The welfare state of the 20th century is over

[P@triot]

First we see the rise of the Tea Party. Then even Fidel Castro himself admitted that socialism/communism/liberalism is a failure. And now the king of Holland has proclaimed the welfare state of the 20th Century is "dead".

I guess the left collapsing the world economy has woken up the masses finally. Liberals must be wetting their pants seeing so many finally acknowledging liberalism a failed ideology:

Dutch King Willem-Alexander captured headlines last week when he announced an end to his nation's welfare state. In a solid blow to the leftist gut, the king declared that the "classic welfare state of the second half of the 20th century" was "unsustainable in its current form." It would be replaced, he continued, by a "participation society," in which people are expected "to make their own choices, to arrange their own lives, and take care of each other."

Hail To The King! | The Federalist

Dutch King Willem-Alexander declares 'welfare state of the 20th century over' | Mail Online

 

[boedicca]

Something that can't go on forever won't.

 

[thanatos144]

You are expecting liars and retards to accept commonsense and evidence?????

 

[LordBrownTrout]

They're not going to roll over that easily.

 

[BDBoop]

Well, at least there will be a surge in jobs for burying the dead.

 

[Claudette]

It will be hard to convince people who have been taken care of cradle to grave that they need to stand on their own two feet.

Nope. Won't be easy. After all free is freein their eyes.

 

[bravoactual]

You do know that your living in the 21st. Century right? I mean you have lived in teh 21.st Century since 2001, you do know that right?

 

[Pauli007001]

You do know that your living in the 21st. Century right? I mean you have lived in teh 21.st Century since 2001, you do know that right?

No one said we weren't!!
The welfare state of the 20th century is dead.

ie it has no place in the 21st century.

I've been saying the same since 2000!!

 

[Pauli007001]

Well, at least there will be a surge in jobs for burying the dead.

They won't be dead if they get off their fat lazy arses and get a fucking job, the lazy bastards!!

 

[BDBoop]

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households - Center on Budget and Policy Priorities



Detailed Findings

• In 2010, 91 percent of the benefits provided through entitlement programs went to people who were elderly (65 or older), disabled (receiving Social Security disability benefits, SSI disability benefits, or Medicare on the basis of a disability — all three programs use essentially the same disability standard, which limits eligibility to people with medically certified disabilities that leave them substantially unable to work), or members of a household in which an individual worked at least 1,000 hours during the year. As noted, the 91 percent figure is unchanged if one includes veterans’ and federal retirement programs.
• This analysis defines working households as those in which someone has worked at least 1,000 hours a year. This is a conservative definition. If two household members work more than 1,000 hours between them but no single individual works at least 1,000 hours, we do not classify the unit as a working household.
• We also do not count people receiving unemployment insurance benefits as workers, although such individuals must have amassed a significant work record to qualify for UI. If we include people receiving UI as workers — in other words, if we ask what share of entitlement benefits go to people who are elderly or disabled or receive UI, or are members of households in which an individual works at least 1,000 hours — the share rises from 91 percent to 94 percent. The percentage edges down to 92 percent if we count UI recipients but raise the “hours-of-work threshold” from 1,000 hours of work to 1,500 hours. If we define working households as those in which an individual worked at least 1,500 hours but do not count UI beneficiaries as workers, the percentage declines slightly to 88 percent.[10]
• If we add in the principal discretionary programs that help people meet basic needs (low-income housing, WIC, and LIHEAP) and examine both them and the entitlement and other mandatory programs, the 91 percent figure drops to 90 percent.
• This analysis uses a narrow definition of disability that misses individuals who become disabled so young that they haven’t amassed enough work history to qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance or Medicare, and whose countable household income or assets are over the very low SSI eligibility limits, which are below the poverty line. If we broaden the definition to include other adults who report work-limiting disabilities in the Census survey data, the percentage of benefits going to people who are elderly or disabled or members of working households rises from 91 percent to 92 percent.
• If we look only at means-tested entitlement and other mandatory programs — that is, programs limited to low-income people — the percentage of benefits going to the elderly, the disabled, or working households remains high at 83 percent, a robust percentage for programs that are limited to people with low incomes. This high percentage reflects policy changes in recent decades that have substantially restricted benefits for poor people who lack earnings (other than the elderly and disabled), while increasing assistance for low-income working families with children, especially in the form of tax credits. The 83 percent figure edges down to 82 percent if low-income housing programs, WIC, and LIHEAP are included.
• More than half (53 percent) of entitlement benefits go to seniors.[11] Some 73 percent of the benefits go to people who are elderly or disabled; most of the rest goes to working households.
• The data contradict beliefs that entitlements take heavily from the middle class to give to people at the bottom or that they shower benefits on the very wealthy. The middle 60 percent of the population receives close to 60 percent of the benefits. The top 5 percent of the population receives about 3 percent of the benefits.

 

[Steven_R]

Don't care. We can't afford it collectively and I know I can't afford to keep paying to support anyone else.

 

[BDBoop]

Panera CEO learns about hunger on his food stamp diet - CNN.com

Tens of millions of people, most of whom are elderly or have children, rely on this safety net to help them cope with very difficult situations beyond their control. And we can all acknowledge our shared responsibility to help these fellow citizens survive and ultimately create productive lives of dignity.

Throughout my SNAP Challenge, I kept returning to the same questions: What kind of society do we want to live in? Do we want to live in a country that turns a cold shoulder to the problem of hunger, or one in which we work together to face it head on?

We, in corporate America, must be part of the solution. At Panera, we have tried to stretch ourselves to think of how to address hunger in new ways and challenge others to do the same. We have developed five nonprofit "Panera Cares" community cafes with no set prices and have donated hundreds of millions of dollars in products to food banks. Our view is that unless we at Panera take care of the world that we live in, there won't be any society left to support us.

If the past week has taught me anything, it's that hunger is not a problem of "them," it's a problem of "us." Hunger exists in every community, in every county, in every state. Simply put, this is our problem to solve, and it's time to do so.

 

[Steven_R]

Panera CEO learns about hunger on his food stamp diet - CNN.com

Tens of millions of people, most of whom are elderly or have children, rely on this safety net to help them cope with very difficult situations beyond their control. And we can all acknowledge our shared responsibility to help these fellow citizens survive and ultimately create productive lives of dignity.

Throughout my SNAP Challenge, I kept returning to the same questions: What kind of society do we want to live in? Do we want to live in a country that turns a cold shoulder to the problem of hunger, or one in which we work together to face it head on?

We, in corporate America, must be part of the solution. At Panera, we have tried to stretch ourselves to think of how to address hunger in new ways and challenge others to do the same. We have developed five nonprofit "Panera Cares" community cafes with no set prices and have donated hundreds of millions of dollars in products to food banks. Our view is that unless we at Panera take care of the world that we live in, there won't be any society left to support us.

If the past week has taught me anything, it's that hunger is not a problem of "them," it's a problem of "us." Hunger exists in every community, in every county, in every state. Simply put, this is our problem to solve, and it's time to do so.

The fallacy is that food stamps is supposed to be enough to feed people outright. It isn't. Food stamps are intended to supplement someone's already existing food budget.

 

[Vox]

First we see the rise of the Tea Party. Then even Fidel Castro himself admitted that socialism/communism/liberalism is a failure. And now the king of Holland has proclaimed the welfare state of the 20th Century is "dead".

I guess the left collapsing the world economy has woken up the masses finally. Liberals must be wetting their pants seeing so many finally acknowledging liberalism a failed ideology:

Dutch King Willem-Alexander captured headlines last week when he announced an end to his nation's welfare state. In a solid blow to the leftist gut, the king declared that the "classic welfare state of the second half of the 20th century" was "unsustainable in its current form." It would be replaced, he continued, by a "participation society," in which people are expected "to make their own choices, to arrange their own lives, and take care of each other."

Hail To The King! | The Federalist

Dutch King Willem-Alexander declares 'welfare state of the 20th century over' | Mail Online

"Bolivar, he's plenty tired, and he can't carry double"O'Henry

 

[P@triot]

You do know that your living in the 21st. Century right? I mean you have lived in teh 21.st Century since 2001, you do know that right?

You do know that was the entire point of the article, right?

 

[P@triot]

Panera CEO learns about hunger on his food stamp diet - CNN.com

Tens of millions of people, most of whom are elderly or have children, rely on this safety net to help them cope with very difficult situations beyond their control. And we can all acknowledge our shared responsibility to help these fellow citizens survive and ultimately create productive lives of dignity.

Throughout my SNAP Challenge, I kept returning to the same questions: What kind of society do we want to live in? Do we want to live in a country that turns a cold shoulder to the problem of hunger, or one in which we work together to face it head on?

We, in corporate America, must be part of the solution. At Panera, we have tried to stretch ourselves to think of how to address hunger in new ways and challenge others to do the same. We have developed five nonprofit "Panera Cares" community cafes with no set prices and have donated hundreds of millions of dollars in products to food banks. Our view is that unless we at Panera take care of the world that we live in, there won't be any society left to support us.

If the past week has taught me anything, it's that hunger is not a problem of "them," it's a problem of "us." Hunger exists in every community, in every county, in every state. Simply put, this is our problem to solve, and it's time to do so.

So what is your point there [MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION]? Where did I argue whether or not food stamps are "enough"?

The point is - even giving food stamps at all (regardless of if more is needed) is unsustainable. It really is that simple. If you don't believe me, go talk to our national debt.

 

[P@triot]

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households - Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

[MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION] - lets assume for a second that this information is accurate and not more of the same old tired liberal propaganda. My honest question to you is: so?

So what? If someone is working and not making ends meet, that doesn't give them the right to reach into my pocket.

If their job is not enough, they need to start working a second job. Or they could cut back their spending and unnecessary frivolous luxuries - like their iPhone, BlackBerry, and plasma tv. Or they could start their own business and make more money. The list goes on and on to solve that issue - all of which do not include stealing from me.