Thursday, November 19, 2015

Conundrums


 

   Here are six Conundrums of socialism in the United States of America:    

1. America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.
     
 

2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.
     
 

3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.
     
 

4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.
     
 

5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
     
 

6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.
 



We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.       

 
Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money.  But we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money   !       What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't.   

 Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower than before WWII,   but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens.  
 

18 comments:

  1. Food stamps $74 billion (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/02/26/74-Billion-Food-Stamp-Program-Budget-Crosshairs)

    Military 609.3 billion (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/)

    Medicare and health 1.05 trillion (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/)

    Social security and unemployment 1.28 trillion (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/)

    Yeah, food stamps are totally bankrupting us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No... but the dependency is.

      Delete
    2. Dependency of the military industrial complex? totally agree. Our need to indiscriminately outspend every nation on the face of the earth in order to create a false sense of security (an attitude deeply rooted in cold war ideology) is indeed killing us in many ways. Again, your circle in the Venn diagram has little overlap with anybody because pretty much everybody else has it wrong when it comes to the constitution. That allows you to pick and choose what you complain about and to make statements like this one, while only occasionally taking the pseudo conservatives to task who want to invade and occupy the entire world in order to feel safe.

      We likely won't agree on this, but if your belief of dependency is along these lines, maybe we do agree. My belief is that our safety net programs are now being as readily abused by employers as well as those who sit on their ass and do nothing when they could work. If the entirety of that 74 billion went to people who did nothing but sit around a smoke dope while playing video games, that would be one thing. But the reality is that many do actually work but are paid so poorly they need food stamps and medicaid to get by. We support many a large corporation by the Fed keeping interest rates way way too low, and we also support them by providing just enough sustenance to keep people from starting bloody conflict the unions did decades ago. If you see it this way, then we agree. I suspect, you probably don't.

      Delete
    3. Under Obama, 14.7 million more Americans began using the food-stamp program than had been using it under Bush. That’s a whopping increase of 46%, from 31.9 million users in 2009 to 46.6 million today. One in every seven Americans. The WIC program now purchases over half of all infant formula sold in the United States.
      But most importantly, the cost of the program to taxpayers has increased by far more than the expected, proportionate 46%.

      Under eight years of George Bush, annual spending on food stamps rose from $15 billion to $35 billion — an increase of about $2.5 billion per year. But in just the first two years of the Obama administration alone, spending rose from $35 billion to $75 billion — a staggering increase of $20 billion per year, nearly ten times the rate of increase in cost under Bush.

      Delete
    4. But again William, what is important to you is only that Obama sucks. You are not without the reality of being correct from time to time. However, when it comes to a bigger picture, that is of no concern to you because the only picture that matters is that Obama sucks. To me, the explosion of foods stamps in the midst of an alleged recovery screams that the recovery is bullshit in terms of actually improving peoples lives. To you, those lives mean nothing unless they are a statistic you can exploit. So, you've made your point, go get some jelly beans.

      Delete
    5. William nobody likes freeloaders.
      Some people work hard and need help because they are low paid... lets raise the minimum wage.

      Some people lost a great job during the recession and it is never coming back. It's called consolidation, That's what the banks did, jobs good paying ones are gone and they are not coming back. The consolidated banks don't need as many people.
      GM discontinued 2 lines Pontiac and Saturn. Some people were able to work at other GM factories some weren't. Consolidated William that's what GM did and the jobs are not coming back.
      Smaller facilities that supply the nuts and bolts of an auto lost a good job because the parts are no longer needed and the jobs aren't coming back.
      Manufacturers are investing William, in automation and robotics. It takes 1 person to produce what it used to take 6 to produce.
      Point being William where is Obama's fault in all of this. he didn't crash the economy he inherited the crash. He didn't create too big to fail banks that was a Hank Paulson idea well underway when he came to office.
      The fault William lies in progress a bad word I know to you conservatives.

      We can end food stamps but those who take the government handout will just steal what they need. It won't make anybody any more willing to work. the world is full of worthless individuals always has been.

      They steal of course you would put them in jail. that solves the stealing problem but aren't you still keeping them only now you not only feed them they have a free bed also. What cost did you solve? That costs more then giving them a way to buy food.

      We could get all the financial people that are working part time or in jobs they are overqualified for and retrain them for better employment. But that William costs money. Money that you would bitch about paying.
      William this is reality. Where are your answers to these problems or do you, like most conservatives really have nothing better? No answers except cut them off which creates a whole new set of problems.

      Delete
    6. Seven failed years. Seven years of lies about an improving economy. Seven years of lies about improving unemployment rates. Seven years of lower middle class household incomes.

      I sure hope his eighth year makes up for seven miserable years.

      Delete
    7. 1980 The year we said goodbye to fiscal sanity

      Delete
    8. Thanks to Tip O'Neil and the democrats that held the purse strings. You fail to mention max that democrats held congress for 40 straight years.

      But with our latest increase in the debt limit it is proven that both parties are big spending whores.

      Delete
    9. They held the purse strings and actually managed to keep things pretty well controlled until Reagan showed up. From that point on, deficit spending became okay as long as taxes were lowered and we were amping our military up.

      Delete
    10. That ended the cold war. That produced the best economic years since the roaring 20's. That set up the net - tech revolution of the 90's. That have hope to tens of millions for a better tomorrow. That freed hundreds of millions from world wide slavery under communism.

      That you Ronald Reagan. RIP

      Delete
    11. What percentage of your income should the federal government take max?

      Should people that have low levels of wages be exempt from income tax?

      Our progressive tax structure has lead us into a 20 trillion dollar national debt. Could a flat tax system do worse?

      Delete
    12. So, what I'm hearing you say William is that you approve of Reagan's flag waving Keynesian spending and further believe this government spending helped set up a tech boom. If you believe this, then your entire Tea Party rants are a fraud. For whatever greatness in history you attribute to Reagan, it is also an undeniable truth that he was fiscally the antithesis of what people like you say they stand for today. He cut taxes and that was it. You can try to pawn that off on the Democrats all you want, but it's bullshit.

      As to what percentage should the government take, I don't have a straight answer, and here's why. Thanks to people like Reagan, we no longer have a consequence for spending. If taxes went up 5% a year in every bracket until we created a budget surplus and stayed there until we paid our debt down, I think we would have some real discussions about spending. I'm not just trying to be an ass here William, but you hate social programs, which is fine. I think our military spending, which far surpasses multiple countries combined is also way way out of control. Your tea bags and the Republicans haven't really fixed anything.

      I think it's complete bullshit to claim our progressive tax structure has created 20 trillion in debt. What HAS created the debt is an unwillingness to pay for what we spend. And again, you hate hearing reality, but we basically paid our bills right until Reagan got elected. Since that time, it has become an edict that we must never raise taxes to pay our bills. Better yet, let me rephrase that, it is an edict that Republicans must never agree to tax increases and instead should make a requirement to only demand fiscal responsibility when Democrats hold the white house.

      On your middle question there, it's an intriguing question to ask. I have started to have a shift in my thinking to believe that our social programs, in addition to our shitty trade deals, have helped suppress wages. We are in a trick bag now. As taxes came down, so have wages. It kinda doesn't matter what has contributed the most to the suppression of wages. The bottom line is that they are not going to go up anytime soon, but taxes will. We could easily make the poor pay more taxes by paying them better.

      Delete
    13. Thank you for your stock answers. You are consistent in you rewrite of history. I'm not standing up for republicans but after 40 years of dem control Newt was able to arm wrestle Clinton towards "the Era of big government is over." Of course that lasted a milisecond and we were right back to spending out our butt, both parties, no excuses.

      Tax and spend and inflate away retirees savings and pensions. Artificially hold down interest rates so savers can't safely invest.

      Cut immigration, legal and illegal, and supply and demand will take care of higher wages. Of course max you believe that only government can mandate economic improvement.

      Why don't you take a stab at the percentage that tax payers will retain incentive to work, save, and invest. I know you don't believe in cutting spending. You believe all programs are needed, well run, and saintly.

      Delete
    14. And you are consistent in being a Reagan apologist. Keynesian economics is okay when it's your boy Ronnie, but a disaster otherwise. And of course, you come at me with YOUR stock answers that I love spending and want the government to regulate everything. This conversation is done, you have nothing of substance to offer.

      Delete
    15. Reagan was a supply side douche bag.

      Delete