Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you failed to mention that the data from your graph is 5 years old, how does that economy from 2000 to 2007 relate in today's economy? The recession began in 2007, and it's lingering effects continue today.
I did find a link that showed nearly all races of people, not predominantly dem or rep were receiving welfare at nearly the same percentage rates. And that's about all recent data there is excepting that red states have more welfare recipients.
So, in knowing this, conservatives only want to pick on people who are poor, and who vote democrat. But they (conservatives) throw racial epitaphs out try to show people that only minorities are receiving welfare, (black lady w/Obamaphone) and that there are no poor whites folks, right?
Due to two major issues...
- Recession
- Competition from red state policies (China)
Quote:
Policies? Fine. Freebies, payments, and wealth transfers? No.
Doesn't happen. If there is wealth transfer involved, you should be able to account for that.
Quote:
It clearly DOESN'T. We have RECORD HIGH numbers of people on food stamps and living at or below the poverty level.
We also have record number of population, every year. And it doesn't help these numbers when these programs are expanded. But they are expanded because cutting them is NOT the right approach. With status quo, it gets cut, or slows down, pretty much when economy booms.
Quote:
The birth rate of those receiving public assistance (welfare) is 3 timeshigher than that of those who don't receive public assistance.
Pretty much every 65+ year old is also on welfare, on programs that didn't exist until after the Great Depression (Social Security) and 1960s (Medicare/Medicaid). A grandma, or grandpa, isn't more like to have a kid because they are on Medicaid, and neither is a child in foster care using the same program.
His intentions is to raise taxes on those making 250,000 or more. The GOP's intentions is to raise taxes on no ones. So, as a compromise, the GOP can say "Well Mr. President, if you give us X cuts, we'll give you tax increases on millionaires".
Actually, the GOP's position should be no tax increases on anyone and cuts in all federal spending programs. Anything else hits the implosion point quicker. I guess it depends on how quickly you want to see this country destroyed. Democrats = quick. Republicans = slow. The end result will still be the same. We will implode under the weight of supporting the exponentially increasing welfare-dependent class whose growth has been incentivized by PAYING them to do nothing more than breed.
Actually, the GOP's position should be no tax increases on anyone and cuts in all federal spending programs. Anything else hits the implosion point quicker. I guess it depends on how quickly you want to see this country destroyed. Democrats = quick. Republicans = slow. The end result will still be the same. We will implode under the weight of supporting the exponentially increasing welfare-dependent class whose growth has been incentivized by PAYING them to do nothing more than breed.
No, no one wants to see the country implode, and as the study the other day proves. Tax increases on the richest Americans
No, no one wants to see the country implode, and as the study the other day proves. Tax increases on the richest Americans
A) don't hurt the economy
and
B) do raise revenue.
It all depends on the direction of capital.
When there was no competition that might have been true.
According to DNI:
"The unprecedented shift in relative wealth and economic power roughly from West to East now under way will continue."
Now think about that for two seconds and ask yourself if more taxes and more regulations sounds like a good thing?
Mental midgets think the world works in a static environment and what worked in the past must work again. They simply don't have the capacity to think dynamically.
Oh, you're deriving your talking points from a blog, OooooooK.
Um... No, it's a graph of the results of a poll conducted by the Campbell Public Affairs Institute located at the Maxwell School at Syracuse University.
Quote:
The Maxwell School of Syracuse University is recognized as one of the world’s best graduate schools of public affairs.
Maxwell is home to strong professional master’s degree programs in public administration and international relations; the MPA program is consistently ranked number one in America by U.S. News & World Report, and the IR program was recently ranked among the nation’s top ten by Foreign Policy magazine.
But you would already know that if you could comprehend what you read.
Quote:
I think you failed to mention that the data from your graph is 5 years old, how does that economy from 2000 to 2007 relate in today's economy? The recession began in 2007, and it's lingering effects continue today.
Find a similarly credentialed grad school study conducted on more recent welfare data and post it. I'll be happy to take a look at it.
In the meantime, we already know that low-income voters, those most likely to receive benefits from the various welfare programs, OVERWHELMINGLY voted Democrat in the 2012 election:
That would seem to confirm the Maxwell School at Syracuse University's findings that welfare recipients are overwhelmingly Democrats.
Quote:
I did find a link that showed nearly all races of people, not predominantly dem or rep were receiving welfare at nearly the same percentage rates.
NOT in proportion to their population percentages.
U.S. Population:
63.4% White, not Hispanic
13.1% Black
16.7% Hispanic
2010 Food Stamp recipients:
34% White
22% Black
16% Hispanic
Whites (and Asians, though the Trib did not report that data) are under-represented among those receiving public assistance, and Blacks and Hispanics are over-represented, when compared to each group's percentage of the total U.S. population. Do you understand that?
And how do you propose that keeping Bush tax rates accomplished the "right" direction?
Um, you have no clue what higher taxes would have meant had taxes been higher. Things weren't great but they could have been much worse.
You're exactly what I was talking about when I referred to static and dynamic.
You simply look at the Clinton years and say it must be the same.
Well, you've had a monopoly. You've had a military bubble. You've had a tech bubble. You've have a credit bubble and a housing bubble.
What is Obama proposing to be the next bubble that will save your economy?
Green job which has been show to cause a loss ratio of 2:1 and a healthcare bubble.
What, you think your economy will be sustainable by choosing to use less and less and that saving everyone through healthcare is "productive" or something.
That's a joke. Hopefully you're not stupid enough to think you can have an economy based on healthcare.
That would be silly and childish like in terms of mental capacity.
Doesn't happen. If there is wealth transfer involved, you should be able to account for that.
Accounted for, here:
Quote:
"Because transfer payments are, in effect, the opposite of taxes, it makes sense to look not just at taxes paid, but at taxes paid minus transfers received. For 2009, the most recent year available, here are taxes less transfers as a percentage of market income (income that households earned from their work and savings):
Bottom quintile: -301 percent
Second quintile: -42 percent
Middle quintile: -5 percent
Fourth quintile: 10 percent
Highest quintile: 22 percent
Top one percent: 28 percent
The negative 301 percent means that a typical family in the bottom quintile receives about $3 in transfer payments for every dollar earned.
The most surprising fact to me was that the effective tax rate is negative for the middle quintile. According to the CBO data, this number was +14 percent in 1979 (when the data begin) and remained positive through 2007. It was negative 0.5 percent in 2008, and negative 5 percent in 2009. That is, the middle class, having long been a net contributor to the funding of government, is now a net recipient of government largess."
Pretty much every 65+ year old is also on welfare, on programs that didn't exist until after the Great Depression (Social Security) and 1960s (Medicare).
No. SS and Medicare aren't welfare, they're federally mandated social INSURANCE programs for which one must pay premium contributions: Federal InsuranceContributions Act, codified as 26 U.S.C. ch. 21
I don't think the idea of government was to make a loss. But, you present NOTHING that proves a transfer of wealth.
Quote:
No. SS and Medicare aren't welfare, they're federally mandated social INSURANCE programs for which one must pay premium contributions: Federal InsuranceContributions Act, codified as 26 U.S.C. ch. 21
Medicaid, however, is welfare.
Medicare, Medicaid, SS are ALL welfare programs (and, as I have repeatedly told you, and your kind that most of Medicaid expense actually covers Medicare enrollees). They are mandated federal programs for a reason: welfare.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
