"Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits

[philnotfil]

Some interesting numbers.

cbpp.org

Some conservative critics of federal social programs, including leading presidential candidates, are sounding an alarm that the United States is rapidly becoming an “entitlement society” in which social programs are undermining the work ethic and creating a large class of Americans who prefer to depend on government benefits rather than work. A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs[1] spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work. (See Figure 1.) This figure has changed little in the past few years.

In a December 2011 op-ed, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney warned ominously of the dangers that the nation faces from the encroachment of the “Entitlement Society,” predicting that in a few years, “we will have created a society that contains a sizable contingent of long-term jobless, dependent on government benefits for survival.” “Government dependency,” he wrote, “can only foster passivity and sloth.”[2] Similarly, former Senator Rick Santorum said that recent expansions in the “reach of government” and the spending behind them are “systematically destroying the work ethic.”[3]

The claim behind these critiques is clear: federal spending on entitlements and other mandatory programs through which individuals receive benefits is promoting laziness, creating a dependent class of Americans who are losing the desire to work and would rather collect government benefits than find a job.

Such beliefs are starkly at odds with the basic facts regarding social programs, the analysis finds. Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

9% is too high, but not the epidemic that we have been warned about.

[gatorman_07732]

A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs[1] spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households

You do know there are a record number of Americans on disability
Also,

In an 18-month investigation launched by the U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, auditors found that about 25 percent of the 300 sampled disability cases were granted benefits “without properly addressing insufficient, contradictory and incomplete evidence.”

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...operly-awarded

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

You do know there are a record number of Americans on disability
Also,


http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...operly-awarded

Yes, do you believe that there are people choosing to live on disability because it is easier than getting a job?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

Yes, do you believe that there are people choosing to live on disability because it is easier than getting a job?

I absolutely believe there are people that work the system...you bet
In fact there are people that are professionals at working the system

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

I absolutely believe there are people that work the system...you bet
In fact there are people that are professionals at working the system

I used to think that there were people scamming disability long-term. I have two people in my church that I give rides to so that they can get to the doctor and the grocery store. One of them is a single man in his 60's, he gets about $800 a month. The other is a man in his 40's with two kids, he gets about $600 a month, plus $54 (up this year from $53) for each of his kids.

Living on disability isn't living, it is surviving. I don't doubt that there are some people who can work but choose to go on disability. I don't believe that they stay there long.

[fairfaxgator]

No doubt there are a few people that scam the system...

But are those the ones that drive up the costs of entitlements?

What about pork and defense in the budget? I wonder how much waste is in these types of programs and initiatives?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

I used to think that there were people scamming disability long-term. I have two people in my church that I give rides to so that they can get to the doctor and the grocery store. One of them is a single man in his 60's, he gets about $800 a month. The other is a man in his 40's with two kids, he gets about $600 a month, plus $54 (up this year from $53) for each of his kids.

Living on disability isn't living, it is surviving. I don't doubt that there are some people who can work but choose to go on disability. I don't believe that they stay there long.

Sure it is if they have a spouse that works or they have a way of earning cash money. There is also more than disability that are in entitlements. There are people that are pro's at working the government from different angles.

[G8trGr8t]

"members of working households"

This could include a lot of able bodied people that live in a household where one member works while multiple others do not

as discussed, disabled is a term that needs further definition. the threshold for being disabled is continually being lowered. I know a couple of guys in their 40's that got approved for disability, sold what they had and moved to Costa Rica where they built themselves a little hotel and spend most of their days surfing and fishing while collecting their disability and running their little bare bones hotel.

[GatorAbe7]

nm

[GatorAbe7]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

"members of working households"

This could include a lot of able bodied people that live in a household where one member works while multiple others do not

as discussed, disabled is a term that needs further definition. the threshold for being disabled is continually being lowered. I know a couple of guys in their 40's that got approved for disability, sold what they had and moved to Costa Rica where they built themselves a little hotel and spend most of their days surfing and fishing while collecting their disability and running their little bare bones hotel.

This is a good point. Reading the article a second time, you'll notice a lot of constructed phrasing to get around the two points "working household" & "disabled."

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

"members of working households"

This could include a lot of able bodied people that live in a household where one member works while multiple others do not

as discussed, disabled is a term that needs further definition. the threshold for being disabled is continually being lowered. I know a couple of guys in their 40's that got approved for disability, sold what they had and moved to Costa Rica where they built themselves a little hotel and spend most of their days surfing and fishing while collecting their disability and running their little bare bones hotel.

Yes, it includes mental distress and depression

[Dreamliner]

A-n-d none of these revelations justify taxation. A-n-d the elimination of tax-subsidized programs would not have people dying in the streets.

So, it still gets back to asking why it's necessary to have a government that almost no one can afford.

[GatorAbe7]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

9% is too high, but not the epidemic that we have been warned about.

The title of this thread/article, "Contrary to Entitlement Society" is wholly manipulative.

By declaring that only 9% of those receiving gov benefits are not of 'working homes' or 'disabled' and from there concluding that therefore we don't have an entitlement society is careful redefining of "entitlement" to support an agenda.

If you are ablebodied, don't work, and still believe it is your entitlement to have the gov pay for you, that qualifies as entitlement. People understandably view this as cheating the system.

If you are legitimately out of work due to joblessness or disability and you believe you deserve SSI, unemployment aid, utility bill assistance, though people wouldn't view this as cheating the system, this is still expecting an entitlement, and thus falls under the "entitlement society" umbrella.

"Entitlement Society" includes both those who cheat the system and those who are honest beneficiaries.

All this article accomplishes is pointing out the obvious, that yes, some citizens do find aid helpful. This is nothing profound to say. It's real agenda is to adjust the definition of entitlement, and thus avoid the more important question of - when does addressing the harmful costs of these programs go head to head against the presupposed responsibility to place every slight disability or impoverishment upon the tax payers?

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Yes, it includes mental distress and depression

Hell, that includes virtually every American.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Hell, that includes virtually every American.

No chit.....I certainly could have claimed that when I was in UF's Engineering college

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

A-n-d none of these revelations justify taxation. A-n-d the elimination of tax-subsidized programs would not have people dying in the streets.

So, it still gets back to asking why it's necessary to have a government that almost no one can afford.

And that is a good reason for not having entitlements. But fighting against entitlements because it makes people fat and lazy doesn't appear to be a good reason.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

fat and lazy

Not my words

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

I used to think that there were people scamming disability long-term. I have two people in my church that I give rides to so that they can get to the doctor and the grocery store. One of them is a single man in his 60's, he gets about $800 a month. The other is a man in his 40's with two kids, he gets about $600 a month, plus $54 (up this year from $53) for each of his kids.

Living on disability isn't living, it is surviving. I don't doubt that there are some people who can work but choose to go on disability. I don't believe that they stay there long.

What about the programs they are in addition to disability?

[wargunfan]

I must be at the epicenter of some unknown reality warp. Everywhere I turn I encounter someone who is gaming the system. Getting food stamps while working for cash; in the country illegally and receiving food stamps; drawing unemployment and working on the sly; getting section 8 rental assistance and renting out rooms in their house; on total disability and working. In my world they are everywhere.

[108]

Originally Posted by fairfaxgator

No doubt there are a few people that scam the system...

But are those the ones that drive up the costs of entitlements?

What about pork and defense in the budget? I wonder how much waste is in these types of programs and initiatives?

nobody wants to hear about that bloated defense budget