• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Yes, Barry,we are a nation of takers.

KLATTU

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
19,259
Reaction score
6,900
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nicholas Eberstadt: Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of Takers - WSJ.com

By NICHOLAS EBERSTADT
In President Obama's second inaugural address, he not only outlined an ambitious agenda for his second term but also seemed intent on shutting down debate about the social-welfare state and its impact on American life.


President Obama during his inauguration speech on Monday.
."The commitments we make to each other—through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security—these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us," Mr. Obama said. "They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great." In other words, the president is tired of listening to critics of America's entitlement programs, and as far as he is concerned, the discussion is now over.

It is not over—and won't be anytime soon, because the country's social-welfare spending is generating severe and mounting hazards for the nation. These hazards are not only fiscal but moral.

A growing body of empirical evidence points to increasing dependency on state largess. The evidence documents as well a number of perverse and disturbing changes that this entitlement state is imposing on society.

Consider:

• Over the 50-plus years since 1960, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, entitlement transfers—government payments of cash, goods and services to citizens—have been growing twice as fast as overall personal income. Government transfers now account for nearly 18% of all personal income in America—up from 6% in 1960.

• According to the BEA, America's myriad social-welfare programs (the federal bureaucracy apparently cannot determine exactly how many of these there are) currently dispense entitlement benefits of more than $2.3 trillion annually. Since those entitlements must be paid for—either through taxes or borrowing—the burden of entitlement spending now amounts to over $7,400 per American man, woman and child.

• In 1960, according to the Office of Management and Budget, social-welfare programs accounted for less than a third of all federal spending. Today, entitlement programs account for nearly two-thirds of federal spending. In other words, welfare spending is nearly twice as much as defense, justice and everything else Washington does—combined. In effect, the federal government has become an entitlements machine.

• According to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly half (49%) of Americans today live in homes receiving one or more government transfer benefits. That percentage is up almost 20 points from the early 1980s. And contrary to what the Obama White House team suggested during the election campaign, this leap is not due to the aging of the population. In fact, only about one-tenth of the increase is due to upticks in old-age pensions and health-care programs for seniors.

Instead, the country has seen a long-term expansion in public reliance on "means-tested" programs—that is, benefits intended for the poor, such as Medicaid and food stamps. At this writing, about 35% of Americans (well over 100 million people) are accepting money, goods or services from "means-tested" government programs. This percentage is twice as high as in the early 1980s. Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans on entitlement programs are taking "means-tested" benefits. Only a third of all Americans receiving government entitlement transfers are seniors on Social Security and Medicare.

• As entitlement outlays have risen, there has been flight of men from the work force. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the proportion of adult men 20 and older working or seeking work dropped by 13 percentage points between 1948 and 2008.

The American male flight from work is so acute that more than 7% of men in their late 30s (the prime working age-group) had totally checked out of the workforce, even before the recent recession. This workforce opt-out, incidentally, was more than twice that of contemporary Greece, the poster child for modern welfare-state dysfunction. The share of 30-somethings neither working nor looking for work appears to be higher in America than in practically any Western European economy.

• Arithmetically speaking, the recent American flight from work has largely been a flight to government disability programs. According to the Social Security Administration, the number of working-age Americans relying on Social Security's disability programs has increased dramatically over the past two generations.

In December 2012, more than 8.8 million working-age men and women took such disability payments from the government—nearly three times as many as in December 1990. For every 17 people in the labor force, there is now one recipient of Social Security disability program payments.

But the pool of working-age government disability recipients may be even larger than those getting funds just from the Social Security disability programs alone. The Department of Health and Human Services reports that more than 12.4 million working-age Americans obtained disability income support from all government programs in 2011. That's more than the total number of employees in the manufacturing sector of the economy.

• In recent years, the biggest increases in disability claims have been for "musculoskeletal" problems and mental disorders (including mood disorders). But as a practical matter, it is impossible for a health professional to ascertain conclusively whether or not a patient is suffering from back pains or sad feelings. The government's disability-insurance programs were intended to address genuine need. On the current trajectory, the Social Security disability fund is projected to run out of money during Mr. Obama's second term.

• The president and others describe Social Security and Medicare as "social insurance" programs rather than transfer schemes. True, the eventual beneficiaries of these programs contribute payroll taxes to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds during their working lives. But "insurance" programs
 
The game of democracy ends when their are more voters getting gov't "help" than voters paying taxes to support it. We are in the last minutes of the fourth quarter, the Makers are down by 40% and the Takers have the ball. ;)

http://www.pensionrights.org/publications/statistic/income-social-security

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2009/08/have-seniors-really-paid-for-their-medicare-benefits/

http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2012/05/examining-the-means-tested-welfare-state

From program inception, the cost of Medicaid has generally increased at a significantly faster pace than the U.S. economy. In 1970, combined Federal and State expenditures for Medicaid represented 0.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), but this percentage grew to 0.9 percent in 1980, 1.2 percent in 1990, 2.1 percent in 2000, and 2.7 percent in 2010. As illustrated by the actuarial projections in this report, Medicaid costs will almost certainly continue to increase as a share of GDP in the future under current law. Although much of Medicaid’s expenditure growth (both past and future) is due to expansions of eligibility criteria, the per enrollee costs for Medicaid have also increased significantly faster than per capita GDP.

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...arialStudies/downloads/MedicaidReport2011.pdf

Hang on to your wallets folks since PPACA is just around the corner...
 
Last edited:
Hell even the middle class is poor and entitled these days.
 
Of course we are a nation of takers. This country was founded by settlers who came into others land and said, "This is nice, I think I will take it". We (the people from Europe) then systematical killed millions of Native Americans and enslaved black people from Africa to do our work for us.

Fast forward to more modern times and what has changed? If you really want to look at those totally dependent on government for what they have then you must not look downward to the poor, but upward.

"the primary function of government is to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority of the poor." - James Madison

To quote a man more smart than I:

Aristotle also made the point that if you have, in a perfect democracy, a small number of very rich people and a large number of very poor people, the poor will use their democratic rights to take property away from the rich. Aristotle regarded that as unjust, and proposed two possible solutions: reducing poverty (which is what he recommended) or reducing democracy.

James Madison, who was no fool, noted the same problem, but unlike Aristotle, he aimed to reduce democracy rather than poverty. He believed that the primary goal of government is "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." As his colleague John Jay was fond of putting it, "The people who own the country ought to govern it."

To be fair, Madison was precapitalist and his "more capable set of men" were supposed to be "enlightened statesmen" and "benevolent philosophers," not investors and corporate executives trying to maximize their own wealth regardless of the effect that has on other people. When Alexander Hamilton and his followers began to turn the US into a capitalist state, Madison was pretty appalled. In my opinion, he'd be an anticapitalist if he were alive today -- as would Jefferson and Adam Smith-
 
Last edited:
To translate the OP's disingenuous argument: our economy has grown so precipitously since the New Deal (thanks to the New Deal) that payments into the system of SS have skyrocketing, resulting is a huge fund of dollars to make sure people retire in dignifity. So more and more people have earned benefits with their hard work.

And this is a problem for conservatives.
 
Last edited:
To translate the OP's disingenuous argument: our economy has grown so precipitously since the New Deal (thanks to the New Deal) that payments into the system of SS have skyrocketing, resulting is a huge fund of dollars to make sure people retire in dignifity. So more and more people have earned benefits with their hard work.

And this is a problem for conservatives.

Liberals: Shhhhhhhhhhhhh-don't tell anybody-let's keep this a big secret.......big gov't liberal programs only help people,they never have unintended consequences of actually doing more harm than good..shhhhhhh"

"........Instead, the country has seen a long-term expansion in public reliance on "means-tested" programs—that is, benefits intended for the poor, such as Medicaid and food stamps. At this writing, about 35% of Americans (well over 100 million people) are accepting money, goods or services from "means-tested" government programs. This percentage is twice as high as in the early 1980s. Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans on entitlement programs are taking "means-tested" benefits. Only a third of all Americans receiving government entitlement transfers are seniors on Social Security and Medicare.
 
Liberals: Shhhhhhhhhhhhh-don't tell anybody-let's keep this a big secret.......big gov't liberal programs only help people,they never have unintended consequences of actually doing more harm than good..shhhhhhh"

"........Instead, the country has seen a long-term expansion in public reliance on "means-tested" programs—that is, benefits intended for the poor, such as Medicaid and food stamps. At this writing, about 35% of Americans (well over 100 million people) are accepting money, goods or services from "means-tested" government programs. This percentage is twice as high as in the early 1980s. Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans on entitlement programs are taking "means-tested" benefits. Only a third of all Americans receiving government entitlement transfers are seniors on Social Security and Medicare.

FYI...that guy is trolling you. I wouldn't even bother responding to him.
 
A friend with needs is a friend indeed.
 
To translate the OP's disingenuous argument: our economy has grown so precipitously since the New Deal (thanks to the New Deal) that payments into the system of SS have skyrocketing, resulting is a huge fund of dollars to make sure people retire in dignifity. So more and more people have earned benefits with their hard work.

And this is a problem for conservatives.

The problem is that for an individual to "retire in dignity", requires at least two other individuals to be paying into the system. As a Conservative, here's what I'd prefer to see, if we Amended the Constitution to allow for such a program.....

1. It needs to be VOLUNTARY. You don't put in, you don't take out. NO EXCEPTIONS.
2. You get to choose the percentage you put into the system.
3. Your money gets put aside in a private account, and invested (by the government); but must be insured at 100% of the principle.
4. At age 65 (or retirement) you get to choose how long you want your benefit for. Your total account balance is divided by that many months and that's your "Social Security" payment every month, tax free.

So, Bob works from age 18-65 (47 years). Over that time he accrues an account balance of $1,000,000. He chooses to take that benefit over 360 months (30 years). His monthly check would be $2,777.78, tax-free. At the time of his death his next of kin would have the option to take the remaining balance in cash, tax free; or to roll that balance over into their account.
 
The problem is that for an individual to "retire in dignity", requires at least two other individuals to be paying into the system. As a Conservative, here's what I'd prefer to see, if we Amended the Constitution to allow for such a program.....

1. It needs to be VOLUNTARY. You don't put in, you don't take out. NO EXCEPTIONS.
2. You get to choose the percentage you put into the system.
3. Your money gets put aside in a private account, and invested (by the government); but must be insured at 100% of the principle.
4. At age 65 (or retirement) you get to choose how long you want your benefit for. Your total account balance is divided by that many months and that's your "Social Security" payment every month, tax free.

So, Bob works from age 18-65 (47 years). Over that time he accrues an account balance of $1,000,000. He chooses to take that benefit over 360 months (30 years). His monthly check would be $2,777.78, tax-free. At the time of his death his next of kin would have the option to take the remaining balance in cash, tax free; or to roll that balance over into their account.

If you take the typical profile of a worker, who starts working at age 21 and retires at age 65 - invests in shigher riskk/higher reward instrumernts earlier in his/her career and switches to lower risk/lower yield instruments at the back end-I doubt there is any 44 year period in history where that individual wouldn't have done better than the current SS system.In most cases it's massively better.And as you say-there is creeation of real wealth-one of the determinants of transgenerational prosperity.
 
If you take the typical profile of a worker, who starts working at age 21 and retires at age 65 - invests in shigher riskk/higher reward instrumernts earlier in his/her career and switches to lower risk/lower yield instruments at the back end-I doubt there is any 44 year period in history where that individual wouldn't have done better than the current SS system.In most cases it's massively better.And as you say-there is creeation of real wealth-one of the determinants of transgenerational prosperity.

We have 401K's for that. Not eveybody can afford to contribute to them though. What about them? Conservatives want to get rid of unions, minimum wage, and anything that gives workers security. They don't even know the reason we had them in the first place. Here's a hint. America sucked big time for the majority before they were adopted. Most of them would still be in the gutter if the New Deal did not exist.
 
We have 401K's for that. Not eveybody can afford to contribute to them though. What about them?

Okay. If you can't afford to contribute anything for your retirement, then maybe you shouldn't get to retire. A lot of us are sick and tired of having to lift not only our own load, but the loads of those other individuals who are unwilling to do anything for themselves.

Most of them would still be in the gutter if the New Deal did not exist.

Then maybe that's where most of us should be.
 
We have 401K's for that. Not eveybody can afford to contribute to them though. What about them? Conservatives want to get rid of unions, minimum wage, and anything that gives workers security. They don't even know the reason we had them in the first place. Here's a hint. America sucked big time for the majority before they were adopted. Most of them would still be in the gutter if the New Deal did not exist.

Aren't you paying into SS? Isn't the point that the money would be better off in a 401k rather than in SS?
 
We're a NATION of takers? I have to think about that for a while......................... OK, I thought about it.

There are now 10 participants in this discussion. Most of them are "regulars" that use this board extensively.

So, who paid their way here? Only 3, myself included. One Liberal, one Libertarian and one "Other".

What can we learn from this about free lunches? That if you offer "free lunches", most people will take them. Has nothing to do with political affiliation.

imgres-1.webp
 
Liberals: Shhhhhhhhhhhhh-don't tell anybody-let's keep this a big secret.......big gov't liberal programs only help people,they never have unintended consequences of actually doing more harm than good..shhhhhhh"

"........Instead, the country has seen a long-term expansion in public reliance on "means-tested" programs—that is, benefits intended for the poor, such as Medicaid and food stamps. At this writing, about 35% of Americans (well over 100 million people) are accepting money, goods or services from "means-tested" government programs. This percentage is twice as high as in the early 1980s. Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans on entitlement programs are taking "means-tested" benefits. Only a third of all Americans receiving government entitlement transfers are seniors on Social Security and Medicare.

Hey kids, another conservative unable to discuss the merits.

The OP falsely notes expenditures, without pointing out that the "entitlements" at issue (all but Medicaid) are EARNED BENEFITS, with people putting money into the system. Indeed, the security of those earned benefits allowed millions of Americans to be more productive and not have to worry about their next meal.

So you lose on the merits and are really saying that Medicaid patients (8 year old kids on average) are the source of all our problems.

That's how delusional conservatism is.
 
The problem is that for an individual to "retire in dignity", requires at least two other individuals to be paying into the system. As a Conservative, here's what I'd prefer to see, if we Amended the Constitution to allow for such a program.....

1. It needs to be VOLUNTARY. You don't put in, you don't take out. NO EXCEPTIONS.
2. You get to choose the percentage you put into the system.
3. Your money gets put aside in a private account, and invested (by the government); but must be insured at 100% of the principle.
4. At age 65 (or retirement) you get to choose how long you want your benefit for. Your total account balance is divided by that many months and that's your "Social Security" payment every month, tax free.

So, Bob works from age 18-65 (47 years). Over that time he accrues an account balance of $1,000,000. He chooses to take that benefit over 360 months (30 years). His monthly check would be $2,777.78, tax-free. At the time of his death his next of kin would have the option to take the remaining balance in cash, tax free; or to roll that balance over into their account.

No it's not a problem, except in the minds of tea partiers and their delusional fear of modern economies.

First your figures are false.

Seond, you're mixing apples and oranges (a typical conservative trick), since SS is solvent virtually forever and only Medicare is a problem (and that only has one solution -- single payer).

Third, people EARN their benefits from putting money into the system, so they aren't gifts from Paris Hilton and the rest of the millionaire trash you worship.

Fourth, "fixing" SS is as simple as raising in the income ceilng about $50K.

Fifth, the OP is a hit piece cherry picking the word "entitlements" to attack people conservatives don't like, while ignoring the "entitlements" the rich get from government, and indeed, the benefits we all get from government. So the word is meaningless in the mouth of tea party lunatics.
 
All we have to do is follow the money.. look at these interesting numbers
 
No it's not a problem, except in the minds of tea partiers and their delusional fear of modern economies.

So Socialism is now referred to as "Modern Economics"? Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.

First your figures are false.

How are my figures false?

Seond, you're mixing apples and oranges (a typical conservative trick), since SS is solvent virtually forever and only Medicare is a problem (and that only has one solution -- single payer).

So nobody else would have to pay for my benefits if I were to collect SS? All the costs of my SS Benefits are extracted from the monies that I put into the system and nobody else's?

Third, people EARN their benefits from putting money into the system, so they aren't gifts from Paris Hilton and the rest of the millionaire trash you worship.

I'm sorry but so far as I'm concerned very few people have EARNED the right to take money from me for their retirement. I don't worship any diety, nevermind any mortal, or any socio-economic class.

Fourth, "fixing" SS is as simple as raising in the income ceilng about $50K.

How so? Does that soemehow ensure that my money doesn't go to cover anyone else's costs and nobody else's money covers any of mine? I don't think so.

Fifth, the OP is a hit piece cherry picking the word "entitlements" to attack people conservatives don't like, while ignoring the "entitlements" the rich get from government, and indeed, the benefits we all get from government. So the word is meaningless in the mouth of tea party lunatics.

I don't believe the rich should be getting anything more from the government than the poor should. I get little to nothing from the government and I want even less from them, thank you very much. That's why I will not accept money from SS or Government medical care (ACA or Medicare).
 
Aren't you paying into SS? Isn't the point that the money would be better off in a 401k rather than in SS?

SS is a mandatory INSURANCE program that is meant to give SECURITY. Otherwise it would be called Social Roulette. That is nothing like a 401K which is great if you can afford to have one. Many can't.
 
So Socialism is now referred to as "Modern Economics"? Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.

Socialism. How quaint. Thanks for admitting your totally econmically illiterate. A common conservative conditions. .
 
All we have to do is follow the money.. look at these interesting numbers
[video=youtube;lCvQcWTMMfw]https://www.yoefwfeewutube.com/watch?v=lCvQcWTMMfw[/video]

Stop cross posting this junk.
 
Socialism. How quaint. Thanks for admitting your totally econmically illiterate. A common conservative conditions. .

....And here we see an even more common Liberal trait: the unwillingness to actually answer questions/comments and instead deflect with insults. Rather well done. Who knows maybe one or two people will not notice that you ignored responding to the vast majority of my comments.
 
Okay. If you can't afford to contribute anything for your retirement, then maybe you shouldn't get to retire. A lot of us are sick and tired of having to lift not only our own load, but the loads of those other individuals who are unwilling to do anything for themselves.



Then maybe that's where most of us should be.

Come on now Tigger. You can't mean that. The New Deal made America's great middle class and made us the envy of the world. You can't mean we should be like every other nation. America is special.
 
Come on now Tigger. You can't mean that. The New Deal made America's great middle class and made us the envy of the world. You can't mean we should be like every other nation. America is special.

No, America WAS special. A long time ago. The New Deal was simply a continuation and expansion on the usurption of State power that the Federal Government had been undertaking since the Lincoln Administration. Lincoln used the Constitution for toilet paper and FDR simply flushed it down the toilet afterwards.

You are right that we shouldn't be like every other nation. We should be a nation of Personal Responsibility, not expecation of constant Government Subsidy and Support.
 
Come on now Tigger. You can't mean that. The New Deal made America's great middle class and made us the envy of the world.

And i do believe in saying that that middle class is declining?

You can't mean we should be like every other nation. America is special.

America is special in that the main two parties both believe that the only way to make people like America more is to invade them...
 
Back
Top Bottom