Democrats want to expand social security

[forummm]

You know who wanted to expand the SS?  Hitler, that's who!

I did nazi that coming.

We live in the South Sound area.  Never solved the noise issue until we were old enough to live in a Sr. Citizen Trailer Park.  Dead quiet here at night and there is somebody (the owner) who's job it is to keep the fruitcakes in check.  For us, it's the perfect solution.

Think you're on the wrong thread, buddy.

[Bob W]

So if just 60% of US citizens work or ever work and they work 30 years at 2000 hours per year and are just 40% productive during their work days then how productive is the average US citizen?


Answer = About 2% of our total time is spent on productive work.

Even that is stretching it since most jobs -- advertising, law,  education,  government,  military,  sales etc.  are not manufacturing or agriculture related and thus it is a stretch to consider them productive.

I'm curious about the OP ---- What is your uber productive job?

The reason I ask is that all those welfare queens actually do  serve a purpose.   You see once the Government puts money on their EBT cards it is generally spent within 4 hours and goes immediately to productive working members of society.   It is just a quick pass through.   Welfare keeps the money moving around which keep people moving around.

I believe it is a fallacy to view the US government spending like you would a family budget.  They don't need to save money as they own,  control and print money.   If all taxes were stopped this very day the Feds would simply just print more of the stuff that keeps everyone moving. 

The states and locals and Greece do not have this luxury.

[mm1970]

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/247648-sanders-dems-urge-obama-to-expand-social-security

Remember, this is in a country where 1 out of 3 people are on the literal definition of welfare, and half don't pay taxes. When will they learn that you can't keep taking from those work, to give to those who don't and expect this to be sustainable.

That 1 out of 3 includes children and the elderly who are unable to work.

And a large % of people who are receiving welfare benefits are actually working.  I love how many people forget that fact, or gloss over it.
In fact, a large number of people working for the great Walmart on benefits.

We have to get over this idea that people who are on assistance aren't working, and that if you work you will never need assistance.

[beltim]

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/247648-sanders-dems-urge-obama-to-expand-social-security

Remember, this is in a country where 1 out of 3 people are on the literal definition of welfare, and half don't pay taxes. When will they learn that you can't keep taking from those work, to give to those who don't and expect this to be sustainable.

That 1 out of 3 includes children and the elderly who are unable to work.

I suspect Bearded Man made a trolling post here.  I gave a well-supported breakdown of the 43 percent who don't pay federal income taxes in literally the first response to his original post, and he hasn't addressed that.

The welfare and "taking" and "giving to those who don't" language have nothing to do with Social Security, which just furthers my suspicions.

That said, Bearded man, if you have a response to facts, I'd love to hear it.

[EricP]

Those are by definition "government dole."

Not so much.  They are how one's final tax bill is calculated.  That is, they are the rules for figuring out how much you will pay in to public coffers (AKA taxes, or as some will prefer "ass-raping").  The dole OTOH is the opposite: the gubmint writes you a check/hands you an EBT.  Understand the difference?

I do understand the difference.  I also understand what matters at a macro level, is money in and money out.  Revenues are too low due to government handouts paid via tax breaks.  My point is this is a bigger problem for the financial future of this country than what the original post stated.

Get yourself to the point where every extra dollar you make means the gubmint gets half and start crying to me about how a "tax break" is welfare.

Yep I'm there and I still think that corporate and middle class welfare area a big drain on revenue, but if it makes you feel better to call it a tax break then so be it. Why does someone who buys a 1 million dollar vacation home need a yearly 25k handout from the goverment to help pay for it.

Because politicians have to buy votes.  "Hey let's encourage home-ownership and give those people a tax break." and so they do it.  Homeowners are happy because its extra money, and the people who rent are less likely to vote and also less likely to realize that since the other group is getting a tax benefit, they are getting hurt.  (Not saying they are stupid, it's just much easier to realize that you are getting a benefit, than to realize by not getting the benefit, you are being hurt.  IE most people are not sith) So, the politician gets votes.  Then it gets expanded out because more people want the benefit and it's impossible to roll back regardless of whether it actually has the intended benefit (increasing home ownership in this case, which it doesn't) because then all the people getting the benefit get pissed because they can no longer afford their bursting at the seams lifestyles.

[forummm]

Those are by definition "government dole."

Not so much.  They are how one's final tax bill is calculated.  That is, they are the rules for figuring out how much you will pay in to public coffers (AKA taxes, or as some will prefer "ass-raping").  The dole OTOH is the opposite: the gubmint writes you a check/hands you an EBT.  Understand the difference?

I do understand the difference.  I also understand what matters at a macro level, is money in and money out.  Revenues are too low due to government handouts paid via tax breaks.  My point is this is a bigger problem for the financial future of this country than what the original post stated.

Get yourself to the point where every extra dollar you make means the gubmint gets half and start crying to me about how a "tax break" is welfare.

Yep I'm there and I still think that corporate and middle class welfare area a big drain on revenue, but if it makes you feel better to call it a tax break then so be it. Why does someone who buys a 1 million dollar vacation home need a yearly 25k handout from the goverment to help pay for it.

Because politicians have to buy votes.  "Hey let's encourage home-ownership and give those people a tax break." and so they do it.  Homeowners are happy because its extra money, and the people who rent are less likely to vote and also less likely to realize that since the other group is getting a tax benefit, they are getting hurt.  (Not saying they are stupid, it's just much easier to realize that you are getting a benefit, than to realize by not getting the benefit, you are being hurt.  IE most people are not sith) So, the politician gets votes.  Then it gets expanded out because more people want the benefit and it's impossible to roll back regardless of whether it actually has the intended benefit (increasing home ownership in this case, which it doesn't) because then all the people getting the benefit get pissed because they can no longer afford their bursting at the seams lifestyles.

The big beneficiaries here are the realtors and mortgage brokers.

[MoonShadow]

In fact, a large number of people working for the great Walmart on benefits.

True story.  Some decades ago, I was paying too much attention to the propaganda that my old union put out, including about Wal-Mart.  During a particularly spiteful period of our marriage, my wife decides she wants to get a job there.  The very idea drove me up the wall.  She loved that job, more than any other job she has ever had, and she has a BS degree in Biology, and worked in her field for P&G for years before this.  I changed my mind about Wal-Mart pretty quick, and one reason is this...

They have a free-to-use legal consultation benefit, which has the ongoing effect of helping single parent employees, particularly part-time employees, discover and apply for public benefits for which they would qualify.  You see, corrolation is not causation; Wal-Mart's competitors don't have as high a percentage of their employees on public assistance not because the competitors pay more, but because the employees of competitors are not aware that they qualify, or if they are aware, don't apply because of the difficulty of demonstrating that they qualify without legal aid.

I have literally never seen this kind of benefit anywhere else, although I have heard of something similar at other companies.

[NoraLenderbee]

Everybody needs to calm down.  Quick, somebody say something funny to ease the tension in here.

Q: What airline does Donald Trump aspire to fly?
 A: Hair Force One!

<rim shot>

You know what else is funny? I JUST got Nora Lenderbee's name.

You must be feeling rather sheepistche.

[forummm]

Everybody needs to calm down.  Quick, somebody say something funny to ease the tension in here.

Q: What airline does Donald Trump aspire to fly?
 A: Hair Force One!

<rim shot>

You know what else is funny? I JUST got Nora Lenderbee's name.

You must be feeling rather sheepistche.

Love it

[wienerdog]

Of course. 

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/a/National-Debt-by-Year.htm

Growth of debt (in percentage) increased much quicker from 2001 through 2008 than it has from 2009 through today, as well as relative to GDP. The last several years the increases have been reigned in relative to GDP. 

 It's not a matter of opinion on either, it's math.

You might want to check your math....

Debit growth from previous year.

GDP growth from previous year.

Growth of Debt & GDP