This is BS - I quit

[DJofSD]

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/26/number-of-the-week-half-of-u-s-lives-in-household-getting-benefits/

Time to find another way. I can not believe 50% of people living in the U. S. recieve some kind of assistance.

[newtothegame]

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/26/number-of-the-week-half-of-u-s-lives-in-household-getting-benefits/

Time to find another way. I can not believe 50% of people living in the U. S. recieve some kind of assistance (#).
DJ, sadly, and this is NO disrespect to you but we have been saying this same thing for a quite some time right here on this board. Tom refers to them as "anchors".
And, just so libs won't come here talking about throw moma from the cliff, I am ALL FOR helping those who truly need assistance. Problem is, you cant tell me that 1 out of every two people need. We have grown a society DEPENDENT on others for their own welfare.

[newtothegame]

I would also add, that this is a PLANNED thing by one of the two parties. Dems understand that by funding and providing these benefits to WHOMEVER wishes, they make up a voting block. Then, the dems turn around and use that same mantra against republicans saying we wish to cut off aid, throw moma from the cliff etc etc to garner the votes. Pretty smart if you ask me. Problem is, as that voting block grows and grows, funding gets harder and harder for the dems. You need not look any further then our continuing to balloon deficit. Now the dems will argue that its the wars etc etc. And yes, that has played a part. But if the wars were what is killing us, why when Obama had TOTAL control for his first two years did the dems not stop them?

[HUSKER55]

i think everyone knows our government is corrupt and so are the citizens who take benefits they are not entitled to.

Problem is how do the citizens police this? You can get everyone out to vote but the crooks never get caught

[boxcar]

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/26/number-of-the-week-half-of-u-s-lives-in-household-getting-benefits/

Time to find another way. I can not believe 50% of people living in the U. S. recieve some kind of assistance.

This is old news, actually. Nothing new here. We're going to be in for a very, very, very rough ride no matter who wins this election. The Left has successfully Greeced us over these many decades. (Incrementalism works!)

Cutting government spending is no easy task, and it’s made more complicated by recent Census Bureau data showing that nearly half of the people in the U.S. live in a household that receives at least one government benefit, and many likely received more than one.

Our affable, presumptive Republican nominee who loves to go-along-to-get-along won't have the political courage to make the deep cuts necessary to get us back on track. In fact, we're so far off the rails, I'm very doubtful this nation will ever get back to its old self. We're caught between a rock and hard place. Someone has to either perform a miracle and cut the real unemployment rate in half very quickly to gain more tax revenue (which at best would be a temporary fix anyway) or the budget will have to be slashed. That's when all hell will break out on the streets. The Greeks wouldn't stand for that solution, neither will the entitlement junkies in this country.

Boxcar

[thaskalos]

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/26/number-of-the-week-half-of-u-s-lives-in-household-getting-benefits/

Time to find another way. I can not believe 50% of people living in the U. S. recieve some kind of assistance.

That's not what the article says.

It states that 49.1% of the population lives in the same household where at least one member receives some sort of goverment benefit.

This doesn't mean that "50% of the people living in the U.S. receive some kind of assistance."

Let's say that I, my wife, and two kids have taken my elderly mother to live with us...and she happens to receive Social Security benefits.

Does this mean that ALL FIVE OF US receive some kind of government assistance?

[TJDave]

Let's say that I, my wife, and two kids have taken my elderly mother to live with us...and she happens to receive Social Security benefits.

Does this mean that ALL FIVE OF US receive some kind of government assistance?

When did SS benefits become "assistance"?

I'm gonna collect mine. I kept my end of the bargain.

[thaskalos]

When did SS benefits become "assistance"?

I'm gonna collect mine. I kept my end of the bargain.

Well...that's what this article calls it. Don't blame me...:)

[hcap]

It also says.....

"The increase in recent years is likely due in large part to the lingering effects of the recession. As of early 2011, 15% of people lived in a household that received food stamps, 26% had someone enrolled in Medicaid and 2% had a member receiving unemployment benefits. Families doubling up to save money or pool expenses also is likely leading to more multigenerational households. But even without the effects of the recession, there would be a larger reliance on government.

The Census data show that 16% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives Social Security and 15% receive or live with someone who gets Medicare. There is likely a lot of overlap, since Social Security and Medicare tend to go hand in hand, but those percentages also are likely to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages."


If you gentlemen want something to bitch about, bitch about Corporate welfare and how large financial entities and casino betting bankers threw the entire world into the worst depression since the Great Depression, and caused the rightful increases in government aid to those that really need it. You gentlemen as usual blame those not to blame and blow up the "Welfare Queen" fable into a right wing talking point.

And all this bitching about a 4% increase in aid to the needy. Ok ladies, go thru' your mock dance of outrage. And as you faint away clutching your pearls mumbling "heavens to Betsy", careful not to dishevel your carefully perfumed bluish "coiffures" as you hit bottom (again)

Despicable.

[ArlJim78]

you can't downplay the numbers, it's not a good sign no matter how you slice it.
it was 30% in 1983, now its 49 percent.
what will it be in 20 years, 60%, 70%?

[hcap]

Economically, times were decent before the world was thrown into the recent depression. Under Clinton it did quite well.

In fact Social Security, Medicare and most of the social safety net is supportable and the only economic downside is the re-application of supply side, trickle down (piss on me!) republican economic fallacious policies

[PhantomOnTour]

I guess my problem is that i am paradoxically both a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.
Problem is, there's rarely any room in a fiscally conservative platform for socially liberal policies...oh well.

Like most (even the most right leaning PA members) i believe in helping members of our society who truly need it. I have no problem with some of my tax monies going to help these folks.
Problem is discerning btw who truly needs assistance and who is suckling at the teet of the USA....and 50% seems like a lot of sucklings imo, if that number is accurate.

[JustRalph]

Phantom, the problem is most don't realize how many "sucklers" there are.

Unless you have worked in a position that makes you come into contact with these types you don't realize how many freeloaders there are and how many are positively undeserving. The hand out mentality has grown to such a level that it is sinking the ship. Many believe it is beyond the scope of correction.

It is self correcting when things get bad enough.

[mostpost]

Some of this has already been said, so let me acknowledge TJDave and Hcap.

Social Security is not assistance. No one gets Social Security who has not contributed to the Social Security fund. No one gets Medicare who has not contributed to Medicare. I contributed to Social Security from every paycheck I received in my life. The same with Medicare after it was passed, which was pretty much all my working life.

What I am collecting now from Social Security is dividends on my investment. The only difference between Medicare and private health insurance is that Medicare is administered by an agency of the federal government rather than by a private company. Oh yeah, the other difference is that Medicare spends about three percent on administrative over head compared to 15-20% by private companies.

Unemployment is paid out of contributions we made while working. All of us.
Food stamps could be considered government assistance. But why has the use of food stamps gone up? Because people can't find jobs and when they do find a job the pay is low. And all of this has taken place over the last thirty years under the Republicans and their moronic supply-side, free market economics.

[mostpost]

Well...that's what this article calls it. Don't blame me...:)
There is a reason that the WSJ uses the term "government assistance." It's a buzz word that appeals to conservatives. Or maybe I should say doesn't appeal to them. But it makes them angry and causes them to not think. I'm sure that DJofSD is not the only one on this forum who read the article and thought "49.1% of Americans received some kind of government assistance." Whereas, as you pointed out, in the case of your family it would be 20%.

[boxcar]

If you gentlemen want something to bitch about, bitch about Corporate welfare and how large financial entities and casino betting bankers threw the entire world into the worst depression since the Great Depression, and caused the rightful increases in government aid to those that really need it. You gentlemen as usual blame those not to blame and blow up the "Welfare Queen" fable into a right wing talking point.

Excuse me! I repeat (even with more incredulity, if possible), EXCUSE ME! I thought all you libs were all in favor of the GM bailout? And what about all bank bailouts? (In fact, banks were even FORCED to take money they didn't want!!!) If these weren't great examples of Corporate Welfare, then please tell me what is!? :bang: :bang: :bang:

And what about all these investments/loans (so-called) into green companies? These "investments", too, are nothing but a form of Corporate Welfare because not one of these companies would have gotten off the ground if it weren't for government money. And now that so many are in the process of crash-landing to planet earth, who is going to repay those "loans"? Huh? Who?

Despicable.

That nicely sums up my feelings on your duplicity. :ThmbUp:

Boxcar

[Tom]

Social Security is not assistance. No one gets Social Security who has not contributed to the Social Security fund.

Not the whole truth here, dear boy.
Money has time value. A dollar contributed 50 years ago is not equal to a dollar withdrawn today. Just because someone puts money into the pot does not mean it is not assistance.

I will never get back an amount comparable to what I would have if I had invested it all in my own accounts of the years. That is re-distribution of wealth, and that is assistance.

[Tom]

Does this mean that ALL FIVE OF US receive some kind of government assistance?

No, it means that FOUR OF YOU should be taking care of your own, not me.

[mostpost]

I would also add, that this is a PLANNED thing by one of the two parties. Dems understand that by funding and providing these benefits to WHOMEVER wishes, they make up a voting block. Then, the dems turn around and use that same mantra against republicans saying we wish to cut off aid, throw moma from the cliff etc etc to garner the votes. Pretty smart if you ask me. Problem is, as that voting block grows and grows, funding gets harder and harder for the dems. You need not look any further then our continuing to balloon deficit. Now the dems will argue that its the wars etc etc. And yes, that has played a part. But if the wars were what is killing us, why when Obama had TOTAL control for his first two years did the dems not stop them?

Keep parroting the party line. No need to think when someone does your thinking for you. Never mind that the thinking is not only wrong but detrimental to you.

Democrats have always been in favor of programs that increased jobs as well as providing a safety net. Democrats favor public spending on needed projects such as road and bridge repair, school building and upgrading, public transportation improvements. These provide real jobs to real people.

Democrats favor a system in which people can paid what they are worth for the work they do, not what someone arbitrarily decides to pay them.


As far as why didn't they do this and that when the Democrats had total control.
Don't you read anything? The Democrats never had total control. In the Senate a majority is not total control. Not when you need sixty votes to pass any think. Not when any single senator can put a hold on many legislative items just by requesting it.

Not when a Senator can filibuster an item just by saying he wants to filibuster it. Without having to physically take the floor and speak. Congress set a record for filibusters in Obama's first two years. All of which were for the express purpose, as stated publicly by Mitch O'Connell of making sure Barack Obama is a one term president.

[boxcar]

Keep parroting the party line. No need to think when someone does your thinking for you. Never mind that the thinking is not only wrong but detrimental to you.

Democrats have always been in favor of programs that increased jobs as well as providing a safety net. Democrats favor public spending on needed projects such as road and bridge repair, school building and upgrading, public transportation improvements. These provide real jobs to real people.

Democrats favor a system in which people can paid what they are worth for the work they do, not what someone arbitrarily decides to pay them.


As far as why didn't they do this and that when the Democrats had total control.
Don't you read anything? The Democrats never had total control. In the Senate a majority is not total control. Not when you need sixty votes to pass any think. Not when any single senator can put a hold on many legislative items just by requesting it.

Not when a Senator can filibuster an item just by saying he wants to filibuster it. Without having to physically take the floor and speak. Congress set a record for filibusters in Obama's first two years. All of which were for the express purpose, as stated publicly by Mitch O'Connell of making sure Barack Obama is a one term president.

Keep parroting the party line. No need to think when someone does your thinking for you. Never mind that the thinking is not only wrong but detrimental to you.

Sound familiar? Heal thyself, wanna-be physician.

Boxcar
P.S. You should wipe that inboard HD of yours clean and start life over. Maybe with the exception of robo'cap, there's no one here more brainwashed than you.

[Tom]

making sure Barack Obama is a one term president.

What better way to create new jobs?

[boxcar]

All of which were for the express purpose, as stated publicly by Mitch O'Connell of making sure Barack Obama is a one term president.

Quite possibly, the only smart thing he has ever said while in office. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: for All Blind Squirrels.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Excuse me! I repeat (even with more incredulity, if possible), EXCUSE ME! I thought all you libs were all in favor of the GM bailout? And what about all bank bailouts? (In fact, banks were even FORCED to take money they didn't want!!!) If these weren't great examples of Corporate Welfare, then please tell me what is!? :bang: :bang: :bang:



ToxicarHey dumdum,

1-There is no excuse for you

2-When did I refer to the government bailout funds? Before any bailout was passed by Bush or Obama, the world financial situation was in free fall ALL by itself. The MONEY CHANGERS (not the poor) screwed us. The additional 4 % of families getting aid now are not anchors but debris thrown overboard from the shipwreck .

Btw, without the bailouts it would have been worse

[Tom]

Btw, without the bailouts it would have been worse

btw, the libs keep saying that, but you cannot prove it. I say we would be better off now with out the government interference.

It's me,

Tom!

[boxcar]

Hey dumdum,

1-There is no excuse for you

2-When did I refer to the government bailout funds? Before any bailout was passed by Bush or Obama, the world financial situation was in free fall ALL by itself. The MONEY CHANGERS (not the poor) screwed us. The additional 4 % of families getting aid now are not anchors but debris thrown overboard from the shipwreck .

Btw, without the bailouts it would have been worse

Yo, Clueless One -- YOU DIDN'T, which is why I did. Gov't bailouts = Corporate Welfare. Plain and simple.

And businesses in "free fall" mode have a God-given right to fail, by the way. :lol: :lol: But we don't have a God-given right to succeed. Know why, Einstein? Because of our inherent fallibility. Mix this little factoid in your next DXM cocktail. :lol: :lol:

And the U.S. government has no business "investing" taxpayers' money in the private sector. Taxpayers are quite capable of picking and choosing their own investments, thank you.

Boxcar

[thaskalos]

No, it means that FOUR OF YOU should be taking care of your own, not me.
I don't understand...so could you clarify this a bit, so a simpleton like me can understand it?

Are you saying that SS recipients are not entitled to receive the benefits that they are getting?

Should we resent them for living as long as they have?

[boxcar]

Should we resent them for living as long as they have?

If so, the resentment would be misplaced. We should resent the crooks in government for perpetuating this unethical Ponzi Scheme on for as long as they have. In the private sector, such a scam would be unlawful, as well.

Boxcar

[thaskalos]

If so, the resentment would be misplaced. We should resent the crooks in government for perpetuating this unethical Ponzi Scheme on for as long as they have. In the private sector, such a scam would be unlawful, as well.

Boxcar

Not to mention the sweet retirement packages that these crooks have been able to secure for themselves... :ThmbDown:

[Robert Goren]

The number is actually 100%.

[Robert Goren]

Yo, Clueless One -- YOU DIDN'T, which is why I did. Gov't bailouts = Corporate Welfare. Plain and simple.

And businesses in "free fall" mode have a God-given right to fail, by the way. :lol: :lol: But we don't have a God-given right to succeed. Know why, Einstein? Because of our inherent fallibility. Mix this little factoid in your next DXM cocktail. :lol: :lol:

And the U.S. government has no business "investing" taxpayers' money in the private sector. Taxpayers are quite capable of picking and choosing their own investments, thank you.

Boxcar This site is result of a government investment. That doesn't stop you from using it.:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Dave Schwartz]

This is BS - I quit

Ah, DJ, what, exactly, are you quitting?

[fast4522]

If so, the resentment would be misplaced. We should resent the crooks in government for perpetuating this unethical Ponzi Scheme on for as long as they have. In the private sector, such a scam would be unlawful, as well.

Boxcar

A very interesting choice of words, same use of words destroyed the Gov. from Texas Presidential bid. I have looked at social security from every view and come up with the following:

Our young brave lady's and gents sign up for selective service to serve and protect our homeland, leaving behind sometimes kids, parents, and grandparents to be part of a Professional (100% volunteer ) armed forces of these United States of America. And in turn they expect this country will continue for their parents in their absence while they serve to protect us all. I often sound hard right or non caring, but my views are not far from every person who has a loved one off to fight our battles or those in service thinking of the days light they face to stay alive in harms way. For those who are still kicking long after retirement I say long live you brother or sister. For those who have not kicked into the system and I say thanks for your visit, and please return to your roots.

[delayjf]

If you gentlemen want something to bitch about, bitch about Corporate welfare

Was it not MostPost who championed corporate welfare ( tax incentives, tax cuts) as the driving force behind economic expansion?

[Tom]

I don't understand...so could you clarify this a bit, so a simpleton like me can understand it?

Are you saying that SS recipients are not entitled to receive the benefits that they are getting?

Should we resent them for living as long as they have?

This is what you posted - you did not limit it to SS.
Does this mean that ALL FIVE OF US receive some kind of government assistance?
Therefore, my reply was not referring to SS.

[boxcar]

This site is result of a government investment. That doesn't stop you from using it.:lol: :lol: :lol:

This site is NOT! PA invested in this site and, hopefully, is making some money off of it. I'm just taking advantage of the 'net's structure in a general sense.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

A very interesting choice of words, same use of words destroyed the Gov. from Texas Presidential bid. I have looked at social security from every view and come up with the following:

Our young brave lady's and gents sign up for selective service to serve and protect our homeland, leaving behind sometimes kids, parents, and grandparents to be part of a Professional (100% volunteer ) armed forces of these United States of America. And in turn they expect this country will continue for their parents in their absence while they serve to protect us all. I often sound hard right or non caring, but my views are not far from every person who has a loved one off to fight our battles or those in service thinking of the days light they face to stay alive in harms way. For those who are still kicking long after retirement I say long live you brother or sister. For those who have not kicked into the system and I say thanks for your visit, and please return to your roots.

A non sequitur if I ever read one, designed to deflect from the real issue by tugging at our little heart strings.

Boxcar

[thaskalos]

This is what you posted - you did not limit it to SS.

Therefore, my reply was not referring to SS.
Why don't you post my entire reply, and then you'll see if I was referring only to SS or not.

[Tom]

Because that was the statement I was replying to.....the "some sort of..."

[DJofSD]

Ah, DJ, what, exactly, are you quitting?
I'm going over to the dark side. I'll going to start gettin' some.

I was naive for too long. Take care of my own, pay taxes, save and invest for my future was the way I was raised by my depression era parents. I'm sick and tired of being called selfish by the democrats and liberals. Fine, they win, they can have it all but first I want some of that "free" stuff.

[fast4522]

Horseshit, you want change go to Canada or Europe, myself I prefer what was.

[Mike at A+]

The so called "rich" are much smarter than 0bama so all this nonsense about making them pay even higher taxes just won't happen. He will continue to demonize the rich and penalize the middle class (the WHITE middle class - the middle class blacks who get hurt by his crimes against the economy are basically collateral damage to him). He is all about rewarding the lowest class in America at the expense of those directly above them in the food chain. The "rich" LAUGH at him. That includes Warren Buffet, his friends in Hollywood, in the unions and government employees who are robbing the taxpayers blind. THIS IS SO FREAKIN OBVIOUS! He will never run on his record. He will run AGAINST the "boogeyman du jour" from now through November. I doubt he will even agree to debate Romney more than once. He's an empty suit - a RACIST empty suit.

I would make the following rules for ALL ABLE BODIED Americans:
1.) If you have a car, NO FOOD STAMPS.
2.) If you have a TV, NO FOOD STAMPS.
3.) If you have a computer with internet access, NO FOOD STAMPS.
4.) If you have a cell phone, NO FOOD STAMPS.

There are plenty of entry level jobs for these people.

[HUSKER55]

how many of you think that if there were no bailouts things would be better.

there is no such thing as a perfect world and to gurantee a perfect world for some is not fair.

and for those that think they repaid those bailouts...did they pay the same interest rate as us poor working bastards, 21% or better?

We should have let them fail. Ford didn't take any. They did all right. Are you telling me that Ford's CEO is that much smarter? Not likely.

We are talking crooks here. They are CAR SALESMEN!

Hello...we bought a lemon.

[fast4522]

The so called "rich" are much smarter than 0bama so all this nonsense about making them pay even higher taxes just won't happen. He will continue to demonize the rich and penalize the middle class (the WHITE middle class - the middle class blacks who get hurt by his crimes against the economy are basically collateral damage to him). He is all about rewarding the lowest class in America at the expense of those directly above them in the food chain. The "rich" LAUGH at him. That includes Warren Buffet, his friends in Hollywood, in the unions and government employees who are robbing the taxpayers blind. THIS IS SO FREAKIN OBVIOUS! He will never run on his record. He will run AGAINST the "boogeyman du jour" from now through November. I doubt he will even agree to debate Romney more than once. He's an empty suit - a RACIST empty suit.

I would make the following rules for ALL ABLE BODIED Americans:
1.) If you have a car, NO FOOD STAMPS.
2.) If you have a TV, NO FOOD STAMPS.
3.) If you have a computer with internet access, NO FOOD STAMPS.
4.) If you have a cell phone, NO FOOD STAMPS.

There are plenty of entry level jobs for these people.


I hear you but, the problem is not with the guy down on his or her luck at this point. The problem is you and I not coming together and letting this Bozo in the job in the first place. Sometimes we all have to look into the mirror and say WTF seriously. Moving forward we have to give Mr Romney a chance, anyone could do a better job than this guy. It is not that President Obama is a pariah, its the folks that say don't vote for Mr Romney because he's a Mormon, who are the pariah because they benefit from the destruction of our United States Constitution and bill of rights just so their time left on earth is a tad easier before their dirt nap.

[Mike at A+]

I hear you but, the problem is not with the guy down on his or her luck at this point. The problem is you and I not coming together and letting this Bozo in the job in the first place. Sometimes we all have to look into the mirror and say WTF seriously. Moving forward we have to give Mr Romney a chance, anyone could do a better job than this guy. It is not that President Obama is a pariah, its the folks that say don't vote for Mr Romney because he's a Mormon, who are the pariah because they benefit from the destruction of our United States Constitution and bill of rights just so their time left on earth is a tad easier before their dirt nap.
The "guy down on his or her luck" should be given minimal assistance and then get his or her ass into a minimum wage job. If a person is truly disabled and unable to work, we as a society owe them a bit more. But the ones who practice generational welfare are the problem. If they are made to understand that after some point the handouts get cut off, that would get them out of bed and into a job, maybe even one where they could pay some taxes.

[PaceAdvantage]

This site is NOT! PA invested in this site and, hopefully, is making some money off of it. I'm just taking advantage of the 'net's structure in a general sense.

BoxcarI believe he's referring to the fact that the Internet was basically an invention of the military (government).

[fast4522]

I do not disagree with you, but if you and I do not vote this shit out nothing we think will matter. Job one, rid ourselves of this socialists, job two, be open to Romney and the course that he tries to steer the country. When we agree on more than we do not there is hope.

[boxcar]

I believe he's referring to the fact that the Internet was basically an invention of the military (government).

Yes, and my complaint was that government has no business taking our tax dollars in the name of "investments in our future" and sticking those dollars into the private sector. But the military isn't the private sector, is it? Therefore, Goren's analogy misses the mark by a country mile.

Also, Robert did say "this site" -- a site that you own. Does the military or Uncle Sam own your site? A site into which you have obviously invested a great deal of YOUR time and money?

Boxcar

[canleakid]

I would make the following rules for ALL ABLE BODIED Americans:
1.) If you have a car, NO FOOD STAMPS. check
2.) If you have a TV, NO FOOD STAMPS. check
3.) If you have a computer with internet access, NO FOOD STAMPS. check
4.) If you have a cell phone, NO FOOD STAMPS. check
5.) If you have a JOB, NO FOOD STAMPS
6.) If you gamble, smoke or drink booze, NO FOOD STAMPS

there are few good folks down on their luck and with a little help they will rebound but the bums that feed off the system GOT TOO GO
There are plenty of entry level jobs for these people

[boxcar]

I would make the following rules for ALL ABLE BODIED Americans:
1.) If you have a car, NO FOOD STAMPS. check
2.) If you have a TV, NO FOOD STAMPS. check
3.) If you have a computer with internet access, NO FOOD STAMPS. check
4.) If you have a cell phone, NO FOOD STAMPS. check
5.) If you have a JOB, NO FOOD STAMPS
6.) If you gamble, smoke or drink booze, NO FOOD STAMPS

there are few good folks down on their luck and with a little help they will rebound but the bums that feed off the system GOT TOO GO
There are plenty of entry level jobs for these people

Ahh...that would still be a huge problem with liberals. Entry level jobs = minimum wage = not a living wage = necessary government assistance. The only way around this would be to raise the min. wage to around $20. per hr. or so, and that might keep 'em happy for a short time. At least until severe inflation kicked in...

Boxcar

[ElKabong]

Let's say that I, my wife, and two kids have taken my elderly mother to live with us...and she happens to receive Social Security benefits.

Does this mean that ALL FIVE OF US receive some kind of government assistance?

It would be nice to stay away from hypotheticals. Does your elderly mother live in your home? If not, then you see where Tom and others are coming from.

The scenario you provide, no one on my block (middle class as you can get) has this in their life's scene. Only one did in the past few yrs, before their grandmother died in 2005

I do find it troubling that in the real world 50% of the nations households rec'v some type of gov't assistance.

[thaskalos]

It would be nice to stay away from hypotheticals. Does your elderly mother live in your home? If not, then you see where Tom and others are coming from.

The scenario you provide, no one on my block (middle class as you can get) has this in their life's scene. Only one did in the past few yrs, before their grandmother died in 2005

I do find it troubling that in the real world 50% of the nations households rec'v some type of gov't assistance.
No...my example was hypothetical.

But my son IS receiving a death benefit due to his mom's early demise...and will continue to receive it until he gets to be 18 years old.

But I suppose no one on your "middle class" block has experienced this in their life's scene either.

So, I guess my household is indeed among those on the receiving end of this "government assistance" we are talking about here...although I prefer to think of it as if my son is receiving the Social Security benefits that his mother never got the chance to receive. (My wife died of cancer at the age of 37...and worked for 14 years of her life.)

Do you think that I should feel "guilty" about this "government assistance" my son is getting?

[ElKabong]

I'm sorry for your loss. I truly am.

Mosty posted that no one rec'vs SS benefits w/o paying in. This is an example of where an individual (your son) recv's SS benefits w/o paying in. I bring this up only b/c my neighbor's son (not living with him now, he's in his 30s) rec'd payments b/c of his mom's passing.

Plenty of people on my block have had hard knocks & bad breaks happen. That's a part of life. Myself included, I don't need nor want to elaborate on the bad break. Never knew any of the neighbors asking for anything from Unca Sam in return.

Twelve yrs ago I could have gone to Uncle Sam with my hand out, chose not to. It's a conservative value. A choice. As long as I can get out of bed, earn a living, I don't feel compelled to lean on taxpayers to pave my way.....The day that happens, I'd be a 300lb piece of shit that tries to walk bacon and lite beer out of a Piggly Wiggly, pepper spraying check out clerks and sack boys with my face all over Drudge.com

[thaskalos]

I'm sorry for your loss. I truly am.

Mosty posted that no one rec'vs SS benefits w/o paying in. This is an example of where an individual (your son) recv's SS benefits w/o paying in. I bring this up only b/c my neighbor's son (not living with him now, he's in his 30s) rec'd payments b/c of his mom's passing.

Plenty of people on my block have had hard knocks & bad breaks happen. That's a part of life. Myself included, I don't need nor want to elaborate. Never knew any of the neighbors asking for anything from Unca Sam in return.
You never really ask Uncle Sam for anything...at least not in my wife's case.

During the last year of my wife's life, she was rendered disabled because of her disease...and she was receiving disability benefits.

I alerted the government of her passing so they could stop her disability benefits...without knowing that my son was entitled to any benefits of his own.

They terminated her disability payments...and automatically transfered them to my son as a death benefit.

My point is not to talk about myself here...

I just want to say that there are some "real" tragedies out there...and my wife's illness allowed me to get a close-up look at some of them.

[Tom]

Fine, they win, they can have it all but first I want some of that "free" stuff.

Good idea - let's all stop contributing and demand our fair share of the welfare state. A national strike - no one works, no one pays taxes!

[Tom]

Do you think that I should feel "guilty" about this "government assistance" my son is getting?

No, not at all. and I think you know that is not what I was talking about either. A SS benefit is a far cry from welfare or food stamps or getting bonuses for popping out babies, as is the norm in the demo-society. SS, whole totally flawed and unfair, is a right you earned by paying into it. You are not getting anywhere near what you deserve from it, but you owe no apologies for taking it.

[toetoe]

Social Security is not assistance. No one gets Social Security who has not contributed to the Social Security fund.

Dependents of disabled parents get Social Security until 18 or 21 years of age, no ? That's how it used to be, anyway. Do workers with children pay more into the Social Security fund ?

[Actor]

When did SS benefits become "assistance"?June 20, 1960, Supreme Court of the United States, Fleming vs. Nestor. :bang:

[Actor]

Money has time value. A dollar contributed 50 years ago is not equal to a dollar withdrawn today.True. A dollar contributed 50 years ago, if invested in government securities, should be worth about $10 today.

[Actor]

No, it means that FOUR OF YOU should be taking care of your own, not me.The four of them are taking care of their own. They're still paying into social security and medicare.

[Actor]

There are plenty of entry level jobs for these people.But they're all in India and China.

[Actor]

how many of you think that if there were no bailouts things would be better.I think that if there had never been any bailouts, ever, that things would be better. But now that bailouts have become a way of life? I just don't know! :bang:

[Mike at A+]

But they're all in India and China.
Not true. There are "help wanted" signs all over the place, many in food service where salaries plus tips generally exceed minimum wage significantly. Besides the fact that most of the sponges sucking off welfare here aren't even qualified to hold one of those jobs in India or China.

[Actor]

This is an example of where an individual (your son) recv's SS benefits w/o paying in.SS has both an investment component and an insurance component. In this case the insurance component that the mother paid into provides a benefit to the son. Similar to a private insurance policy.

[mostpost]

You are not getting anywhere near what you deserve from it, but you owe no apologies for taking it.

I'm not sure what you think you deserve. Go back and figure out what you have paid into Social Security. It's 6.2% of everything up to about $106,000.

I figured mine, but the numbers are very high since I do not remember very well what I earned in the early years. Anyway, I used $40,000 a year, which is about what I was making my last years at the PO. I used 1965 as a starting point since that is when I graduated college. I retired in 2005. Forty years times $40,000 is $1.6M. Times 6.2% means I contributed $99,200 to Social Security. Using my most recent monthly benefit, that money was used up in Dec. 2010.

You are going to say you can make a lot more money by investing that in the stock market. Perhaps you can, but can everyone? What percentage of the people who invest in the market now make money? I had money in a fund through the post office. I did quite well for some time. Then the market started to fall and I started losing money. I switched over to Govt. Bonds which did not pay much, but at least I kept my principle. Now supposing I was retiring in 2009. My nest egg would have been cut in half with no chance of restoring it.

Social Security provides people with a safe retirement. With just a few changes it will continue to do so for a very long time.

[Actor]

Not true. There are "help wanted" signs all over the place, many in food service where salaries plus tips generally exceed minimum wage significantly. Besides the fact that most of the sponges sucking off welfare here aren't even qualified to hold one of those jobs in India or China.So a computer programmer is laid off his/her $80,000/year job. The work is then outsourced to India. Should he/she make plans to move to India or China?

[Mike at A+]

So a computer programmer is laid off his/her $80,000/year job. The work is then outsourced to India. Should he/she make plans to move to India or China?
The typical laid off $80K computer programmer is not on welfare.

[JustRalph]

Not true. There are "help wanted" signs all over the place, many in food service where salaries plus tips generally exceed minimum wage significantly. Besides the fact that most of the sponges sucking off welfare here aren't even qualified to hold one of those jobs in India or China.

My wife has openings in that category all the time. It requires 3 skills. Good physical conditioning (stamina, lifting, long days) good people skills, good math in your head type skils. Most on the bottom end clear 600 a week. Usually 4-4.5 days a week. The top earners and real go getters clear 900-1k a week for 5 days approx 50 hrs. During the Holiday season many clear 6k for the month. A couple 8k.

You would be surprised how hard it is to find young people who can do it. She employs a wait staff of 70-90 depending on the season. I would guess that only ten percent are 35 yrs old or more. A few in their 50's. The top earners are the older staff members. Usually with older kids. The younger staff sometimes pick a target cash goal and once they hit it, they give away their shifts etc.....for more time off. I sometimes marvel at the good ones. But it is so hard to find people with the right skill set.

[Actor]

The typical laid off $80K computer programmer is not on welfare.Define "typical." Define "welfare."

[Mike at A+]

Define "typical." Define "welfare."
Typical $80K/yr Computer Programmer = responsible, organized, educated, living within means, budgets, saves for a rainy day
Welfare = government handouts for which you've paid nothing (not Social Security, not Unemployment)

[Mike at A+]

Furthermore:

Typical laid off $80K/yr. computer programmer realizes he/she takes a significant cut in "pay" when going on unemployment and adjusts accordingly, understanding that he/she has 26 weeks (99 if a free spending liberal Democrat is president) to conduct a job search and move on to the next assignment. May start a small business if job search looks fruitless.

Typical able bodied irresponsible, entitlement mentality welfare recipient gets check, goes to check cashing store, goes on spending binge and counts the days till the next check. May supplement income through illegal activities.

Typical able bodies RESPONSIBLE welfare recipient gets check, deposits in bank account, budgets properly, seeks employment.

[lamboguy]

Furthermore:

Typical laid off $80K/yr. computer programmer realizes he/she takes a significant cut in "pay" when going on unemployment and adjusts accordingly, understanding that he/she has 26 weeks (99 if a free spending liberal Democrat is president) to conduct a job search and move on to the next assignment. May start a small business if job search looks fruitless.

Typical able bodied irresponsible, entitlement mentality welfare recipient gets check, goes to check cashing store, goes on spending binge and counts the days till the next check. May supplement income through illegal activities.

Typical able bodies RESPONSIBLE welfare recipient gets check, deposits in bank account, budgets properly, seeks employment.i was on unemployment during the FORD administration for 2 1/2 years, and i don't think he was to much of a liberal. it was great, i was getting $275 every 2 weeks and got an education at the race track every single day while i was on unemployment. when my benefits ran out i wound up working at the track as a jock agent hustling mounts and watching horses work over the track.

[Robert Goren]

Typical $80K/yr Computer Programmer = responsible, organized, educated, living within means, budgets, saves for a rainy day
Welfare = government handouts for which you've paid nothing (not Social Security, not Unemployment)A typical 80K/yr programmer is about to be replaced by a guy from India making 25k/yr. I had 4 former programmers working for me manning a parking booth. They all had been replace by Indians or Pakistanis.

[Tom]

True. A dollar contributed 50 years ago, if invested in government securities, should be worth about $10 today.

Well, if you are an idiot investor, yes. If you are semi-literate you would get far more than you put in.

[Tom]

A typical 80K/yr programmer is about to be replaced by a guy from India making 25k/yr. I had 4 former programmers working for me manning a parking booth. They all had been replace by Indians or Pakistanis.

This trend will continue as long as Obama and the dems create an uncertain business environment in the US. Taxes, regulations, and not knowing what to expect month to month make it pretty stupid to make major investments here. There are billions of dollars and millions of jobs overseas that would come back if we had a responsible government.

But Noooooooo. We got dems.

[boxcar]

You are going to say you can make a lot more money by investing that in the stock market. Perhaps you can, but can everyone? What percentage of the people who invest in the market now make money?

Why are you concerned about who can make money and who can't? Or how many can or can't? Take care of your own life, and keep your nose out of other people's. Quit being a moral busy body! You're pathetic!

Do you bet the ponies? If so, do you preach your stupid socialism message and teach bettors about the the horrors of taking personal responsibility for the wagers they take? Or how much risk is involved when making those bets? Or how highly unlikely it is that all of them, most of them or even many of them will be able to realize a profit on their race investments over a period of time? If not, why not? After all, you could encourage them to take that wagering money, which very likely most will squander, and send it instead to the IRS so that they can pay more of their fair share -- and feel a heck of a lot more patriotic in the process. What is more patriotic: To invest in the ponies or in your country which has provided you with your way of life? (If you're unsure of the answer, email JoeBiteMe.) :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

Why are you concerned about who can make money and who can't? Or how many can or can't? Take care of your own life, and keep your nose out of other people's.

Boxcar
Candide. Tend to your own garden.

[boxcar]

A typical 80K/yr programmer is about to be replaced by a guy from India making 25k/yr. I had 4 former programmers working for me manning a parking booth. They all had been replace by Indians or Pakistanis.

Four people's misfortunes are four others' fortunes. See: There's a silver lining behind every dark cloud.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Four people's misfortunes are four others' fortunes. See: There's a silver lining behind every dark cloud.

Toxicar

Tell that to all those who suffered and died in natural and man made disasters.

Candide. "The best of all possible worlds"

[MONEY]

Why are you concerned about who can make money and who can't? Or how many can or can't? Take care of your own life, and keep your nose out of other people's. Quit being a moral busy body! You're pathetic!
Boxcar

I'm am by no means an angel.
A few days ago, I was at the checkout at my local Walmart. The lady in front of me was buying food and formula for her baby. When the cashier tallied up here purchase, she began to return some items because she didn't have enough money to pay for them.

I had never seen this woman before & will probably never see her again, but I could not let here leave without the stuff that she needed for her baby.
I offered to pay for her entire purchase & she accepted my offer.

You would have let her & her baby go without their necessities.

Pathetic!

[Robert Goren]

Exactly what are you quitting?

[PaceAdvantage]

You would have let her & her baby go without their necessities.I'm by no means Boxcar's biggest fan these days, nor him mine, but I don't see how you can come to this conclusion based upon what he wrote.

If he did choose to help her, that would be of his own doing. I think that's a major distinction to be made...

[MONEY]

I'm by no means Boxcar's biggest fan these days, nor him mine, but I don't see how you can come to this conclusion based upon what he wrote.

If he did choose to help her, that would be of his own doing. I think that's a major distinction to be made...
Boxcar has made many similar post, somehow he believes that every gets their due.
IE. A women that dresses sexy, should expect to get raped.

Somehow, Trayvon Martin got what was coming to him because he was a tough guy that might have sold drugs.

So, I think that I could safely conclude that if a woman has a baby that she can't afford, that they both should go hungry.

[boxcar]

You would have let her & her baby go without their necessities.

And you know this how?

Pathetic!

I'm thinking that if you reply, that would characterize it accurately.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Boxcar has made many similar post, somehow he believes that every gets their due.
IE. A women that dresses sexy, should expect to get raped.

Somehow, Trayvon Martin got what was coming to him because he was a tough guy that might have sold drugs.

So, I think that I could safely conclude that if a woman has a baby that she can't afford, that they both should go hungry.

I was right about your reply. I think I can safely conclude that you're in need of several years' experience in connecting dots. Also, several large doses of honesty would be nice, since you have mischaracterized things I have said.

But for the record, yes, I do believe everyone will get their due -- either in this life or the next. Only a fool would believe that choices have no consequences and that justice can be cheated. People will reap what they sow sooner or later.

Boxcar