past the tipping point...


moralist

Recommended Posts

These are absolutely jaw dropping numbers...

THE 35.4 PERCENT: 109,631,000 ON WELFARE

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/354-percent-109631000-welfare

109,631,000 Americans lived in households that received benefits from one or more federally funded "means-tested programs" — also known as welfare — as of the fourth quarter of 2012, according to data released Tuesday by the Census Bureau.

The Census Bureau has not yet reported how many were on welfare in 2013 or the first two quarters of 2014.

But the 109,631,000 living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all 309,467,000 people living in the United States at that time.

When those receiving benefits from non-means-tested federal programs — such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and veterans benefits — were added to those taking welfare benefits, it turned out that 153,323,000 people were getting federal benefits of some type at the end of 2012.

Subtract the 3,297,000 who were receiving veterans' benefits from the total, and that leaves 150,026,000 people receiving non-veterans' benefits.

The 153,323,000 total benefit-takers at the end of 2012, said the Census Bureau, equaled 49.5 percent of the population. The 150,026,000 taking benefits other than veterans' benefits equaled about 48.5 percent of the population.

When America re-elected President Barack Obama in 2012, we had not quite reached the point where more than half the country was taking benefits from the federal government.

It is a reasonable bet, however, that with the implementation of Obamacare — with its provisions expanding Medicaid and providing health-insurance subsidies to people earning up to 400 percent of poverty — that if we have not already surpassed that point (not counting those getting veterans benefits) we soon will.

What did taxpayers give to the 109,631,000 — the 35.4 percent of the nation — getting welfare benefits at the end of 2012?

82,679,000 of the welfare-takers lived in households where people were on Medicaid, said the Census Bureau. 51,471,000 were in households on food stamps. 22,526,000 were in the Women, Infants and Children program. 20,355,000 were in household on Supplemental Security Income. 13,267,000 lived in public housing or got housing subsidies. 5,442,000 got Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. 4,517,000 received other forms of federal cash assistance.

How do you put in perspective the 109,631,000 people taking welfare, or the 150,026,000 getting some type of federal benefit other than veterans' benefits?

Well, the CIA World Factbook says there are 142,470,272 people in Russia. So, the 150,026,000 people getting non-veterans federal benefits in the United States at the end of 2012 outnumbered all the people in Russia.

63,742,977 people live in the United Kingdom and 44,291,413 live in the Ukraine, says the CIA. So, the combined 108,034,390 people in these two nations was about 1,596,610 less than 109,631,000 collecting welfare in the United States.

It may be more telling, however, to compare the 109,631,000 Americans taking federal welfare benefits at the end of 2012 to Americans categorized by other characteristics.

In 2012, according to the Census Bureau, there were 103,087,000 full-time year-round workers in the United States (including 16,606,000 full-time year-round government workers). Thus, the welfare-takers outnumbered full-time year-round workers by 6,544,000.

California, the nation's most-populated state, contained an estimated 38,332,521 people in 2013, says the Census Bureau. Texas had 26,448,193 people, New York had 19,651,127, and Florida had 19,552,860. But the combined 103,984,701 people in these four massive states still fell about 5,646,299 short of the 109,631,000 people on welfare.

In the fourth quarter of 2008, when President Obama was elected, there were 96,197,000 people living in households taking benefits from one or more federal welfare programs. After four years, by the fourth quarter of 2012, that had grown by 13,434,000.

Those 13,434,000 additional people on welfare outnumbered the 12,882,135 people the Census Bureau estimated lived in Obama's home state of Illinois in 2013.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

These numbers aren't really all that surprising when you consider the most recent economic downturn, and also that the US has an extremely large population, while nonetheless actually being on the lower end of social spending as a percentage of GDP in the developed world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

I think some amount of welfare spending is important because it prevents the economy from getting trapped in a downward spiral. If the economy suffers a downturn, people will lose their jobs and their wages will decrease. This means they will spend less money, which means businesses will produce less and make less of a profit, cut down on production and investment, lay off more people, who will then spend less money lather, rinse, repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary Fisher writes:

These numbers aren't really all that surprising when you consider the most recent economic downturn, and also that the US has an extremely large population, while nonetheless actually being on the lower end of social spending as a percentage of GDP in the developed world.

wtf.gif

I don't even know where to begin...

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some amount of welfare spending is important because it prevents the economy from getting trapped in a downward spiral. If the economy suffers a downturn, people will lose their jobs and their wages will decrease. This means they will spend less money, which means businesses will produce less and make less of a profit, cut down on production and investment, lay off more people, who will then spend less money lather, rinse, repeat.

Being from Argentina I completely understand your point, in fact what you describe is exactly what my country has been practicing more or less constantly ever since Peron rose to power and established the Third Position perpetually.

I beg you don't dilute yourself into thinking that the amount of welfare in Argentina was excessive and not just "some", but of course in any case you would have to define what "some amount of welfare" constitutes which in turn makes me think of the title of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I consider myself a centrist.

A truly classic response...

One defining characteristic of leftism is narcissism... which is why leftists subjectively regard themselves as the center with everything else revolving around them. This is the result of indulging in the fantasy that they are objective.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody ever admitted to being a Progressive once challenged on the point?

Hillary Rodham "the smartest woman in the world" Clinton claimed it, proudly, and, on national television in 2007:

Early on in the CNN/YouTube-sponsored debate, a California resident posed these questions on his video: "Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word ‘liberal’? And would you use this word to describe yourself?”

Hillary answered: "You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.

"Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

"I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.

"I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.

"So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.”

What a malignant creature.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also historically ignorant. The early-twentieth-century Progressives were noisily inimical to individual rights and freedoms. Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" is the best source on this. To see how they expressed their enimty in racial collectivism, try "Wrong on Race" by Bartlett or "The Strange Career of Jim Crow" by Woodward.

I can't help thinking that this is why contemporary welfare/regulatory statists quit calling themselves liberals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also historically ignorant. The early-twentieth-century Progressives were noisily inimical to individual rights and freedoms. Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" is the best source on this. To see how they expressed their enimty in racial collectivism, try "Wrong on Race" by Bartlett or "The Strange Career of Jim Crow" by Woodward. I can't help thinking that this is why contemporary welfare/regulatory statists quit calling themselves liberals.

Now they are "Progressives" Progressing toward the ueber State.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moralist,

I agree that those numbers are horrific but what about Gary's earlier point that it could be the results of the downturn ( I actually don't believe it would be the results of specifically the 2008 recession, that's way too recent)

I'm in no way dismissing your statements but there is always another side to every story right? Its not that both sides are valid (one side could very well be completely false) but your specific numbers don't argue against the other side of the story. Its like a chicken or the egg question. Is the socialism, the cause of your numbers or is the poor economic environment the cause of the increased safety nets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moralist,

I agree that those numbers are horrific but what about Gary's earlier point that it could be the results of the downturn ( I actually don't believe it would be the results of specifically the 2008 recession, that's way too recent)

I don't consider those numbers to be horrific because the American Capitalists i know are all doing better now than before 2008. But I do consider them to be jawdropping in that they reveal an embarrassing amount of endemic personal failure that shames this nation.

According to the government the "Recession" ended in the Summer of 2009. It is now 5 years.since then, so obviously something else has been going on.

In my opinion, the tipping point has been reached and passed.

The dead weight of unproductive parasites now outweighs the productive power of the Capitalists. This is one reason you see so much economic inequality for which the moochers, being true to Marx, blame (unjustly accuse) the producers for their own failure.

The moochers now being the dominant political force in the nation demanded the government bureaucracy to transfer more wealth from the producers to the moochers. It takes a larger, ever more intrusive government hiring more and more looters to tax, regulate, and to litigate. So it grows like a malignant melanoma..

Realize that the government is not the enemy. it can only respond to the strongest political pressure being applied to it at any given moment... because all it can ever be is what people make it to be. So today, the government is a creation of the moochers in their own image.

I'm in no way dismissing your statements but there is always another side to every story right?

Please understand, Derek... I am not the least bit personally offended if you or anyone else here dismisses my statements. There's no need to plead. I fully understand that there will always be two antithetical views, and nothing anyone writes in a forum will ever change that. So I'm ok with the way things are. :smile:

Is the socialism, the cause of your numbers or is the poor economic environment the cause of the increased safety nets?

First, I'd like to make something clear. Those are not "my numbers". I did not originate them. I did not generate them. I don't even belong to them, because I belong to the political minority. I had no hand in making the government what it is today. Those numbers are the creation of the moochers and the looters... not me. It's my responsibility to constantly and creatively adapt so as to live a good, productive, and meaningful life in this world just as it is right now. :smile:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Michael

Your political compass Economic Left/Right: 6.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.36

No, I consider myself a centrist.

Gary,

My political compass?

That's interesting.

Thank you for your answer, but where did you learn that I had a "political compass" in the manner you portrayed?

Do you have a quote from me or something?

I don't recognize anything I have written in that.

btw - Lots of progressives are centrists. These terms are not mutually exclusive.

A progressive is defined by his drift toward big government, not where he is at right now. He "progresses" slowly, step by step. When he steps too far and the public becomes outraged, he backs up one, waits a bit, then goes back to his path step-by-step. He does this in lieu of a revolution.

What is he progressing to? Big government in place of individual freedom.

Left-wing progressives like nanny-state big government. Right-wing progressives like some nanny-state. but they vastly prefer to start wars so they can nation-build with big government..

Both drift toward rule of the masses by a bureaucracy of technocrats and both greatly enjoy and support crony capitalism and the lobbysphere.

Progressives are not known for precision of terminology. When a word becomes inconvenient because the public rejects it, they choose a term from what the public does like and start calling themselves that. A simple example is progressive to liberal. The public became fed up with progressives, so they took a "liberty" rooted word and twisted the meaning into its opposite.

Now that people can't stand liberals, the liberals are going back to calling themselves progressives, relying on the distance of time to pretend the early progressives were noble idealists instead of big-government power-mongers.

Progressives don't mind lying in people's faces (for their own good, of course).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Michael

Those are my political compass scores. I don't see how someone with a score of Economic Left/Right: 6.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.36 can be considered a "progressive" unless you also consider Milton Friedman a progressive.

Excuse me Gary.

Can you link us to this "political compass" since I, for one, would like to see what you are referring too.

You know, like taking your muddy boots off before you walk on the white rug...I think we had this discussion before.

I guess being a "centrist" means that you have no actual principles.

Gary where do you compromise between food and poison?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Selene

I'm actually surprised people here have never heard of it. Here's the link: http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

I guess being a "centrist" means that you have no actual principles.

Gary where do you compromise between food and poison?

I don't think that's fair. I have principles, and though they might be different from yours, I'd say there's quite a bit of overlap nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Selene

I'm actually surprised people here have never heard of it. Here's the link: http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

Gary where do you compromise between food and poison?

I don't think that's fair. I have principles, and though they might be different from yours, I'd say there's quite a bit of overlap nonetheless.

Thanks for the link.

Can you please stop whining and just answer the question.

Where do you compromise between food and poison?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link.

Can you please stop whining and just answer the question.

Where do you compromise between food and poison?

A...

Well... I drink quite a bit of alcohol... :smile:

Clever...

Now, answer the question please?

A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.

lol - one of the questions.

You do realize that this "political compass" test is fundamentally a pitiful copy of the authoritarian personality scaled testing. [see The Authoritarian Personality - researchers Theodor Adorno and Max Horkeimier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Selene

I'm actually surprised people here have never heard of it. Here's the link: http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

Thanks for the link Gary. :smile:

That's an insightful test.

I took the test and here's my score:

Economic Left/Tight: 8

0000000000-0000000X00

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: .26

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-X

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

.The results plotted an accurate graph of exactly where I am. The graph won't show up because for some reason it's not permitted so I made a representation of the two axes..

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now