patrick.net

Liked the Krugman piece, loved the first comment;

"War on the poor? It's looking an awful lot like a planned annihilation of the poor.

Starting today, SNAP benefits for more than 45 million people are being slashed for the first time in history. It amounts to the loss of about 16 meals a month per person.

Is Congress done yet? Of course not. The Caligula Caucus won't rest until they literally snatch an additional $40 billion worth of sustenance from the mouths of children, the old, the disabled, veterans and working poor families.

And not content to simply starve people, the Grand Inquisitors of the GOP demonize them, demanding they be drug-tested before consuming their rice and beans. And, they proclaim as they thump their Bibles, if you want to eat, go get a job. They callously ignore the fact that it's the lack of jobs created by their own political malpractice that's forcing record numbers of people onto food stamps in the first place.

Are they done yet? No way. Unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless will expire in two months, throwing even more millions into outright destitution.

It's not only a war on the poor. It's a counter-revolution against the New Deal. Wall Street gets billions every month in quantitative easing (a/k/a corporate welfare for greedy hoarders.) The downtrodden get a kick in the teeth. Or should I say gums, because poor people can't afford to see a dentist. And if people can no longer chew, food becomes a choking hazard.

And that is probably all part of the grisly GOP plan."

Caligula Caucus, Ha,Ha,Ha………..ha…..ha…

But cutting welfare benefits and social programs is what's needed to cleanse our nation of the weak and preserve the strong. Create an even playing field of opportunity, and the strong will survive and then we'll create true progress.

I bet these tiny food stamp cuts will do nothing to curb obesity.

Robert Sproul says

Is Congress done yet? Of course not. The Caligula Caucus won't rest until they literally snatch an additional $40 billion worth of sustenance from the mouths of children, the old, the disabled, veterans and working poor families.

Why are you so unamerican. The military needs that 40 billion. Why can't you understand that? If we don't win the war on terror another 3000 people might die from a terrorist attack someday. What's the starvation of a couple million poor compared to keeping america strong? The nerve of some people.

bob2356 says

What's the starvation of a couple million poor compared to keeping america strong?

If they are hungry enough, they will get a job.

zzyzzx says

bob2356 says

What's the starvation of a couple million poor compared to keeping america strong?

If they are hungry enough, they will get a job.

You're a compassionate soul.

sbh says

Corporate profits are at the highest in human history but the poor ignore it because the minimum wage is too fucking high. What world do they want to live in?

Jobs make a body good..

Robert Sproul says

Are they done yet? No way. Unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless will expire in two months, throwing even more millions into outright destitution.

pumping more benefits does nothing.. its about time you Liberals drop the BS
and grow up and learn about jobs, economy and business. Do you remember
its your guy in the white house.. what has he done lately ?

zzyzzx says

If they are hungry enough, they will get a job.

No, when they are hungry enough, they kill the elephants so they can eat.

sbh says

He stopped your moron from driving the nation and the world into the shit.

stopped what.. stopped real estate prices from correcting.. reducing the principle on homes people over bid over paid .... Riiiiight !!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/bEZB4taSEoA

Vicente says

No, when they are hungry enough, they kill the elephants so they can eat.

is that all you can muster up to "stimulate the economy" fee meat from the zoo..

with the growing incompetence among Democrats-Liberals dealing with the

economy that might well be the future for some... be proud of yourself !

thomaswong.1986 says

Vicente says

No, when they are hungry enough, they kill the elephants so they can eat.

is that all you can muster up to "stimulate the economy" fee meat from the zoo..

Whoosh! That's the message passing right over your head.

Obama continues the same two-tiered justice system as his predecessor. In America, you can go to jail for selling drugs for the Mexican cartels, even do life, but if you launder their billions, no problem, just pay a relatively small fine.

Obama is a fraud. The US justice system is a fraud.

sbh,

the homeboy's posts are becoming increasingly obnoxious. If he's really in line for that promotion to CFO, we can out him.

Ok, so how many "poor" people should there be?

Can there ever be no poor people...given there were always be imbalances in wealth?

More importantly...how many people should there be in total that can comfortably inhabit the Earth and live a modern technological lifestyle?

I'd like to see a NYTimes article about the War on the taxpayers

zzyzzx says

I'd like to see a NYTimes article about the War on the taxpayers

As you wish...

Military spending, A budget U.S. taxpayers can't afford

Today, Bush's military budget is $515 billion, more than half of all discretionary spending. This is in addition to the $200 billion a year being spent on the war in Iraq, and another $16 billion spent on nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, as military spending explodes, the middle class in America is shrinking, poverty is increasing and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider. While we now spend $94 billion more on defense than three years ago, poverty and hunger are increasing, 47 million Americans lack health insurance, and an entire generation of young people wonders how to afford college.

However, the Pentagon cannot be exempt from Congress' oversight responsibility to root out waste, fraud, and abuse.

Here are just a few examples that Congress must explore if we are serious about saving taxpayer dollars: ...

At a time when this country has a $9.3 trillion national debt, a declining economy, and enormous unmet needs, the time is long overdue for Congress to stop rubber-stamping White House requests for military spending and to address the Pentagon's needs within the context of our overall national priorities.

As someone who is against wasteful spending of taxpayer's dollars, against the deficit, and against carrying a burdensome debt, I'm sure you would cut military spending by at least 90%. Right?

The opening paragraph is worth repeating:
John Kasich, the Republican governor of Ohio, has done some surprising things lately. First, he did an end run around his state’s Legislature — controlled by his own party — to proceed with the federally funded expansion of Medicaid that is an important piece of Obamacare. Then, defending his action, he let loose on his political allies, declaring, “I’m concerned about the fact there seems to be a war on the poor. That, if you’re poor, somehow you’re shiftless and lazy.”

egads101 says

zzyzzx says

I bet these tiny food stamp cuts will do nothing to curb obesity.

I'll bet if you spend 10 minutes on luminosity, it won't cure stupidity!

Tim Aurora says

The point I want to hear is if we are spending too much on military or too much on these frivolous social programs

I think it's apparent that NPR should be cut, and Teacher's unions are wayyy too powerful..

Those damn Gallaghers from Shameless need to be put out of their misery!

Outsourcing takes both poor and middle class jobs. That's the real war on the Americans.

In short term a few wealthy will make a lot of profit, but long term America will lose it's middle class.

Obesity still getting worse in the US:
/?p=1231571

egads101 says

I'll bet if you spend 10 minutes on luminosity, it won't cure stupidity!

Your chart is very dishonest as it lumps military spending with only discretionary spending and doesn't show entitlements.........which is by far the biggest (and fastest growing) liability of our government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget

Defense spending in 2011 was about 22% of the entire Federal budget while entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare) make up over 55% of the budget and is growing fast. Military spending was over 50% of the Federal budget in the 1960's and has been shrinking (as percent of US budget) ever since.

And this does not include all of the state funding for welfare.

Isn't that dishonest? Or at least, inaccurate? M&M/SSI = 45% on your chart. 55% is all mandatory spending, which includes more than the benefits programs.

In any case, why do we begrudge the elderly their food and the poor their healthcare? Couldn't we just increase our taxes to shrink the slice that is earned benefits?

socal2 says

egads101 says

I'll bet if you spend 10 minutes on luminosity, it won't cure stupidity!

Your chart is very dishonest as it lumps military spending with only discretionary spending and doesn't show entitlements.........which is by far the biggest (and fastest growing) liability of our government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget

Defense spending in 2011 was about 22% of the entire Federal budget while entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare) make up over 55% of the budget and is growing fast. Military spending was over 50% of the Federal budget in the 1960's and has been shrinking (as percent of US budget) ever since.

And this does not include all of the state funding for welfare.

Dishonesty is rather common these days, it seems. Spending for Social Security when there is no surplus accruing is basically paying back borrowed money. At the end of 2011, the SS Trust Fund contained (or alternatively, was owed) $2.7 trillion, up $69 billion from 2010.

So perhaps payments to SS to make up a shortfall when there is no surplus should be considered the same as paying interest on the national debt, or paying interest and redemptions to holders of US Treasuries. My understanding is that the annual SS spending described above is gross outlays, not net outlays, that is, it includes the total amount paid to beneficiaries, most of which is covered by inflows to SS.

Not so for military spending at all.

socal2 says

Your chart is very dishonest as it lumps military spending with only discretionary spending and doesn't show entitlements

That's why the chart says discretionary spending at the top. Military is part of discretionary spending.

socal2 says

Military spending was over 50% of the Federal budget in the 1960's and has been shrinking (as percent of US budget) ever since.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_1960USrn
In 1960 military spending was 36% not over 50% and that number didn't include SS or medicare or medicaid or welfare ( MC/MD/Welfare didn't exist until 1966). SS wasn't included in the unified budget number until 1968 when the three different means of budgeting were consolidated. Moving SS into the unified budget also very nicely hid the huge growth of the military.

So if you want to compare 1960 to today the discretionary spending chart is a pretty fair way to go.

"So if you want to compare 1960 to today the discretionary spending chart is a pretty fair way to go."

That can't be right, Bob. The poors did it!

CL says

n any case, why do we begrudge the elderly their food and the poor their healthcare?

That they paid for! Today's boomers have been paying Medicare taxes for going on 50 years now, and are getting close to receiving back the thousand and thousands they've been paying in.

Like SSA, Medicare is structured such that you pay in to support the previous generation(s) and the next generation(s) supports you in turn.

(This level of indirection fries conservative brains [that 'got mine screw you' fixation they have], so don't try to explain it to them)

CL says

In any case, why do we begrudge the elderly their food and the poor their healthcare? Couldn't we just increase our taxes to shrink the slice that is earned benefits?

I don't begrudge it, I just don't want them to rob me to pay for it. Let them pay for it themselves...no one is stopping them.

Bellingham Bill says

This level of indirection fries conservative brains [that 'got mine screw you' fixation they have], so don't try to explain it to them

No it's easy, ask them:

You been paying car insurance how many years? You expect any of that "investment" back after X years? No???

Simple.

Bellingham Bill says

That they paid for! Today's boomers have been paying Medicare taxes for going on 50 years now, and are getting close to receiving back the thousand and thousands they've been paying in.

Like SSA, Medicare is structured such that you pay in to support the previous generation(s) and the next generation(s) supports you in turn.

Normally, someone voluntarily bought into such a scheme would have to wait in line along with the victims of Bernie Madoff and Charles Ponzi. Any company setting up such a pension scheme would have its executives in jail as pay-as-you-go pension schemes are considered fraud by law. In this case, however, the Ponzi scam is backed by the full faith and credit of the US . . . or is it? The existing USSC cases seem to indicate that those "promises" are not formal debt obligations binding on the US government.

(This level of indirection fries conservative brains [that 'got mine screw you' fixation they have], so don't try to explain it to them)

or "I want mine, screw future generations" as built into those schemes devised by the FDR and LBJ administrations.

Vicente says

Bellingham Bill says

This level of indirection fries conservative brains [that 'got mine screw you' fixation they have], so don't try to explain it to them

No it's easy, ask them:

You been paying car insurance how many years? You expect any of that "investment" back after X years? No???

Simple.

But you are arguing the financially conservative point now, likely involuntarily ;) The youth can only be expected to pay in part of what they make based on their salaries. Meanwhile the health-care and general living costs inflated due to the policies voted for by the boomers. It is only fair and logical that the boomers get only paid out what they paid in (plus whatever yield was achieved). If that can't live up to today's rampant inflation and if more people have dropped out of the workforce sooner than anticipated and need to be subsidized and if parts of it have been looted for other purposes/programs by politicians voted in, that is not the responsibility or problem of the youth and they should not have to take on that burden. It must be closed system to be fair and sustainable, not a "kicking-the-can-down-the-road" ponzi scheme.

zzyzzx says

What's the starvation of a couple million poor

the planet is over populated. we do nature a favor by speeding up darwinism.

mell says

not a "kicking-the-can-down-the-road" ponzi scheme.

You are a good example of a person who cannot comprehend what insurance is, and misapplies Ponzi as a label.

Thanks!

sbh says

What the fuck does this mean? Do you mean "paying" the price of "anything" should now be based on a consumer's earnings? Aren't you a "free market" devotee?

It means that SS tax is a percentage of the paycheck and that that percentage should not be raised on new generations just because there is a shortfall to pay for inflated heath care costs or promised pension yields. Plenty of "socialist" countries adjust pension payouts based on what's in the pot and what is expected to come in every year so that the pot never runs out of money.

sbh says

mell says

should not be raised on new generations

Age is now what should determine the % of SS tax? When you are 65 everyone younger than you will be taxed less than you, and they themselves taxed more than those younger than them? You're Grover Norquist now? For your sole sake, for your single generational moment, in order redress the global economic condition of history that encompasses you, you propose a generational regression in SS tax? Or you could just lower the minimum wage to $2.

No, it should be tied to median incomes. SS should be an insurance that you will have some payment keeping you out of poverty if you have to drop out of the labor force early and if you work til retirement it will provide you with a small pension that is most likely always less than you paid in (inflation-adjusted). This is how it works in countries that don't have pension shortfalls. There is also some formula that determines how much you get paid out based on how many months/how much you paid in, but it will always be less since you have to cover for others and it is NOT supposed to be an inflation hedge. I find it curious that those discussing with high moral grounds fail to see that if you raise taxes on stagnant or declining median incomes you will send more people into poverty just so that retirees can get their promised yields? That's seriously wrong. Furthermore, if you are a current contributor to SS and you see your fellow politicians abuse the shit out of these funds, then it is your responsibility to fire them all. But since you think everything outside the 2 same major parties - or everything outside the Democrats - is radical, I guess SS will eventually run out of money and/or taxes will be drastically raised on the youth to the point of no return and break their backs.

mell says

SS should be an insurance that you will have some payment keeping you out of
poverty if you have to drop out of the labor force early and if you work til
retirement it will provide you with a small pension that is most likely always
less than you paid in (inflation-adjusted).

Social secutiry is not as glamorous as you make it sound. If your employer does not offer pension and you rely solely on social security, you are likely to suffer a dramatic setback in standard of living in retirement especially if your mortgage is still not paid off. That's why financial advisors recommend investing through 401K and IRA - because they know that social security by itself is woefully insufficient.

dublin hillz says

mell says

SS should be an insurance that you will have some payment keeping you out of

poverty if you have to drop out of the labor force early and if you work til

retirement it will provide you with a small pension that is most likely always

less than you paid in (inflation-adjusted).

Social secutiry is not as glamorous as you make it sound. If your employer does not offer pension and you rely solely on social security, you are likely to suffer a dramatic setback in standard of living in retirement especially if your mortgage is still not paid off. That's why financial advisors recommend investing through 401K and IRA - because they know that social security by itself is woefully insufficient.

Not disagreeing with that. That's why you want inflation as close to zero as possible, so you can plan accordingly and know that while your standard of living won't be glorious, you won't be "poor". One should always invest at the side and never rely on a government program alone, pretty much every retiree I know has done that. And again, voters need to fire any politicians who "temporarily" borrow money from the SS fund on the spot (or make it severely punishable by law), no matter what party. Otherwise they have no right to complain if they fall short later when they retire.

sbh says

mell says

No, it should be tied to median incomes.

Fine, then how do you combine that with this:

I am not opposed to a temporary tax on the uber-wealthy (2 million+ not 200K+) although I prefer to take the money back from the bailed out companies (halt the market cap would suffice, forced stock sales etc.). Oh yeah, and since this graph you presented is assumed to be true, those changes would be tied to removing the Fed entirely. Because how do you combine record company profits with the Feds continued fresh fiat "stimulus" because apparently companies are still too weak? Hint: The Feds money printing is causing this very graph you are complaining about to look like it does.

mell says

And again, voters need to fire any politicians who "temporarily" borrow money from the SS fund on the spot (or make it severely punishable by law), no matter what party. Otherwise they have no right to complain if they fall short later when they retire.

I'm not sure here, maybe someone smart can help me out.

Assuming there will be inflation (despite the Libertarian dream of ending the Fed), and assuming the Trust Funds of SSA and Medicare need to grow, at least to support future old sickies, they have a fiduciary responsibility to grow the fund. Insurance companies invest some of their profits in securities or bonds for the same reasons, right?

If the "other" side of Government is borrowing, then why can't they borrow from an entity that has cash and wants it to grow, and wants it to be in a very stable investment?

Or do we only allow certain entities, like China, Japan, Private Insurance Companies, and Pension Plans to buy US debt?

It's a free market, right? As long as one side of Government (the non-discretionary side) trusts that the Government will make good on its promise, what is wrong with the transaction?

This seems to me to be a cudgel that both sides use to beat up their opponents. Reagan did it! No, it was the Democratic Congress!!

Maybe it's not such a terrible thing? Am I missing something, or am I extra smart?