By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM and ROBERT GEBELOFF
LINDSTROM, Minn. — Ki Gulbranson owns a logo apparel shop, deals in jewelry on the side and referees youth soccer games. He makes about $39,000 a year and wants you to know that he does not need any help from the federal government.
He says that too many Americans lean on taxpayers rather than living within their means. He supports politicians who promise to cut government spending. In 2010, he printed T-shirts for the Tea Party campaign of a neighbor, Chip Cravaack, who ousted this region’s long-serving Democratic congressman.
Yet this year, as in each of the past three years, Mr. Gulbranson, 57, is counting on a payment of several thousand dollars from the federal government, a subsidy for working families called the earned-income tax credit. He has signed up his three school-age children to eat free breakfast and lunch at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.
There is little poverty here in Chisago County, northeast of Minneapolis, where cheap housing for commuters is gradually replacing farmland. But Mr. Gulbranson and many other residents who describe themselves as self-sufficient members of the American middle class and as opponents of government largess are drawing more deeply on that government with each passing year.
Dozens of benefits programs provided an average of $6,583 for each man, woman and child in the county in 2009, a 69 percent increase from 2000 after adjusting for inflation. In Chisago, and across the nation, the government now provides almost $1 in benefits for every $4 in other income.
Older people get most of the benefits, primarily through Social Security and Medicare, but aid for the rest of the population has increased about as quickly through programs for the disabled, the unemployed, veterans and children.
The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year.
And as more middle-class families like the Gulbransons land in the safety net in Chisago and similar communities, anger at the government has increased alongside. Many people say they are angry because the government is wasting money and giving money to people who do not deserve it. But more than that, they say they want to reduce the role of government in their own lives. They are frustrated that they need help, feel guilty for taking it and resent the government for providing it. They say they want less help for themselves; less help in caring for relatives; less assistance when they reach old age.
The expansion of government benefits has become an issue in the presidential campaign. Rick Santorum, who won 57 percent of the vote in Chisago County in the Republican presidential caucuses last week, has warned of “the narcotic of government dependency.” Newt Gingrich has compared the safety net to a spider web. Mitt Romney has said the nation must choose between an “entitlement society” and an “opportunity society.” All the candidates, including Ron Paul, have promised to cut spending and further reduce taxes.
The problem by now is familiar to most. Politicians have expanded the safety net without a commensurate increase in revenues, a primary reason for the government’s annual deficits and mushrooming debt. In 2000, federal and state governments spent about 37 cents on the safety net from every dollar they collected in revenue, according to a New York Times analysis. A decade later, after one Medicare expansion, two recessions and three rounds of tax cuts, spending on the safety net consumed nearly 66 cents of every dollar of revenue.
The recent recession increased dependence on government, and stronger economic growth would reduce demand for programs like unemployment benefits. But the long-term trend is clear. Over the next 25 years, as the population ages and medical costs climb, the budget office projects that benefits programs will grow faster than any other part of government, driving the federal debt to dangerous heights.
Americans are divided about the way forward. Seventy percent of respondents to a recent New York Times poll said the government should raise taxes. Fifty-six percent supported cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Forty-four percent favored both.
Support for spending cuts runs strong in Chisago, where anger at the government helped fuel Mr. Cravaack’s upset victory in 2010 over James L. Oberstar, the Democrat who had represented northeast Minnesota for 36 years.
“Spending like this is simply unsustainable, and it’s time to cut up Washington, D.C.’s credit card,” Mr. Cravaack said in a February speech to the Hibbing Area Chamber of Commerce. “It may hurt now, but it will be absolutely deadly for the next generation — that’s our children and our grandchildren.”
But the reality of life here is that Mr. Gulbranson and many of his neighbors continue to take as much help from the government as they can get. When pressed to choose between paying more and taking less, many people interviewed here hemmed and hawed and said they could not decide. Some were reduced to tears. It is much easier to promise future restraint than to deny present needs.
“How do you tell someone that you deserve to have heart surgery and you can’t?” Mr. Gulbranson said.
He paused.
“You have to help and have compassion as a people, because otherwise you have no society, but financially you can’t destroy yourself. And that is what we’re doing.”
He paused again, unable to resolve the dilemma.
“I feel bad for my children.”
Middle-Class Blues
Mr. Gulbranson has tried several ways to make a living in the storefront he bought from his father in 1979. He ran a gift shop, then shifted to selling jewelry. Nine years ago, he moved the gold scales to the back and bought equipment for screen-printing clothing. Through it all, he has never made more than about $46,000 in a year.
Meanwhile, the cost of life — and of raising five children — has climbed inexorably.
“I used to go out and try to have a meal at Perkins, which is a restaurant here, and get out of the store with $5,” Mr. Gulbranson said. “And now it’s probably up to $10.”
In recent years he has earned so little that he did not pay federal income taxes, although he still paid thousands of dollars toward Medicare and Social Security. The earned-income tax credit is intended to offset those payroll taxes, to encourage people with lower-paying jobs to remain in the work force.
Mr. Gulbranson said the money covered the fees for his children’s sports leagues and the cost of keeping the older ones on the family’s car insurance.
“If we didn’t get these government things, then probably my kids could not participate in some of the sports they do,” he said.
Almost half of all Americans lived in households that received government benefits in 2010, according to the Census Bureau. The share climbed from 37.7 percent in 1998 to 44.5 percent in 2006, before the recession, to 48.5 percent in 2010.
The trend reflects the expansion of the safety net. When the earned-income credit was introduced in 1975, eligibility was limited to households making the current equivalent of up to $26,997. In 2010, it was available to families making up to $49,317. The maximum payout, meanwhile, quadrupled on an inflation-adjusted basis.
It also reflects the deterioration of the middle class. Chisago boomed and prospered for decades as working families packed new subdivisions along Interstate 35, which runs up the western edge of the county like a flagpole with its base set firmly in Minneapolis. But recent years have been leaner. Per capita income in Chisago excluding government aid fell 6 percent on an inflation-adjusted basis between 2000 and 2007. Over the next two years, it fell an additional 7 percent. Nationally, per capita income excluding government benefits fell by 3 percent over the same 10 years.
Mr. Gulbranson’s business struggled as other companies, particularly construction firms, stopped ordering logo-emblazoned shirts. In 2009, the family claimed the earned-income credit for the first time on the advice of their accountant, who was claiming it for herself. The share of local families claiming the credit climbed 33 percent between 2000 and 2008, the most recent year for which data are available.
To make extra money, Mr. Gulbranson refereed 40 soccer games on Tuesday and Thursday nights last fall. His wife sold clothes at equestrian events and air-brushed novelties at craft fairs, driving around the country with a one-ton trailer hitched to a 20-foot van.
Their difficulties, Mr. Gulbranson said, have made it hard to imagine asking anyone to pay higher taxes.
“I don’t think most people could bear to pay more,” he said.
Instead, he said he would rather give up the earned-income credit the family now receives and start paying for school lunches for his children.
“I don’t demand that the government does this for me,” he said. “I don’t feel like I need the government.”
How about Social Security? And Medicare? Can he imagine retiring without government help?
“I don’t think so,” he said. “No. I don’t know. Not the way we expect to live as Americans.”
A Starring Role
Bob Kopka and his wife often drive to the American Legion hall in North Branch on Thursday nights, joining the crowd gathered in the basement bar for the weekly meat raffle. Almost everyone present relies on the government to pay for their medical care.
Mr. Kopka, 74, has had three heart procedures in recent years. His wife recently had surgery to remove cataracts from both eyes.
Without Medicare, Mr. Kopka said, the couple could not have paid for the treatments.
“Hell, no,” he said. “No. Never. She would have to go blind.”
And him?
“I’d die.”
Few federal programs are more popular than Medicare, which along with Social Security assures a minimum quality of life for older Americans.
None are more central to the nation’s financial problems. The Congressional Budget Office projects that government spending on medical benefits, even taking into account the cost containment measures in the 2010 health care law, will rise 60 percent over the next decade. Then it will start rising even more quickly. The cost of caring for each beneficiary continues to increase, and the government projects that Medicare enrollment will grow by roughly one-third as baby boomers enter old age.
Spending on medical benefits will account for a larger share of the projected increase in the federal budget over the next decade than any other kind of spending except interest payments on the federal debt.
Medicare’s starring role in the nation’s financial problems is not well understood. Only 22 percent of respondents to the New York Times poll correctly identified Medicare as the fastest-growing benefits program. A greater number of respondents, 27 percent, chose programs for the poor. That category, which includes Medicaid, is slightly larger than Medicare today but is projected to add only half as much to federal spending over the next decade.
Medicare’s financial problems are much worse than Social Security’s. A worker earning average wages still pays enough in Social Security taxes to cover the benefits the worker is likely to receive in retirement, according to an analysis by the Urban Institute. Social Security is still running out of money because the program must also support spouses who do not work and workers who earn lower wages. But Medicare’s situation is even more dire because a worker earning average wages still contributes only $1 in Medicare taxes for every $3 in benefits likely to be received in retirement.
A woman who was 45 in 2010, earning $43,500 a year, will pay taxes that will reach a value of $87,000 by the time she retires, assuming the money is invested at an annual interest rate 2 percentage points above inflation, according to the Urban Institute analysis. But on average, the government will then spend $275,000 on her medical care. The average is somewhat lower for men, because women live longer.
Medicare is often described as an insurance program, but its premiums are not nearly high enough. In simple terms, Americans are getting more than they pay for.
But many older residents in Chisago say this problem belongs to younger generations. They paid what they were told; they want to collect what they were promised.
Some, like the Kopkas, have savings they can tap. Mr. Kopka still owns the landscaping business he started after leaving the Navy in the early 1960s. He and his wife own a three-bedroom home on three acres, valued by the county at $153,700. The mortgage is paid. They hope to pass the house to their children.
Others have nothing else. Barbara Sullivan, 71, moved last year to the apartments above the Chisago County Senior Center in North Branch. Waiting on a recent Friday for the hot lunch, which costs $3.50, she watched roughly 20 people play bingo for prizes including canned soup and Chef Boyardee pasta.
“Most of the seniors around here are struggling to make it,” she said.
She counts herself among them. She lives on $1,220 a month in Social Security benefits and relied on Medicare to pay for an operation in November.
She believes that she is taking more from the government than she paid in taxes. She worries about the consequences for her grandchildren. She said she would like politicians to propose solutions.
“We’re reasonable people,” she said. “We’re not going to say, ‘Give it to me and let my grandchildren suffer.’ I think they underestimate seniors when they think that way.”
But she cannot imagine asking people to pay higher taxes. And as she considered making do with less, she started to cry.
“Without it, I’m not sure how I would live,” she said. “With the check I’m getting from Social Security, it’s a constant struggle on making sure that I pay my rent and have enough left for groceries.
“I haven’t bought a Christmas present, I haven’t bought clothing in the last five years, simply because I can’t afford it.”
Keeping a Promise
Representative Cravaack often says he entered politics to lift the burden of debt from the shoulders of his two sons.
“I vision that I open up their backpacks and I put in a 50-pound rock and zip it back up again,” Mr. Cravaack told the Minnesota Freedom Council in October 2010. “And I say, ‘Sorry, son, you’re going to have to hump this the rest of your life.’ Because that’s exactly what we’re doing to our national debt right now to our children.”
Mr. Cravaack, a 53-year-old Navy veteran and a retired pilot for Northwest Airlines, was grounded by sleep apnea in 2007. He and his wife, an executive at the drug company Novo Nordisk, decided he would stay home with their sons. He soon became the first man to serve as president of the Chisago Lakes Parent Teacher Organization.
In August 2009, while driving the children to North Branch, he heard a talk radio host urging people to protest President Obama’s health care legislation. Mr. Cravaack and about two dozen others spent more than two hours the next day in Mr. Oberstar’s North Branch office before a staff member told them the congressman would not meet them. The rejection convinced Mr. Cravaack that Mr. Oberstar should be replaced. One of the other protesters, a woman who had taken her six children to the office, became Mr. Cravaack’s campaign scheduler.
Two weeks after speaking to the Freedom Council, he beat Mr. Oberstar by 1.6 percentage points, or 4,407 votes. Voters in Chisago, the southern tip of an expansive district, provided the margin of victory.
“We have to break away,” Mr. Cravaack told supporters, “from relying on government to provide all the answers.”
Mr. Cravaack has said he drew unemployment benefits during a furlough from Northwest in the early 1990s. He did not respond to several requests for an interview, nor to an e-mail with questions about his views and about whether his family has drawn on other benefits programs. This account is based on a review of his public statements.
Shortly after arriving in Congress, Mr. Cravaack voted with a vast majority of House Republicans for a plan to remake Medicare by providing money to its beneficiaries to buy private insurance. Senate Democrats have rejected that plan.
But Mr. Cravaack has also consistently said the government should not reduce its largest category of spending — benefits for the current generation of retirees. He also says he does not support cuts for people who will turn 65 over the next decade.
“If you’re 55 years and older, you don’t have to listen to this conversation because we have to keep those promises,” Mr. Cravaack told The Daily Caller last April. “People like myself, 52, if you’re 54 or younger, we’re going to have a conversation.”
Tomorrow, Tomorrow
The government helps Matt Falk and his wife care for their disabled 14-year-old daughter. It pays for extra assistance at school and for trained attendants to stay with her at home while they work. It pays much of the cost of her regular visits to the hospital.
Mr. Falk, 42, would like the government to do less.
“She doesn’t need some of the stuff that we’re doing for her,” said Mr. Falk, who owns a heating and air-conditioning business in North Branch. “I don’t think it’s a bad thing if society can afford it, but given the situation that our society is facing, we just have to say that we can’t offer as much resources at school or that we need to pay a higher premium” for her medical care.
Mr. Falk, who voted for Mr. Cravaack, said he did not want to pay higher taxes and did not want the government to impose higher taxes on anyone else. He said that his family appreciated the government’s help and that living with less would be painful for them and many other families. But he said the government could not continue to operate on borrowed money.
“They’re going to have to reduce benefits,” he said. “We’re going to have to accept it, and we’re going to have to suffer.”
One of the oldest criticisms of democracy is that the people will inevitably drain the treasury by demanding more spending than taxes. The theory is that citizens who get more than they pay for will vote for politicians who promise to increase spending.
But Dean P. Lacy, a professor of political science at Dartmouth College, has identified a twist on that theme in American politics over the last generation. Support for Republican candidates, who generally promise to cut government spending, has increased since 1980 in states where the federal government spends more than it collects. The greater the dependence, the greater the support for Republican candidates.
Conversely, states that pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits tend to support Democratic candidates. And Professor Lacy found that the pattern could not be explained by demographics or social issues.
Chisago has shifted over 30 years from dependably Democratic to reliably Republican. Support for the Republican presidential candidate has increased relative to the national vote in each election since 1984. Senator John McCain won 55 percent of the vote here in 2008.
Residents say social issues play a role, but in recent years concerns about spending and taxes have predominated.
Voters in the North Branch school district have rejected increased financing for local schools in each of the past three years. In 2010, the district switched to a four-day school week, striking Monday from the calendar to save money.
Some of the fiercest advocates for spending cuts have drawn public benefits. Many, like Mr. Falk, have family members who rely on the government. They often cite that personal experience as the reason they want to cut government spending.
Brian Qualley, 49, has a sister who survived a brain tumor but was disabled by its removal. The government pays for her care at an assisted-living facility. Their mother scrapes by on Social Security.
Mr. Qualley said that the government should provide for those who need help, but that too much money was being wasted. Mr. Qualley, who owns a tattoo parlor in Harris, north of North Branch, said some of his customers paid with money from government disability checks.
“They’re getting $300 or $400 tattoos, and they’re wearing nice new Nike shoes that I can’t afford,” he said, looking up from working a complicated design into the left leg of a middle-aged woman. “I guess I shouldn’t say it because it’s my business, but I think a tattoo is a little too extravagant.”
But Mr. Qualley said he did not want to reduce benefits for the current generation of retirees. Rather, he said his own generation should get less, because they have time to prepare. This is a common position among the young and healthy in Chisago.
Mr. Qualley said he was saving some money for retirement, although, he added, “I don’t have a 401(k) or anything like that.”
“I also have a job that I don’t necessarily ever want to — or have to — retire from,” he said.
What if his hands start to shake as he gets older?
“Actually,” he said, the electric needle falling silent in his hand, “it’s my shoulders and neck that bother me most.”
Safety in Numbers
Barbara Nelson has little patience for people who say they will not need government help. She considers herself lucky she has not, and obligated to provide for those who do.
“Catastrophes happen in life,” she said, sitting in a coffee shop in Taylors Falls. “To be so arrogant that you think it won’t happen to you, that somehow you’re going to be one of the special ones, I disagree with that.”
Ms. Nelson, 61, who describes herself as a centrist Democrat, also dismisses the claim that people cannot afford to pay more taxes.
“Anyone who can come into a coffee shop and buy coffee is capable of paying more,” she said. “If someone’s life can be granted, in terms of adequate health care, if that means I give up five cups of coffee a month, that is a small price to pay.”
Gordy Peterson, 62, who has used a wheelchair for 30 years since a construction accident, has reluctantly reached a similar conclusion.
“I’m a conservative,” he said by way of introducing himself. He built his own house before his injury and paid for it in cash. He still thinks the government should operate that way. He never intended to depend on federal aid and said he sometimes felt guilty about it.
But for the last three decades, he has received a regular check from the Social Security disability insurance program, and Medicare has helped to pay his medical bills.
“Here I’m getting money, and everybody is struggling,” he said. “Even though it ain’t no cakewalk for me.”
Mr. Peterson used a workers’ compensation settlement to buy a farm that he managed with his brother-in-law, who is mentally handicapped and also on government disability.
“He was my legs, and we worked it,” Mr. Peterson said.
They grew corn, soybeans and rye, and even kept steers for a while. In good years they earned enough to live on. In bad years they lived on the government’s checks. Life would have been very difficult without them, he said.
Mr. Peterson, an easygoing man who looks down when he thinks and smiles sheepishly when he offers an opinion, looked down after completing the story of his own dependence on the safety net.
“It’s hard to beat up on the government when they’ve been so good to you,” he finally said. “I’ve never really thought about it, I guess.”
Lately, the government has been very good, indeed. The county, with federal financing, bought a corner of Mr. Peterson’s farm to build a new interchange for Interstate 35. He used the money to open a gas station at the edge of the farm in 2008 to serve the traffic that rolls off the new ramp. The business is prospering, and he no longer worries that he will need to depend on Social Security.
“But you can’t take that away,” he said. “My own sister has only Social Security. That’s all. That’s all she’s going to have. And if you take that away from her, Christ, she’d be a street person. I don’t think we can cut them off on that.”
How about higher taxes?
Maybe a little higher, he said. Maybe.
“I’m glad I’m not a politician,” he said. “We’re all going to complain no matter what they do. Nobody wants to put a noose around their own neck.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: February 14, 2012
A chart on Sunday with the continuation of an article about increased federal aid for the middle class contained a map that designated North Carolina as one of the states won by Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. In fact, President Obama won that state. (In the 100 counties with the highest dependence on federal aid, Mr. McCain won two-thirds of them.)
38 comments:
I agree with Ki Gulbranson too many Americans use the government’s financial help when they don't need it. If the government would raise the standards in which they give financial help to that would also cut down on the government spending. I think the financial help should go to very low income home instead of middle class homes. If the government helps the lower class it will help the middle and the higher classes too. I will help the economy grow and things will balance out.
Yes, there are too many people depending on taxpayers' money. People simply need to learn how to live inside their wage value and make the most of their paycheck. It is about time for the government to cut government spending and to stop giving out samples to people who simply to don't want to work. In our society there are people who need help surviving this economy but the way to get the financial help should come through a more strict process, not just filling out a few forms and waiting for money that could go to something more useful like giving aid to our school systems.
There are many problems in our economy right now, and tax cuts cannot fix all of them. Social Security is very important to the elderly who can no longer work and have worked all their lives to earn it. There are 65 year old members of my family who went back to work because they can't make it on Social Security alone, so I agree that most of the tax cuts should go to the elderly.
Gilbranson has the right idea by saying that government needs to cut spending, and that too many people rely on welfare at the taxpayer's expense. However, Gilbranson also has his kids enrolled in a free/reduced lunch program funded by the government. In addition to that, he is currently counting on recieveing thousands of dollars from the government. The fact that this once "welfare critic" is now "welfare dependent" just goes to show that the current state of the econonmy is driving more and more people to rely on government handouts. Although seeming hypocritical, Gilbranson has a point. By criticizing the overwhelming amounts of welfare that has been handed out over the past couple of years, Gilbranson was in fact being critical of the people who are welfare dependent for the sole purpose of sheer laziness and lack of motivation. Gilbranson, on the other hand, works several jobs and in addition is a private business owner. To make matters worse, President Obama has put many stress-inducing constraints on small business owners. The fact that this hard working man has become partially welfare dependent shouldn't undermine all of his continuing hard work and determination. The monetary support of which he is recieving from the government is negligible compared to the ridiculous amounts blindly handed out to the feeble drags on society.
Gilbranson has the right idea by saying that government needs to cut spending, and that too many people rely on welfare at the taxpayer's expense. However, Gilbranson also has his kids enrolled in a free/reduced lunch program funded by the government. In addition to that, he is currently counting on recieveing thousands of dollars from the government. The fact that this once "welfare critic" is now "welfare dependent" just goes to show that the current state of the econonmy is driving more and more people to rely on government handouts. Although seeming hypocritical, Gilbranson has a point. By criticizing the overwhelming amounts of welfare that has been handed out over the past couple of years, Gilbranson was in fact being critical of the people who are welfare dependent for the sole purpose of sheer laziness and lack of motivation. Gilbranson, on the other hand, works several jobs and in addition is a private business owner. To make matters worse, President Obama has put many stress-inducing constraints on small business owners. The fact that this hard working man has become partially welfare dependent shouldn't undermine all of his continuous hard work and determination. The monetary support of which he is recieving from the government is negligible compared to the ridiculous amounts blindly handed out to the feeble drags on society.
I don't understand why Mr.Gulbranson applied for tax credit and why even though he is well able to pay for his children's lunches he has them on the free reduced lunch program. And not to mention the fact that he is very against people getting undeserved benefits. I also feel that it has become far too easy to "steal" from Medicare, and for that i blame the Federal Government. I think there should be more oversight on Medicare
I dont understand why Mr.Gulbranson has his children on the free lunch program, although he can well afford to pay for their lunches. And he also makes it very apparent that he is against people getting undeserved benefits. I also think it is becoming entirely too easy to "steal" from Medicare and for that i blame the Federal Government.
While it is noble to attempt to economically exist without the help of the Government, this is very unrealistic. The US Government plays a role in every aspect of our life, and it would be better served to find a way in which the individuals and the Government could form in a symbiotic relationship. The answer is not to completely separate, but to learn to coexist.
Many of the people in need of help like Mr. Gulbranson are complaining that others are not living within their means even though he believes that “If we didn’t get these government things, then probably my kids could not participate in some of the sports they do”. He would rather pay for his kids sports then pay for things more important like food or insurance does that sound like someone living with in there means? It is a sad thing that more and more people are complaining that the government is spending too much on benefit programs that they themselves would not be able to live without.
I believe that a lot of people don't realize that the free money handed out by the government has to come from somewhere whether it is passed on to us in the future or a tax on some other hard working citizen.
What is the point of this article? All I saw was a bunch of people talking and a whole lot of numbers that did not really mean anything to me. I guess it is because I do not go through and pay my own taxes and I do not have a job that makes me not understand why these people are complaining, but I just want to say that no matter what the politicans do, there will always be people to complain.
It is hard to define how big a safety net should be. The parameters should not be based on how much money you do or do not make if you are poor. The poor people who are benefiting from the safety net should be chosen based on how hard they are working to conquer their poverty. A poor family enjoying the meager benefits of government hand outs should receive less help than a poor family who is trying to give their children more opportunities by working hard. Raising taxes or cutting social security and medicare are not enough and will never be enough if the workers are idle or unwilling to do their part in conquering poverty.
I believe that it is a good thing that we look out for all American citizens in terms of health care. The are some obvious examples in this article about the benefits of these programs and who they help. BUT, by constantly helping others we are going to drive our economy into the ground. I'm sorry but there should be a limit to how many free open heart surgeries that you can hand out to one man before you tell him "tough luck sir, you're going to have to come up with the money or just die". It sounds horrible but this is the only way we can teach personal responsibility and set government spending back on track.
The safety net is not working like it should. People are having to rely more on it, and this causes problems for future generations who pay for these expenses. Apparently a lot of the money is being given to Americans who do not need it which only worsens the problem. They need to change the spending in a way that there will be enough for the future generations and give what they can to the people of today
It seems that this article, offering the emotional roller coasters of normal Americans, offers an overly complicated problem. I don't know much about math, but it seems like the government should spend what it is earning. Medicare and Social Security have to receive as much from an individual over the course of their lifetime as that individual receives in retirement. If the government needs more money, it should raise taxes. If politicians can't stand to do this, they should spend less.
I don't believe in this because the government needs to quit spending our money at our expense.
This is an excellent article. But what is it going to take to wake millions of people up who depend upon the government (we live in a society, not a libertarian fantasy) to accept that and stop enabling the plutocrats who want to divide and impoverish us? What is it going to take to get these folks in Chicago and elsewhere to wake up? Look at the NY Times interactive map: it's not the "urban" folks who are utterly dependent upon government, as Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul would have you believe, but millions of Americans in rural and suburban America who are. It's not in Chicago, which is constantly demonized by the right. It's not Massachusetts or Connecticut or New Jersey or California, which John Kasich viciously mocked as being full of "whackadoodles." Yet again and again, the GOP pushes its divisive fantasy and these folks in rural and suburban areas eat it up.
I found this article interesting. But, I found the maps even more interesting. It seems the "redder" the state, the more dependent this state is on federal programs, with one notable exception: unemployment compensation. The article does confirm that since 1979, the rich got richer, the middle class got poorer and incomes are not keeping pace with real costs. It also confirms that tax cuts, and so called "trickle down economics" is an abject failure. If it was not for Social Security (retirement and disability), EIC, and Unemployment Insurance, the poverty rate and destitution would be significantly higher. The biggest cost saver the government can do is follow the Canadian model in regards to reigning in drug/medical equipment costs. Also, eliminate the social Security tax ceiling and double the Medicare payroll tax. Finally, rework the tax code to reduce deductions, increase the number of brackets and have a higher range for tax rates. The conservative plan is a failure.
It's disheartening to know that an increasing number of people in the United States depend on government aid, which include the people part of the middle class. I think the government needs to increase their social help programs. An increase in that doesn't mean the country is becoming socialist, it just means the country is trying to help its citizens. The government needs to start allocating its funds properly, or we'll have even more people in this situation in the future.
People don't want to keep depending on Outside Aid they haven't earned, even though they need it. Cutting government spending might just be exactly what this country needs, noting how the debt keeps rising. The future generations don't want to have to shoulder all of the responsibility of the previous ones' spoiled way of life. All I can say is that I sure hope some good new American novels come out of this era as I'm itching for some new good reads.
We all need help, but some of us need more than others. The government is taking money from the poor instead of helping them out. The rich really dont need that much help, as the rest of the people. Most people depend on financial help from the government. Like the older people that have been hurt and can't work or some have been hurt by serving their country and come back unable to work. However why should we help someone that doesn't need it, and not help someone in need?
I think the United States is now on a very slippery slope. Toes are going to be stepped on either way. It's hard to know what is the right thing to do. In a struggling economy, everyone is having financial difficulties. As the cost of living is rising, the middle class is suffering. It is obviously that we have a problem, but we don't have an easy solution. Some people do actually need government aid while others abuse it. It's difficult to distinguish one from another.
I can understand why some people feel guilty for taking the money from the government when they don't need it. The government is giving money to people that can take care of themselves and their family members and leaving the people that actually need help with out a dime. In my opinion the government is wasting money and giving it to the people that don't need it, while there's people that actually need it. Like Gulbranson for example has his own business and is making enough money for himself and his family, and yet the government is giving him money. There's other people that are unemployed or they just simply don't have a good paying job but yet the government is giving them nothing!!!
When discussing goverment benifits we should always keep in mind that the goverment is not giving us anything that was not alrady ours. Also there are many private companies out there that provide the same services as the government without being a burden on society. However, government envolvment in insurance and a messed up court system do not allow private companies to do as well as they could. While I do not agree with the premise of this artical, I do think it proves that once you have big government it is nearly imposible to shrink it.
I understand why people like to address this issue while in my opinion i believe this is not a big deal.
The issue of what should be done about taxes is an issue that doesn't really have one right answer to it i believe, personally, that ideas like flat taxes is completely outrageous but that doesnt mean it would not work for a certain type of economy.
I think US Economy has been facing a lot of issues in the past decay but it is starting to grow into a satisfactory situation in the near future so i believe we should stop arguing about simple things like this and actually get to work on serious problems like the non-military way to negotiate with syria.
As said in the article, the social safety net of the United States places a significant strain on the government; the government spends more money on social security than it is receiving in revenue. This gap between revenue and spending is especially sensitive in the shaky economy and suboptimal debt situation we are in. It doesn't help that politics handcuffs congress; lawmakers are reluctant to cut social safety net benefits or raise taxes in fear of losing the next election. The resulting "freezing" of revenue from taxes and the growing size of those dependent upon social benefits may eventually crush the entire social safety system.
I do agree that some people have become to dependent on the government safety net and don't spend within their own limits. It is understandable to use the governments resources when you really need it but if your just using them because their there then that's stupid. People need to learn to spend within their revenues and leave the safety net for the people that really need it and who it was meant for which is the more elderly generation.
I think that a lot of middle class Americans who say that they do not need the government's money and that people who depend on the government's money should not be are hypocritical. Almost every American depends on government at one point in their life, whether it be Medicare, Social Security, or welfare. Government spending is nothing new in America, the difference is that people are living longer, causing them to rely on our government for money longer, usually with Social Security and Medicare. The problem that most middle class Americans have with government spending is about welfare. They feel that their money should not go to people who did not earn it. If the money that was spent on welfare was used to give benefits to them, the "middle class", they would not be so against government spending.
Also, why is Chicago spelled with a "s" instead of a second "c" in this article?
I think that a lot of middle class Americans who say that they do not need the government's money and that people who depend on the government's money should not be are hypocritical. Almost every American depends on government at one point in their life, whether it be Medicare, Social Security, or welfare. Government spending is nothing new in America, the difference is that people are living longer, causing them to rely on our government for money longer, usually with Social Security and Medicare. The problem that most middle class Americans have with government spending is about welfare. They feel that their money should not go to people who did not earn it. If the money that was spent on welfare was used to give benefits to them, the "middle class", they would not be so against government spending.
Also, why is Chicago spelled with a "s" instead of a second "c" in this article?
I can see both sides of this piece. I know that lots of people get help from the government and i think sometimes that yes, they DO need the hand out. For instance the handicapped and old people. But then I see people with 5 kids at the grocery store buying nothing but, ramen noodles, and junk food. While my parents budget is about $100 a week for the four of us and no, they don't buy ramen noodles! The other side is government does issue out more money than it brings in. What if Congress had to live on a budget like most people? How would they decide who gets money and how much? So many politicians say lets lower taxes and clean up what is wrong with America, but I want to know HOW they will REALLy DO THAT. It seems impossible when everyone hates everyone else. I Plan on voting in the election this fall, my parents say if I don"t vote I can't complain. I don't mind telling you that I have no ideal who I will vote for because the way I see it , everyone says what people want to hear and when they get into office they do what they want and don't listen to the people who who put them there. So, I don't know if this is what you wanted but this is how I feel. :]
Should we abandon our modern conveniences for financial security? Or should we continue our comfortable, arguably necessary, but incredibly expensive way of life? There is no right answer, and I certainly don't have it. Sacrifices will have to be made for the greater good.
I feel that most middle class Americans are hypocritical when it comes to government spending. They want the government to stop "giving out handouts" to the poor and homeless, but they want to keep their Social Security, Medicare, and other benefits because they feel that they "deserve" them. If the government spent the money the used for welfare on the middle class, they would not complain about government spending as much. The problem is that Americans are living longer as time goes on, causing them to rely on Medicare and Social Security for a longer time period. This puts a strain on our government's budget that has not always been there.
Also why does the article spell Chicago with a "s" instead of a second "c"?
I think it is kind of funny how the ones who do not agree with the government being involved in their lives but will continue to use government assistance, like Medicare. Either you don't want help from the government or you do. If the government did not offer government assistance, the ones who would have the MOST problems would be the elderly and babies. Of course the government being involved in every one's daily life does not always have it perks. It's kind of difficult for people to decide what they want the government to be involved in and what not to be involved in.
There are two decisions that citizens must make when it comes to aid. Either take the government's help of don't. But don't blame the government for the invisible ceiling above your head. If you want to change the outcome of your life, then do something about it. Stop taking government aid and try to make a difference in your lifestyle. But to other who cannot change the outcome of their life, government aid is there to help. Safety nets are good thing, people need to stop being so prideful and just take the aid that they need.
The main point of this article is that people are saying government spending should be cut down from what it is. Many of the people within this article are receiving government funding for Medicare or other things. These federal finances helped pay for a new heart or eye surgery, yet these people are still complaining. Yes, government spending is a bad thing and everyone realizes that it will be harder to live without the money, but most haven't even tried to live without it, and frankly I highly doubt a majority of them could get by. There has to be another solution, but complaining about a good deed is not the way to get there. Also, if government spending gets cut, what happens to education? America is already behind China, do we really need to be further behind in math and other subjects? The people who depend a lot on government spending and are still complaining about it should try living without it for awhile and see what happens. They will be in for a big surprise.
I agree with this article that we are facing two severe problems: the increasing federal deficit and the choice to either raise taxes or decrease benefits. Like the article said, we cannot continue to live by means of borrowing money, but to cease borrowing brings into question the second problem. We also cannot raise taxes without some people going under, or decrease benefits without refusing surgery and medicine to those who cannot afford it. Neither of those options is okay. Instead, I think that we need to look closely at why healthcare is so expensive that many middle class people cannot afford it. My current doctor said that at least a third of revenue pays his malpractice insurance. Though he has never been accused of malpractice, he worries that if he ever made a mistake (mistakes happen to everyone), he would not be able to pay a $100,000 or more settlement. And regarding drugs, there are so many commercials that go something like “if you or someone you know has been of victim of insert drug, insert drug, or insert drug, you may be entitled to financial compensation”. If someone was injured by the effects of a drug, they are of course entitled to be compensated, but it’s ludicrous that I’ve seen ten commercials like this in the last week encouraging people to sue. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies would be able to charge less for services and drugs if we moved away from this lawsuit culture and stopped trying to pile as many people as possible on to inflated settlements.
Also, our tax brackets are really skewed. We cannot raise taxes on the people who cannot afford to pay more, or we’re just exacerbating the problem we attempt to solve through taxation. The tax rate should be more for those who can comfortably afford to pay more, which would further help close the gap without increasing our debt to a point of no return. Government money directed to supplement families’ income should be allowed to do only that: provide for what a family needs and cannot afford. Tattoos, iPhones, etc. do not fall under this category. Maybe a better idea would be to give families a sort of debit card that would only allow transactions for groceries, clothing, and other things people need. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect people to spend the money issued them by government on the things they received the money to be able to pay for. Perhaps that would close the gap a little bit more. It’s going to have to be a combination of things to solve this issue.
With the benefit of government aid comes the loss of privacy, and in this case, pride. I respect their want to support themselves without financial aid from the government, but in reality everyone receives compensation from the government, whether it's in the form of tax cuts or a reduced lunch program. I respect the people in this article because they still have a good work ethic and don't completely rely on the government. I think a lot of people become too dependent on the government for help, and that's where the debate of taxing the rich to give to the needy comes in.
WOW! Americans are increasingly more hypocritical. Maybe people like Mr. Gulbranson don't realize that if one depends on a government subside, that means they also depend on said government and the safety net. $39K is a little above the average for the middle class in America. Now unless you make less than a middle class family, dependence on the government for income shouldn't be necessary.The safety net was intended for to keep families from poverty, and if the middle class keeps draining it, there will be nothing for the lower class!
Post a Comment