I dunno if you are telling me that 702 billion spreads thin throughout all who are leeching...........are you saying that is something to be proud of? Because what it tells me is, there is a shit load of people leechingTurquoise wrote:
Divide what we spend on welfare by the number of people who use it.lowing wrote:
if you really wanna be disgusted
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usg … 702.701601
at least people are employed at GE, and technology is being developed. What has this welfare budget produced?
but nooo, can't have any outrage for the nanny state.
702,000,000,000 for nothing, compared to 3,000,000,000 that goes to Research and development of new technologies. Yes folks, even if the project is cancelled , what is learned from it does go toward other projects and technologies.
We actually spend relatively little per person on welfare, especially compared to the systems of many of our peers.
My point is that what we spend per person on welfare isn't that much compared to what we spend per person on other things -- like agricultural subsidies and defense spending.lowing wrote:
I dunno if you are telling me that 702 billion spreads thin throughout all who are leeching...........are you saying that is something to be proud of? Because what it tells me is, there is a shit load of people leechingTurquoise wrote:
Divide what we spend on welfare by the number of people who use it.lowing wrote:
if you really wanna be disgusted
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usg … 702.701601
at least people are employed at GE, and technology is being developed. What has this welfare budget produced?
but nooo, can't have any outrage for the nanny state.
702,000,000,000 for nothing, compared to 3,000,000,000 that goes to Research and development of new technologies. Yes folks, even if the project is cancelled , what is learned from it does go toward other projects and technologies.
We actually spend relatively little per person on welfare, especially compared to the systems of many of our peers.
To get a more accurate sense of what is efficient and what isn't, you have to look at per person spending rather than total spending.
It's like the difference between total GDP and median income, when comparing quality of living among different nations.
Last edited by Turquoise (2011-03-28 09:22:40)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 … udget.htmlTurquoise wrote:
My point is that what we spend per person on welfare isn't that much compared to what we spend per person on other things -- like agricultural subsidies and defense spending.lowing wrote:
I dunno if you are telling me that 702 billion spreads thin throughout all who are leeching...........are you saying that is something to be proud of? Because what it tells me is, there is a shit load of people leechingTurquoise wrote:
Divide what we spend on welfare by the number of people who use it.
We actually spend relatively little per person on welfare, especially compared to the systems of many of our peers.
To get a more accurate sense of what is efficient and what isn't, you have to look at per person spending rather than total spending.
It's like the difference between total GDP and median income, when comparing quality of living among different nations.
what we spend on social services, far exceeds what we spend on anything else, when added up, SS, income security, medicare, healthcare etc..
If you have a different link I would like to see it.
With less then 50% of the population having any type of job. What do you think?lowing wrote:
I dunno if you are telling me that 702 billion spreads thin throughout all who are leeching...........are you saying that is something to be proud of? Because what it tells me is, there is a shit load of people leechingTurquoise wrote:
Divide what we spend on welfare by the number of people who use it.lowing wrote:
if you really wanna be disgusted
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usg … 702.701601
at least people are employed at GE, and technology is being developed. What has this welfare budget produced?
but nooo, can't have any outrage for the nanny state.
702,000,000,000 for nothing, compared to 3,000,000,000 that goes to Research and development of new technologies. Yes folks, even if the project is cancelled , what is learned from it does go toward other projects and technologies.
We actually spend relatively little per person on welfare, especially compared to the systems of many of our peers.
And having a job doesn't exclude you from welfare. I bet you're eligible to claim something.
Well yeah, of course. Again, you have to look at per person expenditures. Total expenditures aren't apples to apples, because defense spending (for example) goes to a much smaller pool of people than social services.lowing wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 … udget.htmlTurquoise wrote:
My point is that what we spend per person on welfare isn't that much compared to what we spend per person on other things -- like agricultural subsidies and defense spending.lowing wrote:
I dunno if you are telling me that 702 billion spreads thin throughout all who are leeching...........are you saying that is something to be proud of? Because what it tells me is, there is a shit load of people leeching
To get a more accurate sense of what is efficient and what isn't, you have to look at per person spending rather than total spending.
It's like the difference between total GDP and median income, when comparing quality of living among different nations.
what we spend on social services, far exceeds what we spend on anything else, when added up, SS, income security, medicare, healthcare etc..
If you have a different link I would like to see it.
How exactly do you measure defense spending "per person"?Turquoise wrote:
My point is that what we spend per person on welfare isn't that much compared to what we spend per person on other things -- like agricultural subsidies and defense spending.lowing wrote:
I dunno if you are telling me that 702 billion spreads thin throughout all who are leeching...........are you saying that is something to be proud of? Because what it tells me is, there is a shit load of people leechingTurquoise wrote:
Divide what we spend on welfare by the number of people who use it.
We actually spend relatively little per person on welfare, especially compared to the systems of many of our peers.
To get a more accurate sense of what is efficient and what isn't, you have to look at per person spending rather than total spending.
It's like the difference between total GDP and median income, when comparing quality of living among different nations.
Per employee. Count the number of people employed in the military and then use that as the divisor for spending on training, salaries, etc.Blue Herring wrote:
How exactly do you measure defense spending "per person"?Turquoise wrote:
My point is that what we spend per person on welfare isn't that much compared to what we spend per person on other things -- like agricultural subsidies and defense spending.lowing wrote:
I dunno if you are telling me that 702 billion spreads thin throughout all who are leeching...........are you saying that is something to be proud of? Because what it tells me is, there is a shit load of people leeching
To get a more accurate sense of what is efficient and what isn't, you have to look at per person spending rather than total spending.
It's like the difference between total GDP and median income, when comparing quality of living among different nations.
For the expenses toward contractors, divide by the employees involved in the project.
What a silly comparison. One is providing a service while the other is providing CO2. Are you really trying to make the argument that since so much money is spent on a per-soldier/sailor/marine/airman basis we need to spend more per welfare recipient? Or that it's somehow justified? Please. Weak argument and absurd comparable.Turquoise wrote:
Per employee. Count the number of people employed in the military and then use that as the divisor for spending on training, salaries, etc.Blue Herring wrote:
How exactly do you measure defense spending "per person"?Turquoise wrote:
My point is that what we spend per person on welfare isn't that much compared to what we spend per person on other things -- like agricultural subsidies and defense spending.
To get a more accurate sense of what is efficient and what isn't, you have to look at per person spending rather than total spending.
It's like the difference between total GDP and median income, when comparing quality of living among different nations.
For the expenses toward contractors, divide by the employees involved in the project.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
That's not what I was arguing.Jay wrote:
What a silly comparison. One is providing a service while the other is providing CO2. Are you really trying to make the argument that since so much money is spent on a per-soldier/sailor/marine/airman basis we need to spend more per welfare recipient? Or that it's somehow justified? Please. Weak argument and absurd comparable.Turquoise wrote:
Per employee. Count the number of people employed in the military and then use that as the divisor for spending on training, salaries, etc.Blue Herring wrote:
How exactly do you measure defense spending "per person"?
For the expenses toward contractors, divide by the employees involved in the project.
I was pointing out that what we spend per person on welfare is relatively little. I wasn't saying we should spend more on it.
My general stance is that people target welfare for criticism without really thinking about how little we actually spend per person to maintain it.
Yes, the military is a vital function of government. However, so is a social safety net.
If we were spending equally as much per person on welfare as we spend per person on the military, then you'd have more of an argument to decrease welfare spending.
Our welfare system is not a "social safety net." Not in its current form. And considering that we spend more on social programs than on defense, simple math would tell you we spend more on social programs per person than we spend on military per person.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Oh lowing you so silly.
We wouldn't have to spend that much on Welfare if the rich weren't so greedy and would employ americans again instead of going to some third world country to get dirt cheap labor.
We wouldn't have to spend that much on Welfare if the rich weren't so greedy and would employ americans again instead of going to some third world country to get dirt cheap labor.
Is there something wrong with a company paying what a job is worth? Or was it supposed to be the companies responsibility, and not yours, to make sure you had a good living? If you didn't think the job paid enough, you were free to NOT apply for it, I think. With unions artificially inflating an employees worth, to where it cuts into profits, I do not blame companies from seeking cheaper labor elsewhere.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Oh lowing you so silly.
We wouldn't have to spend that much on Welfare if the rich weren't so greedy and would employ americans again instead of going to some third world country to get dirt cheap labor.
I am not sure "per person" is an all that important stat. Even if it was, spending 12,500 per person a year, without really buying anything, can not be as desirable as spending 15,000 a year per person and actually getting something.Turquoise wrote:
Well yeah, of course. Again, you have to look at per person expenditures. Total expenditures aren't apples to apples, because defense spending (for example) goes to a much smaller pool of people than social services.lowing wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 … udget.htmlTurquoise wrote:
My point is that what we spend per person on welfare isn't that much compared to what we spend per person on other things -- like agricultural subsidies and defense spending.
To get a more accurate sense of what is efficient and what isn't, you have to look at per person spending rather than total spending.
It's like the difference between total GDP and median income, when comparing quality of living among different nations.
what we spend on social services, far exceeds what we spend on anything else, when added up, SS, income security, medicare, healthcare etc..
If you have a different link I would like to see it.
Like my wife's logic that buying something she never wanted or needed for 50% off is a great deal, where as all she really did was waste 50% of what she coulda saved or put toward something she did want or need.
Well, I suppose if you lump all social programs together (regardless of differences in who they serve and what purposes they serve), you could say that.FEOS wrote:
Our welfare system is not a "social safety net." Not in its current form. And considering that we spend more on social programs than on defense, simple math would tell you we spend more on social programs per person than we spend on military per person.
That wouldn't be a very accurate way of measuring things though.
Fuck it, you're right. Social Darwinism ftw.lowing wrote:
I am not sure "per person" is an all that important stat. Even if it was, spending 12,500 per person a year, without really buying anything, can not be as desirable as spending 15,000 a year per person and actually getting something.Turquoise wrote:
Well yeah, of course. Again, you have to look at per person expenditures. Total expenditures aren't apples to apples, because defense spending (for example) goes to a much smaller pool of people than social services.lowing wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 … udget.html
what we spend on social services, far exceeds what we spend on anything else, when added up, SS, income security, medicare, healthcare etc..
If you have a different link I would like to see it.
Like my wife's logic that buying something she never wanted or needed for 50% off is a great deal, where as all she really did was waste 50% of what she coulda saved or put toward something she did want or need.
Just like old times..... the eternal argument that goes nowhere.
I take it you think I endorse an every man for himself approach and attitude. I said nothing or endorse nothing of the sort.Turquoise wrote:
Fuck it, you're right. Social Darwinism ftw.lowing wrote:
I am not sure "per person" is an all that important stat. Even if it was, spending 12,500 per person a year, without really buying anything, can not be as desirable as spending 15,000 a year per person and actually getting something.Turquoise wrote:
Well yeah, of course. Again, you have to look at per person expenditures. Total expenditures aren't apples to apples, because defense spending (for example) goes to a much smaller pool of people than social services.
Like my wife's logic that buying something she never wanted or needed for 50% off is a great deal, where as all she really did was waste 50% of what she coulda saved or put toward something she did want or need.
Just like old times..... the eternal argument that goes nowhere.
I have made my position perfectly clear. Social services should be used to help those that help themselves, or those that can not. Why is it so hard to admit that is what I have said? Now, if and when you acknowledge what I have always maintained and expressed, you may then address that, and if you choose, explain how society should burden itself catering to those that choose not to contribute through responsible decision making and responsible actions on their part. Realizing that, by doing so, does take even more money and potential assistance away from people whose lives are affected by circumstances beond their control.
So, was addressing what I actually said something you are willing to do?
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-29 07:30:57)
It's cyclical. I heard an interesting spiel from an economist on a community radio program last week, it went something like this.lowing wrote:
Is there something wrong with a company paying what a job is worth? Or was it supposed to be the companies responsibility, and not yours, to make sure you had a good living? If you didn't think the job paid enough, you were free to NOT apply for it, I think. With unions artificially inflating an employees worth, to where it cuts into profits, I do not blame companies from seeking cheaper labor elsewhere.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Oh lowing you so silly.
We wouldn't have to spend that much on Welfare if the rich weren't so greedy and would employ americans again instead of going to some third world country to get dirt cheap labor.
When unemployment is low, the employee holds more power because there are greater job opportunities. Then Unions are more powerful as a result as they have a larger base (employees) to use as leverage to push for workplace reforms and better pay. Companies then have two options: reduced profits or increase the price of products/services. You have more tax revenue going into the economy as you have a larger work force, but inflation rises as a result.
When unemployment is high, the employee has less power as jobs are more scarce, so they will take work conditions on the chin more and not push for better pay or working conditions. This also increases the strain on the welfare system as obviously there are more people out of work, but with less income tax dollars going into the economy inflation is lowered.
I'm not including interest rates into this scenario, but you get the gist of it.
Either way you argue it, there a positives and negatives to any given scenario.
Interesting so it only takes the people on the top to make a company? The investors have more to do with the success of a company then the labor. Well in my world the people who do the work to make a good product are the reason it's successful. We're going to end up having the same fate as England, Libya and Egypt soon.lowing wrote:
Is there something wrong with a company paying what a job is worth? Or was it supposed to be the companies responsibility, and not yours, to make sure you had a good living? If you didn't think the job paid enough, you were free to NOT apply for it, I think. With unions artificially inflating an employees worth, to where it cuts into profits, I do not blame companies from seeking cheaper labor elsewhere.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Oh lowing you so silly.
We wouldn't have to spend that much on Welfare if the rich weren't so greedy and would employ americans again instead of going to some third world country to get dirt cheap labor.
I know you worked your way up from the ghetto and didn't have any financial backing growing up but most people don't have the same opportunities. I hope our kids aren't as lazy as we think they are, they really need to push for change. Most college kids end up paying up the ass for school and going into a dead market, and it's only going to get worse. We have this thing called the American "Dream" and that's all that it is a Dream that has been ripped out from under us due to the greed of the politicians and unethical business practices of Big Business.
Also Lowing if you had 50 billion dollars would you try to reinvest it into YOUR country or would you hoard it all?
Call me a Patriot, but I'd rather improve the life of my neighbor then hoard money.
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2011-03-29 08:49:49)
Yes the investors, and the decisions of the companies leadership has more to do with the companies success than the guy that just applied for a job with that company. Sorry. Hate to be the buzz kill here folks, but it does not take a rocket scientist to put a bolt in a hole. Whatever employee does that, is replaceable.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Interesting so it only takes the people on the top to make a company? The investors have more to do with the success of a company then the labor. Well in my world the people who do the work to make a good product are the reason it's successful. We're going to end up having the same fate as England, Libya and Egypt soon.lowing wrote:
Is there something wrong with a company paying what a job is worth? Or was it supposed to be the companies responsibility, and not yours, to make sure you had a good living? If you didn't think the job paid enough, you were free to NOT apply for it, I think. With unions artificially inflating an employees worth, to where it cuts into profits, I do not blame companies from seeking cheaper labor elsewhere.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Oh lowing you so silly.
We wouldn't have to spend that much on Welfare if the rich weren't so greedy and would employ americans again instead of going to some third world country to get dirt cheap labor.
I know you worked your way up from the ghetto and didn't have any financial backing growing up but most people don't have the same opportunities. I hope our kids aren't as lazy as we think they are, they really need to push for change. Most college kids end up paying up the ass for school and going into a dead market, and it's only going to get worse. We have this thing called the American "Dream" and that's all that it is a Dream that has been ripped out from under us due to the greed of the politicians and unethical business practices of Big Business.
Also Lowing if you had 50 billion dollars would you try to reinvest it into YOUR country or would you hoard it all?
Call me a Patriot, but I'd rather improve the life of my neighbor then hoard money.
and when were you promised that your "American Dream" was a right owed to you by govt.? If you spend 100,000 dollars in school for a market that doesn't give a shit about your resume, you want to blame the private sector? How about this, how about blame yourself for not going to school for a career that is in demand?
If I had 50 billion dollars, I would invest it in something that was going to net me a return. Stocks in a company, for example, would help that company grow, who might just employ my neighbor. Ahhhh but let me guess, you would GIVE your neighbor 5 million so he does not HAVE to go to work right? I mean with 5 million why should he? Ya might wanna think about htis as well. People just don't stumble across 50 billion dollars. It got to be 50 billion from growing a lesser amount. Sound investing is where you get 50 billion, not from giving it away to your neighbor.
I love how in your scenario I just HAD 50 billion dollars. With no mention of where I got it, or what sacrifices I had to make or risks I had to take to get it......I JUST HAD IT!!
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-29 11:52:04)
It's no different than how you chose to measure it, then elected to change the measure when comparing defense, effectively weighting the comparison in favor of the "safety net" no matter what. I'm simply using the same standard for comparison.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I suppose if you lump all social programs together (regardless of differences in who they serve and what purposes they serve), you could say that.FEOS wrote:
Our welfare system is not a "social safety net." Not in its current form. And considering that we spend more on social programs than on defense, simple math would tell you we spend more on social programs per person than we spend on military per person.
That wouldn't be a very accurate way of measuring things though.
Plus, you have to lump it all together. What do you think the $702B consists of?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Well, of course we spend more per employee on defense than on welfare. One requires people of a specialized field and the other supplies people who do nothing for it. If we spent as much per person on welfare than we do on defense, then anyone who works for the Department of Defense would be making less than welfare recipients. Why bother working for the DoD then? Might as well just get on welfare.Turquoise wrote:
Per employee. Count the number of people employed in the military and then use that as the divisor for spending on training, salaries, etc.Blue Herring wrote:
How exactly do you measure defense spending "per person"?Turquoise wrote:
My point is that what we spend per person on welfare isn't that much compared to what we spend per person on other things -- like agricultural subsidies and defense spending.
To get a more accurate sense of what is efficient and what isn't, you have to look at per person spending rather than total spending.
It's like the difference between total GDP and median income, when comparing quality of living among different nations.
For the expenses toward contractors, divide by the employees involved in the project.
Not to mention the technology required. What kind of technology does welfare require?
Last edited by Blue Herring (2011-03-29 13:47:54)
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 3#p3493583Blue Herring wrote:
Well, of course we spend more per employee on defense than on welfare. One requires people of a specialized field and the other supplies people who do nothing for it. If we spent as much per person on welfare than we do on defense, then anyone who works for the Department of Defense would be making less than welfare recipients. Why bother working for the DoD then? Might as well just get on welfare.Turquoise wrote:
Per employee. Count the number of people employed in the military and then use that as the divisor for spending on training, salaries, etc.Blue Herring wrote:
How exactly do you measure defense spending "per person"?
For the expenses toward contractors, divide by the employees involved in the project.
Not to mention the technology required. What kind of technology does welfare require?
So what you're saying is that, even if we ensured that every single program that qualifies as spending on entitlements was associated with the exact number of people benefiting from it and made an equivalent comparison using military spending on each separate program with the people they benefit, we spend more per person on entitlements?FEOS wrote:
It's no different than how you chose to measure it, then elected to change the measure when comparing defense, effectively weighting the comparison in favor of the "safety net" no matter what. I'm simply using the same standard for comparison.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I suppose if you lump all social programs together (regardless of differences in who they serve and what purposes they serve), you could say that.FEOS wrote:
Our welfare system is not a "social safety net." Not in its current form. And considering that we spend more on social programs than on defense, simple math would tell you we spend more on social programs per person than we spend on military per person.
That wouldn't be a very accurate way of measuring things though.
Plus, you have to lump it all together. What do you think the $702B consists of?
If that really is true, then we must do a horrible job of implementing social programs. We have one of the least comprehensive social safety nets among the developed world. We don't even have an NHS.
So, if we actually do spend more on entitlements per person than we do per person on the military, then our system truly is a failure when looking at our poverty rates and crime rates.
I saw that, but again, it's not really relevant. We're never going to spend as much per welfare recipient than we do per DoD employees, even if there's just one employee.Turquoise wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 3#p3493583Blue Herring wrote:
Well, of course we spend more per employee on defense than on welfare. One requires people of a specialized field and the other supplies people who do nothing for it. If we spent as much per person on welfare than we do on defense, then anyone who works for the Department of Defense would be making less than welfare recipients. Why bother working for the DoD then? Might as well just get on welfare.Turquoise wrote:
Per employee. Count the number of people employed in the military and then use that as the divisor for spending on training, salaries, etc.
For the expenses toward contractors, divide by the employees involved in the project.
Not to mention the technology required. What kind of technology does welfare require?
I would bet that would be true if we took what was spent on military etc per person and subtract what those people GIVE back in productivity that THATY number would be lower than what we give in welfare per person and get nothing backTurquoise wrote:
So what you're saying is that, even if we ensured that every single program that qualifies as spending on entitlements was associated with the exact number of people benefiting from it and made an equivalent comparison using military spending on each separate program with the people they benefit, we spend more per person on entitlements?FEOS wrote:
It's no different than how you chose to measure it, then elected to change the measure when comparing defense, effectively weighting the comparison in favor of the "safety net" no matter what. I'm simply using the same standard for comparison.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I suppose if you lump all social programs together (regardless of differences in who they serve and what purposes they serve), you could say that.
That wouldn't be a very accurate way of measuring things though.
Plus, you have to lump it all together. What do you think the $702B consists of?
If that really is true, then we must do a horrible job of implementing social programs. We have one of the least comprehensive social safety nets among the developed world. We don't even have an NHS.
So, if we actually do spend more on entitlements per person than we do per person on the military, then our system truly is a failure when looking at our poverty rates and crime rates.