Entitlement Programs and other economic factors - a debate.

[RushIsRot]

"70% of Americans get more OUT of the government than they put IN. How much longer can Government Entitlement Programs continue? How much longer will economic recovery take if the Federal Budget continues to grow? Don't confuse the TRUTH with HATE. Educate oneself on the issue. Be an INFORMED American."

The quote above by an acquaintance. When I asked for some back up of those statistics with links he told me to look it up. After reading a bit I offered the following response below.

I looked it up. I still cannot quite uncover the set of statistics you quote. This is far too complicated a topic to reduce to bumper sticker verbiage. Those expenditures that are off-budget but still reduce revenues do not enter into the picture. We're currently fighting two illegal wars, while wasting our treasury in the process. The "patriotic" corporations continue to outsource production to increase their bottom line for stockholders. Capitalism itself is on a downward spiral. Taxes for the wealthy have been slashed to ridiculous levels. The country's possible income and its real income (revenue) vary widely. Entitlements include Social Security which I paid for and earned as well as Medicare which I also funded with my earnings. Self-reliance is a very easy position to take for someone who has a lucrative career, but not everyone has/had the same opportunities which means their "bootstraps" might not be as accessible as others who advocate pulling oneself up by them would have us believe.

Any suggestions for augmenting the response?

[raccoon]

1. Probably the dumbass heard Limpballs or some other genius say it.

HE made the assertion; the burden of proof should be on HIM.

Your response is a helluva lot more than this lazy person deserves.

[unpossibles]

2. remind him that a solid safety net encourages entrepreneurial risk rather than discourages it

A safety net will allow potential business owners to fail (or succeed) without worrying about starving to death.


Some interesting info here:
http://usa.usembassy.de/society-socialsecurity.htm

[Juche]

3. It is probably true

With income inequality growing so dramatically you probably do have a situation where a minority pays tons in taxes and gets fewer benefits vs. large numbers that collect more than they put in.

Federal government spends $31406 per household per year. That doesn't even include state or local spending (education costs come to about $6000 per year per person in school, and is done via state & local funds) And since median household income is only 50k, that means most families only spend 10-20k a year on taxes.

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/washington-will-spend-31406-per-household-this-year/1086283

So it is true that most of us get more out of government than we put in. But part of that is just because almost all the wealth and income is collected at the top. If income was distributed more fairly, middle class families would have more income and pay more taxes. But the reason this person was told to think it is bad is because the plutocrats who truly run the GOP and conservative movement don't like paying taxes. He is a useful idiot and very likely among that 70%+ he criticizes. Wealthy powerful people don't want to pay taxes, but since they only make up 1% of the electorate they can't win the popular vote. So they have to get people like him to vote their interest for them.



Ask him why his opinions on economics benefit the wealthy and hurt everyone else. Ask him who he gets his opinions from. Then ask him who those people get their opinions from.

[Igel]

4. I think this is ultimately the source of his numbers.

They've been linked to on a number of conservative sites recently because 4/15 is upon us (and also linked to last fall).

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/25195.html

I think I've seen this updated a bit, but maybe not. It's a slurry of numbers from different sources pounded together, and I'm not even going to try to come up with an off-hand estimate of how the assumptions and errors all play out.

He exaggerates a bit and rounds up. That's not an uncommon circumstance--a lot of political discourse that's number-heavy resembles nothing so much as a game of telephone. But each person citing the numbers is authoritative, and to dispute them is to both accuse them of lying (or at least being sloppy) *and* undercuts what the audience wants to believe. And there's nothing so nasty as to say that a person's confirmation bias is, well, contrary to critical thinking or sound logic.

[RushIsRot]

5. I would like to express my appreciation to those who offered suggestions.

I went to town and when I returned, I found that the post to which I responded had been removed, presumably by the OP. Nobody addressed the off-budget expenditures, neither did they comment upon the wars nor the outsourcing of jobs nor the death spiral of capitalism. The only remarks I got were scoffing that the taxes for the wealthy were too low, that "bootstraps" will work to lift everyone out of their neediness and that the Social Security fund will not be there when the present generation wishes to collect it.

This conversation was taking place with individuals in a college in the deep south, and I'll be willing to bet that they all consider themselves devout Christians. They certainly believe in a far different Christ than the one I heard about when I was growing up.

Hypocrisy is such a sad thing, but it seems to be the only way these folks can live with themselves.