Some interesting census numbers....

[CosmicCowboy]

Buried deep on the website of the U.S. Census Bureau is a number every American citizen, and especially those entrusted with public office, should know. It is 86,429,000.

That is the number of Americans who in 2012 got up every morning and went to work — in the private sector — and did it week after week after week.

These are the people who built America, and these are the people who can sustain it as a free country. The liberal media have not made them famous like the polar bear, but they are truly a threatened species.

It is not a rancher with a few hundred head of cattle that is attacking their habitat, nor an energy company developing a fossil fuel. It is big government and its primary weapon — an ever-expanding welfare state.

First, let's look at the basic taxonomy of the full-time, year-round American worker.

In 2012, according to the Census Bureau, approximately 103,087,000 people worked full-time, year-round in the United States. "A full-time, year-round worker is a person who worked 35 or more hours per week (full time) and 50 or more weeks during the previous calendar year (year round)," said the Census Bureau. "For school personnel, summer vacation is counted as weeks worked if they are scheduled to return to their job in the fall."

Of the 103,087,000 full-time, year-round workers, 16,606,000 worked for the government. That included 12,597,000 who worked for state and local government and 4,009,000 who worked for the federal government.

The 86,429,000 Americans who worked full-time, year-round in the private sector, included 77,392,000 employed as wage and salary workers for private-sector enterprises and 9,037,000 who worked for themselves. (There were also approximately 52,000 who worked full-time, year-round without pay in a family enterprise.)

At first glance, 86,429,000 might seem like a healthy population of full-time private-sector workers. But then you need to look at what they are up against.

The Census Bureau also estimates the size of the benefit-receiving population.

This population, too, falls into two broad categories. The first includes those who receive benefits for public services they performed or in exchange for payroll taxes they dutifully paid their entire working lives. Among these, for example, are those receiving veteran's benefits, those on unemployment and those getting Medicare and Social Security.

The second category includes those who get "means-tested" government benefits — or welfare. These include, for example, those who get Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, public housing, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Women, Infants Children.

Let's examine this second category first, which the Census Bureau reports as "anyone residing in a household in which one or more people received benefits from the program."

In the last quarter of 2011, according to the Census Bureau, approximately 82,457,000 people lived in households where one or more people were on Medicaid. 49,073,000 lived in households were someone got food stamps. 23,228,000 lived in households where one or more got WIC. 20,223,000 lived in households where one or more got SSI. 13,433,000 lived in public or government-subsidized housing.

Of course, it stands to reason that some people lived in households that received more than one welfare benefit at a time. To account for this, the Census Bureau published a neat composite statistic: There were 108,592,000 people in the fourth quarter of 2011 who lived in a household that included people on "one or more means-tested program."

Those 108,592,000 outnumbered the 86,429,000 full-time private-sector workers who inhabited the United States in 2012 by almost 1.3 to 1.

This brings us to the first category of benefit receivers. There were 49,901,000 people receiving Social Security in the fourth quarter of 2011, and 46,440,000 receiving Medicare. There were also 5,098,000 getting unemployment compensation.

And there were also, 3,178,000 veterans receiving benefits and 34,000 veterans getting educational assistance.

All told, including both the welfare recipients and the non-welfare beneficiaries, there were 151,014,000 who "received benefits from one or more programs" in the fourth quarter of 2011. Subtract the 3,212,000 veterans, who served their country in the most profound way possible, and that leaves 147,802,000 non-veteran benefit takers.

The 147,802,000 non-veteran benefit takers outnumbered the 86,429,000 full-time private sector workers 1.7 to 1.

How much more can the 86,429,000 endure?

As more baby boomers retire, and as Obamacare comes fully online — with its expanded Medicaid rolls and federally subsidized health insurance for anyone earning less than 400 percent of the poverty level — the number of takers will inevitably expand. And the number of full-time private-sector workers might also contract.

[Th'Pusher]

Is it not possible someone could fall into both categories - a full time worker who also receives some type of federal benefit?

And no suggestions of how to fix the poorly defined problem?

This is an emotional hit piece to rabble rouse the likes of CC,WC, Snakeboy and TSA.

And fucking link your bullshit and stop being embarrassed of your sources. Let me guess, fox Forbes or WSJ?

[pgardn]

So we got the numbers of people who get up and work 86,000,000.

but...

In the last quarter of 2011, according to the Census Bureau, approximately 82,457,000 people lived in households where one or more people were on Medicaid. 49,073,000 lived in households were someone got food stamps. 23,228,000 lived in households where one or more got WIC. 20,223,000 lived in households where one or more got SSI. 13,433,000 lived in public or government-subsidized housing.?

So these are numbers given per household? Why not just count the number of people that get food stamps like workers were counted? Why not just count the number on Medicaid? So 3 kids live in a household where grandpa gets Medicaid and the parents both work. Right there you have 6 people from one household tied to Medicaid? 6 that are apart of that 82,000,000. When only ONE person is on Medicaid.

Am I really reading this blatant misuse of statistics? Seriously, I gotta be missing something. A little help over here please.

[boutons_deux]

"It is not a rancher with a few hundred head of cattle that is attacking their habitat, nor an energy company developing a fossil fuel. It is big government and its primary weapon — an ever-expanding welfare state."

right-wing, boiler-plate, talking point, checkbox, VRWC/1%/UCA bullshit.

no mention of corporate welfare?

no mention of the avg tax paid by companies is 12% or that taxes on the super wealthy are highly regressive, stopping at about 20%?

no mention that the number of people of public assistance is so high because the jobs, good jobs, have been destroyed for profits?

etc, etc, etc.

right-wing, boiler-plate, talking point, checkbox, VRWC/1%/UCA bullshit.

Now that the VRWC/1%/UCA has achieved incredible wealth by not paying their fair share of taxes, the govt at all levels is in deficit, so the VRWC/1%/UCA solution is just fuck everybody, fuck schools, fuck the environment, fuck everything (so the VRWC/1%/UCA can keep their taxes low)

[CosmicCowboy]

Is it not possible someone could fall into both categories - a full time worker who also receives some type of federal benefit?

And no suggestions of how to fix the poorly defined problem?

This is an emotional hit piece to rabble rouse the likes of CC,WC, Snakeboy and TSA.

And fucking link your bullshit and stop being embarrassed of your sources. Let me guess, fox Forbes or WSJ?

Go fuck yourself

The numbers are the numbers

I posted the article without editorial comment

I'm not being "rabble roused" you arrogant little prick.

[Winehole23]

What do you think about your own post, CC?

Are government workers worthless parasites?

As a businessman, do you really believe you could do without government, that it provides nothing valuable or necessary and is the antithesis of freedom per se?

[Th'Pusher]

The numbers are bullshit. Is it possible that someone falls in both categories? A full time worker (which the author seems to love) and a person who also receives say foods stamps (which the author seems to hate). The author is pitting the two against each other, to play on your emotions, when they could in fact be the same person, but you appear to be too stupid to ferret that out.

And source your bullshit.

[Th'Pusher]

:lol cns news. No wonder you're embarrassed to link your bullshit. You just love reading shit that confirms you biases.

:lol time waste

[boutons_deux]

denigrating, even criminalizing the poor, esp the (full time) working poor, esp the non-Euro-Americans, to justify not helping them (socialism!) is fundamental to the strategy of the oligarchs to justify them not paying their fair share of taxes.

prime example: ALL of Ryan's budgets.

[Winehole23]

are folks on public relief worthless parasites who contribute nothing to society and therefore deserve nothing?

[Winehole23]

what do you think, CC? do you have an opinion about your own OP, or are you content to hide behind its skirts like a coward?

[CosmicCowboy]

What do you think about your own post, CC?

Are government workers worthless parasites?

As a businessman, do you really believe you could do without government, that it provides nothing valuable or necessary and is the antithesis of freedom per se?

I said no such thing.

However, the ratio of private sector workers (which produce GDP) to all others logically will continue to shrink as the baby boomers retire. I certainly plan to be receiving a big fat check every month from you guys in ten years and sucking my fair share off the medicare tit.

The ratio should concern you.

[pgardn]

The numbers are the numbers.


.

So we got the numbers of people who get up and work 86,000,000.


but...


In the last quarter of 2011, according to the Census Bureau, approximately 82,457,000 people lived in households where one or more people were on Medicaid. 49,073,000 lived in households were someone got food stamps. 23,228,000 lived in households where one or more got WIC. 20,223,000 lived in households where one or more got SSI. 13,433,000 lived in public or government-subsidized housing.?


So these are numbers given per household? Why not just count the number of people that get food stamps like workers were counted? Why not just count the number on Medicaid? So 3 kids live in a household where grandpa gets Medicaid and the parents both work. Right there you have 6 people from one household tied to Medicaid? 6 that are apart of that 82,000,000. When only ONE person is on Medicaid.


Am I really reading this blatant misuse of statistics? Seriously, I gotta be missing something. A little help over here please.

And again? I must be missing something? Anyone?

[Winehole23]

However, the ratio of private sector workers (which produce GDP) to all others logically will continue to shrink as the baby boomers retire.the public sector contributes to GDP, does it not?

[CosmicCowboy]

Personally, I don't have time to research the raw census numbers.

If you think the article misrepresented the numbers you are certainly free to research and dispute them.

[CosmicCowboy]

the public sector contributes to GDP, does it not?

I honestly don't know. Can you give me an example?

[CosmicCowboy]

hmmmm...


The monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country's borders in a specific time period, though GDP is usually calculated on an annual basis. It includes all of private and public consumption, government outlays, investments and exports less imports that occur within a defined territory.

GDP = C + G + I + NX

where:

"C" is equal to all private consumption, or consumer spending, in a nation's economy
"G" is the sum of government spending
"I" is the sum of all the country's businesses spending on capital
"NX" is the nation's total net exports, calculated as total exports minus total imports. (NX = Exports - Imports)

I misused GDP. "Private sector production"? "Original source of government revenue"?

I think you get the drift of the ratio.

[Winehole23]

government salaries and spending are per se contributions to GDP.

[Winehole23]

pretending government and government spending are economically unproductive is piffle.

[Winehole23]

I said no such thing.

However, the ratio of private sector workers (which produce GDP) to all others logically will continue to shrink as the baby boomers retire. I certainly plan to be receiving a big fat check every month from you guys in ten years and sucking my fair share off the medicare tit.

The ratio should concern you.maybe we need more young immigrants paying into the system. birth rate won't go up all on its own.

[CosmicCowboy]

government salaries and spending are per se contributions to GDP.

Agreed.

Point being, if I pay you a dollar, you then pay Fred a dollar, Fred then pays George a dollar, George then pays Mary a dollar, Mary then pays Sally a dollar....iIt's not five dollars....t's still just one dollar of value that had to be originally produced by someone...

[Winehole23]

but, barring a new wave of immigration or a spike in the birth rate, the burden on younger folks will be heavy. no doubt about it.

[Winehole23]

kicking everyone off the dole and cancelling everyone's health insurance would ease that burden for sure. is that what you're for?

[pgardn]

Personally, I don't have time to research the raw census numbers.

If you think the article misrepresented the numbers you are certainly free to research and dispute them.

There is no research needed.

Read my example with grandpa. Why does ONE person count as Six?

I don't get it. 86,000,000 work. That's individuals...
And 82,000,000 live in households that are tied to Medicaid.
Why did they count the foodstamps, Medicaid, etc... To the Household BUT NOT WORKERS?

So let's say we did tie the 86,000,000 workers to a household. Let's say dad works, and mom and the two kids live with dad.
that makes 86,000,000 x 4 tied to households with a worker.

Thats 344,000,000 people tied to workers. So everything is hunky dory?
The population of the US is around the 320,000,000. We got workers crawling from under rocks...?

[Winehole23]

for example, CC, in what sense can you have private property rights without functioning, accessible courts? do interstate highways tangibly benefit free markets? do food, water and health regulations have any effect on productivity? are there social goods associated with education? this whole idea that government is a social parasite (that only benefits parasites) at a very basic level, is bullshit.

[CosmicCowboy]

OK, argue these numbers. Says basically the same thing. We have the lowest labor participation rate since 1978.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

[boutons_deux]

Walmart Worker: Why Did the Waltons Get $8 Billion in Subsidies While I Had to Pay Taxes?

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/walmart_tax_bill.jpg

While millions of working- and middle-class Americans pay taxes each year, the richest family in the world—the Waltons—received nearly $8 billion in tax breaks last year, according to a new report (http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/walmart-on-tax-day/) by Americans for Tax Fairness, a campaign fighting for progressive tax reform.

That’s why Walmart worker Richard Reynoso and his fellow co-workers decided to bring the $7.8 billion tax bill to Walmart Chairman Rob Walton’s doorstep on Tuesday.

The report stated that in 2013, Walmart received about $6.2 billion in federal taxpayer subsidies because its employee wages are so low.

Many employees, in turn, are forced to rely on healthcare, food stamps and other taxpayer-funded programs.

The corporation then further evaded $1 billion through tax breaks and loopholes.

The Walton family, in addition, avoided about $607 million of taxes on their Walmart dividends.

http://www.alternet.org/activism/walmart-worker-why-did-waltons-get-8-billion-subsidies-while-i-had-pay-taxes

[Winehole23]

OK, argue these numbers. Says basically the same thing. We have the lowest labor participation rate since 1978.fewer workers supporting more social parasites. got it. what's your point?

[pgardn]

In my work if I get shitty numbers like this that look to have been manipulated and I don't ask someone to check my reasoning then what I am paid to do could lead down a road of a huge amount of waisted time (WORK) experimenting with the wrong problem.

I must be missing something. Now I will stay up all night. And spend months of fruitless thinking. Which I do perfectly well outside of work.

[Winehole23]

kicking everyone off the dole and cancelling everyone's health insurance would ease that burden for sure. is that what you're for?you'd be cutting off the limb you plan to sit on but the fact is, you don't really need to suck on the government tit -- you just prefer to whenever it's offered.

[pgardn]

OK, argue these numbers. Says basically the same thing. We have the lowest labor participation rate since 1978.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

I don't want to argue. I want someone to check my reasoning.

So I look at the above and I'm ok.
If you want a possible explanation, I would have to look at the age demographics as I would guess this plays a large role. But there could be many other contributing factors as well that are more important. I'm sure there are many economists that have looked into explanations.

[Winehole23]

you'd be cutting off the limb you plan to sit on but the fact is, you don't really need to suck on the government tit -- you just prefer to whenever it's offered.

http://kingofcarts.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/a-red-and-black-lifted-golf-cart.jpg

[Winehole23]

I said no such thing.Your OP implies it. You tried to argue that government was intrinsically unproductive and fell on your face more or less instantly.

Do you agree or disagree with what your own OP says, CC? If so, how do you agree or disagree with it?

[CosmicCowboy]

Seriously WH. I used the article simply for it's compilation of the census numbers. I was not necessarily agreeing with the agenda of the author.

The intent was to provoke conversation on the numbers, not to defend his position.

And yes, I will take advantage of any government tax credits, deductions, SS, Medicare etc. offered to me with zero guilt.

I have paid over a million dollars of tax in my lifetime. No guilt at all.

[Winehole23]

you're entitled to public largesse because you don't need it, the rest of us are social parasites. makes sense to me.

[Winehole23]

lol "not necessarily" going along.
lol just talking about the census numbers.

[boutons_deux]

"simply for it's compilation of the census numbers."

cherry picked to support his agenda, with no social/economic context, no reasons why these numbers are now, nor what they were earlier, no trends,

just "govt employess and govt assisted people too numerous. I'm trying to outrage pitbull bitch's Real Americans, bubbas, rednecks, gun fellators who are "enduring" the situation"

also did not mention that the number of govt employees at all levels has declined starting with Banksters Great Depression

[CosmicCowboy]

you're entitled to public largesse because you don't need it, the rest of us are social parasites. makes sense to me.

:lmao

you sure are in a bitchy mood today! :lol

Public largesse? :lol The government gives tax credits and deductions in order to influence behavior. So they influence my behavior and I accept the credits and deductions. I bought electric vehicles. I bought solar panels. Big fucking deal. I did what the government wanted.

[Winehole23]

what was your point about the census numbers again?

[Winehole23]

you never quite got done clearing your throat.

[SnakeBoy]

This is an emotional hit piece to rabble rouse the likes of CC,WC, Snakeboy and TSA.


Why you trying to drag me into this? I've never been against social welfare, that territory belong to CC & WC. The only thing those numbers are indicative of is the poor state of our economy.

[pgardn]

Why you trying to drag me into this? I've never been against social welfare, that territory belong to CC & WC. The only thing those numbers are indicative of is the poor state of our economy.

So we got the numbers of people who get up and work 86,000,000.




but...




In the last quarter of 2011, according to the Census Bureau, approximately 82,457,000 people lived in households where one or more people were on Medicaid. 49,073,000 lived in households were someone got food stamps. 23,228,000 lived in households where one or more got WIC. 20,223,000 lived in households where one or more got SSI. 13,433,000 lived in public or government-subsidized housing.?




So these are numbers given per household? Why not just count the number of people that get food stamps like workers were counted? Why not just count the number on Medicaid? So 3 kids live in a household where grandpa gets Medicaid and the parents both work. Right there you have 6 people from one household tied to Medicaid? 6 that are apart of that 82,000,000. When only ONE person is on Medicaid.




Am I really reading this blatant misuse of statistics? Seriously, I gotta be missing something. A little help over here please.

Ok Snake, tell me what you get from the numbers.
I get an absolutely blatant misuse of numbers.

[SnakeBoy]

Ok Snake, tell me what you get from the numbers.
I get an absolutely blatant misuse of numbers.

Uh...I just did...


The only thing those numbers are indicative of is the poor state of our economy.

[pgardn]

Uh...I just did...

Well then I pity your ability to reason given the numbers the Original article gave.
i know what it's intended to say. But that's not what those numbers say.

[Th'Pusher]

Why you trying to drag me into this? I've never been against social welfare, that territory belong to CC & WC. The only thing those numbers are indicative of is the poor state of our economy.

Sorry. My mistake. As I know you're a consumer of Sean Hannity I reflexively lumped you in with the rabble that get roused by the op.

[Th'Pusher]

CC got to the shop this morning at the crack of dawn, fired up the old desktop, stared out the window at the wasteland that is fox tech, then began getting emotional about how SAISD is driving down his property value so he started banging around the net hitting all the conservative websites till he came across this jewel at cns news. He thought it was so provocative and insightful, he had to share it...

[TeyshaBlue]

cherry picked to support his agenda
Bitch, please.....


boutons :lol nothing to say

[scott]

Agreed.

Point being, if I pay you a dollar, you then pay Fred a dollar, Fred then pays George a dollar, George then pays Mary a dollar, Mary then pays Sally a dollar....iIt's not five dollars....t's still just one dollar of value that had to be originally produced by someone...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point... but I disagree with your premise here.

If I pay you a dollar for something I think is worth a dollar... and you pay Fred a dollar for something that you think is worth a dollar... and Fred pays George a dollar for something that Fred thinks is worth a Dollar... and George pays Mary a dollar for something George thinks is worth a dollar... and Mary pays Sally a dollar for something Mary thinks is worth a dollar... we definitely have 5 dollars worth of value. The dollar doesn't have an intrinsic value, it's the stuff that dollar bought that does.

What you're essentially describing is the velocity of money. The more times the same dollar is spent (velocity), the higher nominal GDP is.

Algebraically:

M * V = P * Y

Where:

M = Money supply
V = Velocity
P = Price level
Y = Real GDP
(And P * Y = Nominal GDP... and skipping ahead to the punchline, we observe monetary neutrality and that a chance in M will only have a change in P. Also skipping ahead to the punchline, we observe that V is very stable over time)

Further elaboration will invoke an invoice at the rate equal to the amount of my last 3 years at the University

[scott]

Or we can chat next time I see you, but I imagine we could find something more interesting to discuss

[CosmicCowboy]

Or we can chat next time I see you, but I imagine we could find something more interesting to discuss

LOL, I'm sure we will.

[TeyshaBlue]

LOL, I'm sure we will.

I would suggest we study the velocity of Scott's beer.

[CosmicCowboy]

More likely we will be discussing the velocity of Scott's beer sales.

[pgardn]

"simply for it's compilation of the census numbers."

cherry picked to support his agenda, with no social/economic context, no reasons why these numbers are now, nor what they were earlier, no trends,

just "govt employess and govt assisted people too numerous. I'm trying to outrage pitbull bitch's Real Americans, bubbas, rednecks, gun fellators who are "enduring" the situation"

also did not mention that the number of govt employees at all levels has declined starting with Banksters Great Depression





Boots...

Look at what I wrote.
Those numbers are meaningless.
They are manipulated INVALID comparisons.

There is really nothing to discuss.

[Winehole23]

OK, argue these numbers. Says basically the same thing. We have the lowest labor participation rate since 1978.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000Ok. Argue these numbers.

What's your goddam argument, CC?

[Winehole23]

oh right, "posted without editorial comment"

[Winehole23]

lol having the cowardice of your own convictions

[Winehole23]

lol running away from your own OP as well the numbers you claim to be interested in

[ElNono]

As I was reading that, I was thinking:

1) what about those on full time jobs that also receive benefits?
2) we do have a demographics where we have a whole lot of older people (retiring/retired, getting their welfare) and not enough young people. If we pretend money supply is fixed, short of screwing older people, there's no obvious solution to it.

Fortunately for the US, money supply isn't fixed (not infinite either, obviously). So the obvious solution is a combo of both growth and increased money supply so we don't screw up CC's welfare checks, and there's no such major burden to younger people (who aren't necessarily to blame for lower birth rates).

[Winehole23]

growth is the key there. without it countercyclical policy results in banks and big business sitting on titanic piles of money.

[boutons_deux]

growth is the key there. without it countercyclical policy results in banks and big business sitting on titanic piles of money.

growth? fuck no. almost all gains of growth (of GDP, a shitty measure of economy) go to the 1% and corps, not to the 99%.

the key here is reverse the redistribution upwards to the 1% done by govt policies, to stop preferring capital (gains) to labor (earned income)

how to reverse the redistribution? reverse the tax policies of the past 40 years so that capital gains and high incomes are taxed heavily AGAIN.

Also tax ALL financial transactions. so govt has the money to invest in the productive economy (solar, wind, electric grid, public transport, water, research, etc).

The key PROBLEM is that the corps and 1%, through their protection racket of their Repug proxies and esp the astro-turf tea bagging Repugs, block all PROGRESS back towards more equitable economy.

[ElNono]

growth is the key there. without it countercyclical policy results in banks and big business sitting on titanic piles of money.

Growth is preferred because it also helps remove people from welfare, so it has a double effect to address the problem.

But growth is also difficult to achieve when you're uncompetitive (largely the situation we're in now).

There's many routes to become competitive again (the one govt can control is gradually increasing the money supply to the detriment of standard of living), but that's a different topic altogether.

[boutons_deux]

"Growth is preferred because it also helps remove people from welfare"

... hell no. Unemployment and welfare are still way way away from healthy while growth 1%'s/corporate wealth has exploded.

iow, St Ronnie-nomics' trickle down is a HUGE LIE

[tlongII]

growth? fuck no. almost all gains of growth (of GDP, a shitty measure of economy) go to the 1% and corps, not to the 99%.

the key here is reverse the redistribution upwards to the 1% done by govt policies, to stop preferring capital (gains) to labor (earned income)

how to reverse the redistribution? reverse the tax policies of the past 40 years so that capital gains and high incomes are taxed heavily AGAIN.

Also tax ALL financial transactions. so govt has the money to invest in the productive economy (solar, wind, electric grid, public transport, water, research, etc).

The key PROBLEM is that the corps and 1%, through their protection racket of their Repug proxies and esp the astro-turf tea bagging Repugs, block all PROGRESS back towards more equitable economy.

So your solution is bigger government? :lol

[boutons_deux]

So your solution is bigger government? :lol

of course, what's the problem?

[tlongII]

of course, what's the problem?

Do you read what you post?

[boutons_deux]

Do you read what you post?

of course, what's the problem?

[ElNono]

"Growth is preferred because it also helps remove people from welfare"

... hell no.

I'm not debating it, since it's actually quantifiable. ie: Foodstamp recipients grow during an economic downturn, they decrease when the economy is growing.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm not debating it, since it's actually quantifiable. ie: Foodstamp recipients grow during an economic downturn, they decrease when the economy is growing.

gfy :p

[boutons_deux]

I'm not debating it, since it's actually quantifiable. ie: Foodstamp recipients grow during an economic downturn, they decrease when the economy is growing.

show the welfare/snap/whatever stats from 2007 to now

[ElNono]

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43173

[boutons_deux]

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43173

ha ha ! told ya!

this bullshit called GDP, corporate profits, stock market, M & A activity, executive compensation, all up, all "GROWTH", for the past couple years, but people on public assistance has been, yes!, GROWING, too. :lol

"growth" isn't growing for the 99% like it is for the 1% and corporations, because the system has been rigged to enrich top by sucking wealth from the 99%.

All boats don't get floated, trickle down is a huge VRWC/Voodoo St Ronnie-nomics LIE.

"Let us 1% make $Ts by cutting our taxes and deregulation, and we 1%ers will trickle down our wealth to all y'all workers" :lol

Since the Banksters Great Depression, 90%+ of the GROWING income has gone to the 1% and corps. trickle trickle! :lol

[ElNono]

Participation dropped every time GDP growth exceeded 5%... Last time that happened was during 2005 (middle of the housing bubble)... also happened more often during the dotcom bubble...

ha ha, told ya!

[boutons_deux]

Participation dropped every time GDP growth exceeded 5%... Last time that happened was during 2005 (middle of the housing bubble)... also happened more often during the dotcom bubble...

ha ha, told ya!

fuck GDP. it is less and less a measure of the income, wealth of the 99%. The economy has been financialized, capital is vastly more, and increasingly more important than labor. So drop GDP as a measure of the well being of the 99%, and above all of Bishop Gecko's 47% which contains the people on public assistance.

[boutons_deux]

The Economy Is Improving, But Not for Everyone


http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_earnings_production_2014_q1.jpg

The BLS reported today (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.nr0.htm) that weekly earnings for full-time wage and salary workers rose 3 percent in the first quarter of 2014 compared to a year ago. Since inflation is running at 1.4 percent, that's good news. Earnings are going up.

But wage gains are pretty unevenly distributed. Jeffrey Sparshott passes along a recent Labor Department note which concludes that all of the wage gains since 2009 have gone to the top 40 percent. (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/04/17/wealthiest-households-accounted-for-80-of-rise-in-incomes-in-recessions-aftermath/) The poor, the working class, and the middle class have seen no gains at all. This is reflected in the chart on the right, which shows weekly earnings for production and nonsupervisory workers. Weekly earnings for this group have been rising at a rate slightly above inflation for the past year, but not by much. Nor is that number getting better: In the first quarter of 2014, weekly earnings rose only 1.8 percent.

There are some positive signs that the labor market is tightening a bit—decent job creation rates, fewer unemployment claims, rising earnings for full-time workers—but not everyone is benefiting. This remains a pretty uneven recovery.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/economy-improving-not-everyone

I expect the recovery for the 47% will remain "uneven", aka shitty, long term.

[ElNono]

fuck GDP.

You don't have to like it, but that's how we measure growth in economic terms.

[boutons_deux]

You don't have to like it, but that's how we measure growth in economic terms.

it's useful as BMI, even more so now that GDP goes mainly to the 1% and corps, not the 99%.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You don't have to like it, but that's how we measure growth in economic terms.

In fairness a couple of states are moving to other metrics for economic status.

[ElNono]

In fairness a couple of states are moving to other metrics for economic status.

Point well taken, but the OP is talking about federal welfare from what I understood.

[boutons_deux]

The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence. Our results provide substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism

http://pando.com/2014/04/18/new-shocking-research-proves-that-rich-people-control-american-politics/

duh

and there's no solution