Leech or Puppy?

[saxitoxin]

I've listed the most accessed social welfare programmes in the United States.

If you met someone accessing that programme would you, generally speaking, consider them a leech or a puppy without additional knowledge as to their specific circumstances?

- a leech is a person unable to care for themselves due to sloth or idiocy

- a puppy is a person unable to care for themselves due to misfortune

As these threads, for reasons too befuddling to comprehend, seem to attract non-US residents, I identified each programme using the common name (tried to put the American term in parantheticals for those I know), except for Food Stamps for which I don't believe there's an equivalent programme in other countries. I've left-off health insurance programmes like Medicare and Medicaid as there's already a thread for that!

This is not a poll on whether these programmes are good or bad. So, so don't vote XYZ a leech just because you consider recipients to be puppies but you don't think it's efficient for the state to run it and it should use an alternate delivery model. Similarly, you may believe that 90% of people on ABC programme are leeches but the programme is still necessary and good - don't vote them puppies on that basis.

Do it now!

[PLAYER57832]

OOPS... not sure about the disability INSURANCE bit. If you are referring to SSI, then I would say yes. If you refer to things like AFLAAC, etc.. (or related government programs), then I am not so sure.

The rest.. rent subsidies, long term unemployment, abandoned children and food stamps can very well encourage bad behavior. As you noted, that doesn't mean I think we can do without the programs (heaven forbid we eliminate foster care!).

I would add a few more, though ---
Welfare - specifically Aid for families with dependent children; and many of the locally based "do gooder" programs, everything from "gifts for kids" to lower cost Y memberships, etc. Its things like that which really frustrate me, because I truly would prefer to work fulltime outside my home, but its not cost-effective for me to do so. ( I do know that I am putting my kids current status above my future, though.. and that is not necessarily a good thing for any of us).

I would also most certainly add in many of the corporate tax breaks and so forth.

[saxitoxin]

IIRC the low wage child subsidy programme formerly called AFDC was renamed TANF, but I may be incorrect or it may have flipped back.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure about all of them, but I voted for the following:

(1) Low Wage Rent Subsidy (Section - I voted for this based on secondhand experience. My brother-in-law deals with real estate and indicated to me that possibly 45 to 50% of Section 8 housing beneficiaries earn more than enough money to afford non-Section 8 housing.

(2) Old Age Pension (Social Security) - I'm the only one that voted for this so far. Social security is ostensibly for people that cannot afford retirement, but is used by everyone. Thus, people that do not need social security (i.e. those who aren't puppies) still collect social security.

(3) Extended unemployment - This is self-explanatory.

[Baron Von PWN]

Is the child benefit some kind of babby bonus?

[PLAYER57832]

.

(2) Old Age Pension (Social Security) - I'm the only one that voted for this so far. Social security is ostensibly for people that cannot afford retirement, but is used by everyone. Thus, people that do not need social security (i.e. those who aren't puppies) still collect social security.

I disagree. Social security is intended for all, but it is not intended as the sole source of income for anything but those on the bottom. It is a minimum for all.. which most people add to to have more than a just very basic get by retirement. Maybe we need to change it to your viewed pupose.. but that is a different subject.

I suppose, per the OP you could argue that those who take SS and don't need it are leeches, but I am not clear on how you feel SS contributes to bad (or dependent) behavior?

[saxitoxin]

Is the child benefit some kind of babby bonus?

Yeah, the EIC gives you like $3K a year for each kid you crap out or something like that provided you make less than $X. I dunno the details because all my kids live with their mothers in Thailand. TGD may know more about the specifics. I think it's more complicated than I just made it out, but that's the gist.

[PLAYER57832]

That is the giist. The only real limitation ia (I believe) that you actually have to work to recieve it.However, I believe it is one of the few credits that can exceed what one paid in. Which, on second thought .. maybe makes it a leech program. The reason I put it in the "not" category is that I see it as basically making up for a very low minimum wage in our country. In other words, companies really should be paying workers more directly, but instead of requiring that, the government gives a bonus to those with kids. Still, why should simply having kids lead to such a bonus?

(or is that getting into the "good program/bad program" debate you wished to avoid saxi?)

[Baron Von PWN]

Is the child benefit some kind of babby bonus?

Yeah, the EIC gives you like $3K a year for each kid you crap out or something like that provided you make less than $X. I dunno the details because all my kids live with their mothers in Thailand. TGD may know more about the specifics. I think it's more complicated than I just made it out, but that's the gist.

i see then I will vote that and the extended unemployment insurance. It really shouldn't take someone two years to find work.

[saxitoxin]

That is the giist. The only real limitation ia (I believe) that you actually have to work to recieve it.However, I believe it is one of the few credits that can exceed what one paid in. Which, on second thought .. maybe makes it a leech program. The reason I put it in the "not" category is that I see it as basically making up for a very low minimum wage in our country. In other words, companies really should be paying workers more directly, but instead of requiring that, the government gives a bonus to those with kids. Still, why should simply having kids lead to such a bonus?

(or is that getting into the "good program/bad program" debate you wished to avoid saxi?)

That's a good point. I personally think it should be axed because I think it encourages environmentally unsound procreation (I know that idea, in itself, is probably pretty contentious). That said, I didn't vote for it as a leech as I wouldn't consider someone a leech for accepting what is offered to them without having asked for it.

[PLAYER57832]

That's a good point. I personally think it should be axed because I think it encourages environmentally unsound procreation (I know that idea, in itself, is probably pretty contentious).

No, without getting into whether having more kids is good or not, that this encourages people to have more kids might make it a leech deal. Although, I think (????) this caps out after a few kids? (not sure about that point, but it would make a difference)

That said, I didn't vote for it as a leech as I wouldn't consider someone a leech for accepting what is offered to them without having asked for it.

Except, isn't that basically true for all the programs?

[thegreekdog]

.

(2) Old Age Pension (Social Security) - I'm the only one that voted for this so far. Social security is ostensibly for people that cannot afford retirement, but is used by everyone. Thus, people that do not need social security (i.e. those who aren't puppies) still collect social security.

I disagree. Social security is intended for all, but it is not intended as the sole source of income for anything but those on the bottom. It is a minimum for all.. which most people add to to have more than a just very basic get by retirement. Maybe we need to change it to your viewed pupose.. but that is a different subject.

I suppose, per the OP you could argue that those who take SS and don't need it are leeches, but I am not clear on how you feel SS contributes to bad (or dependent) behavior?

It is not intended as the sole source of income, but it seems to certainly be used as the sole source of income (or is at least expected to be used as a sole source of income). A recent study determined that the average American family had about $3,000 in savings (it was on MSN.com). And yes, I really mean those that don't ened social security but get it (because they paid in to it) are leeches (arguably).

[thegreekdog]

Is the child benefit some kind of babby bonus?

Yeah, the EIC gives you like $3K a year for each kid you crap out or something like that provided you make less than $X. I dunno the details because all my kids live with their mothers in Thailand. TGD may know more about the specifics. I think it's more complicated than I just made it out, but that's the gist.

i see then I will vote that and the extended unemployment insurance. It really shouldn't take someone two years to find work.

I'm not sure the EITC is the reason people have children.

[Timminz]

Long-term UI is the only one I voted as a generally leech-populated program. I think the baby bonus is a bit ridiculous (if the numbers here are to be believed), but I definitely don't assume that people getting that particular subsidy are generally leeches.

[saxitoxin]

If the numbers were the ones I provided they shouldn't be believed! ACK, gang! LMAOzers, gang!

Here's, apparently, a more accurate description of the baby bonus:

For tax year 2010, the EIC for a person with one qualifying child is $3,050, with two qualifying children is $5,036, and with three or more qualifying children is $5,666. Enacted in 1975, the initially modest EIC has been expanded by tax legislation on a number of occasions, including the Tax Reform Act of 1986, and was further expanded in 1990, 1993, and 2001, regardless of whether the act in general raised taxes, lowered taxes, or eliminated other credits.

Today, the EITC is one of the largest anti-poverty tools in the United States, despite the fact that most income measures, including the poverty rate, do not account for the credit. Other countries with programs similar to the EITC include Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, France and the Netherlands. In most cases, these are small. For example, the maximum EITC in Finland is 290 euros.

Eleven states - plus the District of Columbia - also have a state EIC.

The cost of the EITC to the Federal Government was more than $36 billion in 2004. It is estimated that between 22% and 30% of taxpayers claiming the EITC do not actually qualify for it.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoov ... icle/6dd10

[saxitoxin]

Also, it should be noted the extended unemployment benefit of 2 years is only available if the unemployment rate is 8% or greater (IIRC).

[Phatscotty]

I'm not sure about all of them, but I voted for the following:

(1) Low Wage Rent Subsidy (Section - I voted for this based on secondhand experience. My brother-in-law deals with real estate and indicated to me that possibly 45 to 50% of Section 8 housing beneficiaries earn more than enough money to afford non-Section 8 housing.

(2) Old Age Pension (Social Security) - I'm the only one that voted for this so far. Social security is ostensibly for people that cannot afford retirement, but is used by everyone. Thus, people that do not need social security (i.e. those who aren't puppies) still collect social security.

(3) Extended unemployment - This is self-explanatory.

on social security. They paid into it all their lives. I understand the actual money paid throughout a lifetime actually goes right into current SS collectors pockets, but I think Social Security is the only one that is based on how much you paid yourself over your working years.

We are entitled to it!!!!!

(note for moon-bats. Yes, if you pay for something, you are entitled to it.)

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not sure about all of them, but I voted for the following:

(1) Low Wage Rent Subsidy (Section - I voted for this based on secondhand experience. My brother-in-law deals with real estate and indicated to me that possibly 45 to 50% of Section 8 housing beneficiaries earn more than enough money to afford non-Section 8 housing.

(2) Old Age Pension (Social Security) - I'm the only one that voted for this so far. Social security is ostensibly for people that cannot afford retirement, but is used by everyone. Thus, people that do not need social security (i.e. those who aren't puppies) still collect social security.

(3) Extended unemployment - This is self-explanatory.

on social security. They paid into it all their lives. I understand the actual money paid throughout a lifetime actually goes right into current SS collectors pockets, but I think Social Security is the only one that is based on how much you paid yourself over your working years.

We are entitled to it!!!!!

(note for moon-bats. Yes, if you pay for something, you are entitled to it.)

Weren' t you the one who called it a massive panzi skeme in the healthcare thread???

[saxitoxin]

POLL RESULTS

Child Benefit (Earned Income Tax Credit)
9%

Low Wage Rent Subsidy (Section Eight)
14%

Low Wage Child Subsidy (TANF)
12%

Old Age Pension (Social Security)
5%

Disability Insurance (SSID)
12%

Occupational Insurance (Workers Comp)
9%

Unemployment Insurance - Standard Benefit / up to 5.5 Months per instance
6%

Unemployment Insurance - Extended Benefit / up to 2 years per instance
18%

Abandoned Children (Foster Care / Adoption Services)
5%

Food Stamps
12%

[saxitoxin]

NEW SURVEY!

Based on the poll, people think extended unemployment benefits (2 years of unemployment benefits if the unemployment rate is greater than 7%) as being lecherous. Currently extended benefits cost the USG $135 billion per year.

If you could choose one of the following, which would it be?

Scenario 1
make no change to extended unemployment benefits

Scenario 2
eliminate all extended unemployment benefits and use the $135 billion in annual savings to bridge the deficit

Scenario 3
(A) keep extended unemployment benefits but institute means testing to account for those with adequate spousal income which would bring costs down to $75 billion/year
(B) spend half ($30 billion) of the savings to bridge the deficit
(C) spend half ($30 billion) of the savings giving tax breaks to the biggest, nastiest corporations you can imagine (e.g. Halliburton, Wal-Mart, etc.)

[thegreekdog]

Scenario 2 (clearly) is the correct answer.

[saxitoxin]

The Club believes the U.S. should cut social welfare spending by capping unemployment benefits to 6 months per instance of unemployment.

RESULTS:

Scenario 1 - No Change to Extended UI-0%

Scenario 2 - Eliminate Extended UI- 75%

Scenario 3 - Institute means testing on Extended UI; use half of savings to pay-down deficit, the other half to give tax breaks extremely large corporations.-25%

Congrats, you have decreased the U.S. federal deficit by 9%! Saxi's buying The Club apps at TGI Friday's!*

* minimum drink purchase required

[saxitoxin]

Inspired by Big W's thread - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=149177&start=15 - I have restarted Leech or Puppy.

Q: Setting aside all the various wars currently taking place, in your opinion - which of the following areas of U.S. defence spending have more money spent on them than is necessary?

A: National Deterrent
B: U.S. Navy carrier forces
C: United States Forces - Japan (35,000 mixed arms)
D: United States Forces - Korea (30,000 mixed arms)
E: United States Forces - Europe (80,000 mixed arms in 16 countries)
F: R&D (Missile Defence, F-35, RAND, etc.)
G: Marine Corps (200,000 naval infantry)

[Baron Von PWN]

I think you should add luxuries not necessary for combat. I remeber the hearing the amount of money the US military spends on AC is rather absurd.

[saxitoxin]

I think you should add luxuries not necessary for combat. I remeber the hearing the amount of money the US military spends on AC is rather absurd.

added