'policies to get people off the dole.' They don't work because those people are secure in what they have and they have decided to live on it. Besides, they have no skills. By the time they pay their work expenses, their earning power is less than what they get on the 'dole.' You live in a dream world if you think you can change what is.

As to taking jobs off shore......did you sleep through the last 20 years?

1% of the population holds 95% of the wealth. They couldn't care less if you or I have a job or not.

Watch that lip sweetie, I made a serious response to your thread and you're giving me crap for it?

I seem to recall back in the lates 90's a significant reform was done to welfare and a lot of people WERE moved off the 'dole'. It can be done if we can crearte an economy that produces more jobs for them to work.

Wasn't talking about shipping jobs overseas, I was talking about US and foreign investors who are not investing here any more. We need to change that, and no I did not sleep through the last 20 years.

I don't give a rat's ass what the rich guys think. The bottom line is, jobs will be created if and when it becomes profitable to do so. When the likelihood of more profit is greater than the possibilityof losing money then you'll see a pickup. Right now, the reverse is true and as long as that is the case then northing good is going to happen.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0197c.asp

Any reform, of course, will be unsatisfactory because welfare begins with a flawed principle at its very core. By its nature, re-form leaves that principle intact.

So you think that 1% of people go to bed every night dreaming of how to create a job for you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

As everyone benefits, everyone should ‘pay.’

Consumers enjoy low prices at Walmart and Target benefit of public assistance. Food Stamps and Medicaid allow retailers to pay their employees who are on public assistance low wages and avoid providing comprehensive health insurance. The tiny percentage that comes out of your paycheck to fund public assistance programs is far less than what you’d pay at Walmart or Target if those and other employers had to pay their employees a living wage.

Consequently, public assistance is a great bargain for consumers, no one should be complaining.

Under Clinton and a Republican House welfare reform was enacted and TANF replaced AFDC. Public assistance is now a responsibity of the States, and many states have transferred much of the responsibilty for the care of the indigent - in particular healthcare and treatement - to local jurisdicitions.

[FYI, When I first become employed in law enforcement FBI rap sheets showed arrests in some states - exclusively the South - with dispositons as "Floater". What that meant was that indigents arrested for vagrancy or drunkedness or petty crimes were floated to the county line, or put on a greyhound bus to California.]

 

[Sunshine]

As everyone benefits, everyone should ‘pay.’

Consumers enjoy low prices at Walmart and Target benefit of public assistance. Food Stamps and Medicaid allow retailers to pay their employees who are on public assistance low wages and avoid providing comprehensive health insurance. The tiny percentage that comes out of your paycheck to fund public assistance programs is far less than what you’d pay at Walmart or Target if those and other employers had to pay their employees a living wage.

Consequently, public assistance is a great bargain for consumers, no one should be complaining.

Under Clinton and a Republican House welfare reform was enacted and TANF replaced AFDC. Public assistance is now a responsibity of the States, and many states have transferred much of the responsibilty for the care of the indigent - in particular healthcare and treatement - to local jurisdicitions.

[FYI, When I first become employed in law enforcement FBI rap sheets showed arrests in some states - exclusively the South - with dispositons as "Floater". What that meant was that indigents arrested for vagrancy or drunkedness or petty crimes were floated to the county line, or put on a greyhound bus to California.]

Ah yes! Greyhound therapy!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let me focus on the 2nd question. Regardless of how much we decide to spend on social welfare, how and who should pay for it? Here's the deal: liberals always think about SHOULD, and FAIR, instead of wise and effective. They expect to tax the wealthier people more and more, as though those people have an endless supply of money and they can't or won't go elsewhere and take that money with them. Both notions are false, there are many other countries on Earth where money can be made and taxed a lot less. There are also lawyers and tax experts that can find all sorts of ways to avoid paying higher taxes.

The upshot is, if you raise taxes on the rich you disincentivize people with the most capital to invest it here in our economy, now how dumb is that? It's a global economy now, and money will flow to places where it provides the greatest return on investment.

What we really need is to shrink the financial burden for that social contract. People are better off with a job than they are with a gov't handout, we should be pursuing policies that get as many people as possible off the dole. Instead of trying to increase the tax load onto the most successful among us, we oughta be focused on growing the economy and creating as many new jobs as possible. Liberals want a bigger slice of the same pie; I want the same slice out of a bigger pie. Why is that better? Cuz a bigger pie means more people with a job.

I have seen many 'policies to get people off the dole.' They don't work because those people are secure in what they have and they have decided to live on it. Besides, they have no skills. By the time they pay their work expenses, their earning power is less than what they get on the 'dole.' You live in a dream world if you think you can change what is.

As to taking jobs off shore......did you sleep through the last 20 years?

1% of the population holds 95% of the wealth. They couldn't care less if you or I have a job or not.

My experience is that you are correct; but today public assistance has changed. People still subsist, barely and no one thrives; income is suppemented by fraud and petty (and not so petty) crime. Since much of the crime exists in poverty stricken neighborhoods the victims are generally the poor, so policy makers and voters don't really care, or if they do care they do it in an abstract way.

The war on poverty is a failure, as are the wars on drugs and terrorism.

Incarceration of petty criminals has spiked the gang problem in our nation, the costs to house and provide medical care for inmates is a great burden to many states. Republicans want to prevent Correctional Officers from collective bargining and reduce their benefits. The current crop of radical conservatives are no different from the welfare moms they so despise; callous conseratives want to be safe, be protected by men and women doing jobs they will not or can not do and reduce their pay and benefits.

 

[Sunshine]

Let me focus on the 2nd question. Regardless of how much we decide to spend on social welfare, how and who should pay for it? Here's the deal: liberals always think about SHOULD, and FAIR, instead of wise and effective. They expect to tax the wealthier people more and more, as though those people have an endless supply of money and they can't or won't go elsewhere and take that money with them. Both notions are false, there are many other countries on Earth where money can be made and taxed a lot less. There are also lawyers and tax experts that can find all sorts of ways to avoid paying higher taxes.

The upshot is, if you raise taxes on the rich you disincentivize people with the most capital to invest it here in our economy, now how dumb is that? It's a global economy now, and money will flow to places where it provides the greatest return on investment.

What we really need is to shrink the financial burden for that social contract. People are better off with a job than they are with a gov't handout, we should be pursuing policies that get as many people as possible off the dole. Instead of trying to increase the tax load onto the most successful among us, we oughta be focused on growing the economy and creating as many new jobs as possible. Liberals want a bigger slice of the same pie; I want the same slice out of a bigger pie. Why is that better? Cuz a bigger pie means more people with a job.

I have seen many 'policies to get people off the dole.' They don't work because those people are secure in what they have and they have decided to live on it. Besides, they have no skills. By the time they pay their work expenses, their earning power is less than what they get on the 'dole.' You live in a dream world if you think you can change what is.

As to taking jobs off shore......did you sleep through the last 20 years?

1% of the population holds 95% of the wealth. They couldn't care less if you or I have a job or not.

My experience is that you are correct; but today public assistance has changed. People still subsist, barely and no one thrives; income is suppemented by fraud and petty (and not so petty) crime. Since much of the crime exists in poverty stricken neighborhoods the victims are generally the poor, so policy makers and voters don't really care, or if they do care they do it in an abstract way.

The war on poverty is a failure, as are the wars on drugs and terrorism.

My experience working in the projects is that there is definitely a 'culture' there. And in many cases, they are proud of that culture. A few years back in Nashville, a couple of reporters moved into a subsidized apartment in order to capture a story. OH, they got their story alright, but they also got a lot of flack. The more kinds of things which became exposed, such as the fact that many of the apartments are expensively furnished, the more the residents pushed back and insisted that there was a positive sense of 'community' there. There is no 'shame' to being on the dole as there would have been in my parents' day.

As to the crime there, yes, there IS a lot of crime there. When working there, I heard gunshots. That is a price you pay. But you have to admit when the only well to do role model kids have is the neighborhood pimp, and the only cool car they see is the gold plated pimp mobile, the motivation doesn't get much better. Many people there think it is a disgrace to work an 8 hour day. I have a social worker friend who is forever dealing with this. Anyone who thinks a program or a policy will do away with generational poverty is sadly mistaken.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I have seen many 'policies to get people off the dole.' They don't work because those people are secure in what they have and they have decided to live on it. Besides, they have no skills. By the time they pay their work expenses, their earning power is less than what they get on the 'dole.' You live in a dream world if you think you can change what is.

As to taking jobs off shore......did you sleep through the last 20 years?

1% of the population holds 95% of the wealth. They couldn't care less if you or I have a job or not.

My experience is that you are correct; but today public assistance has changed. People still subsist, barely and no one thrives; income is suppemented by fraud and petty (and not so petty) crime. Since much of the crime exists in poverty stricken neighborhoods the victims are generally the poor, so policy makers and voters don't really care, or if they do care they do it in an abstract way.

The war on poverty is a failure, as are the wars on drugs and terrorism.

My experience working in the projects is that there is definitely a 'culture' there. And in many cases, they are proud of that culture. A few years back in Nashville, a couple of reporters moved into a subsidized apartment in order to capture a story. OH, they got their story alright, but they also got a lot of flack. The more kinds of things which became exposed, such as the fact that many of the apartments are expensively furnished, the more the residents pushed back and insisted that there was a positive sense of 'community' there. There is no 'shame' to being on the dole as there would have been in my parents' day.

As to the crime there, yes, there IS a lot of crime there. When working there, I heard gunshots. That is a price you pay. But you have to admit when the only well to do role model kids have is the neighborhood pimp, and the only cool car they see is the gold plated pimp mobile, the motivation doesn't get much better. Many people there think it is a disgrace to work an 8 hour day. I have a social worker friend who is forever dealing with this. Anyone who thinks a program or a policy will do away with generational poverty is sadly mistaken.

As to the culture I have to agree, but there are role models and not every kid or family buys into the criminality. In college I worked as a Recreation Director at a facility directly next to a 'project'. This housing development is today much more dangerous than it was in 1969, and that is the only change.

Then I was able to break up fist fights and on occasion a knife or belt fight - kids then would have belts with sharp buckles and swing them at their opponent. Today guns proliferate.

 

[MoistTrout]

So how much does the US spend on social welfare? The answer to that question may differ according to one's political leaning.

It seems that there are some who think the richer we can keep rich people, the more job possibilities there will be out there for them. Those same ones completely discount that ALL of the social welfare money goes right back into the economy because the recipients spend it all almost immediately. And this creates jobs as well.

There also seems to be some misconception that social welfare recipients are able to work but choose not to work. Is this really the case? Are you aware that you can disable someone by giving them cradle to grave protection. I've worked with a fairly large cohort of this population and, yes, some have given up their freedom for security, as Maslow describes in his seminal work about the hierarchy of needs. But once they have crossed that break I see very little possibility of EVER getting them back into the work force again. And most truly need the social welfare due to mental illness, low IQ, or just being 'stuck' where they are. Think about it. They can't ALL work at the local fast food joint. Some, maybe yes, but the rest who have no transportation would have to spend the biggest part of their income on work expenses like transportation. That is VERY stifling to the motivation to work.

IMO, it seems to me that care for this contingent of people, whether they need it or not, and most DO need it, has fallen to the middle class, and yet, it isn't really the middle class that has created the demographic. Bearing that in mind, then why doesn't the richest 1% just directly support the poorest 10% of the American population and leave the middle class competely out of it. After all that richest 1% holds roughly 95% of the wealth of the US.

I was thinking about this yesterday when contemplating an income tax in the town where I work. I don't live in that town, and I don't get to vote on anything there, yet that town taxes me 2% of my earnings there just because I work on their soil. Then I hauled out my pay stub and added up ALL the taxes I paid for one month. When I compared that to what SS estimates I will have to live on when I retire, I pay $1000 more a month in taxes than I will have as income as a Social Security recipient. What's wrong with this picture?

I'll let someone else decide what "everybody" thinks, but I'll give you my opinion.

To me, it's certainly not about helping the rich stay rich, it's about not letting the government come in and take something just because someone has it. Look at the situation with the federal government now. President Obama goes on a massive spending spree in his first year, and with his party in control of congress there's really nothing to keep him in check. Now, suddenly, "Hey! We need more money!"

If the government stopped pissing money away, there wouldn't be a need for tax increases on anybody. Not to mention, when you take away from the top of the totem pole, who is it really affecting? It's not the people in the offices wearing suits and golfing in the afternoon that end up on the short end of the stick when cuts are made to make up for higher taxes. It's the people driving the trucks and working the counter in the stores that will lose their jobs. Raise taxes enough, and everybody loses their job because they move the operation to India or China.

I don't have a problem for social programs for people that need them. What I have a problem with is how some people define need, and how the government runs them. Recognize the fact or not, there are a lot of people living off the government that are perfectly capable of working, they just choose not to as long as they are getting their free money. Of course, part of the problem is the government has injected so many regulations and forced so many rules into the private sector, it has made it almost impossible for someone that does just need a leg up to swing that leg over. Once some people are on these assistance programs, they are stuck there even of they do want to get off them.

Have you applied for a blue collar job lately? By that I mean factory work, or any kind of work that would be readily available to people that rely on these programs. I'm just old enough to remember when you could go in and apply for a job, get hired, and start work that day. Now, it can be as much as a month long process just to get through the door, then there is often a probationary period before you are allowed on insurance plans, etc. If the government eases up on some of the regulations they say are there to help people, they might actually start helping people.

Another problem with taxes is it often digs deeper than some people seem to realize. A friend of mine makes just over $100,000 a year, and that puts him in the catagory of "rich" in a lot of these conversations. I assure you, when he is putting in 60 to 80 hour weeks, getting up in the middle of the night to do things that most people reading this wouldn't be willing to do, he doesn't feel much like a rich man. A lot of these tax hikes that are justified by people thrusting a finger at Bill Gates affect Justin Chiricos just as much, the difference being you don't know Justin and he doesn't have nearly as much money as Bill.

So, my point... and I do have one... is government assistance is fine, but pull on the reins from time to time. For far too long people have used generic tugs on the heart strings to justify pumping more money into programs that are failing. We can expect assitance for people that need it, but can't we also expect more quality assistance for the money that is spent?

 

[Sunshine]

So how much does the US spend on social welfare? The answer to that question may differ according to one's political leaning.

It seems that there are some who think the richer we can keep rich people, the more job possibilities there will be out there for them. Those same ones completely discount that ALL of the social welfare money goes right back into the economy because the recipients spend it all almost immediately. And this creates jobs as well.

There also seems to be some misconception that social welfare recipients are able to work but choose not to work. Is this really the case? Are you aware that you can disable someone by giving them cradle to grave protection. I've worked with a fairly large cohort of this population and, yes, some have given up their freedom for security, as Maslow describes in his seminal work about the hierarchy of needs. But once they have crossed that break I see very little possibility of EVER getting them back into the work force again. And most truly need the social welfare due to mental illness, low IQ, or just being 'stuck' where they are. Think about it. They can't ALL work at the local fast food joint. Some, maybe yes, but the rest who have no transportation would have to spend the biggest part of their income on work expenses like transportation. That is VERY stifling to the motivation to work.

IMO, it seems to me that care for this contingent of people, whether they need it or not, and most DO need it, has fallen to the middle class, and yet, it isn't really the middle class that has created the demographic. Bearing that in mind, then why doesn't the richest 1% just directly support the poorest 10% of the American population and leave the middle class competely out of it. After all that richest 1% holds roughly 95% of the wealth of the US.

I was thinking about this yesterday when contemplating an income tax in the town where I work. I don't live in that town, and I don't get to vote on anything there, yet that town taxes me 2% of my earnings there just because I work on their soil. Then I hauled out my pay stub and added up ALL the taxes I paid for one month. When I compared that to what SS estimates I will have to live on when I retire, I pay $1000 more a month in taxes than I will have as income as a Social Security recipient. What's wrong with this picture?

I'll let someone else decide what "everybody" thinks, but I'll give you my opinion.

To me, it's certainly not about helping the rich stay rich, it's about not letting the government come in and take something just because someone has it. Look at the situation with the federal government now. President Obama goes on a massive spending spree in his first year, and with his party in control of congress there's really nothing to keep him in check. Now, suddenly, "Hey! We need more money!"

If the government stopped pissing money away, there wouldn't be a need for tax increases on anybody. Not to mention, when you take away from the top of the totem pole, who is it really affecting? It's not the people in the offices wearing suits and golfing in the afternoon that end up on the short end of the stick when cuts are made to make up for higher taxes. It's the people driving the trucks and working the counter in the stores that will lose their jobs. Raise taxes enough, and everybody loses their job because they move the operation to India or China.

I don't have a problem for social programs for people that need them. What I have a problem with is how some people define need, and how the government runs them. Recognize the fact or not, there are a lot of people living off the government that are perfectly capable of working, they just choose not to as long as they are getting their free money. Of course, part of the problem is the government has injected so many regulations and forced so many rules into the private sector, it has made it almost impossible for someone that does just need a leg up to swing that leg over. Once some people are on these assistance programs, they are stuck there even of they do want to get off them.

Have you applied for a blue collar job lately? By that I mean factory work, or any kind of work that would be readily available to people that rely on these programs. I'm just old enough to remember when you could go in and apply for a job, get hired, and start work that day. Now, it can be as much as a month long process just to get through the door, then there is often a probationary period before you are allowed on insurance plans, etc. If the government eases up on some of the regulations they say are there to help people, they might actually start helping people.

Another problem with taxes is it often digs deeper than some people seem to realize. A friend of mine makes just over $100,000 a year, and that puts him in the catagory of "rich" in a lot of these conversations. I assure you, when he is putting in 60 to 80 hour weeks, getting up in the middle of the night to do things that most people reading this wouldn't be willing to do, he doesn't feel much like a rich man. A lot of these tax hikes that are justified by people thrusting a finger at Bill Gates affect Justin Chiricos just as much, the difference being you don't know Justin and he doesn't have nearly as much money as Bill.

So, my point... and I do have one... is government assistance is fine, but pull on the reins from time to time. For far too long people have used generic tugs on the heart strings to justify pumping more money into programs that are failing. We can expect assitance for people that need it, but can't we also expect more quality assistance for the money that is spent?

No, I have not looked for a blue collar job. I am an NP and jobs still come to me. There was a call on my voice mail a few weeks ago for a staff level nurse. The pay was $590/shift. I no longer do shift work, and my pay is in the range of your friends. But I only get to take home about 2/3 of what I make. I think the high rollers, you know, the ones who hold 95% of the wealth should start picking up more of the tab.

 

[daveman]

Let's do some math.

The givens:

1. The US population is 311,830,142.

2. The richest 1%: 3,118,301.

3. The poorest 10%: 31,183,014.

4. The Department of Health and Human Services' poverty guidelines for 2010, assuming a family of 4 in the lower 48 states: $22,050.

The total cost of providing poverty-level income to the poorest 10% of the population: $687,585,458,700 -- almost 700 billion dollars.

Cost to each of the richest 1%: 220,500.