WC's Extreme Views

[Wild Cobra]

ElNono.

I have been going by your examples. If I misstated something, I'm sorry. I have deviated with the chart showing Human Services, but I wasn't applying that to your numbers.

I have not attempted to try to specify programs. I see the whole social welfare system in free-fall chaos. All aspects of it need to be looked into and dealt with however possible to reduce spending.

Again, I took your example of under 10% for 1960 and 2009 being 6points less. Found a referense stating the under 10% was 9.5% and ran those numbers. You were claiming we were spending less today than in 1960 because the under 10% went down in percentage. I showed you it was greater because 9.5% of x is smaller than 3.5% of x(3.09). Then you found some other numbers, and again, I showed you you were wrong. You say I am claiming a program... Which post of mine.

Show me where... If I did, I don't remember.

[Wild Cobra]

And by the same token, it might be that social services for children cost more because of the same reasons.

LOL....

So we can buy the kids more expensive toys?

Really now. We had simple jets, weapon, armor, etc. in the 60's. Our military is so far technologically advanced compared to then, requiring less soldiers to do the same job better. We don't need to spend money on technology to properly raise kids or support families.

[ElNono]

Just that when people are typically having two or more children requiring government aide for 18 years each and possibly their lifetime too

What is the name of this imaginary program?

[Wild Cobra]

There are numerous programs out there. A child under their parents control become a reason for more spending on food stamps and other subsidies. There are numerous ones. I can't believe you want specifics of something so blatantly obvious.

ing nit picker...

Food stamps, free school meals, Earned Income credit up to $5,751. I'm not going to bother to look, but I know I can find more if I did.

Over $5,700 dollars annually in constant dollars... From other tax payers money...

[ElNono]

There are numerous programs out there. A child under their parents control become a reason for more spending on food stamps and other subsidies. There are numerous ones. I can't believe you want specifics of something so blatantly obvious.

ing nit picker...

Food stamps, free school meals, Earned Income credit up to $5,751. I'm not going to bother to look, but I know I can find more if I did.

Over $5,700 dollars annually in constant dollars... From other tax payers money...

I'm saying the "18 years of assistance program(s)" is a canard.

There's programs (WIC) that start when the mother is pregnant and until the children are 5 years old. There's other programs (SNAP) that are based on income and household size, and have nothing to do with the age of participants.

AFAIK, there's no specific child welfare program that starts at child conception and ends when the child reaches 18 years old.

What is the name of this imaginary program?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL....

So we can buy the kids more expensive toys?

Really now. We had simple jets, weapon, armor, etc. in the 60's. Our military is so far technologically advanced compared to then, requiring less soldiers to do the same job better. We don't need to spend money on technology to properly raise kids or support families.

Stupidity raises its head once again. There is a significant movement in armed services circles to move away from the mindless tech and more towards investing in soldiers as they are what is needed to handle the peacekeeping missions which we almost always are involved in right now.

They point to our two wars right now where we've been playing cop in the middle east for a decade. New avionics for F-15's that have been better than any Soviet Mig for over a decade are not going to help those guys do their jobs any better.

The F-15 and F-16 were developed in the 60s and 70s respectively. Our main infantry weapon was developed in the 1950s. This notion that its all new tech is absurd.

You do not know about our military tech either. Make up about it and children's services to fit your world view. And you are too much of a coward to answer Elnono.

Why are kids so expensive nowadays? Health care. Its not hard to figure out.

[LnGrrrR]

Why are kids so expensive nowadays? Health care. Its not hard to figure out.

I think that's a pretty safe assumption to make.

As far as tech, you're not adding in the amount of money we've spent on tech like networking. That's going to add a significant cost.

[Wild Cobra]

I think that's a pretty safe assumption to make.

As far as tech, you're not adding in the amount of money we've spent on tech like networking. That's going to add a significant cost.

It shouldn't to social spending of government resources to families. schools... OK. families, no.

[Wild Cobra]

LnGrrrR...

Here is a graph of DoD and Health and human services spending. Table 4.2 starts at 1962, so I didn't go back to 1960. I did adjust the numbers to constant 2005 dollars. The graph isn't adjusted per capita.

[Winehole23]

the growth of the warfare/welfare state has been impressive in the last twenty years

[Wild Cobra]

the growth of the warfare/welfare state has been impressive in the last twenty years

Yes... Hasn't it... With no end in sight. It will bankrupt our nation if it hasn't already. We need to get a handle on it. I see a future where it breaks down completely, and none of the poor get help.

Now these two graphs aren't 100% comparable in my opinion since DoD doesn't need to grow as the population does, but Human Services does. The growth from 1962 to 2010 in population is about 70%.

[Agloco]

Narcissistic thread is still rolling along I see.

[Wild Cobra]

Narcissistic thread is still rolling along I see.

I never considered you part of the peanut gallery. Am I wrong about you?

[Wild Cobra]

Here is the same data adjusted to cost per person:

[ElNono]

Long but good read on the topic...

Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It

Interesting excerpt:
The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year.

[LnGrrrR]

Thanks WC. Gen Schwartz just put something out that said even though military manning is low on average, our costs are still high due to healthcare.

[Winehole23]

Long but good read on the topic...

Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It

Interesting excerpt:
The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year.

Good article.

The italicized is a minor theme of Marcus Bryant's. Middle class unawareness of the public largesse buoying it up belies its resentment of the unmeritorious poor and its intolerance of curmudgeons like MB who have the gall to point it out.

[Agloco]

I never considered you part of the peanut gallery. Am I wrong about you?

Spare us the righteous indignation. Your thread is what is it is regardless of your insistence to the contrary.

To the peanut gallery I go.

[CuckingFunt]

Spare us the righteous indignation. Your thread is what is it is regardless of your insistence to the contrary.

To the peanut gallery I go.

To be technical, WC seemed more interested in ing about you calling attention to his narcissism than in actually denying it.

[Agloco]

To be technical, WC seemed more interested in ing about you calling attention to his narcissism than in actually denying it.

Ya. Should have read: Thanks in advance for sparing us......

I'm guilty of peering into the crystal ball as it concerns WC. We know it's coming though. To borrow a quote: That Ms. Funt is the sound of......inevitability.

[Wild Cobra]

Thanks WC. Gen Schwartz just put something out that said even though military manning is low on average, our costs are still high due to healthcare.

Plus, the percentage shifted to more civilian contractors as a percentage of manpower in the 90's.

[Wild Cobra]

To be technical, WC seemed more interested in ing about you calling attention to his narcissism than in actually denying it.

We all have a little of it.

[Wild Cobra]

Long but good read on the topic...

Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It

Interesting excerpt:
The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year.

The guy making $39k and getting "several thousand in earned income credit" is a stretch. I don't consider $2k ($2117) as "several." Now I think it's ridiculous that so many Americans qualify for these programs. He didn't need it, but why not take it if eligible. The congress is constantly trying to buy our vote to keep us reliant on them. You can still make over $20/hr and get $1k in earned income credit! It's ing ridiculous.

[Wild Cobra]

Spare us the righteous indignation. Your thread is what is it is regardless of your insistence to the contrary.

To the peanut gallery I go.

Maybe you're just jealous?

[CuckingFunt]

We all have a little of it.

Maybe so.

But we don't all keep bumping the threads we started with the explicit purpose of placing ourselves and our posting habits at the center of discussion.