patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Finally, entitlements like Social Security are called entitlements because people spend their entire working life paying into the system, so they are entitled to get benefits when they retire.

That's really the only entitlement that people actually earn, except for all the deadbeats on Social Security "Disability" AKA the new welfare.

indigenous says

Show me the link to your numbers

No comment on my last post?

sure.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_welfare_spend
California 15% of federal, 19% federal and state combined. Long way from 33% and not very far off population and wealth numbers by state.

What's to comment on about your last post? You are agreeing with my earlier comment that voter fraud is virtually all at the state capital level.

I'm still waiting for some kind of reasonable explanation from anyone how and why illegals would vote in large enough numbers to affect an election. Lot's of ducking on dodging on the question from all the people screaming about it.

zzyzzx says

That's really the only entitlement that people actually earn, except for all the deadbeats on Social Security "Disability" AKA the new welfare.

You don't pay into medicare and unimployment insurance? How is that?

zzyzzx says

Dan8267 says

Finally, entitlements like Social Security are called entitlements because people spend their entire working life paying into the system, so they are entitled to get benefits when they retire.

That's really the only entitlement that people actually earn, except for all the deadbeats on Social Security "Disability" AKA the new welfare.

Total Social Security Disability spending for 2013 was less than $150 billion. See http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2009_2019USb_15s6li111mcn_02f

That's about 18% of what was spent on warfare that year. So even assuming that 100% of Social Security Disability was fraudulent, it would still be peanuts compared to the waste created by war profiteering. And compared to the bank bailout I mentioned earlier, total SS Disability spending isn't even a rounding error.

If you were truly concerned about the money rather than politics, you wouldn't even think about SS Disability while the bank bailouts haven't been clawed back and the warfare spending hasn't been cut by at least 90%.

And all of that doesn't even take into account the fact that there is no evidence that SS Disability fraud counts for more than a few percentage points of the total budget. And that many of the people on SS Disability are vets who got their disabilities in wars. The best way to decrease the need for SS Disability is to stop funding warfare.

bob2356 says

California spends 25 billion in welfare of the 146 billion in welfare payments.

Your chart shows 49 billion?

bob2356 says

What's to comment on about your last post? You are agreeing with my earlier comment that voter fraud is virtually all at the state capital level.

That is what got me thinking and prompted me to post # 199

bob2356 says

I'm still waiting for some kind of reasonable explanation from anyone how and why illegals would vote in large enough numbers to affect an election. Lot's of ducking on dodging on the question from all the people screaming about it.

Controlio made that point. My point is that votes are bought through welfare and gerrymandering and things like Obama bailing out GM while taking care of the union pensions and fucking the bond holders.

Dan8267 says

The largest expense has been the $16 trillion bank bailout sited above. The second largest expense is warfare spending.

Hi Dan,
is this $16t an actual expense? that would be a lot given that the fed budget is around $3t. I thought that there were $16t of loans given to banks, but, they are mostly paid back. And many of the loans were short term, even overnight. Fed lends $2m to a bank for short term cashflow and gets paid back the next day.

for sure there was a bank bailout, and banks can borrow money at 0.25% in a way that normal people can't. Pros and cons. But I am not sure that there was actually $16t handed to the banks.

SiO2 says

is this $16t an actual expense?

According to Forbes, the $16 trillion is an under-reporting of the expense. The actual figure was higher.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/traceygreenstein/2011/09/20/the-feds-16-trillion-bailouts-under-reported/

However, even if all of these were paid back, the banks got to paid interest on this money created out of thin air. And we, the taxpayer, flipped the bill for this interest. Additionally, the currency debasement effectively transferred a lot of wealth to the banks. So this bailout, which is pure corporate welfare for corporations that behaved badly, is way more than any abuse done by the common poor person. And the moral hazard is far greater for letting these banks get away with their criminal behavior.

So, the point is that a person who is concerned about not wasting the finite financial resources of our nation, would be far more concern with this big expenditures than the tiny amount of fraud in social safety nets. When budgeting, you eliminate the largest wasteful spending first.

I suspect that conservatives aren't upset about the money wasted, but about who gets the money, wasted or not. They are fine with big corporations getting huge bailouts, but the idea of a black guy getting a hand up out of poverty pisses them off. Of course, they are completely ignorant as many people on these social programs are white families and veterans.

Dan8267 says

They are fine with big corporations getting huge bailouts

Nope!

Dan8267 says

They are fine with big corporations getting huge bailouts, but the idea of a black guy getting a hand up out of poverty pisses them off.

Not true

zzyzzx says

Dan8267 says

They are fine with big corporations getting huge bailouts

Nope!

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

They are fine with big corporations getting huge bailouts, but the idea of a black guy getting a hand up out of poverty pisses them off.

Not true

Then why do you always vote for politicians who unquestioningly support corporate welfare and bailouts for big banks?

Actions speak louder than words. I'll believe that conservatives truly believe in the free market when they stop subsidizing farms and big oil.

Dan8267 says

I suspect that conservatives aren't upset about the money wasted, but about who gets the money, wasted or not.

Where you wrote "conservatives," I think you meant Republicans. Both major parties have become imperial patronage networks, and complain only when the opposing party wastes money on the opposing network. Democrats lament the expense of the Iraq war, Republicans lament the expense of Obamneycare, but neither side acknowledges its own role in the bipartisan consensus to maximize spending including bailing out TBTF bankers.

BTW, in the aftermath of the 2000 election debacle, a bipartisan commission favored voter ID laws, provided that voters could get the ID at no cost. The commission included former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State and Treasury James Baker. Neither of them is usually called dumb. President Carter had to overcome voter fraud that would have cost him his first election to state Senate, in 1961, and the Carter Center supervises elections around the world. In recent years, voter ID laws have been used by Republicans trying to disenfranchise Democrats, and Democrats have responded stupidly by saying the laws are unnecessary, instead of saying voters should have access to free ID. More than a decade after 2000, Americans continue to rely on a system that many people mistrust: electronic ballots in Ohio with no paper record, voters with no ID, and so on; the risks grow higher as more states decide to cast their electoral votes whichever way the national popular vote goes, for example if Ohio casts 10 billion invisible electronic votes for Richard Daley or Richard Nixon.

Dan8267 says

Then why do you always vote for politicians who unquestioningly support corporate welfare and bailouts for big banks?

The choice between R and D is sort of like head or gut?

The Rs are just as much whores as Ds.

I think if it were possible to for Ls to get publicity they would take from both parties.

But the Soros' ilk make too much money from things the way they are, dumb asses like you are happy to have your world colored as they tell you it is colored.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

California spends 25 billion in welfare of the 146 billion in welfare payments.

Your chart shows 49 billion?

Go to the line that has the totals. I've carefully pointed out the difference in federal and state. Let's try again. Federal only is 25 billion of 146 billion. State and federal combined 48 billion of 250 billion. That's 15% vs 12% population for Federal only and 19% combined which is more generous but California is also one of the wealthiest states. These are in my head numbers so it could be off a percent. Both those numbers are still a long way from 33%.

indigenous says

Controlio made that point. My point is that votes are bought through welfare and gerrymandering and things like Obama bailing out GM while taking care of the union pensions and fucking the bond holders.

Welfare and GM bailout are small potatoes. A hell of a lot more votes were bought (and campaign contributors paid back) with obamacare (the health insurance increased profitablilty act) and medicare D (the pharmacucital increased profitability act) if you want to talk federal level. Not to mention almost unlimited corporate money being thrown around. Business outspends labor 15 to 1. https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/blio.php?cycle=2012 Without this huge spending advantage the republican party would be in deep trouble. Troll through opensecrets.org sometime. The numbers are pretty interesting. Of course we all know those billions of dollars corporations are spending only represent free speech and don't have any affect on legislation whatsoever.

Dan8267 says

Then why do you always vote for politicians who unquestioningly support corporate welfare and bailouts for big banks?

Well Obama and the dems are spearheading the TPP-the biggest free trade zone evah. It will allow corporations to supersede national laws and of course not a single banker went to jail-I think a few years ago Obozo was praising Goldman. Then of course there is the NSA.

I think many voted for Obozo and the dems because they were tired of the status quo. But what they got was not just more of the same-but turbocharged more of the same. if there is someone who seems a bit more true-I would vote for him/her irrespective of their positions on other issues-because this country is in deep trouble. But alas-do not see anyone-perhaps it is time for the American empire to go down. A nation found on the ideals of freedom, now throws more people in jail than any nation on earth-what else can you say.

bob2356 says

Welfare and GM bailout are small potatoes.

Not when it comes to buying votes.

bob2356 says

hell of a lot more votes were bought (and campaign contributors paid back) with obamacare (the health insurance increased profitablilty act) and medicare D (the pharmacucital increased profitability act) if you want to talk federal level.

No doubt, I'm not a R. Not to mention the Lawyers who are staunchly democrat. Anyway O came up with the billion dollar ante.

bob2356 says

Of course we all know those billions of dollars corporations are spending only represent free speech and don't have any affect on legislation whatsoever.

The same thing goes for unions. I don't see in your numbers how much it cost to give jobs away that pay twice what the free market. A number that surely dwarfs the 1.27 billion the R spent in your chart, the Ds are at 883 million are not nothing on this line item.

lostand confused says

Well Obama

Obama is a republican in everything but name.

Support Elizabeth Warren. She's visibly fighting the corporate take-over of America and the rest of the world.

Dan8267 says

Support Elizabeth Warren. She's visibly fighting the corporate take-over of America and the rest of the world.

So was Don Quixote.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Support Elizabeth Warren. She's visibly fighting the corporate take-over of America and the rest of the world.

So was Don Quixote.

Don Quixote is a fictional character. Warren is a U.S. senator.

Dan8267 says

Warren is a U.S. senator

Actually she is not that bad except that she is economically illiterate.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Warren is a U.S. senator

Actually she is not that bad except that she is economically illiterate.

ElizabethWarren
- Harvard Law School professor specializing in bankruptcy law
- Special Advisor for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
- Author of
-- The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke
-- The Fragile Middle Class: Americans in Debt
- U.S. Senator

indigenous
- some random Internet troll

Yeah, I'll go with Warren.

Dan8267 says

Yeah, I'll go with Warren.

You do that.

Warren is wrong with regards to her mantra regarding the war between income quintiles. As I have said many times the quintiles are not occupied by the same people for very long. Secondly she does not realize that the driver in a lower household income is simply divorce.

I might forgive her as she was indoctrinated at Harvard as was Obama (cronies?). But Harvard creates statists.

But your highly degreed Lizzy doesn't address these two common sense points.

I have a point which does not agree with yours but I do not argue for the sake of arguing.

The fact that conservatives are so scared of her is enough to give immense credence to Warren. I've never seen a more visceral reaction from the right to the mere possibility of a person gaining political power. Now that's fear.

Here's what a conservative looks like when he imagines Warren as president.

She's coming. She's coming to get you.

I put you in a two day tailspin twisting in the wind...and this is the best you can come up with?
Still your turn. Try again.

sbh says

SoftShell says

get back to me when you have insults of substance.

C'mon, Limpy, give us some credit.

with you in a tailspin? YES!
sbh says

Counting the days, hmmmm?

Eject the LongJohn from your lips and with a little luck your vowels may self-correct.
sbh says

Oh somebody's got his wittle knickews in a twist.

No. I plan on telling Everybody here.

sbh says

you can tell yourself you put me in two week "tailspin"

I know...you can have her back now...I'm tired.
sbh says

But your balls are still in momma's

indigenous says

The same thing goes for unions. I don't see in your numbers how much it cost to give jobs away that pay twice what the free market. A number that surely dwarfs the 1.27 billion the R spent in your chart, the Ds are at 883 million are not nothing on this line item.

You need to look at the rest of the charts, especially the labor vs corporations campaign contributions.

I don't understand the union thing. Only something like 6% of private workers are union. People in public unions aren't being turned into D's because they got a public job that has a union. People working in public jobs were vast majority D's before they worked for the government, look at the demographics.

Dan8267 says

Here's what a conservative looks like when he imagines Warren as president.

That is nothing we have seen Obama terrorize the country with it's very extinction. You are flattering yourself...

bob2356 says

People in public unions aren't being turned into D's because they got a public job that has a union. People working in public jobs were vast majority D's before they worked for the government, look at the demographics.

In my experience they are democrats because they like the fact that the government takes care of them, yes they are co-opted by the benefits, especially when you add in the irrational group think to the mix.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

People in public unions aren't being turned into D's because they got a public job that has a union. People working in public jobs were vast majority D's before they worked for the government, look at the demographics.

In my experience they are democrats because they like the fact that the government takes care of them, yes they are co-opted by the benefits, especially when you add in the irrational group think to the mix.

So how does that amount to unions buying votes? Which was your original point. Just about all of the people who like the fact that government takes care of them weren't ever going to vote R to start with. Who did public employees unions influence to change their vote?

The holy trinity of 1 percenters, low teeth to tattoo ratio white trash, and neocon wanna be fascists aren't ever voting D. The union carders, ivory tower elitists, and low income government dependants aren't ever voting R.

So any voter influence other than disenfranchising voters like requiring voter id or playing games, purging voter roles or playing games with polling stations has to happen in the middle ground with people who don't have any strong preference. This can either by expensive programs like medicare D aimed at republican voting seniors and obamacare aimed at middle to lower class family democratic voters OR by throwing massive amounts of money, especially the unregulated money, at carpet bombing advertising.

This is where huge amounts of corporate money is actually influencing elections. Go back to the charts (scroll down and find the right chart) and look at the 17 to 1 ratio of corporate spending to labor spending. No one can tell me this isn't swinging middle of the road voters to vote republican who would have voted democrat if not for being bombarded by deceptive ads. Yes I know all politcal ads d or r are deceptive. But throw enough volume of ads out there and you can influence people.

I don't know about you, but I find it very hard to believe the 1% (actually .1%) and the corporations are spending billions to get people elected because they see it as their selfless civic duty out of concern for their fellow citizens. I could be wrong.

bob2356 says

So how does that amount to unions buying votes?

by co opting them.

bob2356 says

Who did public employees unions influence to change their vote?

Same thing

bob2356 says

This is where huge amounts of corporate money is actually influencing elections.

It seems to me that the MO for Rs is to spend the money on K street.

bob2356 says

I don't know about you, but I find it very hard to believe the 1% (actually .1%) and the corporations are spending billions to get people elected because they see it as their selfless civic duty out of concern for their fellow citizens. I could be wrong.

Some do, I think the Koch brothers do.

Fuck if I know...if your old man would only come home more than one night a week, maybe she'd lighten up...
sbh says

Why am I so quick to admit to my momma's a bitch?

I'm sorry, my bad. ....well....maybe not that sorry.

sbh says

Up in Fredericksburg, while I was trying to get it up, I saw my toothless pappy being totally owned by a baglady. For a moment I thought I was in Abilene's shithole but then realized I missed and was actually peering into her grilled cheese sandwich. Must've been extra stress from when you left me twisting in the wind the past couple days.

bob2356 says

The holy trinity of 1 percenters, low teeth to tattoo ratio white trash, and
neocon wanna be fascists aren't ever voting D. The union carders, ivory tower
elitists, and low income government dependants aren't ever voting R.

Correct. I would also add to this that a libertarian who hates "both sides" most likely believes that reps are not conservative enough but still considers them lesser of 2 evils (and hence will vote for a rep) while a progressive leftist believes that democrats are still "corporatists" but will vote for them anyway since they consider them to be lesser of 2 evils vs reps.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

So how does that amount to unions buying votes?

by co opting them.

bob2356 says

Who did public employees unions influence to change their vote?

Same thing

You aren't making any sense. The vast majority of people who would be bureacratice government drones would have voted D anyway. How the hell do you co opt anyone into doing something they would have done anyway.

indigenous says

Some do, I think the Koch brothers do.

Pray tell. I'd like to know how you come up with that opinion when so much of their policital funding activity is totally secret and unaccounted for. No one except the Koch brothers knows who they fund and why.

bob2356 says

You aren't making any sense. The vast majority of people who would be bureacratice government drones would have voted D anyway. How the hell do you co opt anyone into doing something they would have done anyway.

It has to continue to be created or bought especially with people who are easily bought...

bob2356 says

Pray tell. I'd like to know how you come up with that opinion when so much of their policital funding activity is totally secret and unaccounted for. No one except the Koch brothers knows who they fund and why.

I have heard they fund the Cato institute and others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Educational_grants

At their level they all are quite philanthropic.

indigenous says

It has to continue to be created or bought especially with people who are easily bought..

You've been taking logic and grammar lessons from the captain I see.

indigenous says

I have heard they fund the Cato institute and others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Educational_grants

At their level they all are quite philanthropic.

What does their public philanthropic donations have to do with their private and very secretive political donations? I don't have a problem with them funding their political agenda. It's certainly their right under the insane US election laws that allow pretty much unlimited spending.. I have a big problem with their being able to fund their agenda in secret. Soros funds a ton of money to the left. But it's all accounted for and in the public eye.

zzyzzx says

Poor white trash and rednecks have been voting republican for 50 years and they are still poor.

If the Koch Brothers were in Russia, they'd be called "Oligarchs".

bob2356 says

You've been taking logic and grammar lessons from the captain I see.

How so?

bob2356 says

Soros funds a ton of money to the left. But it's all accounted for and in the public eye.

Soros profits off of shorting currency at the expense of the US, Britain, and the Philippines to the tune of billions. But he is ok because it is transparent? If that is what he does in public what is he doing in secret, you don't think a guy like that is clean do you?

That link showed quite a bit, what is secret?