Reply With Quote
Yeah...I jumped the gun on that one thinking the thread le was the le of the study. Should've known better.
This comment had nothing to do with how the op couched the study, but disparaged the cpbb for putting out 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.Cpbb putting out analysis once again.
Classing SS benefits as welfare?
Holy ing .
Yeah...I jumped the gun on that one thinking the thread le was the le of the study. Should've known better.
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.
Not when someone is spending their own money on it.
Actually, just the opposite
Originally, the term "en lement" in the United States was used to identify federal programs that, like Social Security and Medicare, got the name because workers became "en led" 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] Some federal programs are also considered en lements 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, and where the individual becomes eligible via service in the U.S. military.[7]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/En lement
So are you equating SS with food stamps ?
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.
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.
learn to read...Why is it bull ?
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.
This appears to be changing somewhat.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/14/news...rity-benefits/
It was a de facto safety net at inception as it was initially gov funded and included unemployment and Aid to Dependent children funding.
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.
I'll put back some Ensure for you.
Context is important.
Chocolate or Vanilla?
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 bull . 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 chodebrah dominating cucks
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.
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.
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
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 en lement 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.
Last edited by Th'Pusher; 08-17-2015 at 10:05 PM.
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 “en lement 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.
Last edited by TeyshaBlue; 08-17-2015 at 10:15 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions