-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TeyshaBlue
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.
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
djohn2oo8
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.
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Splits
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/...s-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.
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
djohn2oo8
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.
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
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.
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TeyshaBlue
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Clipper Nation
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.
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
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:
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 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. 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 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 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 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.
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
djohn2oo8
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.
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
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.
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
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/
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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/
:lmao
It's a ponzi scheme.
There are no "retirement savings".
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
You're such a moron. You just regurgitate platitudes of right-wing radio.
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Th'Pusher
You're such a moron. You just regurgitate platitudes of right-wing radio.
:lmao Emotional faggot
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Clipper Nation
: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.
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Th'Pusher
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/upload.../guess-who.jpg
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vy65
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.
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Wow. Heavy flow day.
Good luck with those cramps sweetie.
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vy65
Wow. Heavy flow day.
Good luck with those cramps sweetie.
:lol
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Solid response.
Win any cases today? :lol
maynard.
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Clipper Nation
:lol
You guys need to coordinate better...
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
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.
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
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.
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CosmicCowboy
: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.
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Th'Pusher
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.
-
Re: Whites in poverty take more government handouts more than blacks in poverty
Well gotdamn, if this ClipperNation isn't a miserable son of a bitch.. Christ :wakeup
