Obama’s version of the “Great Society” seems to be flourishing:
Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.
At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.
Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.
I know we debate the meaning of the word “socialist” on this forum quite a bit, but, these Wiki excerpts seem in line with what our President is trying to achieve:
Socialists generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This in turn creates an unequal society, that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential, and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.
. . .
Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), but sometimes oppose each other.
. . .
Modern social democrats also promote tax-funded welfare programs and regulation of markets; many, particularly in European welfare states, refer to themselves as socialists, despite holding pro-capitalist viewpoints, thus adding ambiguity to the meaning of the term “socialist”.
This reminds me of the story of the goose that lays golden eggs…the goose will continue to give us eggs, but if we kill the goose, we will not get anymore golden eggs. Its really that simple.
It seems government can’t do it all, does it not? Given the new spending proposed in congress, I’m afraid we haven’t seen the end of this Donkeycraptm…
These numbers will skyrocket if only because of the large numbers that will be entering the social security rolls. That was expected and has more to do with prolific greatest generation parents, and almost nothing to do with Obama or whomever occupies the white house.
Stimulus and unemployment can certain be pinned on the current occupant and the ruling party.
Obama’s version of the “Great Society” seems to be flourishing:
Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.
At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.
Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.
In other news, it was reported that the Sun rose this morning.
Except that in this case I think our goose is already cooked and we’re now going the way of grease…er Greece, if you’ll pardon my mixing in another couple of metaphors.
Your chart only reflect social security benefits. The article discusses UC, welfare, and other gov’t subsidy programs.
Add to that this little gem:
Data compiled by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis reveals the extent of the pay gap between federal and private workers. As of 2008, the average federal salary was $119,982, compared with $59,909 for the average private sector employee. In other words, the average federal bureaucrat makes twice as much as the average working taxpayer. Add the value of benefits like health care and pensions, and the gap grows even bigger. The average federal employee’s benefits add $40,785 to his annual total compensation, whereas the average working taxpayer’s benefits increase his total compensation by only $9,881. In other words, federal workers are paid on average salaries that are twice as generous as those in the private sector, and they receive benefits that are four times greater.
Except that in this case I think our goose is already cooked and we’re now going the way of grease…er Greece, if you’ll pardon my mixing in another couple of metaphors.
Hopefully, once the EU collapses, some people here in the US will wake up before it is too late.
Of course, the demographic factors at play are not working in our favor, even assuming that some modicum of fiscal discipline returns to Washington.
I pointed it out because social security is roughly $710 billion this year, and that far exceeds any of the other bennies – unemployment, food stamps, etc.
If the cbo numbers at http://www.cbo.gov/budget/factsheets/2010b/OASDI-TrustFunds.pdf can be believed, social security will go something like 708 billion (2010), 734 billion, 768 billion, 805 billion, 844 billion, 886 billion (2014) over the next 5 years, so the trend is going to continue.
You pick the next category. I represent private employers and state and local municipalities. Pick an apples-to-apples job and let’s play.
Do “lawyers” include judges? What percentage of the general population are lawyers? What percentage of federal employees are lawyers? Perhaps you can understand that over-representation in various employment categories can skew the average salaries?
Can you be a little more specific about your point? Looks like the government pays the same as a law firm. Maybe the problem is military spending…at least that’s all I can gather from your comparison.
Can you look up engineer salaries? Most engineers don’t go government because we can make more in the private sector.
On another thread the wingnuts are accusing Obama and the Democrats of being shills for Wall Street hedge fund managers, here they are all socialists. Will you guys make your minds up.
