Welfare Parasites

[carpnter]

Social Security & Medicare may be social programs but they are programs that the users of have already paid for through taxes deducted from their paychecks which disqualifies them from being "welfare".  Look at your pay stub now and you will see separate lines for those items.  You are paying for those items now to receive a benefit at a later date.   The government may mix all of the funds together to spend as they wish but that does not mean that the intended purpose of those taxes changes.  You cannot classify those programs as welfare

You also cannot classify Veteran's benefits (GI Bill, VA, etc..) as welfare.  Those benefits are part of the compensation package servicemen receive for their service, they cannot simply quit if they don't like it and have little control over where they are sent.  The users of those programs have given their time and received a benefit for it and in some cases they have been seriously injured and need to continue receiving some of those benefits for the remainder of their lives.

[finehoe]

"Welfare" is the term I picked to drive page hits.    The authors use the term "social program beneficiaries".

Veterans benefits and the GI Bill absolutely are social programs. You are paid for being a soldier; the GI Bill is NOT part of your paycheck. The purpose of the GI bill is to help you acclimate back into civilian life. The government thinks this is a good idea because it, rather wisely imo, chooses not to repeat the mistakes of the post Civil War and Post WWI eras, where legions of difficult to employ soldiers with understandable emotional problems ended up turning to violent crime when they couldn't find work. After WWII its intention was the pushing a generation of vets into the middle class. Just because you need to be in the service for X years doesn't make it some sort of automatic benefit devoid of social agendas. 

[fsquid]

I do agree with that.  The GI Bill is a social program only available to veterans.

[BridgeTroll]

I also can't say I've ever seen the tax deductions and credits defined as a social program before either.

Tax expenditures that seek to promote social goals are by definition social benefit programs. Your claim reveals the very sort of confusion that the respondants demonstrate in this study. The choice to spend a tax dollar or to forgo the collection of that dollar is different only in the perceived nature of the policy tool. The confusion grows when people accept and repeat myths about how Social Security isn't a government social program because we "pay into the system," which is ultimately false for reasons that should be crystal clear.

This illustrates the creeping nature of these programs.  Your chart shows that even when people are collecting from one of those programs they do not recognize it.  To me it illustrates our addiction to social programs as a society.  We simply cannot live without them.  Much like a heroin, alcohol, sugar or nicotine addict... using them make us feel better... they alleviate some kind of pain... and are very painful to kick.  As a nicotine addict I can certainly attest that in the short term a smoke makes me feel better... I also know the long term affect is not good for me... I also know that trying to kick something that makes me feel better causes pain.

I am not equating all users of social programs or even the programs themselves as bad or deadly.  Some are certainly necessary.  I am simply saying we do not even see when we are users of these programs... stopping or ending a program is certainly painful... and the costs, usage, and proliferation of these programs continues to grow.  It certainly sounds like an addiction to government... at least to me.

[Traveller]

Troll, your post reminds me of a book I was assigned in college: Demosclerosis, by Jonathon Rauch.

The premise was pretty straightforward: government programs are easy to start, but impossible to eliminate, and eventually "clog the arteries" of government to death.

[Garden guy]

Are'nt the Bush tax breaks a form of welfare for the rich?

[fsquid]

when I take a deduction for services or goods that I donate to my church or goodwill, is that a government social program?  Or is that me simply taking advantage of the rules that "the man" set up in our tax code?

[Adam W]

when I take a deduction for services or goods that I donate to my church or goodwill, is that a government social program?  Or is that me simply taking advantage of the rules that "the man" set up in our tax code?

I think the answer to your question depends on your outlook. I don't think there is one "right" answer, even though I know where I fall on the issue.

[BridgeTroll]

Troll, your post reminds me of a book I was assigned in college: Demosclerosis, by Jonathon Rauch.

The premise was pretty straightforward: government programs are easy to start, but impossible to eliminate, and eventually "clog the arteries" of government to death.

Thanks Traveller... I may have to stop by Chamblins and pick it up...  here is a link to a review...

http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/rauch.html

excerpt...

In a stable, democratic society, pressure groups inevitably form to persuade government to redistribute resources their way, Olson argued. Taken one at a time, these benefits have practically no effect on society as a whole, so no countervailing group arises to stop the waste. But, taken as a whole, group demands gradually sap the effectiveness and flexibility of government to the point where no program can be cut and no subsidy eliminated without arousing vehement opposition from some group or another. As the number of interest- groups in a society increases, and as the benefits secured by groups accumulate, the economy rigidifies. By locking out competition and locking in subsidies, interest-groups capture resources that could be put to better use elsewhere. Furthermore, as interest-groups and their perks and deals add up, so do laws and regulations and, by extension, the number of people who administer the laws and regulations.

[BridgeTroll]

Wow... this could have been written last week... not 1992...  Wow...

Demosclerosis

National Journal | September 5, 1992

ON APRIL 10, a group of kamikaze Senators marched to the chamber floor with an alternative budget. What they got back was a stark demonstration of the forces that are petrifying postwar democracy.

"We do not seek to end entitlements, or even to reduce them," Sen. Charles S. Robb, D-Va., told the Senate that day. "We do, however, believe that it is necessary to restrain their growth. That is, first and foremost, what this amendment does."

Entitlement programs are check-writing machines whose subsidies are mandatory under law: social security, medicare, farm supports, welfare, countless more. Today they account for a staggering three-fourths of all federal domestic spending. And so Sen. Peter V. Domenici, R-N.M., was doing nothing more than acknowledging reality when he told the Senate, "If we do not do anything to control the mandatory expenditures, the deficit will continue skyrocketing."

The bipartisan group -- Domenici and Robb, Sam Nunn, D-Ga., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H. -- proposed phasing in a cap on over-all entitlement growth. To avoid bringing the roof down on their heads, they exempted social security. The other entitlement programs would collectively grow to account for inflation and demographic changes, but no more.

Within two hours of the four Senators' first detailed discussion of their proposal, they were receiving telegrams, Domenici told the Senate, "from all over the country, saying that this is going to hurt a veterans' group, this is going to hurt people on welfare, this is going to hurt seniors on medicare."

"We were inundated," G. William Hoagland, the Senate Budget Committee's Republican staff director, recalled during a recent interview. "Just about every interest group you can think of was strongly opposed. It was very dramatic how quickly they all came to the defense............."

http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/demosclerosis_the_original_article/

[carpnter]

actually bridge troll, military benefits and compensation is negotiated on an annual basis.  Surprised you didn't know that.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/About/mission.html

Are they negotiated or are they reviewed and set by that organization (or proposed to Congress, etc...) with input from military leaders?

[Adam W]

actually bridge troll, military benefits and compensation is negotiated on an annual basis.  Surprised you didn't know that.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/About/mission.html

I think Bridge Troll is correct when stating that members of the armed forces are not entitled to negotiate pay or benefits. They can't just say they want a raise or bargain for a larger bonus, etc. And they can't strike to get concessions from management.

Whether or not there is a gov't agency that reviews military pay is not really the point he was making, as far as I can see.

[BridgeTroll]

actually bridge troll, military benefits and compensation is negotiated on an annual basis.  Surprised you didn't know that.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/About/mission.html

Lol... they are negotiated by the government, for the government.  There certainly is no "union".  There is however a very significant voting bloc of military, ex military and civilians who can and do have a good deal of influence because most of em vote regularly.  I dont recall the last strike by the military... do you?

[finehoe]

There is however a very significant voting bloc of military, ex military and civilians who can and do have a good deal of influence because most of em vote regularly. 

Do you find it odd... at all... that the same people who help pick their "boss" are "negotiating" with them?

Don't you find it odd that these people can help pick the very people who are setting their pay and benefits?

[BridgeTroll]

There is however a very significant voting bloc of military, ex military and civilians who can and do have a good deal of influence because most of em vote regularly. 

Do you find it odd... at all... that the same people who help pick their "boss" are "negotiating" with them?

Don't you find it odd that these people can help pick the very people who are setting their pay and benefits?

Not at all... they are not unionized.