Slashdot Mirror
70% of U.S. Government Spending Is Writing Checks To Individuals
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Investor's Business Daily:"Buried deep in a section of President Obama's budget, released this week, is an eye-opening fact: This year, 70% of all the money the federal government spends will be in the form of direct payments to individuals, an all-time high. In effect, the government has become primarily a massive money-transfer machine, taking $2.6 trillion from some and handing it back out to others. These government transfers now account for 15% of GDP, another all-time high. In 1991, direct payments accounted for less than half the budget and 10% of GDP. What's more, the cost of these direct payments is exploding. Even after adjusting for inflation, they've shot up 29% under Obama." It's very hard to lay blame on only one part of the U.S. government, though; as the two largest parties are often fond of pointing out when it suits them, all spending bills originate in the House.
Yet if you point this fact out, you lose a presidential election...
Why is this a problem? You've outlined some interesting results here, but what makes you think there's an issue here?
I hate to be the guy saying "why is this on Slashdot", especially since I've been posting these very budget numbers here for years, when it has been relevant to the thread, but WTF? This is a blatant political click-troll story. It's not news (been this way for many years), and it's not "for nerds".
Sure, I guess we could rehash the same old "NASA's budget is trivial in the scheme of thing" posts, but really.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
They are usually large so the quantity must be low.
Why is this story posted on a tech news website exactly?
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
Timothy. You claimed that the House originated President Obama's budget proposal. Citation needed please.
We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
http://www.ssa.gov/
Feel free to run on eliminating it. After all, it's what you're complaining about in your post.
Perhaps it's my tinfoil hat, but is this a case of salami slicing to hide how officials are stealing tax payer money?
From the linked story ... "In effect, the government has become primarily a massive money-transfer machine, taking $2.6 trillion from some and handing it back out to others." ... "An IBD analysis found that the richest 1% of Americans, in fact, receive roughly $10 billion each year in federal checks."
This outrageous slander ignores the fact that so-called "individuals" are not the only kind of people. Corporations are people, my friend! Stop this racist hate-speech where corporations are considered second-class citizens merely because they are not "individuals". In fact, stop using the I-word entirely, you bigot!
mandatory (adj): Obligatory; required or commanded by authority.
As the article points out, most of this is going to mandatory programs, which would be the same even if it were Romney or McCain or Sarah Fucking Palin in office.
What this means, for those dumb enough to believe what they read in IBD, is that what Obama has achieved is to reduce the amount of spending on the discretionary side. Agriculture, down 8%. HHS, down 7.6%. Even Homeland Security, down 2.8%. The Pentagon is down over $100 billion.
But hey, by all means, let's make sure that this looks like Obama's doing a bad job, because that was clearly the author's goal before he wrote it. The rest is just a matter of selecting the data until it proves what you wanted it to prove.
When we hear a serious discussion of how to cut benefits (something other than "the poor should die" and "let's give it all to Wall Street, because they're so freaking responsible"), we can have an actual conversation. But articles like this show why anything from Obama, no matter how reasonable, is doomed even before it gets printed.
Goddammit, if the government is going to give money, it should be to corporations. Pah!
What makes you think that he thinks that there's an issue?
Aging baby-boomers are going on Medicare and Social security. Since the population is aging, the % of GDP of these two programs (which are transfers from present workers taxes -- yes there are the trust funds, but a lot of the funding is based on current revenues collected year) will increase so long as the population, as a whole, ages.
Obviously.
And if you talk to anyone it will be "Cut their benefits. Don't touch mine".
Deductible mortgages, supplement this, old age that, infrastructure projects, pork projects, transport, farm, pretty much everyone gets multiple handouts of one form or another.
If you want to open the can of worms go ahead, but it generally is worse than the hydra that grows back heads for everyone cut off.
The problem with story's like this is the total like of proof. I am more inclined to believe in unicorns then this type crap.
Seriously. The entire story should be modded "troll".
"Individual" in this case does NOT mean "person".
If you download the spreadsheet you can see that they classify total spending as either "direct" or "grants", of which the vast bulk is "direct". Everything that is not a grant must be being paid to an entity of some kind, whether an actual person, a company, a non-profit or something. You can verify this is the total Federal spending using the Monthly Treasury Statements at https://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/... - I recommend the PDF versions.
As for the percentage going to veterans, I expect the number of veterans isn't growing very much, whereas the Federal budget is. So a constant amount in a larger total is going to be a smaller fraction.
Bottom line, this article is FUD and should not be taken serious by anyone.
Graham
Much of the remaining 30% was things like defense and infrastructure -- this may be bloated, but in theory it benefitted fuure generations, so it was considered ethical to borrow from them to pay for it. But wealth transfer payments?
That is flat-out current generations refusing to carry their own weight.
By the way, taxing the rich won't cut it -- taxing 100% of the rich's income would gain you an additional $500 billion a year (assuming they continue to work for free, good luck with that and keeping their salaries pointlessly high). This is still hundreds of billions a year short.
No, every elected politician knows you have to tax the middle class to pay for the middle classess' wealth transfers (social security, whether retirement or disability).
And these politicians are cowards because they are a huge and motivated voting block.
No, we, the middle class, have to decide on an amendment to prevent ourselves from borrowing from our children. We won't, because we, and our politicians who we elect, are weak.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Paying health care costs is a direct payment to the health care industry, not the individual, but don't let that fact get in the way of an sensationalist story.
the same group that claimed Hawkings would be dead if he got healthcare in England.
What drives me insane is that it's a large part of their demographic whining about the other 1/3rd of social programs going to poor people and social programs.
Pitiful.
Makes me want to join up with them and pull the plug on all of the programs because they will be hit the worst. There would be hoovertowns of broken sick seniors begging for a handout.
...and in this case-- per the article and/or a tiny bit of simple awareness-- old people are receiving the overwhelming share of those checks in the form of Medicare and Social Security.
I say our Baby Boomer friends (i.e. parents and grandparents) have earned those benefits. In the case of Soc Sec, they've certainly paid for them. We should give them what they have paid for. It'll hurt now-- particularly for all of us earning a living in the workforce/tax base-- but as those folks inevitably stop receiving benefits it'll all work out.
Fair's fair, and today's retirees didn't ask to be born at the same time at an incredible rate.
- Marching Band: It's not just for breakfast anymore
Idiots need to double check their assumptions.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Maybe if a quarter of the economy weren't devoted to paying the bloated salaries of the top 5% of households, then the government wouldn't have to step in to fill the cracks.
Of the 70% spent on "individuals", 39% is Medicare, Medicaid + "Obamacare" (I wonder what the split is - I'd guess 40-40-20), 33% is Social Security, 21% is poverty programs, and 5% is veteran's pensions, with the remaining 2% not accounted for in TFA (they mention farm subsidies and disaster payments later, perhaps that's what this is).
I would think an increase in the percentage of checks going to individuals would be a good thing. That's a lower percentage of checks going to military contractors. This is the government focusing more on helping people instead of killing them.
I read the internet for the articles.
1/3 of that is Social Security which is a return of money PAID into it. Only someone who exceeds the expected lifespan will draw more than they (or their spouse) put in.
That didn't stop you from mentioning Obama by name twice, even though, last I heard, he isn't the house of representatives, and even his most wacked out critics aren't claiming that he is.
Hmm. Thinking about it, it doesn't seem hard to lay the blame on one branch...clearly, the judiciary branch doesn't originate spending bills, and the executive branch doesn't originate spending bills, so really, it's just the legislative branch. That wasn't so hard. We can go even further: the senate, currently controlled by Obama's party, doesn't originate spending bills either. If we're wanting to "lay blame" we should probably find out who currently controls the house and hold them accountable.
--MarkusQ
Don't try to pretend to be nonpartisan with that candy coated BS at the end. This story was posted here by the usual crowd of slashdot conservatives aiming to make President Obama look bad. Nevermind that the article actually points out that less money is paid out in social welfare programs than at any time since before the Reagan administration, the new conservative mantra here is that no money should ever be given by the federal government to individual citizens, regardless of whether it is for retirement, health care, or even wages for work done. If you're not independently wealthy to the degree that you can afford to be part of the federal government for no wage whatsoever, then the conservative voice here wants you thrown out of Washington immediately and asking for assistance at your local church.
Yes, I know this will be moderated down. But none of "troll", "flamebait", and "overrated" are the same as "factually inaccurate" - indeed most are just used as ways of saying "I disagree".
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
taking $2.6 trillion from some and handing it back out to others.
Ummm, what else is the government supposed to do with the money? If it gave the money back to the same people who paid the taxes in the first place, it wouldn't make much sense, would it?
This year, 70% of all the money the federal government spends will be in the form of direct payments to individuals, an all-time high.
Including medicare, medicaid, and Obamacare? So the payments for drugs and health care are counted as going directly to individuals. OK, and other than the military, what's left? Highways, schools, NASA, and the post office -- and we've been cutting all of those.
So in short, article is saying that taxes are money transfers (which they had better be, or they'd be really stupid), and that health care and social security are going up, and everything else but the military is getting cut. That's news?
an eye-opening fact
Maybe if you're retarded.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
The AC is incredibly stupid.
Yes, the budget is spent writing checks to individuals: we have government employees, we have military, military retirees, we have social security; just to name 3 huge money sinks.
And guess what these people do?
They spend that money on goods and services. Money that is your income either directly or indirectly.
And lastly, even the Libertarian Cato institute says the economic theory of "Starve the Beast" is a failure. Not just in one study, but two. Look 'em up.
oh well, Slashdot was dying anyways.
Newsflash retards: The baby boomers are retiring and they want the social security they paid into their whole life. No matter who is president people turn 65.
Seriously, I am through with Slashdot.
That infamous quote is still valid here. People on social security – no surprise – rise and fall with the unemployment numbers. This un-paralleled recession has created unpatrolled numbers of people ‘on the dole’. With the GOP slashing welfare, the alternative is skyrocketing disability recipients. No miracle that the highest rates of states on disability are those with the lowest education. Great article on tall this over at NPR http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-... and you better read while available because most GOP’rs absolutely scream about public dollars to NPR.
Slashdot title is misleading, so had to RTFA to find out
It's not a savings account--you don't get your own money back. Young people subsidize old people.
They both love to spend money, just on different priorities.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Fuck you, you miserable taker.
From TFA:
"The biggest chunk, 38.6%, goes to pay health bills, either through Medicare, Medicaid or ObamaCare."
Really, mentioning "ObamaCare"? When it hasn't paid out A SINGLE CENT to anyone yet? It will this year, with the tax credits for acquiring health insurance - which really means the money goes to the insurance company, not the individual. Same with Medicare and Medicaid - those don't pay checks to individual covered Americans, they pay to doctors. These aren't "handouts to slackers."
Social Security, sure - that goes directly to the individual. Military paychecks go straight to the individuals. I suppose you (the OP) want to get rid of the military to make those go away, right?
Although I do appreciate the article's mention that a large portion of these payments go to the wealthy.
BHENGAZI!!!!!!
(Thanks, obamacase!)
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
It collects money from individuals and redistributes it to create a civilization in which everyone benefits (e.g. by not having to trip over dead people in the street.) The fact that 30% isn't going back to individual people or organizations is what's eyebrow raising to me. That's money paid out to private contractors, who are happily redistributing from the tax cookie jar while simultaneously acting as a middle man and skimming their share off the top.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Why should the government's sticky fingers be involved in the money flow for these programs? For retirement, the government has a needed roll in setting standards for "safety net" investment choices, and in insuring people actually do save, but they don't need to handle the money. Charity is great, and we should all be compassionate, and again the government has a needed role in setting standards, but they don't need to handle the money.
Plus lets never forget that if you depend on the government each month for a check you can't live without, you've given the government total power over you. Governments attract people who want nothing more than total power over others, and it's never smart to give it to them! We haven't seen the first "dictatorship through the monthly check", but we've seen early hints of it. London protestors were threatened with being cut off from benefits just recently.
Helping people is great. Having power over people is what megalomaniacs seek over all else. We can do the first without feeding the latter.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
If Social Security is "tweaked" it won't go broke...
So in other words, right now it's going broke.
The problem is you're focussed only on outgoing receipts.
In cold hard accounting reality the main problem is Tax Exclusions and Exemptions, which are even larger.
And which include Apple and other corporations paying 1/1000th the tax rate that individuals do.
There's your missing money.
Now step away from my Social Security and Medicare - I've been paying for it for decades and it's not YOURS, Taker!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I love Timothy's little editorial at the end:
Why do we assume the fact from TFA (70% of checks...) necessitates laying "blame" on someone.
The government ***manages resources*** in every single decision it makes. It ***allocates*** and decides where money should go.
70% to individuals as opposed to...? Checks to **corporations** that then, themselves, pay **individuals**?
Sounds like Uncle Same is just "cutting out the middle man" to get the best bang for the buck.
Thank you Dave Raggett
In effect, the government has become primarily a massive money-transfer machine, taking $2.6 trillion from some and handing it back out to others.
I can't identify the provenance of this quote, but I remember it going something like this:
chromium / chromiumos/platform/punybench / factory-1020.B / . / cpu.m / memcpy.c
blob: e9db9de710e1ee68f5db9ac3f0dfaf8d6f21a02b [file history] [blame]
* Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be found in the LICENSE file.
*/
* memcpy is a good first approximation of kernel performance.
*/
At first, I thought the story here is that the U.S. government spends 70% of its budget on writing checks. To which my response would have been that moving to something more efficient than the ridiculous banking system we have in the U.S. would then make the federal government much more efficient.
It appears to be that, rather, 70% of the budget is being paid out to individuals - much of it in the form of health benefits, social security, and income security. Is that cause for concern? Direct payments to individuals have increased relative to other things the federal government spends money on. Ok, the percentages move, that's expected. They're now at 70% of the total budget. Ok, that's somewhat interesting. But what's the actual story here? Is some program growing faster than tax revenue to the point that we have to be concerned that we won't be able to afford it anymore? Did total budget decrease, thus making the percentage larger? Do you feel that the government is spending money on things they shouldn't be spending (as much) money on?
The article provides some more detail: it claims the percentage spent on income security will drop from 25% in 2009 to 17% in 2019, as more is spent on "middle-class entitlement programs such as ObamaCare". So I guess the problem isn't with the 70% being paid to individuals, but with the individuals it gets paid to. Fair enough, we all have our own ideas about which groups the government should be sending money to (if anyone), but perhaps it would have been more productive to get straight to that part, instead of suggesting that 70% is rather high, when the thing you would like money to be spent on is actually part of that 70%.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
The GOP's favorite word privatization in other word how to take our taxes and give them to their big corporate buddies. Look at how much of the miliatary is privatized now. Not only can the private milatary avoid the law they charge big $$$. Cut school budgets and give vouchers to give our taxes to big business. And on and on.
...When the federal reserve increases the supply of money, inflation is the net result. The net result of the fed increasing the money supply and inflation, is a tax on everyone who currently owns US dollars, as each of their dollars now purchases fewer real goods
Not exactly. The (money supply) times (velocity of money) equals (cost of goods), times (production rate).
So, if the amount of money increases but velocity of money and the production rate (amount of goods produced per unit time) stay the same, the result is inflation.
However, conversely, if the production rate increases but the money supply and velocity of money does not, then the cost of goods decreases-- that's deflation. (Note that this is production rate, not productivity: production rate equals productivity time population times employment fraction.)
A steady economy is one in which the money supply increases exactly at a rate equal to the production rate-- in this case, the cost of goods stays constant (assuming that the velocity of money doesn't change).
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In 2009, we were responsible for 40% of worldwide arms sales.
In 2012, we spend 18% of our budget on "defense", 7 times more than China.
Now consider that our "defense" department has been repeatedly found by the GAO to be unauditable because their accounting is so incompetent.
Also, I find it laughable that so many republicans are concerned about 'welfare' and 'entitlement' yet happily sign on for farm subsidy bills that cost trillions, to keep the votes from fat-ass, lazy, uneducated, corn-fed, bigoted midwesterners rollin' right in.
Please help metamoderate.
Seriously, who writes checks anymore? They should just use their bank's bill pay system like a normal person.
Social Security is probably not the real problem. Congress has been raiding Social Security like a piggy bank since at least the time of Reagan.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
For retirement, the government has a needed roll in setting standards for "safety net" investment choices, and in insuring people actually do save, but they don't need to handle the money.
Yeah, that would be better handled by outfits like AIG and Lehman Brothers.
Charity is great, and we should all be compassionate, and again the government has a needed role in setting standards, but they don't need to handle the money.
Just imagine how much junk mail it would take to raise enough charity funds to replace every government assistance program. The USPS would be profitable again after only a few days!
and you can't repeal demographics. The last time the Republicans made this argument, they forgot that their most reliable voting block was retired white males over the age of 65.
So, yes, there are very bad ways to solve these problems. What part of "the government has a needed role in setting standards" was unclear?
There's a gigantic difference between "the government has it's hand in keeping the programs honest, and in ensuring minimal levels of contribution" and "you give your money to the government and they mail checks to voters". All the difference in the world.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Yes, All spending bills must originate in the house but when there is a Republican house and a Democrat president, any attempt to reign in spending is cast by the Democrats as obstructionism and a willing media parrots that narrative until the public demands that the spending continues unabated.
It's funny how a Democratic house with a Republican president doesn't face the same media pressure.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
How could breeding a vast hoard of government dependent surfs possibly be an issue?
Ignorant articles like this are why I changed my password without updating my email address and forgot it.
I can't take credit for this, it's a quote from Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman.
Payments are up through mostly automatic processes: People are out of work due to the financial industry shenanigans, so unemployment checks are written, more people end up on Medicare or SNAP (nee food stamps), and because of the aging population, more people on Social Security. Obamacare barely has had any effect
Design for Use, not Construction!
If the government is going to force me to spend money, I'd just as soon have them handle it directly, instead of making me hand it over to be skimmed by profiteering middlemen. (Who will probably eventually need to be bailed out with taxpayer money anyway).
See: Obamacare.
Just think how much you could save for yourself if you could keep 67% of your Federal income tax - and all your SSI/FICA payments - over the course of working 35-40 years... And that savings would survive to your estate/inheritors, not just disappear like SSI does, once you die.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The part of this I believe might be nerdy is questioning both TFAs summary and the article referenced. It's wrong and written as a click-troll story. There are a few interesting factoids in the article but nothing that backs their summary that individuals are getting all these nice fat checks.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
At this point at least half the audience is paid operatives, because slashdot and wikipedia were the first sites to get identified by Roger Ailes et al as "easily influenced influential sites".
Obligatory cartoon: http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/4092/trolling101ql8.gif
So the staff is picking stories to appeal the audience, who are mostly shills and trolls these days (although only some of them actually collect pay for it) and the circle is complete.
So what if 70% goes back to the patrons? Isn't that what casinos do every day?
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
Ok, so the government spends a large percentage on things that just go poof with no lasting benefit.
Hopefully at least a little of the remaining 30% actually provides some lasting good.
Roads, bridges, are useful.
Toilet seats are expensive, but nice as well.
Ratio of payout to GDP doesn't need to be "adjusted to inflation".
And where do you think all the "borrowing" comes from? More than half is Social Security "trust fund".
Whoever wrote this is ignorant of things like Social Security and the purpose of government. Yes, one the purposes of government is to redistribute money in the society. That's done via taxes and government services (direct jobs and contracts) and "strategic" subsidies. Even with this, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
And no, rich do not drive the economy. Rich hoard, not spend. That's by definition. If you are not rich (ie. you do not have more than a few million in cash or cash-like assets) or are not an economist, then you have no idea what I'm even talking about.
Just think how much you could save for yourself if you could keep 67% of your Federal income tax - and all your SSI/FICA payments - over the course of working 35-40 years... And that savings would survive to your estate/inheritors, not just disappear like SSI does, once you die.
Only if one of the financial crises that happens every couple of decades doesn't wipe you out.
The main problems are:
A: Most people don't save money without being forced.
B: Most people don't know how to invest.
C: Even if you know how to invest, you can still lose your shirt.
D: Irrespective of the above intractable problems, saving money and investments means nothing more than shifting bit patterns on some hard drives. It doesn't in any way solve the problem of supporting an millions of idle and ailing retirees over ever-expanding lifetimes. Any saved "assets" will get devalued in the markets to reflect that reality.
So your scenario does not do anything at all to address the problem of what to do with retirees in the real world, other than let a good fraction of them die in a gutter.
And the irony of "obamacare" is that it's an invention of the Heritage Foundation.
They're the ones that designed it.
That Obama, implementing the plans of communist sympathizers like the Heritage Foundation.
--
BMO
Yes, valid point. When money, and goods, move in and out of the economy via trade with other nations, the equation of the money supply has to take account of that as well. The correction can go either way-- if other nations (or individuals in other nations) are stockpiling US dollars, that is inherently deflationary
The principle is essentially the same, though.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I prefer seven of nine, myself.
:-P
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Ah, I see. You don't see the government as "profiteering middlemen" then? Interesting.
For retirement, I'm concerned with the net result. Very low fees are of course important to that, crucial even. But low fees are not the actual goal, and I certainly don't begrudge an index fund a 1/10th of a % annual management fee, since there are actual logistics they take care of. I'm sure a lower fee still would find takers for a pool of money this big, even for the retirement-year funds that would make sense here (they have a gradual transition to more safe investments over time, so there's slightly more work than an index fund, but not much).
But you seem to be thinking that investment banks, of all people, would somehow be involved in this. That would be quite silly of course. The point is for the people to own the means of production, not get involved with scams.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
- People can move, i.e. competition among states becomes a race to lower taxes not raise handouts.
- State governments are smaller and more responsive.
- Pork barrel projects for one state wouldn't get paid for by multiple states, making it a harder sell, i.e. get rid of you scratch my back I scratch yours riders on bills.
From the article: An IBD analysis found that the richest 1% of Americans, in fact, receive roughly $10 billion each year in federal checks. The article is silent on say the next 10%, but it is likely that they are getting federal subsidies, too.
The article also states that from 1991 to 2013, the payments as a percentage of GDP went from 10% to 15%. Digging further into the 5% increase, 2% or just less than 1/2, is from the explosion in baby boomers retiring and collecting social security and medicare and another 1% from the extension of federal unemployment. Put differently, 3% of the 5% increase is from situations that are not permanent (the plethora of baby boomers will resolve itself in the next two decades and the extended unemployment benefits are scheduled to expire).
Other items that are included in the numbers are military benefits, which might be one reason the government is looking at scaling back the size of the military. Also, 1/3 of the amounts paid out are in the form of grants. Those grants aren't going to welfare recipients.
The US government does need to live within its means, but articles (and summaries) like this only serve the purpose of enraging people and then blaming the wrong people. Cutting taxes while fighting two wars has more to do with these numbers than increasing transfer payments. Even if these payments were all welfare payments, the government is running huge deficits. It would make sense to concentrate on the other 85% of government spending than the 15%.
... because after 40 years in the military, getting a pension check means you're a "Taker"
There should not be any stigma, whether it be positive or negative, attach to the word "taker".
Just like anything else, there are good and bad in every category.
If a person has served his/her country for the past 40 years in the military, of course that individual (and his/her spouse) ought to enjoy the fruit of his/her lifelong endeavor.
A check from the gov is insignificant, in the light of the contribution that has been paid forth, in advance.
Now ... we got to be realistic here and admit that there are way too many who have abused the system.
Way too many of them lazy fuckers who just do not have that urge to make themselves better are sucking the gov dry.
We, as the taxpayers, should not bear the cost of paying those lazy fuckers to continue to be lazy fuckers.
Let's be clear - there are some who are down on their luck (I was very poor before, I know the physical and emotional stresses extreme poverty brings) who needs temporary assistance. I have no qualm of giving them a hand.
But we should draw a limit somewhere - and should not continue in paying those who claim they can't find any work a monthly check just because they tell us they can't find a job.
Are there no job or are those people being too choosy ?
There are millions of illegal aliens in America who can find jobs - the claim of there is no job in America just won't fly.
If those who are getting monthly checks from the gov refuse to work, then they should be on their own.
As I said, I had been poor before, so poor that I didn't even have a place to stay in winter (yes, I did spent some winter nights sleeping on a bench in a park) but at least once I got a chance I grab it and no matter how tough/dangerous that job was, how miserable the pay was, as long as the pay could get myself back to the society, I grabbed it.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
And your teabagger shit - fuck you up the ass.
http://www.basicincome.org/bie...
The problem with the current approach to US government transfers is it is mostly "needs based" (inviting fraud and shame) and is also skewed by narrow politics (like farm subsidies to huge farms not to grow stuff or to grow unhealthy stuff). A basic income for all (social security from birth) would democratize our distribution system, leading to all kinds of innovation in services. It would also respond to increasing unemployment as AI and robotics can do more and more jobs and most human labor becomes increasingly devalued in the exchange economy. We need to accept that there are two broad economic spheres -- an open ended one of real goods for living (food, education, personal housing, infrastructure) and a mostly zero-sum casino economy tied mostly to banking, stocks, derivatives, other finance, insurance, and real estate speculation. The reason the USA is still in the midst of a Great Depression (whatever mainstream economists claim) is because vast amounts of cash are in the FIRE sector and there is a drought of cash for the living sector. That is why economic models about money supply and inflation are flawed -- they don't differentiate enough between these two spheres. A basic income funded by tax (income or wealth) as well as possibly inflation and also royalties on use of government assets like fishing rights or spectrum use (like the Alaska Permanent fund) is a way of moving money out of the zero-sum FIRE sector into the hands of people who would spend it on having a healthier human life.
From 1964, a bit ahead of its time but playing out now given essentially zero net new jobs for a decade even as the population grows:
http://educationanddemocracy.o...
"Up to this time economic resources have been distributed on the basis of contributions to production, with machines and men competing for employment on somewhat equal terms. In the developing cybernated system, potentially unlimited output can be achieved by systems of machines which will require little cooperation from human beings. As machines take over production from men, they absorb an increasing proportion of resources while the men who are displaced become dependent on minimal and unrelated government measures--unemployment insurance, social security, welfare payments. These measures are less and less able to disguise a historic paradox: That a substantial proportion of the population is subsisting on minimal incomes, often below the poverty line, at a time when sufficient productive potential is available to supply the needs of everyone in the U.S."
Most wealth comes from a combination of natural resources and what our ancestors learned by trial an error, and is our common global inheritance, as explained by C. H. Douglas: ... According to Douglas, the true purpose of production is consumption, and production must serve the genuine, freely expressed interests of consumers. In order to accomplish this objective, he believed that each citizen should have a beneficial, not direct, inheritance in the communal capital conferred by complete access to consumer goods assured by the National Dividend and Compensated Price.[6] Douglas thought that consumers, fully provided with adequate purchasing power, will establish the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
"Social credit is an interdisciplinary distributive philosophy developed by C. H. Douglas (1879-1952), a British engineer, who wrote a book by that name in 1924. It encompasses the fields of economics, political science, history, accounting, and physics. Its policies are designed, according to Douglas, to disperse economic and political power to individuals. Douglas wrote, "Systems were made for men, and not men for systems, and the interest of man which is self-development, is above all systems, whether theological, political or economic."[1]
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
We have a support group that meets nightly at a place we call 'the bar'.
No brain, no pain.
Seriously, it starts with "checks to individuals" and makes the firsts 38% of those Medicare/caid and ACA. Those checks aren't going to individuals! I never see a check from Medicaid, the doctors I go to might but it will be made out to their billing service. The check never goes to the hand of a single person! 21% is 'poverty programs' which, again, other than SSI/SSA don't go to individuals. Food stamp funding goes to the state, and the state disperses it; same as Medicaid actually.
So that's a chuck that doesn't make their numbers add up. Now they don't explain how they get that 0.5% of the budget goes to the top 1% of wealth. Could be as . . . . anything given the games they are playing with the other numbers. Sure, 10 billion is upsetting, but that's just a small chuck of the budget. Does it go to them as Medicare? Is it part of the various subsidies (farm, corn, ethanol, solar) that happen to be run by those people? What's the math? This is important since they blow so many other details.
Leftists always gloss over the details. Yes, the house controls the spending. They "control the purse" as the saying goes. But just like the Left conveniently forgets that it was the GOP house that balanced the budget, and they forget it was the Democrat congress that spent all the increased revenue from Reagan's tax cuts, they also forget that we are currently locked into 2009 spending because the democrats in the senate refuse to pass any budget submitted by the GOP house. Using this situation to blame the GOP is just being ignorant of the facts.
You mean like the 2008 Financial collapse? If you kept your money still invested in stocks, it would be back up to beyond where it was in 2008. How is that wiped out? Only those who were living on leveraged money took it in the shorts. Sure, my house dropped 30% in value in 2008 - but it's now back up over where it previously peaked. I didn't have a 2nd and 3rd mortgage on the place, though - so I wasn't gambling with "on paper" money - leveraged assets.
Not sure of your age, but I am sufficiently advanced (two score and 6!) that I can remember my grandparents AND parents who constantly harped on saving, paying with cash as much as possible, and paying off your debts as quickly as possible. They all lived through financial nightmares that would make today's issues seem like a stubbed toe. Where did they learn those lessons? Seeing what happens when you didn't - the results of bad decisions. Preventing people from experiencing the results of bad choices does not help them learn from those bad choices.
One of the best pieces of advice I ever got, I got from the first engineer I ever worked for, at the young age of 19. He said "you only learn from failure. Success can be dumb luck, but failure is all you". Perhaps we need to let people learn more - not everyone wins first place, not everyone will get a beachfront house and Mercedes.
As far as HOW to do it, look south to Chile. It's a system that works, works VERY well, encourages personal savings (heck, we could do the same - lift the annual cap on IRA contributions), and is guaranteed - unlike our Social Security system. It's become the model that most of South America has adopted and, when it's not riddled with corruption (Argentina) it works really really well.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
"tax the rich feed the poor till there are no rich no more"
then who will feed the poor?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I cant believe this is on such a liberal left wing site such as slashdot. Dugh most of our tax dollars goes right back to other people.
I fail to see an issue.
Rather, I find this to be incredbly good news!
Obamacare and TARP both originated (unconstitutionally) in the senate after they were defeated in the house. The senate took some other unrelated bill that passed the house earlier, stripped it and put in the defeated bill.
Go USA!
Actually, a lot of nerds need to be reminded of what the US Government has become: the largest engine for the redistribution of wealth.
> Also, I find it laughable that so many republicans are concerned about 'welfare' and 'entitlement' yet happily sign on for farm subsidy bills that cost trillions, to keep the votes from fat-ass, lazy, uneducated, corn-fed, bigoted midwesterners rollin' right in.
I'm guessing you've never worked on a farm.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
What do you mean blame? This is how government is supposed to work, according to both liberal and conservative conceptions of legal economics.
then the government transfer will either be somewhere between 90 and 100%, or if ower, a significant amount of the population will starve.
Long term joblessness is bound to go up to extreme levels, meaning we get a lot of spare time. I just hope a system will be in place to redistribute wealth. If not, future looks really awful.
The value of the US Dollar is defined by, and only by, it's relation to other currencies and it's purchasing power. The Fed can print billions of dollars and, if markets don't respond by demanding more dollars in returns for the same goods, there is no net inflation. In fact, you can see this phenomenon quite easily in all the rounds of QE we've done. Tons of extra money floating around, very low inflation.
Maybe you should head back to Free Republic?
Behold! The slippery slope to basic income!
It all started with discouraging old people and children from working. The end game is when we pay everyone the same amount purely for being born. Conservatives and liberals will fight tooth and nail until we get to basic income. Everyone will get to complain along the way and when we're done.
Win-win-win.
Yes, in absolute terms we spend a lot more than anyone else.
However it's also interesting to look at military spending as a % of GDP. When you do that it looks very different.
China for example spends far more than we do.
"They really didn't fear INS at all. However, each said they very carefully paid their taxes to the IRS each year, often omitting some questionable deductions to which they might be entitled."
So they also fear the Inquisition err IRS?
Inquisition Retraining Service? Now you have me thinking. That would explain a lot.
It's always a good year when you can use the short form.
Demographics for the Baby Boom means more Social Security and Medicare spending than the 1990s. Sluggish economy -- thanks to decades of conservative policies eviscerating the middle class -- means more unemployment payments and more need for government assistance overall. Two wars means more veterans benefits.
But it's all Obama's fault.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
... To blame any one branch when the large bulk of the spending is automatic mandatory spending like Social Security and Medicare. With the sequester and other cuts, increasingly the only expenditures remaining tend to be direct payments; so, even if the amount of direct payments did not increase, the fraction of payments which are direct payments would increase. Additionally, since the total GDP is still lower than it would be if the recession happened, the "15% of GDP" is not surprising, especially when the question "Why do so many more People meet the requirements for these direct payments?" is asked an answered: the law has not significantly changed in these areas; therefore, the only remaining explanation is more People are meeting the requirements because Their economic situation has changed, which would also account for the 29% increase. At the same time, since January of 2009, real GDP (that is, GDP after adjusting for inflation) has increased almost 11% according to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Now, if We presume in a typical year the rate of such expenditures fluctuates at a rate equal to the growth rate of GDP, since 2009 that "29% increase" ignores a scaling factor of the same "almost 11%" and, after accounting for that factor, the rate of increase is ~16%.
I have a friend who has run out of unemployment insurance and has no possibility of a job in the near term because he is over qualified for almost everything.
If you're that overqualified, you need to start your own small business.
Give it a test. Try calling or emailing your state senator or rep, and try the same with the national one. In my experience, it's not difficult to get the state rep on the phone. The state senator is a little tougher - I've talked to him by calling the local radio station during his weekly visit and by posting on his Facebook wall and he replied. The federal senator? I'd be lucky to get one of his staffers instead of a recording.
Don't believe me? Try it.
Just imagine how much less your employer would have to pay you if your take home pay was increased by that 67% Federal tax drop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Was that a hit song in an alternate universe where the wealthiest people were actually getting less rich and getting taxed more?
Sure, but that's not an especially interesting analysis for practical purposes. If we go to war with China, we're not going to give them a 50% "head start" or handicap just because their GDP is about half of ours. You wage war in absolute terms, not in per-unit-GDP terms, and in absolute terms, nobody else comes close.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
I would expect the government to just use direct deposit.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
That's the point of governments - To receive taxes and utilize the funds as the current laws and policies of the various branches direct them theoretically for the best interest of the populace.
Direct payments are an unfortunate necessity in a world with republicans in it, as any centralized attempt to utilize the massive combined buying power of the US government for economies of scale to the benefit of the american people is decried as socialism.
Personally I think that a little bit of socialism goes a long way, but that doesn't mean that the occasional socialist policy isn't more efficient and the best use of tax payers money. NHS style free healthcare is easy, involves no paperwork, no bills (beyond a few quid prescription charge), and unlimited use. It's pretty good, ask any american who's ever lived in the UK. Unfortunately the US is stuck with the less economic system of direct payments to those in need due to a fear of anything that even smells a tiny bit socialist.
The US will never want a socialist government, they don't have to, need to or want to, but even the most rampaging capitalists understand that predictable costs and economies of scale are often desirable and efficient.
When you recall that millions paid into social security—a poor "investment"—for decades before they retire, you'll see that the government is not paying anything.
It is simply returning money borrowed long ago, that has compounded at a negligible (or negative) interest rate.
The welfare state should be replaced by just sending out the same amount to each adult citizen' bank account each month.
So, if those two can agree the solution to poverty what's the hold up?
Seastead this.
You do understand that Citizens United had jack all to do with corporations being people, right. Corporations have been people since the 1800s. No the real crime of CU was he equivalence of money to speech. When they said political donations were speech it made speech unfree. Basically now one person has more free speech then another. Basically to the point where you can only hear them.
Speech, the great equalizer , in that the poor man had the same rights as the rich were thrown out that day. Honestly explain how I can get my representative to listen to me over the billionaire from another state. I promise you his, the next to go will be donation limits and then we just have overt bribery and the end of representative government.
It's sad that often I only read Slashdot articles just to make sure that people are smart enough to see through the BS that virtually each and every article is. It's even more sad when I read a hundred comments and every one of them misses something as painfully obvious as this. Thank you for keeping my hope for humanity alive for another day.
Actually, you know what? One intelligent person isn't enough. I've lost all hope for humanity now.
Why don't you start by paying more yourself?
Anyone can donate money to the government, you don't have to wait to be taxed.
We'll all follow your lead.
Seriously, there's no nerd angle here. This is bollocks.
Also, I find it laughable that so many republicans are concerned about 'welfare' and 'entitlement' yet happily sign on for farm subsidy bills that cost trillions, to keep the votes from fat-ass, lazy, uneducated, corn-fed, bigoted midwesterners rollin' right in.
You do realize that a good portion of those farm subsidy bills was nutrition aid for all those single mothers and urban poor, who aren't voting for the same bunch of politicians as those bigoted midwesterners(I'll leave out an approximation as to just how uneducated or uninformed one party's base is as compared to the other). The only party that matters, the grow govt. and its power over the people party "the appropriators" is the true enemy of a free people.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
not by Alexis de Tocqueville though:
``The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.''
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A...
earliest known occurrence is as an unsourced attribution to Tytler in "This is the Hard Core of Freedom" by Elmer T. Peterson in The Daily Oklahoman (9 December 1951): "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
"all spending bills originate in the House"
This is a joke. While "technically" true, all the senate does is take some other legislation passed by the house, amend it to spend what they want and pass it. So the House could pass a bill that names a post office and then the Senate takes that bill and add whatever new spending proposal they want (even taking out the original Post Office naming part) and even though the spending all originated in the Senate, the bill itself originated in the house so it is all good.
No matter where you go, there you are.
accountability != getting to talk to your representative on the phone
I think it's great if you can do that. I think contributes to the potential for accountability. But it takes more than just this.
I would argue that the single biggest enemy to accountability is an apathetic electorate. A state senator can't talk to 60,000 people (approximately how many people they represent). The reason you can call your state senator is because almost nobody else in the state is. And the reason that they talk to you is because they know that a few hundred votes could sway an election (because very few of the 60,000 people they represent are even going to vote).
If we had an engaged electorate, you would never be able to get a hold of your state senator. They would be just as busy as national senators are now. That wouldn't make them less accountable, it would make them more accountable
Largely, this fact is a little obvious. What else does government do, but pay people to do things or pay to take care of people?
So is it 'welfare' when you get your money from the government. ...
Is it welfare if you don't have a job and the government gives you free money?
Is it welfare if you're a public sector worker and you get money from the government, probably with pension and benefits that people in the private sector wouldn't get?
Is it welfare if you're a lawyer and your highly paid job only exists because the government makes lots of rules the average person can't understand?
Is it welfare if you're a banker and your industry is supported by the government by fiat currency, fannie and freddie...
Is it welfare if you're a farmer and you get farm subsidies?
Is it welfare if you're a military contractor and you get contracts from the government?
Is it welfare if you're a police officers and you get money because of silly laws like the war on drugs
I think even in socialist or progressive society where government is a big part of the economy, the idea of value for money still applies.
We think the war on drugs is a waste of money because we don't think we get value from it.
We think military contractors is a waste of money because we don't think we need such a big military
We think actual welfare is a waste of money because we should at least get some work done by people on welfare.
But it also becomes a question of fairness. If the government is spending on this person or that industry, what about me and my industry?
Then it becomes natural for people whose industry or person is not getting the government money to call the other's welfare bums.
It's very hard to lay blame on only one part of the U.S. government, though; as the two largest parties are often fond of pointing out when it suits them, all spending bills originate in the House.
doesn't apply if the reason we're spending more on individuals is because unemployment and welfare are at record highs. No new bills are needed for that, it just makes use of existing ones. And the House has only been R since Pelosi left in 2011.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Very good, but our situation is a little more complex.
Exactly. When you get down into the details (just like a relationship), "it's complicated" is the accurate description of how the economy works.
But the point remains: the simplistic statement by anonymous coward, "When the federal reserve increases the supply of money, inflation is the net result really is not accurate. It's not that simple. Even in the simple case, it's not that simple.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The apathy of public in general sucks, agreed.
> they know that a few hundred votes could sway an election
Absolutely. Especially since many districts are safe for one party, so the vote that matters is the primary.
What that means is that each *voter* can have a comparatively large influence over whether or not the state senator keeps their job. That's the ultimate accountability - I can fire my state senator by publicizing complaints among other likely voters. If only a few hundred of us agree that he needs to go, he's gone.
Like it or not, deserved or not. Government Pensions, long term disability, and health care costs are the largest portions of the spend. Pensions & long term disability used as a stop gap for those not able to collect social security or unemployment not realistic sustainable practices and if we don't address them then this spiral will continue.
Perhaps you and others who rightfully have earned a pension which YOUR guy ( presumably) wants to cut may be included, it is not what the story is meant to illustrate. There are many who are just receiving " their check" in the form of SSI ( which should be means tested and tons of other welfare programs like section 8 , food stamps and other cash assistance.
That is a major problem when you couple it with high unemployment and low participation..
Don't you think?
Where in the constitution does it mention the fed shall be responsible for the PERSONAL welfare of the people?
In a way, I kind of like this. I mean, it IS our (the public's) money, and it SHOULD go back to the people... At least it's not "70% Of U.S. Spending Is Writing Checks To Individuals EMPLOYED BY THE GOVERNMENT"...
And the whole US war machine just uses pennies on the dollar of expenses? Come on , this whole report is a straight out lie...
Kill yourself with your precious gun faggot. Do it now - fucking coward.
I certainly noticed the change. It's odd that a user base that generally professes a love for science and facts also got drawn in to those (economic) libertarian fantasies. Or maybe they're just more vocal.
Maybe the fault is in the private sector for not being productive enough to improve the ratio of govt. outlays to GDP? It is just a statistic :-)
Unless you served time, don't be so quick to F.U. anyone who did. I have no time for most 'lifers', but even less for 'chickenhawks' and other non-pacifist who are happy to benefit from their 'privileged' positions.
after the market cultists running either party ship all that cash off to Wall Street.
Well, actually, it already has been, but the mulligan on repaying it has yet to be given.
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
Go follow @WilliamHogeland on Twitter. He'll put paid to your religion.
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
Clearly that's why voting was restricted only to the landed gentry, and why the vote became even more decoupled from policy as the franchise was opened to more people.
Read Federalist #10. Do you have any credible evidence that the "minority" they were interested in protecting was any but the aristocracy, other than fairy tales and propaganda? Policies, not pacifiers.
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
n t
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
You mean the inter-war period, before Hitler and cronies took over.
Just because they were a bunch of psychopathic arseholes doesn't mean that they didn't improve the economy for those members of their society that they didn't set out to kill. (Gays, gypsies, left-wingers as well as Jews.)
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
See http://rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/federal-budget-not-household-budget-here-s-why