Threads on other people FB Timelines
In a thread on a friend's FB timeline, there is a thread about the dangers that Donald Trump represents to our nation's future. One poster wrote some things that demand a response, but the required response will be too long for FB. So I'm going to post his words here and then respond:
"What's truly "scary" is how many people read and believe the biased left media propaganda rather than truly learning and understanding the real issues that will actually effect our future generations. That is clear in the responses to this post. Not a single republican candidate wants to "wage war around the globe", "reverse Roe vs. Wade", or "eliminate gay marriage"..."
Later in that post, that writer made reference to "unlimited giveaway programs" provided by the Obama Administration and when asked to give examples, posted this:
"...here are a few example but don't look to see it covered by the leftist media anytime soon. Foodstamps grew from $23B to $90B under Obama in 7 short years and he would like to grow it more (look it up). Interesting when it was $0 in 1960 that we now need to spend $90B a year, don't you think?. Disability giveaways are at an all time high now, robbing the social security trust and our seniors future. Personally I've paid close to $400K in social security and paid income taxes on all of that, and will likely not see it in old age. People are moving off of unemployment and onto permanent disability for things like "anxiety, stress, obesity." Both programs are rampant with fraud and freeloaders, but the dems love it and make the access easier and easier. If a republican tries to "trim" foodstamp expenditures back by $5M, the dems scream "racism and trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor", and Obama vetoes it. I know, I know....it's "the economy" and Bush caused it. It's really not worth having the discussion with liberals. Fiscal conservatives and liberals just think very differently. Self reliance, or the lack there of, is the main philosophical difference."
Let's start with "...rather than truly learning and understanding..." and talk about the reference to SNAP spending growing from $23B to $90B under President Obama in 7 short years. That's a distortion of the facts. SNAP spending in FY 2008 (which ended in September of 2008, just a few months before President Obama was inaugurated) was actually $39 billion. That's a 50% understatement of the reality by this poster. In FY 2013, five year later, SNAP spending peaked at $80 billion, not $90 billion. It has been falling since. So rather than nearly quadrupling as this writer wants you to believe, it had more than doubled. Considering the things that happened to our nation's economy following the collapse of the housing market, that isn't surprising.
It also wasn't just that more people had need because of the recession. It was that more of the eligible population began using the benefits. In a study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a non-profit think-tank, we learn that only 69% of the 37 million eligible for SNAP in 2007 were taking advantage of the program. At the peak in 2013, there were 51 million eligible for SNAP and the participation level had risen to 85%. What that says about the Obama Administration is that it went out and educated people so they could take advantage of a program they were entitled to.
Entitlement is used by people like this writer as a pejorative label. It isn't. It merely means that someone is receiving something that are legally eligible to receive. My mother gets her Social Security retirement benefits because she earned them by working for all of her adult life. At 77 she is still working because those benefits aren't quite enough to live on and major medical expenses not covered by Medicare or private insurance have drained her retirement savings.
Now let's deal with the other major falsehood promulgated by this writer. "Disability giveaways are at an all time high now, robbing the social security trust and our seniors future. Personally I've paid close to $400K in social security and paid income taxes on all of that, and will likely not see it in old age."
Disability is not a giveaway. It is an entitlement. It isn't robbing the "Social Security Trust Fund" when one learns that the reality is there are two separate trust funds in the U. S. Treasury. One to cover Old Age (retirement) benefits and a separate one to cover Disability benefits.
This writer claims to have personally paid almost $400,000 into Social Security. I find that very difficult to believe. If a person began in 1966, earned the maximum income subject to FICA and counted both the employee and employer halves of the maximum FICA contribution, they'd have only contributed $325,472 over those 50 years of working. Do you want to modify that claim of yours, sir?
The Disability claim system does have fraud. So do the Medicare, Income Tax and just about every other system of government payments. You don't stop a program completely because of the fraud, you address the fraud.
In short, these claims aren't just misleading, they're outright lies.
"What's truly "scary" is how many people read and believe the biased left media propaganda rather than truly learning and understanding the real issues that will actually effect our future generations. That is clear in the responses to this post. Not a single republican candidate wants to "wage war around the globe", "reverse Roe vs. Wade", or "eliminate gay marriage"..."
Later in that post, that writer made reference to "unlimited giveaway programs" provided by the Obama Administration and when asked to give examples, posted this:
"...here are a few example but don't look to see it covered by the leftist media anytime soon. Foodstamps grew from $23B to $90B under Obama in 7 short years and he would like to grow it more (look it up). Interesting when it was $0 in 1960 that we now need to spend $90B a year, don't you think?. Disability giveaways are at an all time high now, robbing the social security trust and our seniors future. Personally I've paid close to $400K in social security and paid income taxes on all of that, and will likely not see it in old age. People are moving off of unemployment and onto permanent disability for things like "anxiety, stress, obesity." Both programs are rampant with fraud and freeloaders, but the dems love it and make the access easier and easier. If a republican tries to "trim" foodstamp expenditures back by $5M, the dems scream "racism and trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor", and Obama vetoes it. I know, I know....it's "the economy" and Bush caused it. It's really not worth having the discussion with liberals. Fiscal conservatives and liberals just think very differently. Self reliance, or the lack there of, is the main philosophical difference."
Let's start with "...rather than truly learning and understanding..." and talk about the reference to SNAP spending growing from $23B to $90B under President Obama in 7 short years. That's a distortion of the facts. SNAP spending in FY 2008 (which ended in September of 2008, just a few months before President Obama was inaugurated) was actually $39 billion. That's a 50% understatement of the reality by this poster. In FY 2013, five year later, SNAP spending peaked at $80 billion, not $90 billion. It has been falling since. So rather than nearly quadrupling as this writer wants you to believe, it had more than doubled. Considering the things that happened to our nation's economy following the collapse of the housing market, that isn't surprising.
It also wasn't just that more people had need because of the recession. It was that more of the eligible population began using the benefits. In a study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a non-profit think-tank, we learn that only 69% of the 37 million eligible for SNAP in 2007 were taking advantage of the program. At the peak in 2013, there were 51 million eligible for SNAP and the participation level had risen to 85%. What that says about the Obama Administration is that it went out and educated people so they could take advantage of a program they were entitled to.
Entitlement is used by people like this writer as a pejorative label. It isn't. It merely means that someone is receiving something that are legally eligible to receive. My mother gets her Social Security retirement benefits because she earned them by working for all of her adult life. At 77 she is still working because those benefits aren't quite enough to live on and major medical expenses not covered by Medicare or private insurance have drained her retirement savings.
Now let's deal with the other major falsehood promulgated by this writer. "Disability giveaways are at an all time high now, robbing the social security trust and our seniors future. Personally I've paid close to $400K in social security and paid income taxes on all of that, and will likely not see it in old age."
Disability is not a giveaway. It is an entitlement. It isn't robbing the "Social Security Trust Fund" when one learns that the reality is there are two separate trust funds in the U. S. Treasury. One to cover Old Age (retirement) benefits and a separate one to cover Disability benefits.
This writer claims to have personally paid almost $400,000 into Social Security. I find that very difficult to believe. If a person began in 1966, earned the maximum income subject to FICA and counted both the employee and employer halves of the maximum FICA contribution, they'd have only contributed $325,472 over those 50 years of working. Do you want to modify that claim of yours, sir?
The Disability claim system does have fraud. So do the Medicare, Income Tax and just about every other system of government payments. You don't stop a program completely because of the fraud, you address the fraud.
In short, these claims aren't just misleading, they're outright lies.
posted by me at 11:58 AM
<< Home