Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty

[Splits]

Friendly reminder...


Who Benefits From the Safety Net (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/who-benefits-from-the-safety-net/)
By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM and ROBERT GEBELOFF FEBRUARY 13, 2012 10:19 AM February 13, 2012 10:19 am 79 Comments
A new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities underscores that the poor are no longer the primary beneficiaries of the government safety net.


Terms like entitlements, government benefits and safety net often conjure images of tax dollars sliding from the hands of the wealthy into the pockets of the poor. But as we reported Sunday, that image is badly outdated. Benefits now flow primarily to the middle class.


The center’s study found that the poorest American households, the bottom fifth, received just 32 cents of every dollar of government benefits distributed in 2010.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/02/13/business/economy/13economix-benefits/13economix-benefits-blog480.jpg

The finding is broadly consistent with the data we reported Sunday that the poorest households received 36 percent of benefits in 2007, down from 54 percent in 1979, numbers that came from a study published last year by the Congressional Budget Office.


While the findings are not directly comparable because of differences in methodology, the new study suggests that the recent recession did not cause any significant increase in the share of benefits flowing to the poor, as might once have been expected.


The study found that older people received slightly more than half of government benefits, while the nonelderly with disabilities received an additional 20 percent. Most of these benefits are not means-tested – indeed, better-paid workers get more in Social Security.


Furthermore, the study notes that politicians have shifted benefits away from the “jobless poor,” through reductions in traditional welfare, and increased benefits for working families, for example through tax credits. The government also has steadily expanded eligibility for benefit programs.


“The safety net became much more work-based,” wrote Arloc Sherman and his collaborators at the center, a left-leaning research group. “In addition, the U.S. population is aging, which raises the share of benefits going to seniors and people with disabilities.”


Another finding of the study is that the distribution of benefits no longer aligns with the demography of poverty. African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share.


White non-Hispanics, who make up 42 percent of the poor, receive 69 percent of government benefits – again, much closer to their 64 percent population share.

[djohn2oo8]

Splits. Doing work.

[m>s]

good we deserve it, our ancestors paid into that damn system from its onset and whites continue to pay the most taxes today. this is our fucking country that we built and you assclowns act all shocked and fake outrage over us doing well, getting benefits, or anything you can bitch about really. i'll tell you what i told chump and the other communists, mutual fucking combat is legal under texas law. we can do it 1920s berlin style.

[ChumpDumper]

good we deserve it, our ancestors paid into that damn system from its onset and whites continue to pay the most taxes today. this is our fucking country that we built and you assclowns act all shocked and fake outrage over us doing well, getting benefits, or anything you can bitch about really. i'll tell you what i told chump and the other communists, mutual fucking combat is legal under texas law. we can do it 1920s berlin style.You'd never show up.

You're all talk.

[TeyshaBlue]

Cpbb putting out shit analysis once again.
Classing SS benefits as welfare?

Holy fucking shit. :lmao

[m>s]

yeah how shocking is it that whites who paid into social security for 50 years are now getting their money back? such a stupid fucking article and thread from a petty little anti white racist who couldn't hold a candle to me anywhere at anything on his best day.

[m>s]

You'd never show up.

You're all talk.

shut the fuck up faggot, you and blake go prep the bull. sniveling cowardly little thing you are, you reek of weakness and pathetic self hatred don't project that shit my way i'm a proud german and a real Aryan.

[ChumpDumper]

shut the fuck up faggot, you and blake go prep the bull. sniveling cowardly little thing you are, you reek of weakness and pathetic self hatred don't project that shit my way i'm a proud german and a real Aryan.You're a mousy piece of shit who never did anything and will never do anything.

[m>s]

You're a mousy piece of shit who never did anything and will never do anything.
no fucker, at least i stand up for mein volk, this clown makes a thread shitting on white people and you, a self proclaimed white male, come in here defacto backing him up because the only person you went after is me. you're a self hating little piece of scum and a traitor. and you know where you're going to stand on the day of redemption, you're not one of us anymore.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Splits with another swing and miss. 0-2. TeyshaBlue calmly checking asses and calling a tight zone.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You're a mousy piece of shit who never did anything and will never do anything.
What have you accomplished via 24/7 internet life?

[m>s]

What have you accomplished via 24/7 internet life?
he's earned a lot of shekels from the JIDF for what he does, that sellout fuck

[TeyshaBlue]

no fucker, at least i stand up for mein volk, this clown makes a thread shitting on white people and you, a self proclaimed white male, come in here defacto backing him up because the only person you went after is me. you're a self hating little piece of scum and a traitor. and you know where you're going to stand on the day of redemption, you're not one of us anymore.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/QHgQw.gif (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/QHgQw.gif.html)

[m>s]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/QHgQw.gif (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/QHgQw.gif.html)

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/784/997/36d.png

[Blizzardwizard]

"The center’s study found that the poorest American households, the bottom fifth, received just 32 cents of every dollar of government benefits distributed in 2010."

But but the GOP told me the poorest are getting unlimited handouts and are robbing the middle class of hundreds of thousands of dollars :cry

[ChumpDumper]

What have you accomplished via 24/7 internet life?False premise. I see you're still pissy.

[TeyshaBlue]

"The center’s study found that the poorest American households, the bottom fifth, received just 32 cents of every dollar of government benefits distributed in 2010."

But but the GOP told me the poorest are getting unlimited handouts and are robbing the middle class of hundreds of thousands of dollars :cry

Cbpp's "analysis" is bullshit. Any point you try to make piggy-backing off that hit piece is instant fail.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/784/997/36d.png

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/Ialmostcare_zps94254cda.gif (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/Ialmostcare_zps94254cda.gif.html)

[Blizzardwizard]

Cbpp's "analysis" is bullshit. Any point you try to make piggy-backing off that hit piece is instant fail.

Why is it bullshit?

[m>s]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/Ialmostcare_zps94254cda.gif (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/Ialmostcare_zps94254cda.gif.html)

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqcu0puoOOObnSREel0T8x3Ur4nG1Mx acob13Qo6rs0J090jCRrw

[TeyshaBlue]

Why is it bullshit?

To lump in Social Security with tranfer payouts is like comparing squirrels to parachute pants.

SS is a specific tax for a particular, defined purpose. Welfare is a distribution of general taxes.

[TeyshaBlue]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqcu0puoOOObnSREel0T8x3Ur4nG1Mx acob13Qo6rs0J090jCRrw

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/vaderfail.jpg (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/vaderfail.jpg.html)

[m>s]

SS is the government confiscating part of your allowance to hold onto for you because they don't feel like you can save your own money without their help or oversight. it's literally YOUR money that you put up for YOUR retirement, it's not an extra gibsmedat like the rest of what people think of as "welfare" such as food stamps, cheaper housing, etc.

[ChumpDumper]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/vaderfail.jpg (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/vaderfail.jpg.html)lol always a classic.

[m>s]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/vaderfail.jpg (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/vaderfail.jpg.html)

http://81.4.126.121/4/s4s/1388475166899.jpg

[TeyshaBlue]

http://81.4.126.121/4/s4s/1388475166899.jpg

Keep it up UTA.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/superdan_zpsecb7658c.gif (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/superdan_zpsecb7658c.gif.html)

[ChumpDumper]

Do you internet buddies think those "cartoons" are funny, m<s?

[m>s]

http://i.imgur.com/vAue5uN.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, like that? Do they think it's funny?

I know since you're hurt all you can do is post all of them you can find, but who really likes those?

[TeyshaBlue]

Probably need to take a break, little fella.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/thfunny-17.gif (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/thfunny-17.gif.html)

[m>s]

Keep it up UTA.

https://bestof4chan.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/1349548855609.png
the quality of your memes keeps going down :-DDD

[TeyshaBlue]

the quality of your memes keeps going down :-DDD

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/Lebowski.jpg (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/Lebowski.jpg.html)

[Th'Pusher]

Cpbb putting out shit analysis once again.
Classing SS benefits as welfare?

Holy fucking shit. :lmao
Did you read the article? There was no classification of SS as welfare, but more broadly the "safety net" which I think is fair as it's a social insurance program.

[TeyshaBlue]

I not only read the article, I read the study.

The entitlement and mandatory programs covered in the analysis are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, SNAP (formerly known as the Food Stamp Program), SSI, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the school lunch program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the refundable component of the Child Tax Credit.* This is the full list of entitlement or mandatory programs (other than the veterans’ and federal retirement programs) for which the Census Bureau collects data on which beneficiaries receive them.* It includes every entitlement or mandatory benefit program with annual federal and state expenditures of over $10 billion other than veterans’ and federal retirement programs.*

[TeyshaBlue]

It lumps it in with entitlement/welafre spending which it certainly is not.

[TeyshaBlue]

I can understand the view of social insurane but as a compnent of a "safety net", I disagree.

[Th'Pusher]

It lumps it in with entitlement/welafre spending which it certainly is not.
SS is not an entitlement?

[TeyshaBlue]

Perhaps. Welfare? No.

[TeyshaBlue]

And it sure as hell aint a handout as the OP gleefully describes it.

[Th'Pusher]

Perhaps. Welfare? No.
The only person who called it welfare was you. The purpose of SS was to prevent poverty in old age. How is that not a safety net program? What do you take issue with, the fact that people pay into SS? Seems you'd take issue with Medicare being included as well.

[Th'Pusher]

And it sure as hell aint a handout as the OP gleefully describes it.
The op spoke to a very specific portion of the study, which was based on race and was bolded. No one referred to SS as a handout.

[TeyshaBlue]

No, the study treats it as if its welfare...there is no deliniation in the data nor weighting.
I have no issue with paying into SS at all nor medicare.
But SS is contractual in its inception and implementation as opposed to social welfare programs in general.

[boutons_deux]

SS is not an entitlement?

entitlement is pejorative term used by the Repugs to slander 1%er St Ronnie's "welfare queens in cadillacs" and "young bucks", ie, entitled but NOT deserving, iow, a giveaway to the undeserving.

But one is both entitled to AND deserves SS payments because one paid SS for 40 or more working quarters.

In the VRWC/Repug decades long strategy of cutting the safety net while cutting taxes on the wealthy:

A cut to Social Security disability benefits may be around the corner

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/07/23/a-cut-to-social-security-disability-benefits-is-around-the-corner/

... Repugs LIE that disability fraud is rampant, so all disability claimants must be punished.

[TeyshaBlue]

Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty.

SS is not a handout.

[Th'Pusher]

No, the study treats it as if its welfare...there is no deliniation in the data nor weighting.
I have no issue with paying into SS at all nor medicare.
But SS is contractual in its inception and implementation as opposed to social welfare programs in general.
The broader point of the study was to define on what entitlements the fed is spending money irrespective of whether or not it's contractual. I see value in that. Why does the data need to be delineated other than to color some programs as handouts?

[Th'Pusher]

Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty.

SS is not a handout.
Disregard....

[TeyshaBlue]

There is value, albeit quite generic, in the study. It's the associations made by mouthbreathers like the OP that couch it incorrectly.

[TeyshaBlue]

Look what was bolded in the op. He was not referring to SS.

He was refering to handouts of which, SS is not.

[TeyshaBlue]

SS data was used in the paper. It is couched as a handout by the OP. Ergo, by dint of lazy conflation, SS is a handout as well.

[TeyshaBlue]

There is more value, IMO, in determining the variances in SS data, if such exists

[Th'Pusher]

Cpbb putting out shit analysis once again.
Classing SS benefits as welfare?

Holy fucking shit. :lmao

This comment had nothing to do with how the op couched the study, but disparaged the cpbb for putting out shit analysis. The study did not classify SS as welfare, it simply doesn't distinguish between contractual and non contractual assistance which you seem to take issue with.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yeah...I jumped the gun on that one thinking the thread title was the title of the study. Should've known better.

[DarrinS]

Me thinks old white people drawing their SS checks is skewing the analysis. However, this is their own money that they paid into SS.

[TeyshaBlue]

Me thinks old white people drawing their SS checks is skewing the analysis. However, this is their own money that they paid into SS.

This is what was bothering me about including SS data.

[Pelicans78]

SS is not an entitlement?

Not when someone is spending their own money on it.

[Th'Pusher]

Not when someone is spending their own money on it.
Actually, just the opposite

Originally, the term "entitlement" in the United States was used to identify federal programs that, like Social Security and Medicare, got the name because workers became "entitled" to their benefits by paying into the system. In recent years the meaning has been used to refer also to benefits, like those of the food stamps program, which people become eligible to receive without paying into a system.[6] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement#cite_note-6) Some federal programs are also considered entitlements even though the subscriber's "paying into the system" occurs via a means other than monetary, as in the case of those programs providing for veterans' benefits (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs), and where the individual becomes eligible via service in the U.S. military.[7] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement#cite_note-7)


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement

[Ignignokt]

Actually, just the opposite

Originally, the term "entitlement" in the United States was used to identify federal programs that, like Social Security and Medicare, got the name because workers became "entitled" to their benefits by paying into the system. In recent years the meaning has been used to refer also to benefits, like those of the food stamps program, which people become eligible to receive without paying into a system.[6] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement#cite_note-6) Some federal programs are also considered entitlements even though the subscriber's "paying into the system" occurs via a means other than monetary, as in the case of those programs providing for veterans' benefits (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs), and where the individual becomes eligible via service in the U.S. military.[7] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement#cite_note-7)


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement

So are you equating SS with food stamps ?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

People do not pay what they get out of SS and medicare. Saying they are not welfare is like saying AFDC recipients are not on welfare because they pay property or sales tax. Not saying taht it is your 'fault' personally but the situation is something the boomers ahve voted in for themselves.

[Th'Pusher]

So are you equating SS with food stamps ?
No. But for the purposes of the study, they did not distinguish between contractual and means tested obligations. This was covered thoroughly upstream.

I realize some people take issue with this as it doesn't allow them to label "government handouts" vs. "what the government rightfully owes", but I don't really think that was the point.

[Bender]

Why is it bullshit?
learn to read...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I can understand the view of social insurane but as a compnent of a "safety net", I disagree.

The issue was that in the boom bust era, the elderly were the most deeply impoverished. SS was created to provide the proverbial safety net for seniors.

[TeyshaBlue]

People do not pay what they get out of SS and medicare. Saying they are not welfare is like saying AFDC recipients are not on welfare because they pay property or sales tax. Not saying taht it is your 'fault' personally but the situation is something the boomers ahve voted in for themselves.

This appears to be changing somewhat.


http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/14/news/economy/social-security-benefits/

[TeyshaBlue]

The issue was that in the boom bust era, the elderly were the most deeply impoverished. SS was created to provide the proverbial safety net for seniors.

It was a de facto safety net at inception as it was initially gov funded and included unemployment and Aid to Dependent children funding.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This appears to be changing somewhat.


http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/14/news/economy/social-security-benefits/

Sure but the Boomer block will be mostly retired in 10-15 years when the tipping point of fiscal responsibility is reached should that trend continue. The symmetry makes me want to puke.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'll put back some Ensure for you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Context is important.

[TeyshaBlue]

Chocolate or Vanilla?

[Wild Cobra]

Friendly reminder...

Lame...

Totally lame...

You have 20% (bottom 20%) using ~32% of the programs. The graph is calling the middle 60% the middle-class which is complete bullshit. They are only using about 58%. The top 20 are using 10%.

Did you fail 5th grade math?

If 22% of the poor are blacks, and they get 14% of the benefits...

Well...

0.20 x 0.22 = 4.4%%

So...

You have 4.4% of the population, which are black, receiving 14% of the benefits.

Seems like they are getting three times what the others are!

I think you need to go back to 5th grade.

Oh wait...

Maybe you're only a third grader?

[Wild Cobra]

...

[m>s]

Wild chodebrah dominating cucks

[Splits]

Dayum, the racists get MAD when you state facts such as:


Another finding of the study is that the distribution of benefits no longer aligns with the demography of poverty. African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share.


White non-Hispanics, who make up 42 percent of the poor, receive 69 percent of government benefits – again, much closer to their 64 percent population share.

[TeyshaBlue]

Dayum, mouth breathers like Splits dont have the slightest idea of what makes up those facts.

Pull SS out of the figures and try again.

[TeyshaBlue]

But, when the "analysis" leads with a targeted statement like this one does, the findings are not surprising. cpbb does this constantly....build the "analysis" to say what they want it to....and the rabble lap it up. :facepalm

[Th'Pusher]

Dayum, mouth breathers like Splits dont have the slightest idea of what makes up those facts.

Pull SS out of the figures and try again.

Why is it so important that you pull SS out of the figures? It seems your primary objection is to be able to make the distinction between welfare "handout", vs a system contribution "what the government rightfully owes".

The study focuses on the distribution of entitlement spending, yet there seems to be this obsession with conservatives to insist on labeling handouts.

I guess you can whine about the way it allows liberals to position the analysis, but the actual study is very upfront with the methodology.

[TeyshaBlue]

Because the SS data skews the distribution...significally I would suspect, toward the goal.

"Some conservative critics of federal social programs, including leading presidential candidates, are sounding an alarm that the United States is rapidly becoming an “entitlement society” in which social programs are undermining the work ethic and creating a large class of Americans who prefer to depend on government benefits rather than work."

That was the leading statement of the study....it was also their goal.
Im pretty sure SS was not being referenced in the above straw positioning statement.

[boutons_deux]

"leading presidential candidates," who follow the lead of the 1%'s $Ms, the 1%ers like billionaire Petersen want to privatize SS, handing $Ts to Wall St crooks (themselves) to pocket $100Bs annually in fees

[TeyshaBlue]

:rolleyes

[Th'Pusher]

Because the SS data skews the distribution...significally I would suspect, toward the goal.

"Some conservative critics of federal social programs, including leading presidential candidates, are sounding an alarm that the United States is rapidly becoming an “entitlement society” in which social programs are undermining the work ethic and creating a large class of Americans who prefer to depend on government benefits rather than work."

That was the leading statement of the study....it was also their goal.
Im pretty sure SS was not being referenced in the above straw positioning statement.

Mitt Romney included SS recipients in his infamous 47%, so if their goal was to combat that type of rhetoric, by and large they accomplished it.

[boutons_deux]

:rolleyes

so why do think the VRWC/1%/Repugs/BigFinance have beem slandering SS as insolvent and pushing hard for alternatives and/or to privatize SS?

[CosmicCowboy]

so why do think the VRWC/1%/Repugs/BigFinance have beem slandering SS as insolvent and pushing hard for alternatives and/or to privatize SS?

I haven't seen much push for total privatization but it is clear that the system as currently designed will deplete the mythical "trust fund" at some point. How is that slander?

[Clipper Nation]

But, when the "analysis" leads with a targeted statement like this one does, the findings are not surprising. cpbb does this constantly....build the "analysis" to say what they want it to....and the rabble lap it up. :facepalm
It's a Soros-funded leftist think tank, what do you expect?

[boutons_deux]

I haven't seen much push for total privatization but it is clear that the system as currently designed will deplete the mythical "trust fund" at some point. How is that slander?

You always assume that US govt will default on the bonds or whatever the instrument is when the US govt uses the SS fund for the general fund.

inequality and the VRWC/BigCorp War on Employees mean fewer jobs (labor participation rate down) pay less (salary suppression, "gig" economy) so contributions to SS (slandered as a Ponzi scheme) are down.

[m>s]

Social security is not welfare, it's a government administrated retirement program you pay into. like a 401k just government instead of private.

[CosmicCowboy]

You always assume that US govt will default on the bonds or whatever the instrument is when the US govt uses the SS fund for the general fund.

inequality and the VRWC/BigCorp War on Employees mean fewer jobs (labor participation rate down) pay less (salary suppression, "gig" economy) so contributions to SS (slandered as a Ponzi scheme) are down.

The "social security trust fund" will run out of money even IF the US prints the trillions of dollars it owes the "trust fund".

health care has gotten too good and people are living longer than the system was designed for.

[CosmicCowboy]

When Social Security was passed in 1935 the average life expectancy for a male was 59.9 years and 63.9 for females.

[boutons_deux]

The "social security trust fund" will run out of money even IF the US prints the trillions of dollars it owes the "trust fund".

health care has gotten too good and people are living longer than the system was designed for.

health has been TOO EXPENSIVE for decades, BigFood has been inducing people to eat sugary, greasy shit for decades. Old people have been convinced they need 5 - 10 PRESCRIPTIONS. It's all bullshit.

You don't have to be a financial burden on society just because you're old, but being a financial burden means BigCorp is sucking down Human-Americans wealth. Being sick enriches rip-off health care, above all.

[CosmicCowboy]

In 2015 average life expectancy is 82.19 and increasing every year.

The math is pretty fucking simple Boo.

Too many people living longer than the contribution system was designed for.

[boutons_deux]

In 2015 average life expectancy is 82.19 and increasing every year.

The math is pretty fucking simple Boo.

I fucking repeat: living longer doesn't have to mean getting sicker.

[CosmicCowboy]

I fucking repeat: living longer doesn't have to mean getting sicker.

I repeat.

You are a fucking idiot.

[m>s]

Welfare means you are getting something for fre that you didn't pay for and can't afford, so others paid it for you. However in order to draw SS you have to actually pay in over the course of an entire lifetime. Worlds of difference here but you racists already knew that, just calling out bs when I see it.

[boutons_deux]

I repeat.

You are a fucking idiot.

typical non-response when I bitchslap y'all right wingers

[CosmicCowboy]

Bitchslap

Right:)

You can't even make the distinction between Medicare (also going broke) and social security.

[TeyshaBlue]

Mitt Romney included SS recipients in his infamous 47%, so if their goal was to combat that type of rhetoric, by and large they accomplished it.

They certainly did. They also pulled alot of conclusions out of that data construct.

[TeyshaBlue]

typical non-response when I bitchslap y'all right wingers

Typical non-response when a moonbat cant counter argue their way out of a wet paper bag. :lol

[Splits]

The ole "social security is going broke" lie raises it's head again. It's solvent through 2037 if nothing is done. How many other programs do we fund 21 years in advance? We can't even get a fucking bill to fund the roads for more than 3 months.

[pgardn]

This appears to be changing somewhat.


http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/14/news/economy/social-security-benefits/

This looks like it may be a very common theme for many pension plans supported by today's young workers.
Which if true, sucks.

[CosmicCowboy]

The ole "social security is going broke" lie raises it's head again. It's solvent through 2037 if nothing is done. How many other programs do we fund 21 years in advance? We can't even get a fucking bill to fund the roads for more than 3 months.

A little short sighted? So Medicare runs out of money in 11 years and social security runs out in 22 years. No problem, you guys can deal with it then, right?

[Splits]

A little short sighted? So Medicare runs out of money in 11 years and social security runs out in 22 years. No problem, you guys can deal with it then, right?

Umm, no. What else does the government fund for 22 years in the future? Even in 2037 when 75% of benefits would be paid out by doing nothing, it's a simple fix. I stopped paying into SS already this year. All that needs to be done is to raise the cap a couple % points and voila, solvency.

Medicare is different, but ObamaCare has been a big help. Ending our subsidies to the entire world by not allowing the government to negotiate drug prices with BigPharma would also close the gap. Deeper analysis by CBPP here: http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicare-is-not-bankrupt

Neither program is in serious trouble, and people claiming otherwise have ulterior motives (privatize in most cases to enrich themselves)

[Clipper Nation]

The ole "social security is going broke" lie raises it's head again. It's solvent through 2037 if nothing is done. How many other programs do we fund 21 years in advance? We can't even get a fucking bill to fund the roads for more than 3 months.
You're right, Social Security isn't going broke. It is broke.


That's the bad news. But here's the really bad news: Social Security is flat broke. The just-released 2015 Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds report has a secret little table that apparently the political appointees, euphemistically called "trustees," haven't bothered to view. It's tucked deep inside the report in appendix table VI.F1. It says the system is $25.8 trillion in the red.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2015/08/05/cnbc-social-security/30271595/

[Clipper Nation]

Here's the actual table in question from the report:





Present
value


















Unfunded obligation through the infinite horizon 1 (http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2015/VI_F_infinite.html#9)

$25.8












Unfunded obligation through 2089 2 (http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2015/VI_F_infinite.html#10)

10.7














http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2015/VI_F_infinite.html

[djohn2oo8]

To lump in Social Security with tranfer payouts is like comparing squirrels to parachute pants.

SS is a specific tax for a particular, defined purpose. Welfare is a distribution of general taxes.

Social Security is welfare, fyi.

[TeyshaBlue]

Social Security is welfare, fyi.

Social Insurance? Ok.
Safety Net? I can work with that.
A contractural structure with scheduled debits and credits on a specific ledger as welfare?
Um, no.

[CosmicCowboy]

Umm, no. What else does the government fund for 22 years in the future? Even in 2037 when 75% of benefits would be paid out by doing nothing, it's a simple fix. I stopped paying into SS already this year. All that needs to be done is to raise the cap a couple % points and voila, solvency.

Medicare is different, but ObamaCare has been a big help. Ending our subsidies to the entire world by not allowing the government to negotiate drug prices with BigPharma would also close the gap. Deeper analysis by CBPP here: http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicare-is-not-bankrupt

Neither program is in serious trouble, and people claiming otherwise have ulterior motives (privatize in most cases to enrich themselves)

:lmao

Fund for 22 years in the future? That's so stupid it's almost worthy of Boutons!


:lmao

I too have already paid my $14,694.00 into social security for the year....

And they took my $14,694.00 and paid benefits for current beneficiaries.

They didn't fund SHIT for anything in the future.

[Clipper Nation]

Social Security is welfare, fyi.
No, it isn't. Just because libtards keep saying this doesn't mean it's true.

Welfare is a government handout for a certain class of people and a zero-sum game. The taxpayer's loss is the welfare recipient's gain.

Social Security in theory is insurance for everyone against economic risk. Theoretically, everybody benefits in the end whether you're rich, middle-class or poor.

Social Security in reality is a generational ponzi scheme in which retirees steal from their children and promise that they will recoup the money they paid in when they retire. In reality, it's bankrupt, and the tax burden for the billions in unfunded liabilities is being put squarely on the people who are currently also paying into the system themselves.

It's an unmitigated disaster, but it's still not the same thing as welfare.

[Clipper Nation]

By the way, the current mess that is Social Security was inevitable the minute the program started. The first group of beneficiaries got benefits as many as 462 times what they paid in. Right then and there, the next generation was forced to pick up the tab for that difference, and we've been kicking that can down the road ever since. We've made things even worse by raising the benefits multiple times in an attempt to pander to elderly voters, as well as by overadjusting the benefits for inflation.

[djohn2oo8]

Social Insurance? Ok.
Safety Net? I can work with that.
A contractural structure with scheduled debits and credits on a specific ledger as welfare?
Um, no.


No, it isn't. Just because libtards keep saying this doesn't mean it's true.

Welfare is a government handout for a certain class of people and a zero-sum game. The taxpayer's loss is the welfare recipient's gain.

Social Security in theory is insurance for everyone against economic risk. Theoretically, everybody benefits in the end whether you're rich, middle-class or poor.

Social Security in reality is a generational ponzi scheme in which retirees steal from their children and promise that they will recoup the money they paid in when they retire. In reality, it's bankrupt, and the tax burden for the billions in unfunded liabilities is being put squarely on the people who are currently also paying into the system themselves.

It's an unmitigated disaster, but it's still not the same thing as welfare.

Social Security is an intergenerational, income-transfer, wealth-redistribution welfare program. The federal government takes taxes from the youth and adult working population and spends the money on the boondoggles that 90 percent of the federal budget consists of. Then, as those populations reach retirement age, it takes new taxes from the current group of working youths and adults and gives it to the former group and calls it Social Security benefits.

Welfare, dipshits.

[boutons_deux]

Krugman: Why All The Republican Candidates Are Attacking Social Security (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/17/1412741/-Krugman-Why-All-The-Republican-Candidates-Are-Attacking-Social-Security)

Historically speaking, politicians who have attacked Social Security (oft-described as the "Third Rail" in American politics) have not fared well with the American people. The program, originally designed to provide supplemental retirement security for all Americans, is actually a critical financial lifeline for millions. Many elderly people would either be pushed into squalid, poorly equipped nursing homes, forced to live with their children (assuming they have them) or cast out into the streets without the modest monthly income most paid taxes for all their lives to support and ensure. When George W. Bush began to push to "privatize" Social Security into accounts dependent on the stock market, his efforts were quickly squelched by Democrats and even some Republicans who responded to the public's overwhelming disapproval of such measures. In retrospect this probably saved millions of older Americans from becoming destitute when the Bush economy crashed in 2007-2008, wiping out billions in stock values.

It seems, however, that the near-universal popularity of Social Security has failed to make much of an impression on nearly all of the current Republican candidates for President, who have publicly announced their intent to impose cuts in benefits, privatization, or other drastic reductions to a program that is neither "insolvent" nor in any financial peril: (http://www.ncpssm.org/PublicPolicy/SocialSecurity/Documents/ArticleID/14/The-Truth-About-Social-Security-and-Privatization)

Thus, Jeb Bush says that the retirement age should be pushed back to “68 or 70”.Scott Walker has echoed that position. Marco Rubio wants both to raise the retirement age and to cut benefits for higher-income seniors. Rand Paul wants to raise the retirement age to 70 and means-test benefits. Ted Cruz wants to revive the Bush privatization plan.

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, writing for the New York Times, thinks he knows why (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/17/opinion/republicans-against-retirement.html) the new and prevailing Republican line is so completely contrary to what the vast majority of Americans want--it's the simple fact that these GOP candidates do not represent the vast majority of Americans. In fact, they only represent a tiny, miniscule sliver of Americans, barely enough to fit into a skybox at a professional football game. That is the entirety of the American electorate to whom these candidates are beholden to. And that tiny group wants to get rid of Social Security:

The answer, I’d suggest, is that it’s all about the big money.Wealthy individuals have long played a disproportionate role in politics, but we’ve never seen anything like what’s happening now: domination of campaign finance, especially on the Republican side, by a tiny group of immensely wealthy donors. Indeed, more than half the funds raised by Republican candidates through June came from just 130 families.

And while most Americans love Social Security, the wealthy don’t. Two years ago a pioneering study of the policy preferences of the very wealthy found many contrasts with the views of the general public; as you might expect, the rich are politically different from you and me. But nowhere are they as different as they are on the matter of Social Security. By a very wide margin, ordinary Americans want to see Social Security expanded. But by an even wider margin, Americans in the top 1 percent want to see it cut.


The study Dr. Krugman refers to was conducted by Northwestern University and is titledDemocracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans. (http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jnd260/cab/CAB2012%20-%20Page1.pdf) As far as academic studies go it's fascinating stuff, a one-of-a kind window into the mind of the one percent highest wage earners in the country. One of the marked findings of the study was how active wealthy Americans are--vastly more active compared to the rest of the population. And these folks think they know what's best for the rest of us, particularly with regard to Social Security:

We have seen that our wealthy respondents—in sharp contrast to the general public—tilted toward cutting rather than expanding Social Security.The SESA survey did not explore precisely how such cuts would be made. But the proposals for doing so that have been put forward by various experts, politicians, and deficit-reduction commissions—raising the retirement age at which benefits can be received, slowing cost-of-living adjustments, and the like—mostly appear to be opposed by majorities of the general public.

But in reality the 130 or so families who are now effectively in charge of the Republican Party are not even the "1%". They are a much tinier sliver, and it is they who are entirely calling the shots for these candidates. As the study notes, these people are far more conservative, overall, than even the top 1%:


Variation within this wealthy group suggests that the top one-tenth of 1 percent of wealthholders (people with $40 million or more in net worth) may tend to hold still more conservative views that are even more distinct from those of the general public.

As a result, the Republican candidates, beholden to these ultra-conservative Billionaire donors, must mold their policy positions to accommodate their desires. And this is how and why the Republican Party functions--not as a vehicle for the needs of their actual constituents--the folks who keep marching into the voting booth and pulling the "R" lever because they've been brainwashed by the NRA gun-industry lobby into believing Obama will take their guns away-- but as a means for their donors to ultimately privatize--and profit off of--the vast amounts of money that go into the Social Security system through our payroll taxes. This despite the fact that80% of Americans oppose (http://www.ncpssm.org/EntitledtoKnow/entryid/1730/New-National-Poll-Finds-78-of-Americans-Oppose-Raising-Social-Security-s-Retirement-Age) raising the retirement age, which most see as a prelude to more and more cuts. It doesn't matter to them, for example, that lifting the payroll cap of $118,500 (http://www.ncpssm.org/EntitledtoKnow/entryid/1907/Rather-Than-Slashing-Social-Security-How-About-Lifting-the-Cap) would resolve Social Security's funding issues in an instant. The fact is that the abolition or privatization of Social Security has been a longterm goal for decades (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/who-are-the-koch-brothers_b_5165995.html) by those who now control the Republican Party:


In 1980, the platform of David Koch's Libertarian Party called for "the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system." Thirty-four years ago, that was an extreme view of a fringe party that had the support of 1 percent of the American people. Today, the mainstream view of the Republican Party is that "entitlement reform" is absolutely necessary.

It's important to recognize that the desire to transform or eliminate Social Security at the behest of these Billionaires is not limited to these particular candidates. The Republican Congress and Senate are just as much under the control of the Kochs and their ilk. As a result a Republican in the White House would encounter little if any resistance to implementing these cuts from the very institution that would vote them into existence. Krugman concludes by describing the implications this has for the rest of us:

What this means, in turn, is that the eventual Republican nominee ... will be committed not just to a renewed attack on Social Security but to a broader plutocratic agenda. Whatever the rhetoric, the GOP is on track to nominate someone who has won over the big money by promising government by the 1 percent, for the 1 percent.




http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/17/1412741/-Krugman-Why-All-The-Republican-Candidates-Are-Attacking-Social-Security?detail=email

[Clipper Nation]

Social Security is an intergenerational, income-transfer, wealth-redistribution welfare program. The federal government takes taxes from the youth and adult working population and spends the money on the boondoggles that 90 percent of the federal budget consists of. Then, as those populations reach retirement age, it takes new taxes from the current group of working youths and adults and gives it to the former group and calls it Social Security benefits.

Welfare, dipshits.
It's insurance (in theory), dumbfuck. It's literally classified as an Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance Program by the federal government. If it was welfare, it would be classified as a public assistance program.

Just because the system is fundamentally broken and unworkable doesn't mean it's the same thing as welfare. It just means the government promised something it couldn't deliver.

[Clipper Nation]

The government openly admits in its trustee report that Social Security is $25.8 trillion in the red right now, but yeah, let's go with a hysterical rant about "those evil Repugs" and "the 1%" from the FailyKos instead.

[boutons_deux]

SS is enforced, mandatory retirement savings, not welfare, not insurance. The objective in the 1930s was to reduce poverty of old Americans, and it worked, but conservatives HATE ANYTHING from the govt that works.

disability insurance: http://www.ssa.gov/disability/

[CosmicCowboy]

SS is enforced, mandatory retirement savings, not welfare, not insurance. The objective in the 1930s was to reduce poverty of old Americans, and it worked, but conservatives HATE ANYTHING from the govt that works.

disability insurance: http://www.ssa.gov/disability/

:lmao

It's a ponzi scheme.

There are no "retirement savings".

[Th'Pusher]

By the way, the current mess that is Social Security was inevitable the minute the program started. The first group of beneficiaries got benefits as many as 462 times what they paid in. Right then and there, the next generation was forced to pick up the tab for that difference, and we've been kicking that can down the road ever since. We've made things even worse by raising the benefits multiple times in an attempt to pander to elderly voters, as well as by overadjusting the benefits for inflation.
You're such a moron. You just regurgitate platitudes of right-wing radio.

[Clipper Nation]

You're such a moron. You just regurgitate platitudes of right-wing radio.
:lmao Emotional faggot

[Th'Pusher]

:lmao Emotional faggot
Why didn't you just use her name? Ida Mae Fuller, the first SS beneficiary received 462 times more than she paid in? You're so fucking transparent with your juvenile plagiarism.

[vy65]

Why didn't you just use her name? Ida Mae Fuller, the first SS beneficiary received 462 times more than she paid in? You're so fucking transparent with your juvenile plagiarism.

http://thejest.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/guess-who.jpg

[Th'Pusher]

http://thejest.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/guess-who.jpg
You don't even make sense. You just reflexively jump to the aid of your boyfriend who has a penchant for plagiarism.

Seriously, what the fuck do you care if I call out the fake libertarian who has devolved into a fucking troll because he can't back up his AM radio beliefs on a message board? Why does that bother you? Honest question, tbh.

[vy65]

Wow. Heavy flow day.

Good luck with those cramps sweetie.

[Clipper Nation]

Wow. Heavy flow day.

Good luck with those cramps sweetie.
:lol

[Th'Pusher]

Solid response.

Win any cases today? :lol

maynard.

[Th'Pusher]

:lol

You guys need to coordinate better...

[Clipper Nation]

Th'Playtex doing what she does best: derailing threads that aren't going the liberals' way with ad hominems and shillposts. You're a regular CumDumpster Jr.

[Th'Pusher]

Th'Playtex doing what she does best: derailing threads that aren't going the liberals' way with ad hominems and shillposts. You're a regular CumDumpster Jr.
This thread is going perfectly fine.

1) TB had some solid feedback on the data.
2) you came in with ridiculous rhetoric you stole from some shitbag on am radio.
3) I called you a shitbag plagiarist
4) Your boyfriend showed up and said I was on my period.

[pgardn]

:lmao

It's a ponzi scheme.

.

Not if most of the population is young and paying in accompanied by people not living long enough to collect.
It works quite well if people die early.

[Clipper Nation]

This thread is going perfectly fine.

1) TB had some solid feedback on the data.
2) you came in with ridiculous rhetoric you stole from some shitbag on am radio.
3) I called you a shitbag plagiarist
4) Your boyfriend showed up and said I was on my period.

Nice spin, now here's what actually happened.

1) OP posted some crap from a Soros-funded leftist think tank and pretended it was analysis.
2) Got jizzed on repeatedly.
3) Libtards started deflecting to a pointless argument about whether or not Social Security is welfare.
4) Libtards got BTFO as usual.
5) You show up, bleeding out your vagina as usual, to derail the thread once and for all with your usual shillposts: "you're emotional," "you're stupid," "you're a plagiarist for not citing every fact in your post on a basketball forum in MLA format like it's an academic paper," "lol Maynard," etc.

Face it: you're a wannabe ChumpDumper. Whenever a thread starts going badly for the resident libtards, you spring into action, white-knighting and deflecting all over the place.

[Ball Buster]

Well gotdamn, if this ClipperNation isn't a miserable son of a bitch.. Christ :wakeup

[CosmicCowboy]

Not if most of the population is young and paying in accompanied by people not living long enough to collect.
It works quite well if people die early.

Guess we have figured out the problem with that plan, right?