Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

We're talking about welfare which is not quite the same as social security. And what you suggest would be like going to the grocery store, filling your basket with food, going to the checkout and paying the bill, and then leaving the groceries behind. Not quite the same as filling your basket, going to the checkout, and giving the bill to someone else to pay. Why should I be dead at 60, I take care of myself, and I had nothing at all to do with setting up the system.

 

Wrong again, Roor. The SS system is broke and "can't continue in the way it currently is" because it has been and is being robbed to pay for too many programs and/or "qualified recipients" not included or considered in the original concept -- providing benefits to illegal immigrants who never paid a cent into the system, as one example.

Though we almost always disagree, I gave you credit for having put (at least) some thought into the justifications for your illogical arguments. In view of your current tactics and lack of resoucefulness (personal attacks and denegration), it seems my error was one of gross over-estimation.

 

Billions spent on war,but poverty levels unaffected.

Billions given in tax breaks to corporations,but poverty levels unaffected.

Union membership is now 7%, but poverty levels unaffected.

Hundreds of companies have gone overseas,but poverty levels unaffected.

Clothing made in Bangladesh for US corporations(18 cents an hour),but poverty levels -ect.

A billion spent on the presidential election,but poverty levels unaffected.

US military spends 10 times the amount on war machines than all other countries combined,but poverty levels unaffected.

Just thought I'd mention.

 

First of all, I'm not aware that I was wrong before this, though I'm also not wrong this time.

Indy bitches about programs like SS, and in the end, collects SS. Bottom line. If the people won't change things, how on earth can they change?

Dude, how the fuck do you think illegal immigrants collect SS?

There is a huge amount of SS that they pay into the system, that will never be claimed, as they have a new name every work season.

 

Not accepting social security would benefit the program, not hasten any change. It'd make it more sustainable by having one less unfunded liability to worry about.

Also, saying an argument is not valid because of it's source is a logical fallacy. You're attacking the messenger and not any points he's actually made.

See..."The Fallacy of Origins"

 

First of all, you're wrong most of time -- including this time. So, now you are aware.

Now, see -- there ya go: read a little and then start rantin'. You should know that SS funds are being used for much more than just those benefits paid for legitmate retirement. Medicaid is one of the easiest programs for illegals to take advantage of -- there are more.

And you're implying that illegals actually help the system by paying "a huge amount.. that will never be claimed". No. That's more smoke and mirrors by politicians trying to build a voter base. The net cost (of illegal immigration) due to the resulting decrease in the overall revenue base alone is staggering. The amount "..they pay into the system, that will never be claimed..." won't even cover the tip.

"..every work season"? Come on, man, we're talkin' more than just tomato pickers.

Next.

 

' Seems rather the norm 'round here.

 

And you left out that trillions have been spent on poverty since the war on poverty began and the cost only grows larger without resolving or reducing the problem.

But, even so, none of what you posted makes any sense. It's like saying I went on a spending spree, but poverty levels were unaffected. or I changed jobs, but poverty levels were unaffected. For any change to take place in reducing poverty would require that those who are living in poverty begin to earn some money through their own efforts. There is quite a difference between someone living in poverty receiving 100% of their needs from government taxation of those who are both working and paying taxes in excess of any refund, and someone else who is living in poverty, but earning a minimum wage or more, and receiving much less than 100% of their remaining needs from government taxation of those who are both working and paying taxes in excess of any refund.

Like Obama said recently, "It's not calculus, it's simple arithmetic.", although he still seems to be unable to perform simple arithmetic.

 

Illegal immigrants are a drain on the system, if anything. Children of illegal immigrants who are citizens qualify for every welfare program available, and because it's nearly impossible to verify claims by illegals, they basically default to receiving maximum benefits. It's a lot easier for them to game the system. They can say they're all unemployed, single parents, etc. My mom constantly tells stories about people who come into her work on IPhones, and driving escalades or navigators, and their kids are on Medicaid. (she's a nurse)

Then there's all sorts of tax fraud and shit going on too. Check out this video about people claiming ridiculous amounts of kids on their tax returns that don't even necessarily live in the US:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENbuaHxikzE&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]Billion dollar immigrant tax fraud

I have serious doubts there's any merit to the claim that illegals are contributing anything that "will never be claimed".... Quite the opposite in fact

Not that I have anything in particular against "illegal" immigration as an institution... However it certainly becomes a problem when u have a welfare state such as our own. I'm for open borders all the way, an economy never suffered from an abundance of cheap labor, but only if we got rid of all entitlements.

 

I'm not bitching about SS at all, we're talking about welfare, and several times I have mentioned that I do not consider social security, medicare, veterans benefits, or 26 week unemployment benefits to be welfare programs in what I am discussing. Although I do think that they too require some attention, but not in a discussion about welfare. Try and remain on topic and you won't become so confused.

I know of one instance, from living among both legal and illegal immigrants in the U.S. before. Legal immigrants who are entitled to work allow illegal immigrants to use their social security number in finding work, and as long as they don't earn enough to reduce any government benefits received by the legal immigrant, or are willing to pay something to offset any losses, the legal immigrant becomes eligible for social security benefits as a result of work performed by the illegal immigrant when he/she reaches the proper age. In addition, many of my Asian friends who legally came to the U.S. after the Viet Nam war lacked any birth records, and were able to add sometimes 10 or more years to their age, which will allow them to collect social security and medicare benefits at a much younger true age. It turns out this action was suggested to them by an American agency who assisted them in coming to the U.S.

Every single cent put into the social security system, and much more, will be claimed by someone. Once you give money to the government, it is no longer yours, and if government has its way eventually nearly all the money you earn will be seen as the governments to distribute more fairly.

 

If you attack a message for not being consistant with the entirity of a person's statements, that's totally legitimate.

 

Yes, there's a lot of poor stupid people who live entirely beyond their means, it's why they're poor. And it won't help things to not feed their kids, they already bought the iPhone.

You can have all the "serious doubts" you want, go look it up. Money paid under false SSN's just sits.

The only thing that could possibly give undocumented immigrants an advantage is the fact that they're undocumented. How do we fix this? Document them all. Grant every one citizenship. If they remain undocumented, they lose all benefits, if they become documented, they become elligible for benefits.

As for their children, they are US citizens, are you saying that the sins of one's parent should carry oven to the child? There's no illegal part of the equation when you're dealing with US citizens, no matter where they came from.

 

So you say all this against SS, but then say you're for SS: but you also like freedom. Other than with a record-obsessed police state, how could one possibly revamp SS? In fact, it's still, as you say, the government taking your money and distributing it, but you agree with it?

What problem do you have with work being done, if multiple people are working and only one person collecting the SS? the work WAS done. As for people who changed their ages, so? That is a tiny number of people, and as you said, YOUR friends, not mine....

I highly doubt you agreed with it before you where nearly old enough to collect it.

 

I've not been talking about social security, but welfare. How many times have you now ignored my pointing that out? If this thread was based upon social security, I would then have something to say about it, but it is on WELFARE. Can you at least TRY to remain on topic?

AND

Your post of "You can have all the "serious doubts" you want, go look it up. Money paid under false SSN's just sits." is absolutely insane.

Money paid into social security is spent as it is received and although an accounting of how much is received and accredited to an individual social security number is made the money is none the less spent. If, in the future no claim is made under that social security number, the money which would have been provided the owner of that number is not set aside as it has long before been spent on other things and one less claim only results in a smaller valued IOU having to be converted to real currency.

 

Do you mean that many of those "living in poverty" (my quotes) are in such condition and remain so due to their own lifestyle -- the choices they make and continue to make -- and are thusly qualified, under the current system, as receipients of government assistance, i.e. welfare?

 

ZING!!!!

What should be taken away from this is that sometimes when people speak the truth and how they feel about the situation, doesn't mean the lefties need to start throwing around names.

A: "People abuse welfare. I don't want my tax dollars to fund junkies habits so they don't have to work themselves."

B: " you are a calloused dirty Republican who wishes to watch the poor suffer while the wealthy dance in the street with pockets full of gold!"

Blah blah blah

Rabble rabble rabble

Blah rabble rabble blah!

Rabble rabble rah blah RABBLE!!!!!!!

That pretty much sums up the politics section

 

RooRshack is as the English say, spot on…

Your opinion of the matter, Individual, is irrelevant. The opinion of the Cato Institute (read: Wealth) is the topic of this thread. According to this the Cato Institute bought into the idea of turning Social Security, the government safety-net program for retirees, into a system of private investment accounts.

The architect of the movement was Peter Ferrara, a former Harvard Law School student, who, calling it "the craziest idea in the world," sold it, in 1979, to the small-government fundamentalists at the Cato Institute. (Ferrara is now at the Heartland Institute, best known for its denial of climate change.)

They evangelized on behalf of the idea for more than two decades, before pushing it into mainstream Republican politics. Bush was the first Republican Presidential nominee to embrace the idea. As you'll remember Bush failed in selling it to the American public (before the crash).

So Cato has attempted, but failed, at tearing down Social Security. But Wealth (the Cato Institute) will not rest until they create a government of their own choosing; they'll revisit this at a more opprotune time.

So, the "study" is about tearing down one portion of the safety-net but the goal of the Cato Institute (wealth) is to dismantle those government programs (including social security) that do not directly serve them.

However, the Cato Institute (wealth) will not tear down government that functions as the enforcer (with much coercion) of contracts and property rights.

What's the difference between a Cato Institute libertarian and an Ayn Rand objectivist? Cato's libertarianism is a theory of government. Objectivism is a theory of life.

 

Out:

If my opinion is irrelevant, why do you bother responding to it?

Do you find dealing with this threads issue (welfare) too difficult? If you wish to converse about the Cato Institute, or Social Security, why not open a thread on one or both of them, if there is not already one open?

 

Because the agenda of the Cato Institute is the subject of this thread:

 

Cato's fair game. They authored the study didn't they?