The Facts About Americans Who Receive Public Benefits

and may I add..lf we Didn't work, there wouldn't have been a paycheck to take any money from for anything. :)

Fact: Most public benefits targeting low-income Americans are not paid in cash

No, just cash-equivilants.

Yep, like directly to the grocer instead of the liquor store.

It's still money.

The trouble is, Wize, "your money" was either given out to the recipients-du-jour, or used to pay for all the programs we collectively wanted. It's quite understandable that most of today's recipients want to far distance themselves from "those people", the "lazy bums who never worked". The fact is that AFDC, unemployment, Social Security and all the rest are all money taken from somebody else, or borrowed, and handed out. All the programs should be based on need instead of greed. We simply can't afford the greedfest any more.

Studiusbagus

What's your point, in #2.3?

flameaway, the point that "Cash equiv." as opposed to cash directly to the beneficiary has more control to direct the money where it was intended. S.N.A.P is a debit card program. What's purchased and when and where it goes is much more easily tracked and therefore much more likely to be spent where it should be and not used like a secondary currency as "food stamps" were.

The system may still be handing out money, but it has improved greatly over the last couple years as to where it actually goes.

Ah, okay. Thanks for spelling it out for me.

Has any research been done concerning what percetage of food stamps funds were being spent in a liquor store, for liquor?

I'm assuming from your explanation, that we can now be damn sure none of it is?

Still, I'd like to know how big a problem we fixed here with SNAP.

Are there fees on SNAP cards?

Who gets the fees?

flameaway: The way the SNAP cards work is everything, food and non-food items, can be rung up on one ticket, but, when the card is swiped it will only pay for the food items. The recipient must then pay with out means for all the non-food items (whether that be liqour, toilet paper, band-aids, diapers, etc., etc.). The only way a non-food item will be paid for by SNAP benefits is if the retailer rings up the transaction in error or fraudulently. There are no fees for the recipient to use the card. I don't know if the store has to pay a fee (like they do when someone uses a credit card).

AFDC, unemployment, Social Security.........All the programs should be based on need

What makes you think those are not needs based?

For example, the Lone Star Card has two programs attached to it.

SNAP and TANF

Snap money cannot be used for alcohol. But you can get cash back for TANF for a fee. It's all on the same card, BTW.

Gosh you can use cash for damn near anything...

:)

Are fees better than booze?

flameaway: Most states put both cash assistance and SNAP benefits on the same card when the individual qualifies for both. HOWEVER, MOST people don't qualify for both. Furthermore, most people that do qualify for TANF don't qualify for a large amount (it's typically not even enough to meet the monthly bills, even if they receive housing assistance, heating assistance, etc.). Also, keep in mind - if the person is receiving child support and is eligible for TANF, they have to agree to allow the state to keep the child support up to the amount they receive in TANF benefits in exchange for those benefits. In other words, say they are eligible for $200/month in TANF but receives $300/month in child support - if they opt to take the TANF, they get $200/month in TANF, and $100/month in child support. Some people opt to do this if receiving child support is inconsistent - at least they will have a consistent $200/month that way.

The point is, unless the person is an alcoholic (and there is no evidence that most receiving TANF are alcoholics), they are going to use the money for bills, their part of rent, etc., etc.
and not alcohol.

Yes, there are people that abuse the system, there will always be ways people will find to get around the system. However, many studies have shown that that the abuse/misuse that you are concerned about in this comment is rare.

Summer,

Thank you for your post. We agree. I'm more pointing out that whether you call it Food stamps, SNAP or TANF, the money is coming from somewhere. Every program will be abused.

However, we've decided that it is important to make sure people have food. So we do the best we can.

Some people abuse the system. But changing the whole system to avoid the abuse of a few is like making the USA a prison to preserve freedom. (something we seem well on our way to doing, btw)

I'm not even sure we can prove the current system is better than the food stamps program.

I have a pretty cynical view of 'cards' in general. Too many secret fees attached to such things. What do businesses get out of working with SNAP? Is anyone controlling the use of any such funds they recieve? Why not?

***

We play beat up on the poor guy in this country. Because we all think like John Wayne. :)

I am a rugged individualist. I can kill the b'ar, dig the gold and iron, build a forge, smelt me out a high tech automobile and save up enough for cash for speed boats and ski trips besides...

Actually we are a team. A team needs people with vision and grunt workers.

I say that both groups are equal in dignity.

Also, if the people with vision can't feed the grunt workers, they'd better be ready to clean their own toilets and cut their own lawns.

Seems really clear to me...

I've just started drawing unemployment for the first time, got my first check this week. It is for $378.00, my total entitlement will come out to just over $10,000 then I'm on my own. I'm almost 61 years old and have been paying into the system since I was 17. I know over all those years of military and civilian employment, I've paid a lot more than that, and that doesn't include all the money my employers have paid. My point is, how can I be spending some young person's money?

#2:That's why when they call it an "entitlement" I get a bit shall we say pissed....I paid itot the system for over 40 years now along comes some guy to tell me I don't deserve to get it back.

Wize, I'm right there with you. Say it once again for the both of us. I get so sick and tired of those younger than me complaining about having to pay their "fair share".

To refer to it as "welfare" is an INSULT! I worked for every dime I now receive. And by the grace of God I have lived long enough to see and enjoy the fruits of my labor. No one is giving me a penny.

When I began working during the JFK administration at the ripe old age of 16, I had no idea what the money was being taken out for -or given to-I just kept working and kept having deductions taken from my salary.

I too worked and contributed with my "monies being withheld" for over than 45 years and nary a whimper. It would not have done any good to complain anyway!

And also like you friend, how dare someone suggest that I not receive-a partial portion back - of the money that I have paid into the system.

What do businesses get out of working with SNAP?

Customers. As you said, it's still money.

What about all the people that ARE too lazy to work and they figure being fertile is a good enough skill set?

Why are the taxpayers supporting people that can work but choose not to? If you don't believe those people are out there gaming the system you need to research more. There's a reason welfare departments have fraud investigators.

cannonballer,

I say we let them starve, until they get hungry enough to steal stuff, then we can throw them into prison and force them to work for $1.05 a day...

How many people are too lazy to work anyway. Do you have anything like a number?

Why is it always the extremes with liberals?

Randomperson001 "There's fraud in the welfare system". That's a factual statement.

Typical liberal "OMG lets let them all starve and put them in prison where they an eat rats when they are on the chain gang, the horror"

Y'all act like a bunch of pre-pubescent girls with the off the wall drama.

As far as numbers go, yeah, 99% of the people I know on assistance are capable of working but prefer their "State job".

cball

Yeah then you have to subsidize them in prison. privatized prison if you live in a red state most likely whose only goal tis to gain maximum profit from the taxpayer.

BTW there is only 4.5 million people on welfare, or TANF as opposed to 12 million in the 90s'. thats around 1.5% of the population. you 99% figure is bs

As far as numbers go, yeah, 99% of the people I know on assistance are capable of working but prefer their "State job".

Read it slowly, ah, nevermind I'll bold the important part for the reading challenged of the bunch.

Nobody ever wants to address the question of "What about all the people that ARE too lazy to work and they figure being fertile is a good enough skill set?" it's always deflected to something else.

99% of the people I know on assistance are capable of working but prefer their "State job".

Sounds like you need some new folks to know.... #shurgs....

cannonballer - So how many people do you know on assistance? Not a percentage but an actual number.

mf-3735877

cannonballer - So how many people do you know on assistance? Not a percentage but an actual number.

Why?

Why ignore the question I asked and then ask me a different one?

#2:That's why when they call it an "entitlement" I get a bit shall we say pissed....I paid itot the system for over 40 years now along comes some guy to tell me I don't deserve to get it back.

Good post Maryellen #2.15

Wize, I'm right there with you. Say it once again for the both of us. I get so sick and tired of those younger than me complaining about having to pay their "fair share".

To refer to it as "welfare" is an INSULT! I worked for every dime I now receive. And by the grace of God I have lived long enough to see and enjoy the fruits of my labor. No one is giving me a penny.

When I began working during the JFK administration at the ripe old age of 16, I had no idea what the money was being taken out for -or given to-I just kept working and kept having deductions taken from my salary.

I too worked and contributed with my "monies being withheld" for over than 45 years and nary a whimper. It would not have done any good to complain anyway!

And also like you friend, how dare someone suggest that I not receive-a partial portion back - of the money that I have paid into the system.

Good post MaryEllen Galloway .

cannonballer,

Give me a number of people and support your contention with something resembling a fact. For examle how many folks are there who are too lazy to work? Once you've realized that poverty is a complex topic we will talk about what it means and what to do with people that are too "lazy"

I mean I've looked at labor statistics and there are some folks that never do much, but are they lazy? Crazy? Otherwise involved?

My comment was intentionally extreme, it's called hyperbole, it is generally done to make a point.

In this case, I was making a point that anyone can complain. I actually came up with a(ridiculous) plan. All you did was gripe. :)

How many people do you know that are on assistance, and have you actually done the math so that you know 99% of them would rather collect assistance, rather than work?

How did you collect the data? Did you ask them, "Are you lazy?" or did you just make a judgement? Or is you number something you just made up to sound good?

These are important questions that don't get answered while you are railing at liberals.

That's why I responded with hyperbole...

BTW, unless you can show evidence that you know 100 people that are on assistance and can then provide the interviews wherein 99 of those people told you that they preferred to live on the state because they are lazy...

Well I won't believe you until you do. I'll think you just made that 99% number up. Just like everyone else that has read your post...

:D

Cannonball - Just like flameaway says in #2.27 you don't know many people, if any, on welfare. I asked you for a number because I knew you couldn't or wouldn't provide one. Your 99% comment is without basis.

AFDC, unemployment, Social Security.........All the programs should be based on need

What makes you think those are not needs based?

The fact that you must have income below a certain leel for the first, be out of work for the second, and have only a birth date of X date or older for the third. Need has nothing to do with it; your assets can go well into the six figures and beyond, and you get the money regardless.

Lucky for me I don't care what you think or believe.

I've asked that question several times and nobody on the left will answer it, that's fine, you're not compelled to. It would be nice if you were at least honest about not wanting to go there, or at least ignore the question, changing the subject and thinking I owe you something is typical, not surprising, just typical.

I didn't ignore the question, I answered it. As I've said before, it's understandable that nearly all recipients desperately want to distance themselves from "those" people, who get that terrible "welfare". The problem that YOU don't want to admit is that the money paid in has long been given out. Whatever we receive today, is welfare taken from those who're working, of borrowed from China.

Want a shock? I get it myself. Want proof? I remember auto starters that you'd step on, x-ray machines in shoe stores, and "bubbler" water fountains, to name only a few. It's just that as old as I am, I haven't become blind to what has happened. Our greed and "Lucky for me I don't care" indifference may not let us fix the system, but the nation may well go into rollover if we don't. It is quite simply unsustainable as is.

I went to work at fifteen. I lived in Texas at the time and needed a work permit from the county judge to go to work. I worked as an assistant to an activity director at a local nursing home. I worked twenty hours a week and went to school full time. My parents were upper middle class so I got to keep my earnings which I banked. I bought my first car a 1969 Mustang Grande. I paid my own insurance before mandatory insurance laws. I went to college. Obtained my degrees and worked for another twenty six years twelve of which I directed a level one trauma center. I began to lose my eyesight to macular degeneration. I became disabled. As a result of my years as a nurse I have three plates and six screws in my neck and four plates and eight screws in my back. I remained on disability for ten years and about four years ago I was able to obtain work at a local university teaching nursing ethics. So, I guess for ten years I was a lazy bum who was collecting state and federal money but let me ask one question. Who among you would want a blind nurse to start your IV? I was lucky to be in the right place at the right time to go back to work and come off disability. I now make about twelve times what I did while I was on disability and I am enjoying every minute of it. I really believe there are very few people who abuse the system and the system has a good way of identifying those who do. As for me I enjoy working again in my chosen profession and I really do enjoy the increase in monthly income.

Most excellent outcome.. I know people on disability, no way they can ever work again. Lack of education, head trauma, etc. Too many, when there are few jobs available anyway for the able ones. sighhh

I was lucky. I happened to be in the right city at the right time and knew the right people. If I was not granted this job I have now I would still be on disability. If this job ever ends I will have to go back on it.

Oh, I'd think not, Nurse teachers are fewer than there use to be. More like a 'hot' commodity from what I understand. :) If this one ended, there'd be another one somewhere.

Cannonballer,

You asked a question?

Do you mean "Why is it always the extremes with liberals?"

The real answer to this question is that it is not always extreme with liberals. You made an extreme statement, while accusing liberals of extremism. That's irony. Quite often when you use the word 'always' you end up being wrong.

Like now. :)

But really Liberals seem extreme to you only because we just happen to be perfect mirrors...

I have seen very little- almost none- maybe none of any facts about Americans who receive

Public Assistance.

Ever heard the old tidbit "All generalities are false - includng this one."

99% of the people I know on assistance are capable of working.

Nobody ever wants to address the question of "What about all the people that ARE too lazy to work and they figure being fertile is a good enough skill set?" it's always deflected to something else.

cannon (#2.21) I'd be happy to answer your question if it were a question; it's a statement that just looks like a question. In fact you are making several statements in series and calling it a question:

One, in your experience 99% of the people you know on assistance could work

Two, the people of the 99% are choosing not to work

Three, the reason they are choosing not to work is because they are " lazy"

Four, one reason they're lazy is because they have an alternative "skill set" of fertility

Five, that fertility leads automatically to child bearing, and that child bearing leads automatically to government support, and government support leads automatically to choosing not to work.

If I accepted your statements, then I could be reasonably expected to answer your question, i.e., what should we do about this problem. But since you offer no data/ research/objective analysis to back up any of those assumptions other than your limited personal experience, there's no way to respond.

See, its not that folks won't respond, we're just waiting for a question to respond to.

I've asked that question several times and nobody on the left will answer it, that's fine, you're not compelled to.

cannon (#2.30) If you will rephrase and ask a question without assuming the answer, I'll be glad to respond (see #2.39).

Better still, let's do this: here's your statement rephrased as a question and all you have to do is provide a citation and a couple of data points: Do you agree that, as reported by (verifiable research source), ______% of recipients of public assistance are able to work but do not do so because of _________________— (top response category) ?

Now you have a legitimate question that we can debate and examine both the source validity and the results of the research that supports your question. If you don't like that question, please offer your own.

But you can't keep saying that nobody will give you an answer when you aren't asking a question. This is your chance to ask, see a response, and engage in a (hopefully) productive and informative exchange of views.

I take issue with you blaming the "right wing propaganda machine" for demonizing the poor and the elderly.

Firstly, nobody is demonizing the elderly, so that was just a talking point you got from some where.

Secondly, the only people demonizing the poor would be the liberal Hollywood elite, who produce TV shows like "Cops" or "Maury Povich" or "Judge Jennine" or "Springer"... that's where you need to point your finger, not at some made up conspiricy by the right.

the only people demonizing the poor would be the liberal Hollywood elite

Yeah, like Ronald Reagan, who made up a fictional cadillac-driving "Welfare Queen."

Or right-winger Alan Simpson, who characterized Social Security as a cow with 300 million teats.

Or Sharron Angle who said, and I quote:

You can make more money on unemployment than you can going down and getting one of those jobs that is an honest job, but it doesn't pay as much. And so that's what's happened to us is that we have put in so much entitlement into our government that we really have spoiled our citizenry and said you don't want the jobs that are available.

Or Rush Limbaugh, who thinks that low-income kids on school-lunch programs are

"Wanton Little Waifs And Serfs Dependent On The State"

I could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on. But I think the main point here is you are completely 100% wrong.

Never seen the Regan movie, so don't care.

Alan Simpson wore a bowtie didn't he?

Sharron Angle is absolutely correct in what she said. A friend of mine is a single mother of 2, she is on welfare, and I asked her about her getting a job, she said she can't get anything but a job at fast food, or gas station, and that she'd make less doing that then she makes on welfare.

and yeah, that sounds like somthing a entertainment talk show host would say.

Have you ever watched daytime TV? If you did, you'd know it wasn't the right wing that demonizes the poor.

The right doesn't demonize the poor?

Okay, that aside.

They definitely take advantage of the poor.

Never seen the Regan movie, so don't care.

LOL. The Reagan "movie" ran from 1981 to 1989. It was called "The President of the USA."

You seriously have to practice to be this uninformed.

Sharron Angle is absolutely correct in what she said.

So, you are demonizing the unemployed right along with her. Thank you for confirming to me that you are WRONG.

no, Sharon Angle was right, in many cases it is more profitable to be on unemployment rather than get a job at minimum wage.

I guess you missed the example I cited.

are you feeling ok?

in many cases it is more profitable to be on unemployment rather than get a job at minimum wage.

Sharron Angle was wrong, and you're wrong. People do not stay on unemployment rather than look for a job. It's just hateful bull@!$%#.

I guess you missed the example I cited.

This is known as an anecdote. It is not evidence of anything. I ignored it because it is irrelevant.

are you feeling ok?

What kind of question is that? You are wrong. How I feel is completely irrelevant -- your argument is garbage and it has been disproven now twice. End of discussion.

Have to agree with Sharon as well. I live in Oregon and Have had many friends that rode the Unenjoyment Train to. partyville. They didnt attempt to get a Job till they completely ran out. Some have found work others are part of OWS and now are to busy with that to find a job.

In my friends case, it wasn't that she didn't want to work, she literally couldn't afford to get a minimum wage job and lose her welfare benifits

no, Sharon Angle was right, in many cases it is more profitable to be on unemployment rather than get a job at minimum wage.

If that is the case, that means @ one time you made enough money for your UE to be more then min wage. For example, in my state, if you got laid off from a job and you were paid 30,000 a year, your weekly benefit is about 300 which is more than min wage. If you got laid off from a job that paid 7.25 a hour, your benefit is about 175 a week which is less than min wage.

#3.2:I could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on. But I think the main point here is you are completely 100% wrong.

You're 200% correct! Thanks for pointing out the truth for those who continue to operate with blinders on!

neish,

not talking about getting laid off and getting a check, I don't think this girl ever had a job to begin with, I'm talking about her getting a welfare check to stay at home with her kids. which reminds me, if she did take a job, then she'd have to pay for day care as well.

the system is broke, it sucks these people in and makes it near impossible to get out.

which reminds me, if she did take a job, then she'd have to pay for day care as well.

No she wouldnt. Daycare can be free so long as you have a job or are in school. With a job, depending on what you make it can be as little as $5-15 a week. Or totally free if you are in school full time.

She could also get section 8 as well, which is a program totally different than Welfare and food stamps. Her rent could be $40 a month, or $400 depending on how much she makes.

Rule of thumb on anonymous bulletin board posting sites...don't ever take anecdotal stories as factual from anyone particularly on the right

We fight wars for freedom and rights, and then we tell our people to be slaves! what a joke!

The right is a bunch of hypocrites!

The only value they believe is an abstraction, MONEY!

Anything and anyone or anyones action has no other value other what can be used for profit!

And the 1% control the Money.

It was said that the soviet union was out spent by the united states.

The same motivation by the Religious Zealous GOP have Now turned on the american People

But real reason the soviet union died was it killed its culture, its value of why it should exist.

Because it didn't depend on profit what it depended on was the people to act together as a society

The soviet people realized the soviet union government was insane,

The GOP is showing that it is insane and short sighted and continues to stroke the paranoia flames of misinformation because of their shortsightedness.

Who needs money when nobody values anything else???

NOBODY

Randy,

anybody could be lying at anytime, I'm not, but that's besides the point.

Have a little faith here, ok?

I live in Oregon and Have had many friends that rode the Unenjoyment Train

Yes, and those friends are known as anecdotes, in other words, not factual data reflecting anything.

With the average seeker-to-job ratio of 6 to 1 over most of the years in question, you are spitting into a stiff wind of reality that the JOBS WERE NOT THERE.

One of my favorite quotes on unemployment...

Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday.

That's priceless right there.

Cannonballer--- that's because it's been shown to be accurate.

Without unemployment benefits, in times of high unemployment, consumer spending goes way down, which lessens demand, which causes more layoffs in a vicious downward spiral

.. Since pretty much every dollar of Unemployment benefits goes right into the economy, it keeps other businesses healthy during the downturn and slows down or halts that spiral down

Even Bush agreed and always made extending unemployment benefits part of his various economic stimulus packages.

I guess the jobs are not there for people who only want a job using left hand wrenches .

Jobs are available in the US , if you are willing to re-locate or take a job other than what your degree says you are qualified to do .

I don't have any respect for someone who does'nt take available jobs .

Jobs are available in the US , if you are willing to re-locate

which is a bit tough if you can't sell your house because it's underwater.

Take your losses an move like people who really want a job ! Making a decent wage will eventually make up for your loss . If you think housing will return to their original inflated prices , you will lose .

and the Dems are as pristine as the wind driven snow...give me a friggin break!

Corruption is not part of the Democratic Party platform. Democrats have never once suggested or pursued privatizing/plundering Social Security. Yes, there are corrupt Democrats, but, for what it's worth, they seem to be ashamed of their actions. The corrupt ones do not embrace corruption eagerly, as do Republicans. The gap in degree and willfulness is huge.

The difference Better is the democrats don't want to touch ss until after the election , they need the votes . By the way I don't see the evil in the discussions on ss . They are talking about letting the younger generation invest their money , which gives a better return even in a low risk fund , than Government can provide . Government does not know how to do anything efficiently .

{Government does not know how to do anything efficiently} CORRECT!

ONLY WHEN THE GOP ARE RUNNING THE GOVERNMENT!!

Another GOP/1% MYTH!

@ Sparrow

Of course there are holes, as there are in ANY system. But, that's not justification to create completely baseless talking points regarding the system and it's participants. The TOTAL cost of all of the "social programs" in America is still just a sliver of the nation's budget, so the cost of the small % who abuse the system is next to nothing.

In contrast, how many people who advocate cutting off social program funding advocate doing the same to the big systems that the wealthiest of Americans are abusing? We have numerous examples of corporations and wealthy Americans bending and twisting investment, tax, and financial systems and I rarely hear a rally cry to completely end all of those programs arbitrarily.

The social class in this country which doesn't have the financial means to create multi million dollar lobbying efforts are consistently the ones who get blamed for the nation's problems, and I don't think that's a coincidence.

I'm not talking about the outlay of cash, I'm talking about the impact some of the programs have on the public economy, in higher prices set, because the Federal Government calls where the bar is, and that only means one thing, the bar is above the middle class and again, that's who loses the most. If you'd like to look at one program in particular, why don't you take a gander at Section 8 housing through HUD? Do you even understand the collateral damage it causes, or doesn't that matter?

@ Sparrow-2863685

Do you even understand the collateral damage it causes,

As opposed to the damage done when there is no system? If we start weighing the impact of "collateral damage" done by systems to assist struggling people versus the "collateral damage" of not having a system at all, I think you'll find that your argument struggles to carry much weight.

Even when it devalues the quality of life for both? Well, sorry I disagree and I've been pretty close to the issue from many different angles.

Sparrow, I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. Can you please explain it to me? I'm not meaning that as a snide comment - I'm really trying to understand what you are trying to say.

I received a LOT of assistance after my divorce while I was in undergrad. I have 2 children that I needed to take care of, but was finding it hard to find a job that would support us - everything paid just too much to qualify for assistance, but not enough to actually make ends meet. I had never gone to college, so I decided to go to undergrad as a way to make myself more marketable. While I was in undergrad, I received housing, food stamps, daycare assistance, heating assistance, and medicaid. My undergrad education was paid for with scholarships and grants and a very small student loan. I didn't feel that my life was devalued, and our qualify of life was certainly better than being homeless would've been.

In fact, I am very grateful for the assistance I received. It allowed me to focus on my studies and still be a mother to my boys. Being able to focus on my studies allowed me to graduate with a 3.96 GPA with a biology major and both a chemistry & Spanish minor. I was able to get a good MCAT score. I had the time available to me to put in the needed extracurricular activities to have a well rounded medical school application (president of our school's chapter of Tri-Beta [a biological honor society], research that I presented and published, shadowing physicians in a variety of environments, volunteering, etc., etc.). Now I'm a 2nd year medical student (almost done with my 2nd year actually).

Clearly, my story is anecdotal, and is not going to be reflective of every person receiving assistance. But, I'm just curious as to what you mean by "even when it devalues the qualify of life or both"?

Thanks in advance for your answer :)

I agree Blind. You are entitled because you paid into it your entire working life. I just wish people would apply this reasoning to all who paid in and not promote subjecting successful people to means testing. Bill Gates should receive a SS benefit based upon his wage history, just the same if someone earned wages at Walmart their entire career. If a person wants to receive an "entitlement", then that person contributes to the program and receives the benefit accordingly. NO ONE should have their hard earned benefits compromised because of someone else's perceived needs. It does NOT matter whether those benefits subsidize trips to the casino or food/shelter. Its your benefit, spend it however you choose!

TOF, That's where you and I disagree. And, I do get to make the call since I am one of those who will be means tested. I have no issue with that. Why? Because I realize that taking money from me and giving to someone else will prevent that someone from ending up in the street. Now, you can look at this in the Christian way - my brother's keeper and all that stuff (ooh, bet that left a mark). Or you can be selfish and look at it from the perspective that at least you won't be accosted, see dead bodies in the street or have to look at starving indigents while you go about your business.

American conservatives who support the "hooray for me, screw you" ideology should be forced to live for a few years where there are no social protections - like Hong Kong, Taiwan, Viet Nam, Mexico, etc. I've been there, it ain't pretty, and that's exactly where their loony ideas will take us. Sorry, I have no desire to live in a third-world nation.

The money given out to recipients is either taken from those working, or borrowed from China. "Our money" was long since given out similarly, or used to pay for all the programs we collectively wanted. Social Security will always be needed, but it has turned us into a nation of welfare collectors. The system has become unsustainable, and the payout needs to be means tested, IF the nation is to survive.

No sale Davy. The companies I worked for and I paid for the SS and Medicare benefits via payroll taxes. This is no different than purchasing private insurance. Thus, your claim that we have become a nation of welfare collectors is absolute bullcrap. It ain't welfare if I paid for it.

Now, if those programs will be running short in the future, that simply means we need to raise the premiums - just like private insurers do.

"It aint welfare if I paid for it"...... EXACTLY CORRECT! Now I want what I paid for and my retirement income is NOBODIES business. I applaud you for wanting to be means tested, but please dont force that choice on me. You advocate taking from me, but in the same post accuse me of adopting a "screw the other guy" mentality??? How does that happen? Again, using your words, it aint welfare if I paid for it and every cent better be there when my time comes. The same for every other worker out there, they better get theirs also. If program sustainablity is the issue, then raise eligibility ages FOR EVERYONE or reduce benefits across the board FOR EVERYONE. Its laughable how rightfully wanting the benefit I paid for, for over 50 years, is viewed as somehow screwing over America.

Sorry TOF, no sale. Even in private insurance there's an amortization based on actuarial science - ie, for all members of a certain group there is a certain risk of payout over time. Premiums are based on that time-weighted risk ACROSS THE GROUP. Thus, those who don't require payout prior to or at the mean subsidize those who do. Your private auto, home, health and life insurance premiums are benefiting and offsetting those who require payout if you don't. I bet you thought you were just paying for yourself. Bummer when you find out all insurance is socialized at its core, huh?

The majority of people receiving these benefits WORK everyday. Yet because they are UNDEREMPLOYED and UNDERPAID, they fall below the poverty level and qualify for assistance. More and more Americans are falling out of the middle class and into poverty.

Here's another part of that point, blind. Those who work for companies and are underpaid are actually enhancing the company's bottom line in two ways: 1) production on the jobs themselves, and 2) the company's bottom line is enhanced when the worker is paid so low. The government then picks up the difference between what the worker is paid and a 'living wage' by supplementing the worker's needs, like food, housing, etc. In that respect, the company benefits twice.

******************

Let's also keep in mind that many of these companies pay very little in corporate taxes, no corporate taxes, or even receive tax refunds because of the tax loopholes we have for them.

Those low-paying jobs make many of these programs necessary. If the corporations were paying people decently AND paying their fair share of taxes, I have to think our national deficit would be considerably less.

Then we go to economic benefits for everyone of food stamps.

http://www.cbpp.org/files/1-22-09bud-fs.pdf

USDA research has found that $1 in foodstamps generates $1.84 in total economic activity. Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com estimates asimilar multiplier ($1.73 for every additional $1 in food stamp expenditures), the highest of the variousspending and tax measures he evaluated.

I wonder what the economic and budgetary benefits would be if every worker was paid enough to afford food, rent, utilities, medical, and clothes all at the same time. What a wonderful world it would be. (s)

The GOP would be smarter to 'encourage' corporate responsibility by insisting on meaningful job creation and wages that paid workers enough to live on. But that's too simple a solution.

The money given out to recipients is either taken from those working, or borrowed from China. "Our money" was long since given out similarly, or used to pay for all the programs we collectively wanted. Social Security will always be needed, but it has turned us into a nation of welfare collectors. The system has become unsustainable, and the payout needs to be means tested, IF the nation is to survive.

davy (#8.3) Just once I'd like some of your folks who post, and repost and repost yet again this about money "borrowed from China" to quantify your statements. How much money are you talking about? The amount borrowed, or the amount borrowed less the amount owed by China to the US? The amount owed to everyone or the amount owed to everyone other than the amount owed to ourselves?

And when in the world did you get the idea that Social Security was "welfare?" Define that term or stop using it.

Lastly, for those who are so fond of means testing, who does the testing and using what criteria? You want to tear apart the social safety net by saying that some people are not entitled (too rich, too colored, too lazy) even if they contributed to the system? And how long do I have to pay in as part of my social contract with the generations before, and to come, before I get the entitlement? I sure as hell don't want you deciding it for me, and you don't want me deciding for you, so who are you going to turn it over to?

Maybe it's better to assume that all pay, all are entitled to collect, and leave means testing to the bottom line boys who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

blindsided, post #8.0: I very unexpected thing happened, while reading my way through this article, and reading summer's post and yours: I have turned a 180, on my views of what is happening in America- or at least I can see what you are saying. The problem this minute is that this discovery is messing with my mind, and many other views I do hold. However, I am fairly certain that you are correct, with this comment:

It's pisses me off when people in the GOP like Paul Ryan call benefits like Soc. Security and Medicare "entitlements." Damn right I'm "entitled." I've paid into the system my entire working life. How are they convincing a considerable amount of poor, working, and middle class people to vote for their own demise? Are Americans really that collectively stupid? This is money and benefits we are OWED. Not to mention large companies that don't pay their employees a living wage that are supplemented by federal programs like food stamps. The majority of people receiving these benefits WORK everyday. Yet because they are UNDEREMPLOYED and UNDERPAID, they fall below the poverty level and qualify for assistance. More and more Americans are falling out of the middle class and into poverty. Yet the top 1% are becoming more wealthy while paying less taxes on their income than the middle class (what's left of it anyway.) This country is in financial crisis. Yet the wealthiest Americans balk at paying their fair share while their paid assassins the Republican Party want to gut programs that benefit the poor, working, and elderly. Programs they have paid into their entire lives and that their tax dollars have funded. The average American is now more financially vulnerable now than at anytime in the last 70 years. These programs were enacted to keep that from happening. This is not the time to diminish, decrease, or eliminate them. WAKE UP AMERICA!

You are right- they are protecting the rich and wealthy feverishly, and all the while discussing the 'great need' to re-address and revamp programs that shouldn't need to be. Social programs- entitlement programs...

My mind is absolutely in a tail-spin! I still am against welfare fraud, and I have seen much of it- but as far as that goes, it should be handled a case at a time.

Earlier, I was going to post this, as an answer to the question posed in this article, which in case anyone forgot is: "What are the facts about Anyone Receiving Public Assistance?",

that in answer to that question- one of the facts are that the jobs are not here- they are gone to trade deficits, gone overseas, gone! In 1975, there was a recession, and when I moved to Ca., friends told me I may as well apply for unemployment- there were no jobs, but in 1975, there were more jobs than now. Now they are very much gone. Now, I am wondering- who passed all the (bad) trade deals, who allowed China imports to be cheaper than American products, who didn't put a 'tariff' on imports to equal the field? Who?

I still am against welfare fraud, and I have seen much of it- but as far as that goes, it should be handled a case at a time.

I absolutely agree with this. Welfare fraud, regardless of who is committing the fraud, is bad for taxpayers and bad for those that are genuinely in need of welfare assistance.

Social Security is a retirement fund, backed by the full faith and credit of the US. ie Treasury notes. Which is way better value than Wall Street stocks.. think Enron 401k's wiped out, and several others. It is the sole reason for going private, to put the money at the mercy of Wall Street and private retirement funds. Some of whom are in Federal jail now for embezzlement and fraud.

Sorry I trust the US gov't before I'd trust some weasels on Wall street.

It is funny we eft out a fact. Social Security is not a pait in and get later program. It is a pay as you go program. It is not a retirement account.

Please clarify what fact is "left out" because you certainly don't state one. If SS is a "pay as you go program," maybe you can explain why I've been paying into it my entire working life, yet have not collected a penny?

...maybe you can explain why I've been paying into it my entire working life, yet have not collected a penny...

You have not, yet, met the eligibility requirements for collection.

Buckeye, you may have noticed that Concerned calls SS a "pay as you go program," hence my question; "If SS is a "pay as you go program," maybe you can explain why I've been paying into it my entire working life, yet have not collected a penny?"

You have not, yet, met the eligibility requirements for collection.

Thank you for proving my point, but let me assure you that I am quite capable of doing so myself.

I don't take your question seriously, because I expect that you fully understand what Concerned75 is saying: benefits paid this fiscal year are provided from fees collected this fiscal year.

Like mstanley2265 pointed out, there have been systemic overpayments into Social Security which have been used to fund government operations via Treasury bonds.

In essence, the low income tax rates of the US (paid, as they are eager to point out, mostly by the wealthy) are subsidized by the payroll taxes of the middle and working classes.

So some shady used car dealer gets to pay 25% income tax and 6.2% social security (31.2% of his income) so Mitt Romney can enjoy paying merely 13.8% on his income.

jwc-- you can benefit from a program without "receiving a penny."

For example, SS also includes disability insurance. So if tomorrow you slipped on the ice on your front porch and broke your neck and were unable to work, you'd receive SS disability payments. That insurance is a very real, tangible benefit. (and, as with other insurance, I feel blessed when I don't need to collect on it...)

For a less tangible benefit-- I think I benefit from living in a society where there aren't hundreds of thousands of homeless, hungry elderly. Both from a humanistic perspective as well as a selfish business perspective (a society like that isn't conducive to a good business environment)

Seattle Brian

For a less tangible benefit-- I think I benefit from living in a society where there aren't hundreds of thousands of homeless, hungry elderly. Both from a humanistic perspective as well as a selfish business perspective (a society like that isn't conducive to a good business environment)

Well said.

Okay but I guess whnt he Supreme court rule that "entitlement to Socoial security benefits is not a contractual right" it really didn't mean anything. The fact that someones pays into Social Security will get benefits is just not true. The law is wrong. We are going to get it no mater what the law says.

For example, SS also includes disability insurance. So if tomorrow you slipped on the ice on your front porch and broke your neck and were unable to work, you'd receive SS disability payments.

I know lots of people who have been injured and are sick and they receive no such payments. Disability is not as easy to get as you might think. I know one person who's foot got cut off on the job he was in the hospital for close to a year he has been unable to work for close to 5 years now. He is homeless and another person who has 3 crushed vertebrae and he receives no such payment but, has family and lives with them he is lucky his family can house him. If you go to a homeless shelter you will find many disabled people who do not receive payments of any kind.

It is funny we eft out a fact. Social Security is not a pait in and get later program. It is a pay as you go program. It is not a retirement account.

Please clarify what fact is "left out" because you certainly don't state one. If SS is a "pay as you go program," maybe you can explain why I've been paying into it my entire working life, yet have not collected a penny?

jwc2 (#9.2) You're been paying into the system for entire working life because that's your part of the social contract. It is your obligation, your responsibility, and your privilege.

Read the enabling legislation: "An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare [and] public health..."

We agreed then and now, as a people, that providing for the general good is of overriding public interest. The law doesn't say "if we can afford it," or say that "if we feel like it" or say that "maybe we'll means test and give it just to people we think deserve it." It provides for the general welfare.

We agree that we can not allow the old, and sick and infirm thrown into the social darwinian rubbish heap of history by an economic and social system they helped build and sustain. What does the social/fiscal conservative mind not understand about this fundamental idea of shared responsibility, shared entitlement?

You pay in because you owe it to the society, to the people who have come before you and come after you, who have built the society and defended it and nurtured it. You pay into the system without regard to who you are, or where or what you do, and your take out of the system what you need regardless of who you are. Not dollar for dollar, not hour for hour, but as part of your commitment to the commonweal, each to the other, of all and for all. It isn't a savings plan, it's a contract among equals, among Americans, young and old, rich and poor. All of us, together. And you and others like you will honor it, or give up claiming to be members of this society.

azartguy, let me begin by saying that I agree with you, Seattle Brian and Buckeye Voter. I am also in favor of SS, and think that it need some changes, such as increasing the upper limit of earnings that SS is taken out of and means testing so that the wealthy do not collect.

My contention stems from the use of the phrase "pay as you go."

IMO it's incorrect. We pay ahead.

More often than not, when we collect from the SS system we are retired and no longer paying in, or injured to the point of being unable to work, and so no longer paying in.

I am well aware of survivors benefits and other types of SS payments, but I believe those to be in the minority.

So what part of the data presented is inaccurate? What part of the methodology do you disagree with?

It's called lying with statistics and using omissions and half-truths, which is something that a non-partisan organization will generally avoid doing, but organizations like the Center for American Progress and the Heritage Foundation make a living by doing.

I can post correct data and still come up with slanted conclusions:

Ninety-nine percent of all people who ever ate carrots are now dead.

Therefore, carrots are deadly!

Agreed, the source presenting the facts is Left, and probably Farrrr left.

Does it change the facts at all?

The actual source of the facts is from The Office of Management and budget, Fiscal year 2012 budget.

And the other actual source of fact is from the U.S. Census

Tell me please, which way do they lean? Are they lying with statictics?

To use the artilcle in question:

—Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance—include middle-class and low-income Americans. In 2010, 39 percent of households had at least one person participating in at least one of these programs.

Okay, so how much money did that one person in 39 percent of households "participate" in the system? We're not told. Did they draw a hundred dollars? Did they draw a much larger amount over twenty years? We're not told. How much money on average did such persons in that 39 percent draw in comparison with those in lower income categories, over time? Does it matter? Certainly! Would such data help the case the writer is trying to make? Possibly not.

I believe the point being made was the widespread participation in Medicare and Social Security, for which collection amounts are immaterial.

I agree with your point, however, that opinion pieces are poor sources of comprehensive data.

I agree with your point, however, that opinion pieces are poor sources of comprehensive data.

Having a point of view doesn't make you automatically wrong or right. It's wise to think critically but unwise to reject something out of hand merely because of a source's leanings. The seeded article here is not merely an opinion piece, it presented real data.

@ UNA_Lion

Okay, so how much money did that one person in 39 percent of households "participate" in the system? We're not told. Did they draw a hundred dollars? Did they draw a much larger amount over twenty years? We're not told. How much money on average did such persons in that 39 percent draw in comparison with those in lower income categories, over time? Does it matter? Certainly! Would such data help the case the writer is trying to make? Possibly not.

This research has already been done. At most, just 10% of households end up paying nothing in Federal taxes when it's all said and done link. And when state taxes are figured in, that number drops dramatically again link.

But, I think you've missed the point of the article, and the larger point inherent within this discussion. First, when jobs are available, the unemployment rate generally hovers between 3 and 5%. This would indicate that the VAST majority of able bodied individuals, when given the opportunity, pay their own way. Meaning of course that if someone hasn't paid an equal amount into the system that they are currently taking out, it wasn't out of choice.

For some reason though, it seems like we only ask the "equal contribution" questions that you raised when it comes to one particular segment of the population. For example, when someone has health insurance and ends up needing a serious medical procedure, there isn't a backlash against that person if their procedure happens to cost more than what they've put into their health insurance plan up to that point. Why is that??

Same goes for the various subsidy and incentive programs we have for the wealthiest Americans and Corporations. We never demand a proportionate breakdown of what they are putting in versus what they are taking out.... why is that?

Similarly, large companies are sending 18 wheelers all across the county, utilizing highways and roadways moreso than the average person.... yet, there's no discussion about creating a proportionate tax to "fairly" fund road and highway maintenance.

There's no demand of drug testing when homeowners receive tax credits or businesses receive subsidies and incentives. That's reserved for just one particular class.

The point being made is this: one particular segment of the population is routinely targeted and scapegoated because that particular segment of the population doesn't have the gross dollars to lobby Congress's ear incessantly. Lawrence Lessig pointed out in his recent book "Republic, Lost" that the wealthiest of Americans aren't the most educated in the country nor are they the hardest working - what they have though is legislative access and influence. Thus, it's not a coincidence that we never apply the same sets of standards and rules to that segment of the population as we do the one which has no legislative voice to speak of.

Moreover, they are also likely to blame loss of those services on Democrats, even when the policies to cut them are Republican.

I have a middle-class Republican friend who blames his Democratic representative for not doing anything to improve his property values! I hate to call people names, but it is interesting how political leanings can make some people silly.

Justen, I have seen a deliberate effort by ALL news media to intentionally NOT show the caricature your presented in your second paragraph. If you have a link to an example, please post.

I do agree with your 3rd paragraph. I think "working" (picking up trash, etc) for unemployment would go a long way towards lowering the average amount of time a person is on it. I literally have a friend who's about to start his second year of unemployment who is NOT looking for work yet-he's still got plenty of time.

I found the picture, but for some reason I can't copy and paste it.

anyways, google "welfare lady with flat screen and xbox pic"

you'll find it, it was on a forum on www.ar15.com, and a few other places.

anyways, google "welfare lady with flat screen and xbox pic"

Not for nothing JustenO, but I can stand next to a Lamborghini parked out in front of a mansion and tell you how much money I've made in real estate with no money down.

At least until the mansion's owner comes out and yells at me to get away from his car.

The point is that you can't believe everything you see. Besides that, was the lady in question supposed sell off everything she bought and paid for while she was working in order to qualify for public assistance?

While I'm no longer receiving assistance, when I did - I had a large flat screen tv and my kids had a Wii - both of which were hand me downs. My kids always wore Nike or Adidas shoes (they still do) - but I always bought them on clearance or online through eBay or Amazon. I buy those brands because I could get them for around $30 and they would actually last until they outgrew them, unlike the times I bought them cheap K-mart shoes for $10 - $15 that would fall apart within a month (I pay less for the nicer brands of shoes in the long run). The name brand clothes they've always worn were always either purchased on clearance, in consignment shops or for were hand me downs.

The point I'm making is - you don't know how the person obtained the goods or how much they paid for them. They could be really good at finding deals, they could've been given the items. They could've even obtained them when they were gainfully employed prior to needing assistance.

summer, you are correct, we don't know. And I am not opposed to public assistance either, just was pointing out a stereotype that the media put out there.

Heck, when I was first married we had to go on wic, so I know how important these programs can be for people.

you don't know how the person obtained the goods or how much they paid for them

Good point. I believe that many simple, poor people are systematically victimized. Marketers push the good life. Rent-to-own businesses charge them 5 times what something costs by having them pay monthly. Predatory lenders give them loans that put them in debt slavery. And most of these people are working poor. The lazy bums are a minority.

"and lies about Ryan throwing grandma over the cliff show an unwillingness by the left to take the reform of these programs seriously."

Suddenly I am reminded of "Death Panels" and many other clever names used...

Fact Social security show a 22 trillion dollar surplus after the boomer generation passes and it still has never taken a dime form the general budget, but has been pilfered by politicians.

Fact Medicare has risen 400% since 1969...But Private healthcare premiums have risen by 700% . Ryans plan does ZERO to address runaway medical inflation, or Private insurance cutting people who need insurance the most off their rolls while jacking the premiums for the healthy that could still afford their product
Ryans plan moves medicare from a defined medical health service to partial Private Insurance Premium support only , and the coupon receive depreciates from the 1st year issued, so rather than medicare covering 75% of the cost of total healthcare for seniors, it would provide as little as 25% for premium support only.
we run huge deficits for 50 years under ryans plan according to his twisted heritage foundation math, cuts social spending..so we will be paying fica as if we had a social safety net left, and subsidize another cut in top marginal tax rate

There are many, many young people (I am talking 21-30 years of age) who are on them for slight COPD or Depression) hell I get depressed getting up and going to work everyday and paying for these people should I be on SSD????

Perhaps its not as 'slight' as you perceive it to be. It's not that easy to get disability, from what I understand.

hell I get depressed getting up and going to work everyday and paying for these people should I be on SSD????

It's not easy at all to get disability and the vast majority of cases are not 'slight'. Go and visit an Intense Outpatient Program in a mental health ward. There are people there who have horrific disabilities of their mental health and even then, quite a few don't qualify for SSD. And if they do, it's woefully inadequate for many of their needs.

Mark 10:21-22 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

Is this another example of the hypocracy of people calling themselves christians but remaining remarkably unchrist-like. By the way don't google 'Jesus quote poor' it will make our claims to belonging to a christian based faith or our nation being christ-like even more questionable.

"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern." – Proverbs 29:7

Guess they think god will know they are christians by the number of elderly dining on fancy feast...

by the number of elderly dining on fancy feast...

oh wow...that's even better than the "death panels" .

mf,

c'mon, we all know that those people who have lost their jobs due to the economic collapse or outsourcing deliberately chose those jobs in hopes of becoming unemployed so they can live week to week, hand to mouth. these devious people would do well to apply that deviousness to seeking jobs.(SARC)

actually, I got cousins in northern minnesota who look forward to getting laid off in the winter and collect unemployment.

baddestbob - You're right, they walk among us;-)

I got cousins in northern minnesota who look forward to getting laid off in the winter and collect unemployment.

And what do your cousins do for a living JustenO? It sounds like they are seasonal workers. Hardly your average unemployed person.

Clearly that's one of the failings of the system. Maybe you could petition your Congressperson and get the law changed so that such abuses end?

An individual will spend his/her own dollar very efficiently, and get at least $1 worth back in goods/services, whereas the government will spend that same dollar very inefficiently, and get back only about a nickel worth of goods/services, if we're lucky.

Unless individuals are in charge of their own destiny, the waste, fraud and abuse will only perpetuate. 50 years of the liberal experiment bears this out.

From your piece;

Those assessments, called continuing disability reviews, or CDRs, are supposed to weed out those who aren't disabled.The reviews have a phenomenal rate of return, last year saving $11.74 for every $1 spent, according to agency records. But Social Security's leaders have pushed those potential savings aside to confront another embarrassing backlog -- 766,905 people waiting to plead cases for benefits before the agency's corps of judges.
Social Security's chief priorities -- speeding up disability claims and serving customers -- leave the agency scarce funds to conduct disability reviews. The agency processed about one in three that came due last year, says Kelly Croft, the agency's deputy commissioner for quality performance.
"They don't hold up against many of these other priorities," he says. "If we had permission to spend more upfront, we're certain that we could get taxpayers a very good return on that investment."

What private plan will pay the millions of truly disabled workers of this country a meager subsidy to survive on , or widows and orphans of Americans who have died and left children and spouses? Are they going to rely on the fantasy of everlasting charity based on the whims of the wealthy ?

I don't think even the most Hardcore Republicans would deny the needy help.

Can't agree with you on that. I think the current Republican party is all about swim or sink, and if you sink it's your own fault. They turned into a real heartless mob.

Philip - Exactly. They like to change the subject don't they?

for those of you who have bought into the foolish idea that taxing the so called 1% at a higher tax rate will solve this problem along with our debt problem need to research that assertion and you will find that our entitlement spending has gotten so out of hand that the 1% could be taxed at 100% and the spending would still out pace the newly found revenue.

I think it's defense spending that is out of control. And subsidies to fossil fuel industries too. And poorly designed farm bills. And the war on drugs. And wars period. Sure stupid lazy people exist but their impact is miniscule compared to corporate welfare. And most people receiving assistance are not freeloaders, they're people who've paid into the system or who are busting their asses trying to make ends meet. As far as the freeloaders go well they're getting what they deserve - not much. Living on welfare isn't a life of luxury.

The teapublican attempts to change the subject to how entitlements are killing are deceitful, shameful, and plain wrong-headed.

for those of you who have bought into the foolish idea that taxing the so called 1% at a higher tax rate will solve this problem along with our debt problem

I'm under no illusion that taxing the so-called 1% more will solve the debt problem. But putting (my) tax rates back to where they were in the 90's will certainly help. So will cutting spending. So let's do both.

The "assertion that needs to be researched" is the assertion that somehow, raising the top rate 4.9 percentage points--back to where it was when companies like Google, Amazon, Yahoo were formed-- is going to strangle business and 'kill job creation'. According to Republicans, those companies (and hundreds/thousands of businesses started back then) shouldn't have been created because of the "crushing weight of oppressive taxes."

Well, they were formed. So much for the notion that those tax rates stifle business.

But means testing for those that do not need the full benefit of SS or could pay a higher premium or deductible for Medicare should be. This would be a tremendous first step in fixing this problem and still be able to provide for those in need; and those in need was, in my opinion, the intent of FDR when he called it Social Security.

fox (#23) You're not reading the same history books I am. FDR didn't coin the term, Abe Epstein did.; it was called "economic security" in 1935 when enacted; and nowhere in the law does it make any provision for means testing. Nowhere does it say to provide for the general welfare if you meet some arbitrary, politically-driven litmus test.

Just what don't you people understand about Social Security? It isn't welfare. It isn't a saving plan. It isn't a dollar-for-dollar retirement plan. Rather, it's a contract among equals, among Americans, young and old, rich and poor. All of us, together. Everybody pays in, everybody is entitled to take out. Not who one group, one party, one ideology thinks qualify. Everybody. With apologies to Lillian Hellman, don't start cutting the social fabric to fit the fashion of the day.

And as for the nonsense that the safety net cannot be funded? Well, that's what it is, nonsense and an affront to anybody who has the functioning IQ higher than plant life.

FDR didn't coin the term

That is why I highlighted the word Security, most people would not recognize the term economic security. Thanks and please do not think that you are better informed then another person until you find out the details; it smacks of arrogance. I did not read the rest of your comment because you had already made it clear that you feel that you are the smarter one in the room.

Fox_News,

So you don't read the comments of anyone you think is smarter than you?

Or is it that you don't read the comments of people who think that they are smarter than you?

What if they are? Haven't you missed a chance to become more knowledgeable?

If they aren't you'll know it and can help them become more knowledgeable...

:)

Reading is a win/win.

Arrogance does not equal smarter only those that are arrogant think that the two are equal. Re-read my comment.

FDR didn't coin the term

That is why I highlighted the word Security, most people would not recognize the term economic security.

fox (#23.4) And somehow we're supposed to understand your intent in highlighting one word? That your intent was to help out "most people" who would not recognize the term? Sounds a bit condescending to me, but let's press on...

...please do not think that you are better informed then another person until you find out the details; it smacks of arrogance.

I tell you what "arrogance" is, it's assuming that you know what I am thinking. Now that (note emphasis) is presumptuous.

And I do know the "details;" you just don't seem to like them. You're tying to redirect; either respond to my point or don't address your comments to me.

I did not read the rest of your comment because you had already made it clear that you feel that you are the smarter one in the room.

I don't think you want to say "smarter one" when you can't know how many people are in "the room" or how smart, or not smart, any of those persons may be. I'm guessing you mean "smartest" but I don't know that, and I certainly wouldn't want to suggest I know you intent in your usage of that inappropriate term.

Try reading before posting, perhaps a little study in basic English usage would come in handy at this point.

ahem, there's lots of members stopping by to see the discussion between y'll...:)

Wow you haven't a clue of what is being said here, do you?

yes i have a clue, i paid for 54 years to receive benefits from SS, and you complain that i receive them. i should give them to you that pay nothing.

I think he knows exactly what's being said.

FACT: The average SS recipient pays in only a fraction of what they collect. With half the country supporting the other half, this is sustainable - how?

source?

Bill

Bull@!$%#

What part? That the national debt is increasing? That the economy is in trouble?

Bill K. NY

How about we talk about the major contributors to the increasing debt? Like starting BS wars and simultaneously cutting rich people's taxes. Or letting the banking industry run wild and then bailing them out after they bring the world economy to its knees. Or subsidizing oil and gas companies. Shall I go on or do you still claim it's all about welfare cheats?

It may already be too late to avoid a severe financial crisis or bankruptcy.

You're right--in fact, we had it. Except if you recall, it was the policies in place leading up to 2008 that caused the "severe financial crisis" remember?

Contrary to popular Republican belief, aside from the original 2009 Stimulus plan, Obama hasn't really spent that much. Spending in general HAS gone up, but not because of Obama's laws or policies.

When you have a lot more people out of work, more fall into the safety net. . When you have a lot more people out of work, far less in taxes are collected. When people are living longer, you pay out more in medicare and social security. So without changing any law or policy, the government has to spend a lot more money. The result of all that is a much larger deficit.

It also strikes many of us a disingenuous that prior to 2009 (which coincidentally coincided with Obama's election), few of those now complaining about the debt were at all concerned about it.

Seattle: They conveniently like to ignore those little facts.