"Safety net catches middle class more often than the poor" by Binyamin Appelbaum and Robert Gebeloff | New York Times, February 12, 2012
LINDSTROM, Minn. - Ki Gulbranson owns a logo apparel shop, deals in jewelry on the side, and referees youth soccer games. He makes about $39,000 a year and wants you to know that he does not need any help from the federal government.
Is that even middle class anymore?
He says that too many Americans lean on taxpayers rather than living within their means. He supports politicians who promise to cut government spending. In 2010, he printed T-shirts for the Tea Party campaign of a neighbor, Chip Cravaack, who ousted this region’s long-serving Democratic congressman.
Yet this year, as in each of the last three years, Gulbranson, 57, is counting on a payment of several thousand dollars from the federal government, a subsidy for working families called the earned income tax credit. He has signed up his three school-age children to eat free breakfast and lunch at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.
In other words, those Tea Party people are all hypocrites.
There is little poverty here in Chisago County, northeast of Minneapolis, where cheap housing for commuters is gradually replacing farmland. But Gulbranson and many other residents who describe themselves as self-sufficient members of the US middle class and as opponents of government largess are drawing more deeply on that government with each passing year.
Dozens of benefits programs provided an average of $6,583 for each man, woman, and child in the county in 2009, a 69 percent increase from 2000 after adjusting for inflation.
And they are breaking the bank, blah, blah, blah.
In Chisago, and across the nation, the government now provides almost $1 in benefits for every $4 in other income. Older people get most of the benefits, primarily through Social Security and Medicare, but aid for the rest of the population has increased about as quickly through programs for the disabled, the unemployed, veterans, and children.
The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year.
Of course, there are more millionaires than ever and the top is doing exceedingly well while dodging taxes and collecting tax loot it uses to lobby, but that's not the focus of this agenda-pushing piece of crap.
It's the SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT(?) that LOVES YOU SOOO MUCH that is BANKRUPTING the NATION, taxpayers.
Yup, CRADLE to GRAVE COVERAGE! That seems to be the implication from the f***ing NYT!
And as more middle-class families like the Gulbransons land in the safety net in Chisago and similar communities, anger at the government has increased alongside. Many people say they are angry because the government is wasting money and giving money to people who do not deserve it. But more than that, they say they want to reduce the role of government in their own lives. They are frustrated that they need help, feel guilty for taking it, and resent the government for providing it.
Yup, now they are on the verge of being PSYCHOTIC -- or so says the NYT!
They say they want less help for themselves; less help in caring for relatives; less assistance when they reach old age.
No, they WANT THOSE THINGS that THEY PAID FOR in TAXES!
You know, the THINGS a GOOD GOVERNMENT is SUPPOSED to be DOING?!
What they WANT AN END TO are the items I mentioned above.
The problem by now is familiar. Politicians have expanded the safety net without a commensurate increase in revenues, a primary reason for the government’s annual deficits and growing debt.
Well, MAYBE EXTENDING the BUSH TAX CUTS wasn't such a great idea, HANH?!!
And ONCE AGAIN, NEVER YOU MIND those billions and trillions for wars, corporate welfare, Wall Street bailouts, and Israel while maintaining there lavish lifestyles at the expense of taxpayers!
In 2000, federal and state governments spent about 37 cents on the safety net from every dollar in revenue, according to a New York Times analysis. A decade later, after one Medicare expansion, two recessions, and three rounds of tax cuts, spending on the safety net consumed nearly 66 cents of every dollar of revenue.
And because the NYT says it it must be true.
The recent recession increased dependence on government, and stronger economic growth would reduce demand for programs like unemployment benefits. But the long-term trend is clear. Over the next 25 years, as the population ages and medical costs climb, the budget office projects that benefits programs will grow faster than any other part of government, driving the federal debt to dangerous heights. Americans are divided about the way forward. Seventy percent of respondents to a recent New York Times poll said the government should raise taxes; 56 percent supported cuts in Medicare and Social Security; 44 percent favored both....
Yeah, NOTHING ABOUT the ITEMS I MENTIONED ABOVE!
It's this RAISE TAXES/CUT BENEFITS STRAW MAN being WAGED AGAIN! What a MASSIVE EXERCISE in MIND MANIPULATION and AGENDA PUSHING to FRAME the "debate!"
Few federal programs are more popular than Medicare, which along with Social Security assures a minimum quality of life for older Americans.
None are more central to the nation’s financial problems....
You know what? F*** you, New York Times. I know it's a Sunday, but f*** you.
The cost of caring for each beneficiary continues to increase, and the government projects that Medicare enrollment will grow by roughly one-third as baby boomers enter old age. Spending on medical benefits will account for a larger share of the projected increase in the federal budget over the next decade than any other kind of spending except interest payments on the federal debt.
Yeah, they did. Technically, the thing is supposed to be in surplus.
--more--"
Related: U.S. Government Stole Social Security Surplus
Just as they steal everything else.
And look WHO is riding the gravy-train of taxpayer-funded pensions:
"6-figure federal pensions drag on system in red; Ex-leaders help make deficit swell to $674b" by Charles R. Babcock and Frank Bass | Bloomberg News, January 20, 2012
And the great thing is they wrote their own plans!
WASHINGTON - Almost 15,000 federal retirees - including former leaders of Congress, a university president, and a banker - are receiving six-figure pensions from a system that faces a $674.2 billion shortfall.
About one of every 125 retired federal civilian workers collects more than $100,000 in benefits annually. They include physicians, postal workers, and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, according to data obtained by Bloomberg News under the federal Freedom of Information Act.
“We don’t want to bash federal employees,’’ said Jim Kessler, vice president for policy at Third Way, a research organization. “Still, when you have today’s economy, public sector jobs look better and better. And there are some pensions that make you question the system as a whole.’’
The federal retirement system has emerged as a cost-cutting target as the government faces a budget deficit exceeding $1 trillion. A 2010 Congressional Research Service study reported that US government pension programs had a shortfall of $674.2 billion, mostly due to insufficient funding for workers hired before 1984.
The Treasury pays about $4.9 billion every month for about 1.8 million retirees, an average of $31,633 annually. Federal employees contribute $1 of every $14 toward retirement, according to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, a bipartisan panel created by President Obama.
Public employees at the state and local levels already have faced moves to cut future benefits, as officials seek to address a cumulative pension gap that exceeds $4 trillion. Dallas Salisbury, president of the benefits institute, said in an interview that federal pensions might be “richer than we can now afford. Something’s going to have to give.’’
Like my patience!
*********************************
Retired physicians and politicians ranked among those collecting the largest benefits. The chance of getting a six-figure pension was best at the Securities and Exchange Commission....
That figures!
Former lawmakers, including some who have become lobbyists or strategic consultants, also received six-figure pensions, according to the Office of Personnel Management database. They include former House majority leader Dick Gephardt ($106,512 for his 28 years of work as a Missouri Democratic congressman); former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle ($105,804 for his 33 years as a South Dakota Democratic lawmaker); former Senate majority leader Bob Dole ($144,432 for his 40 years as a Kansas Republican lawmaker); and former Senate majority leader Trent Lott ($110,352 after his 39 years as a Republican lawmaker from Mississippi). Calls to Gephardt, Daschle, Dole, and Lott were not returned....
--more--"
How is your pension doing, American taxpayers? Do you even have one?
