Is there such a thing as a fair advantage?

[Cow Poke]

A useful article:

Would you agree that the The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities represents a decidedly progressive viewpoint?

So, these "benefit dollars"...

A) What percent of budgeted money actually turns into "benefit dollars" as opposed to cost of administering the programs?

2) I know it's only my tiny myopic world, but I have to wonder why I see so many of these 9 percenters. I'm very actively involved in our local assistance ministries, and we see many cases of people getting money from the government that seems to discourage them from working. Now, I do note that one of the qualifiers in your article is "and do not live in a working household" - so, what is a "working household"? Is it where somebody works, but not necessarily the assistance recipient? Part time?

I know that, when we have our Jobs for Life program, for instance, we usually have several dropouts the first night when they discover it's not a handout program. We have others who, out loud, weigh the difference between the money they receive from government assistance (especially housing) with what they would earn if they actually got a job.

[Sam]

So, these "benefit dollars"...

A) What percent of budgeted money actually turns into "benefit dollars" as opposed to cost of administering the programs?

2) I know it's only my tiny myopic world, but I have to wonder why I see so many of these 9 percenters. I'm very actively involved in our local assistance ministries, and we see many cases of people getting money from the government that seems to discourage them from working. Now, I do note that one of the qualifiers in your article is "and do not live in a working household" - so, what is a "working household"? Is it where somebody works, but not necessarily the assistance recipient? Part time?

I know that, when we have our Jobs for Life program, for instance, we usually have several dropouts the first night when they discover it's not a handout program. We have others who, out loud, weigh the difference between the money they receive from government assistance (especially housing) with what they would earn if they actually got a job.

~2% of welfare recipients still makes for an awful lot of people. That said, the idea that Great Society policies "failed" because they "reward laziness" or discourage people from "getting off their duffs" just ain't true. It's a stale holdover criticism that doesn't reflect where and to whom the vast majority of welfare spending goes.

[Cow Poke]

~2% of welfare recipients still makes for an awful lot of people. That said, the idea that Great Society policies "failed" because they "reward laziness" or discourage people from "getting off their duffs" just ain't true. It's a stale holdover criticism that doesn't reflect where and to whom the vast majority of welfare spending goes.

Yeah, thanks for dealing with my questions. The fact that you assert it must mean it's true.

As you were!

[Sam]

Yeah, thanks for dealing with my questions. The fact that you assert it must mean it's true.

As you were!

Your first question was meaningless in the context of your claim: you didn't claim that Great Society policies have failed because administrative costs were preventing these folk from receiving as much as they needed. In fact, you were claiming that there was too much welfare making it to the recipients. The question in your second paragraph was actually clearly answered in the article I cited. Gotta read the article first.

[Cow Poke]

Your first question was meaningless in the context of your claim.

Never mind, Sam. I really don't care.

[Jedidiah]

A useful article:

Source: Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households. Sherman, Greenstein, Ruffing. CBPP. 2012.02.11

The claim behind these critiques is clear: federal spending on entitlements and other mandatory programs through which individuals receive benefits is promoting laziness, creating a dependent class of Americans who are losing the desire to work and would rather collect government benefits than find a job.


Such beliefs are starkly at odds with the basic facts regarding social programs, the analysis finds. Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled -- and do not live in a working household -- received only 9 percent of the benefits.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

© Copyright Original Source

Keep in mind that the Federal budget and Census numbers include Social Security payments which are not actually entitlement benefits. These are payments based upon input by individuals and employers. They are only included in the tally because the government took all the SS money and spent it elsewhere. You are giving phoney numbers.

[Sam]

Keep in mind that the Federal budget and Census numbers include Social Security payments which are not actually entitlement benefits. These are payments based upon input by individuals and employers. They are only included in the tally because the government took all the SS money and spent it elsewhere. You are giving phoney numbers.

Given that Social Security is just as much "Great Society" as the policies that would come later (Medicare and Medicaid were enacted as part of the Social Security Amendment act of 1965), I fail to see your criticism as particularly meaningful. But if you're claiming that CP's claims about Great Society programs having failed because they promote laziness and discourage work, you'll have to explain how these "phony numbers" are not a sufficient rebuttal.

The chart I included shows that 53% of entitlement benefits went to people 65 years old and above in 2010. The article noted that only ~2% of entitlement spending goes to the non-wealthy, non-disabled, non-working poor. Take out that 53% for the elderly and you're, what, doubling the percentage going to non-working, non-disabled poor to 4%?

That hardly constitutes a failure of Great Society welfare programs.

[Jedidiah]

Never mind.

[Sparko]

Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. We are not all clones of each other, nor would we want to be. I might be better advantages at technical skills, but I am at a disadvantage when it comes to athletics. Someone might be better advantages at physical skills, but disadvantaged in some other area. And so on. Life isn't fair on all points, but it does tend to even out. We are each good at somethings and bad at others. And that diversity is what makes us great.

Trying to take advantages away from someone because someone is jealous and calling it an "unfair advantage" is just wrong on all counts. It would be like me insisting on playing quarterback in highschool, without any physical prowess at all, and then making sure nobody else on the team (and those we played against) were as poor a player as I was.

[Kristian Joensen]

So, Sparko, all advantages are fair?

[Cow Poke]

So, Sparko, all advantages are fair?

I think an "unfair" advantage would be where somebody illegally or unethically rigged the system to benefit or hinder somebody. An athlete taking steroids, for example, gives himself an unfair advantage.

[Cow Poke]

Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. We are not all clones of each other, nor would we want to be. I might be better advantages at technical skills, but I am at a disadvantage when it comes to athletics. Someone might be better advantages at physical skills, but disadvantaged in some other area. And so on. Life isn't fair on all points, but it does tend to even out. We are each good at somethings and bad at others. And that diversity is what makes us great.

Which is why it is wise to assess our own talents, abilities, gifts, strengths, weaknesses --- and pursue goals accordingly. I, for example, can shoot really well, so I have no interest in running.

[fm93]

Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. We are not all clones of each other, nor would we want to be. I might be better advantages at technical skills, but I am at a disadvantage when it comes to athletics. Someone might be better advantages at physical skills, but disadvantaged in some other area. And so on. Life isn't fair on all points, but it does tend to even out. We are each good at somethings and bad at others. And that diversity is what makes us great.

Trying to take advantages away from someone because someone is jealous and calling it an "unfair advantage" is just wrong on all counts.

This would be all well and good if it wasn't such a strawman of what people generally mean in discussions about unfair advantages.

It would be like me insisting on playing quarterback in highschool, without any physical prowess at all, and then making sure nobody else on the team (and those we played against) were as poor a player as I was.

No, it would be like a player who genuinely has the talent to be a great quarterback being denied the opportunity because his parents are too poor to pay the athletic fees and afford the equipment, or because he's short and the coaches assume that one must be tall to succeed as a quarterback. The tall kids who were born to wealthy parents could be said to have an unfair advantage, since being born to wealthy parents and being tall weren't accomplished from anything that they individually did.




And in comparing another concept from this forum, it would be as if the vast majority of people understand that the proper response to those poor-and-short kids having unfair disadvantages is OBVIOUSLY not to take away the wealth and height of the advantaged kids, but rather to acknowledge that unfair disparities exist and to be more inclusive of poor and short kids. But then a certain Internet poster (*coughseercough*) for some reason ignores what the vast majority of people believe, focuses on one vague Internet article that overstates a man's position into thinking that ONE individual believes the response should be to take away from the rich and tall, and then acts as if EVERYONE is advocating for bizarre measures like stealing the wealth from the rich kids and cutting off their feet to make them short.

[Sparko]

So, Sparko, all advantages are fair?

Did I say that?

I would say something like breaking the rules to gain an advantage would be unfair (as long as the rules were fair) - for example taking steroids to gain an advantage in sports. But exercising and lifting weights and training more than others is not unfair.

[Sparko]

Which is why it is wise to assess our own talents, abilities, gifts, strengths, weaknesses --- and pursue goals accordingly. I, for example, can shoot really well, so I have no interest in running.

Which is also why we have SATs and things like that, to help people realize what their strengths and weaknesses are.

It would be a sad world where we all did the same thing, for the same pay.