Posted on 07/03/2014 11:57:08 PM PDT by quesney
Obamacare has pushed us over the entitlements tipping point. In 2011 some 49.2 percent of U.S. households received benefits from one or more government programs—about 151 million out of an estimated 306.8 million Americans—according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last October.
Currently, around 6 million to 7 million Americans who have signed up for Obamacare are receiving taxpayer-provided subsidies (though the administration’s numbers cannot be trusted, it’s all we have to work with). There are another 3 million who have signed up for Medicaid.
That means some 10 million Americans—or a total of about 161 million—are now getting government subsidies (though the final number might be somewhat lower since some may have been receiving benefits already).
Thus, perhaps 52 percent of U.S. households—more than half—now receive benefits from the government, thanks to President Obama. And Mr. Entitlement is just getting started. If Obamacare is not repealed millions more will join the swelling rolls of those dependent on government handouts.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
I believe most receive a social security check.
That would be an earned benefit that was not optional.
Romney said the 47% comment and there was an uproar. He was right.
He was also right about Russia.
There’s “government benefits” and then there’s government benefits. Many here, myself included, receive a disability payment from the US Department of Veteran’s Affairs for injuries, wounds, ailments and conditions received as a part of service to the country in uniform. Others get the military retirement they worked for 20 or 30 years to become vested in. Still others get the Social Security retirement they contributed to during their working lives. I do not equate the above with TANF, SNAP, SSDI, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation, Section 8 or the like, do you?
The rest of us are just barely scraping by whilst financing them.
Detroit is our future unless the crooked DemocRats get voted out.
Get Obama in president ya know! He gave us a phone!
Brings new meaning to...
“Oh waiter, check please!”
I’m with you, 2ndDivisionVet. There are definitely different kinds of government payments, but some people put all the benefits into one basket. That gives them the ability to say over 50% receive benefits. While that is a terribly high percentage, it doesn’t reveal the different kinds of benefits.
Military veterans, for example, earn their benefits by serving the country. The “benefits” are payment for service rendered. Then you have people who receive Social Security benefits after contributing to the program for decades. I do not equate the above beneficiaries with those who receive handouts simply for being born or sneaking into the country. There are even some Social Security payouts to people who have never contributed to the program. Again, that is a completely different matter than those Americans who contributed for decades and now deserve what was promised.
NOW.. the law is whatever they say it is..... OR NOT..
Wimsy and Caprice are the new normal..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ex-m-eEKsg
I have the same question about SS “benefits”. As I see it, for those who have paid into the system most of their adult working lives, it is an account payable for government. It is not a government benefit.
To them, there is no "earned it" if they think they have to pay for part of it. They do not care how much we paid into it with years of income, blood, whatever.
All they care about is getting out from under it.
Many of those are Libertarian/Ayn Rand fan-boy Paulestinian Rontards. Others are people that were “too busy” to serve, like Mr. Obama and many others. I could give a $#*+ what they think about what you and I did.
Some of the more libertarian FReepers are against all such benefits, but I think it’s immoral to simply cut off people who have worked or contributed to their benefits. A military veteran is simply not the same as a welfare mom, and some on the right group them together in order to make a political argument. Over 50% receiving benefits sounds much worse than 20% or whatever on welfare. E
ven welfare moms shouldn’t simply be cut off if you ask me. These handouts need to go away over time so that people who are dependent on them can adapt. I know this isn’t a pure solution many want, but I think gradual reform leading to elimination of most of these programs is more moral. My fear is that the politicians will bankrupt the system before they’ll accomplish any reform.
I do know it’s absolutely wrong to not pay benefits that were actually earned or paid into by the recipients. That’s thievery.
Speaking of Independence Day, check out Google’s doodle for today.
Looks like magical music day.
No American flags.
No founding fathers stuff.
No red, white and blue.
Some of the libertarians really don’t care if the elderly are tossed out in the streets when Social Security fails. Hey. I don’t like Social Security and would have opted out of it long ago. I’d probably STILL opt out, and I’m nearly eligible to collect. Regardless, I’d do whatever I could to preserve benefits for those who paid into it and are now retired on Social Security. Actually, that’s what you and I have done for decades. We’ve paid in so that others could retire.
Again, I’m all for cutting Social Security over time, and I want the young to have a chance to opt out if they wish. If Social Security is really such a good deal as Democrats claim, surely they wouldn’t oppose letting people choose to enroll, right? It’s such a great deal, plenty of people would still pay in with no ability to pass their contributions on as inheritance or earn anything approaching a normal investment...NOT. And that is exactly why the Democrats won’t open these programs up, because people would opt out in droves. It’s about POWER!
Welfare reform was passed in the 90’s and signed into law by President Clinton. It limited lifetime benefits. I was there when it happened, teaching recipients how to look for work at the state unemployment office. Many of those women finally decided to go to work. BTW, we (taxpayers) had paid for many of them to attend college or trade schools and they “still couldn’t find a job” (in a city with 3% unemployment!) until the law came about. Then, miraculously, they found work. Mr. Obama rescinded those requirements.
Kind of a country-independent independence day, an oxymoron.
SS, if you live to be 80 you will probably take out far more than you put in. Of course if you had conservatively invested that money you would be much better off.
You weren't given that option. Remember the moaning and gnashing of teeth when President Bush tried to allow you to do so with a small percentage of your funds?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.