Half of U.S. Social Program recipients claim they have never received assistance

[Tinordi]

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/07/08...l?dlvrit=36761

"Reconstituting the Submerged State: The Challenges of Social Policy Reform in the Obama Era," a paper by Cornell's Clinton Rossiter Professor of American Institutions Suzanne Mettler features this remarkable chart showing that about half of American social program beneficiaries believe that they "have not used a government social program." It's the "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" phenomena writ large: a society of people who subsist on mutual aid and redistributive policies who've been conned (and conned themselves) into thinking that they are rugged individualists and that everyone else is a parasite.

[Hemi-Cuda]

the US is a lot more socialist then they would like to believe. i wonder what kind of uproar would be caused if the conservatives got their way and all of those programs were abolished?

[Azure]

A lot of those programs need reformed.

Some need abolished.

If you can't afford it, you can't afford it.

[driveway]

Or, you can increase revenues so you can afford it.

[Tinordi]

I think one of the problems is that so many of these programs are so ingrained in the status quo that people simply do not think of them as assistance. Like writing off your mortgage interest. That must be seen as a birthright in the U.S. but it's a government subsidy. Student loans as well.

All this to say that so many people complain about government assistance but so few have a good understanding of it. I'm reminded of that charity salaries thread. An easy thing to complain about but when look even a bit deeper you find that it's not black and white.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by driveway

Or, you can increase revenues so you can afford it.

I doubt you can increase revenues to offset the trillion dollar deficit.

Either way, the idea around increasing revenues is to create a level playing field. End the loopholes and subsidies, but lower the corporate rate so what other 1st world countries pay. The US has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world as is.

I'm not sure what the end numbers would be, but I think its more about the level playing field and job growth. Companies like GE, GM, Apple, Google and Facebook have millions to spend on lawyers and accountants that help them take advantage of the loopholes. Their tax rate is lower as a result. Smaller businesses don't have the money to spend on lawyers, so they're stuck paying higher tax rates.

We can argue that dropping the rate from 18% to 17% might not do much for job growth, but when your rate is 35%, it can create a problem for job growth. And smaller businesses are paying those kinds of rates.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I think one of the problems is that so many of these programs are so ingrained in the status quo that people simply do not think of them as assistance. Like writing off your mortgage interest. That must be seen as a birthright in the U.S. but it's a government subsidy. Student loans as well.

All this to say that so many people complain about government assistance but so few have a good understanding of it. I'm reminded of that charity salaries thread. An easy thing to complain about but when look even a bit deeper you find that it's not black and white.

Good point. The US is way more socialist than many admit. By any rate, Canada has a much better tax system, and apparently a better welfare system as well.

I think many of the problems the US have is from a federal government that thinks it needs to control everything. Canada allocates a lot more power to the provinces. Health care is a good example.

But, I think the US has to look at some serious cuts and reforms. There are a lot of people manipulating programs like food stamps to their own benefit when they have no need for it.

[afc wimbledon]

The trouble with the US is the goverment social program most used by americans, almost 100 percent of them, is so ineffective, k through 12 education.

Its not just that the average american is ill informed and unread, its that they are proud of it and have made stupidity a national virtue that amazes me.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Azure

But, I think the US has to look at some serious cuts and reforms. There are a lot of people manipulating programs like food stamps to their own benefit when they have no need for it.

Reforms and cuts shouldn't just come from social programs either.

There are a lot of people manipulating programs like MILITARY SPENDING to their own benefit when they have NO NEED FOR SO MUCH OF IT.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its funny, the U.S. spends 5.01% of their GDP on the military

The U.S, spends more on pensions (6.47), health care (7.9) education (6.12)

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its funny, the U.S. spends 5.01% of their GDP on the military

The U.S, spends more on pensions (6.47), health care (7.9) education (6.12)

Off Topic:

Perhaps, but the issue is that the military spending could easily be reduced without any negative effect to the US itself. They are so far ahead of everyone else in the world technologically that if they just brought their troops home and sat on their hands for awhile, slowed military R&D, they would be able to save a lot of money.

Its sickening to me that they are considering gutting NASA when they could just cancel the next massive weapon instead.



On Topic:


There is a lot of belief in the US that the individual citizen doesn't or doesn't need to have any help from the government. I hope some day that they can come to grips with the fact that things like universal health care are necessary for a western society.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Its sickening to me that they are considering gutting NASA when they could just cancel the next massive weapon instead.

I for one would welcome our Chinese overlords and their delicious food, but apparently some US policy-makers disagree with my openness to conquest, and are doing their best to maintain sufficient deterrence vis-a-vis China...

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I for one would welcome our Chinese overlords and their delicious food, but apparently some US policy-makers disagree with my openness to conquest, and are doing their best to maintain sufficient deterrence vis-a-vis China...

Does China have laser cannons on their ships?

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Does China have laser cannons on their ships?

I don't know. I haven't a military hardware nerd in many years... Ask CC.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I for one would welcome our Chinese overlords and their delicious food, but apparently some US policy-makers disagree with my openness to conquest, and are doing their best to maintain sufficient deterrence vis-a-vis China...

False dichotomy.

A Chinese takeover is happening regardless of American military might. Finance trumps all.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

False dichotomy.

A Chinese takeover is happening regardless of American military might. Finance trumps all.

Perhaps. However, I assume it is US policy to have sufficient hardware to prevent a physical take-over of S. Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. If your only means of stopping the aggressor is nuclear, it's a bit difficult saying "stop or I'll kill both of us"... I assume there is some sort of an internal standard, like the British used to have in the Empire hey-day (I believe it was that the British Navy had to be more powerful than the next two most powerful navies put together). The US probably feels it needs to maintain a military powerful enough to prevent an invasion of S. Korea and, say, Kuwait AT THE SAME TIME. I'm only speculating - I used to be a lot more interested and learned in strategic issues back in my historian salad days.

[afc wimbledon]

The lesson of the rise and fall of the american empire is that you don't actually have to invade anyone or anywhere to take over the world. Unlike all previous empires the yanks conquered the world financially and culturally, the Chinese are just doing the same thing.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Off Topic:

Perhaps, but the issue is that the military spending could easily be reduced without any negative effect to the US itself. They are so far ahead of everyone else in the world technologically that if they just brought their troops home and sat on their hands for awhile, slowed military R&D, they would be able to save a lot of money.

I would agree, but two things come to mind, first of all the U.S. mandate is that they have to be able to fight two major wars and contribute to peace keeping missions at the same time. Now thats good in theory, but even with the level of funding that they have put into the military they've failed at it. We saw mass equipment shortages in Iraq and to a smaller extend Afghanistan. If you look at weapons development, the American's have scaled back on that, for example the f-22 raptor programs, and the Seawolf sub class were all killed because they were too expensive.

America also still considers itself at war, they might be far ahead of other nations in terms of technology and sheer brute force, but we saw what some determined terrorists did for cheap.



In terms of the NASA argument, I'm with you, but looking at it as a right now, going from exploitation (shuttle) and switching back to manned exploration is just going to be a hidious expense. For now

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I for one would welcome our Chinese overlords and their delicious food,

The Chinese food here is an insidious head fake to lull us into complacency. It's not at all like the Chinese food in China.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Reforms and cuts shouldn't just come from social programs either.

True enough.

Military spending shouldn't be safe either.

Cut a trillion dollars from the DoD budget over 10 years.