Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by wgabrie, Aug 11, 2017.
Are you adjusting for inflation and population size?
Do you have some figures to the contrary?
Food stamp recipients in 1970 were about 4 million, in 2016 the number is about 41 million.
The population in 1970 was about 205 million or about 1.95 percent of the population receiving food stamp benefits.
The population in 2016 was about 323 million or about 12.69 percent of the population receiving food stamp benefits.
You asked "You have to actually show the number of people who live off the government has been growing."
Have I not shown that?
Its irrelevant comparison. There is no notion of greater generosity, or ideological change. Its particularly stupid, given the US's real problem is its productivity gap and failure to reward wage.
Perhaps you should pose a question on the subject(s) you are trying to engage someone in discussing.
Why don't you just respond to my comment? It destroyed your supply and demand kack after all.
The reason the cost has grown is that the program has been expanded since 1970. The poverty rate today is basically equivalent to back then. The food stamp program costs only 70 billion to provide food stamps to 44 million people and is less than 2% of the budget. The growing expensive line items on the budget are healthcare and social security. You are defining "living off the government" very loosely if any help from the government no matter how small is defined as living off the government.
That is one of the reasons.
According to the Census bureau, the number of persons living below the poverty level in 1969 was about 24.3 million, or about 12.2%.
The number living below the poverty level in 2015 was said to be about 43.1 million or 13.5%
I feel this supports my claim of there being a growing number of persons needing/receiving government assistance. Does it not?
I simply define "living off the government" to be those who are incapable providing for their own support without government assistance, partially or wholly.
Edit: I don't recognize/include Social Security/Medicare in the same sense as other government assistance programs as they have their own funding mechanism as well as requirements for benefit payment which by law can be reduced once the surplus revenue has been exhausted if the current revenue in flow does meet/exceed the payable out flow.
My point is that the expansion is because we have expanded our programs since the 70s, not that more people are now falling under these programs by getting poorer.
That is only a 1.3% difference and is easily explained by the fact that the economy in 1969 was good while today it is still recovering from the recession. The poverty rate has oscillated from 11% to 15% since 1970 and there is no upward trend. You have to measure the trend and not just look at two years in isolation.
You can't assume that just because someone is receiving food stamps that means they can't live without government. They would probably just have a harder time paying their non-food bills. Back in the 70s the poverty rate was about the same and I assume the poor back then either starved or found some other way to afford food. And if you count people who don't get much from the government as "government dependent" then its not really much of a problem because its a cheap problem at least for them. A 70 billion dollar food stamp program is really cheap and is only .33% of our economy.
I have shown that while our programs have increased the amount of people who are poor hasn't and this increase is due to our programs covering more people. The food stamp program which you focus on is actually really cheap and is not the cause of our bloated budget.
But none the less, there are 18.8 million more people being provided aid by those programs.
So massive spending on poverty does not reduce the number of people living in poverty, but only maintains the percentage of the population living in poverty? And that's all we should care about?
Those who get something, regardless of how much, from government are not likely contributing much to government either, other than on the consumption side of GDP growth.
What you have shown is that the percentage of people has not changed significantly, the number has; and the increase, in costs and number of programs, applied to a larger number of the population is responsible for increased spending while not actually reducing the number of persons needing government assistance at all.
I didn't mean to focus on the food stamp program, but simply used it as it was the one graph that applied numbers of people to the years on the graph rather than dollars.
While the percent change in persons may not show a large change over time, the dollars spent on each program has increased much more rapidly, and will do so going forward.
That's what progressive wage taxes will do to a nation
You have to refer to the social wage. I'm afraid the US does rather poorly in any redistributive impact from taxes and benefits.
Refer to the social wage for what, and why must I ?
Nobody, rich or poor, should get any of the nation's income. That income should be used to fund the functions of government. Each person should only get their own income, not any part of the nation's income.
Because then you have a real understanding of redistribution (or lack of). Deeper knowledge than a huff and puff over progressivity...
I must refer to social wage to get a real understanding of redistribution?
There you go! Well done. There's intelligence in parroting
You must refer to the growing income gap to get an understanding of what happens when governnent gains the ability to redistribute.
Corporatism flourishes and the people get stripped
My whole point was the "it never used to be like that" is complete bullshit. My grandfather and my father did that. The whole concept that work is not something meaningful and satisfying is what's destroying this country. I could have left the workforce at 25, yet still continue to wake up at 4AM and put in my 12 hours a day
What are you responding to where the term "social wage" was employed? I looked, but was unable to find it used in a post by another.
Without reference to the social wage, you have no means to fully understand the extent, or lack, of redistribution. Tax and benefit must both be considered. It just happens the US doesn't do a good job at redistributing. It reinforces class, if anything.
You see a lot of it on these forums. Both Democrats and Republicans blubbering about a swindling middle class, but forgetting the high poverty and lack of mobility (e.g. an underclass that doesn't exist where significant redistribution policies are adopted()
Separate names with a comma.