Cutting entitlements would increase poverty

[dajoki]

Posted on Sun, Oct. 16, 2011
David Wilson: Cutting entitlements would increase poverty
By David Wilson
http://www.kansas.com/2011/10/16/2064204/cutting-entitlements-would-increase.html



There is a so-called "supercommittee" working in Washington, D.C., right now that is considering proposals behind closed doors that would shift health care costs onto seniors and cut their Social Security checks. Instead of focusing on cutting waste and tax loopholes, they're treating seniors like we're just another budget number to cut.

But here is something you may not know. If the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security cuts are made, it will have shocking impacts on poverty rates in Kansas and nationwide.

Given our economic environment, it is no surprise that poverty rates are skyrocketing. Between 2009 and 2010, 20,000 more Kansans were added to the poverty ranks, and the percentage of Kansans living in poverty rose to 14.3 percent.

What's more, 7.7 percent of Kansas adults age 65 or older were considered poor by the federal guidelines. (By the way, the U.S. Census Bureau defines a family of two adults, 65-plus, who have a total household income of $13,194 as being in poverty.)

Another important fact you need to know: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are very important in reducing poverty in America. Figures from 2008 show that Kansas' poverty rate for those 65-plus would have increased from 7 percent to 44.5 percent without Social Security income. Nationally, in 2010, 14 million additional older adults would be poor without Social Security, which would quintuple the number of people aged 65 and older living in poverty.

<<snip>>

In these tough economic times, Washington shouldn't cut the benefits seniors have worked for and depend on. Cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits could dramatically increase seniors' health care costs, threaten their access to doctors and hospitals and reduce the benefit checks they rely on to pay the bills. Even more important, it would drive the poverty rates up in this country to unacceptable levels.

Hubert H. Humphrey, vice president and presidential candidate in the 1960s, once said, "The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2011/10/16/2064204/cutting-entitlements-would-increase.html#ixzz1ayLCOnDI

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. ...

[Warpy]

2. It will also remove money from the larger economy

People who have no money to spend buy nothing but food, shelter, basic clothing (at thrift shops) and just enough utilities to keep the lights on for a few hours and the pipes from freezing.

They don't spend money in the larger economy, reducing demand for all sorts of goods and services and costing jobs.

Reducing social spending sabotages the larger economy while forcing people into worse than penury.

[msongs]

3. umm we pay INTO those things, they are not entitlements Mr. Wilson nt

[pacalo]

4. Exactly. We paid into this system with every paycheck & it is A REQUIREMENT - not an ENTITLEMENT -

that we receive payback for our retirement. They pulled a bank run on our funds & now that it's time to pay off, they're calling it welfare?!

[dajoki]

6. I agree n/t

[RebelOne]

7. It is an entitlement. I paid into Social Security for over 50 years

and I am entitled to that money, which I am now collecting.

[pacalo]

11. Yeah, well, the Republicans have hijacked the definition of "entitlement" to mean "handout".

[dajoki]

13. Exactly!! n/t

[RebelOne]

21. Well, so what? I am still happy to be collecting that handout. n/t

[dionysus]

24. it'd be best if we didn't let the gop hijack words at will.

[dajoki]

25. That is the truth n/t

[pacalo]

29. While you're at it, you might instruct the media as well. Good luck with that.

[dkf]

5. Medicare pays 4x the amount people contribute to it.

It is the source of most of our future growth in spending.

Forget trying to keep Medicare as is and try fixing the healthcare system. Keeping the system as is and trying to cover the skyrocketing costs is futile.

[girl gone mad]

10. Costs should be addressed.

The solution does not lie in cutting benefits and forcing people to suffer or go without needed care.

I know that you know by now that our government can't run out of money and is always capable of covering the costs of these programs.

[dkf]

16. By punishing savers through inflation. Sure.

[girl gone mad]

18. Inflation does not follow directly from government spending.

Inflation is the result of too many dollars chasing too few goods and services.

As long as we have high unemployment and an excess of productive capacity, inflation will remain low on our list of concerns.

Barring a significant trade surplus, government spending is the only means by which the private sector can increase its savings, by the way. It's also the only way we can get out of the recession caused by excessive private debt creation from Wall Street's securitization and derivatives binge.

[dkf]

19. I agree with you that in certain environments like now it is relatively benign.

But you can't rely on that in perpetuity, whereas the debt we are amassing and plan to amass is only going to get bigger and bigger.

What do you think about the economics behind this piece... Is the author legit?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2977 

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2983 

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2984

[girl gone mad]

20. Our debts can easily be paid.

Our government does spend inappropriately and government malinvestments create many separate issues. However, the US government is not financially constrained. As the author you link to notes, the true constraints on our spending are resource limitations. This, and not the debt, is what people should worry about. That's why I support government investments in domestically produced alternative energy, recycling and conservation programs.

Much worse than leaving future generations with sovereign debts which they can easily repay would be leaving them without the ability to make the things they need and want, which is unfortunately what we are now doing.

[Aerows]

12. Health care costs are too high

That's the number one reason Medicare is in the shape it is in. You are one hundred percent correct that we have to get medical care costs under control. "Reforming" Medicare without addressing why Americans pay 3 and 4 times the amount they pay for health care is like cutting off someone's foot because their toenails are too long.

[dionysus]

23. fwiw...you need to look up entitlement in a dictionary.

[indepat]

8. Would have never dreamed cutting social security and Medicare, thereby putting an untold

number of old, frail, and poor people into poverty, is more in the spirit of promote the general welfare doctrine than having billionaire hedge fund managers pay an income tax of more than 15%. Silly me: such thinking will forever keep twits me in the lower reaches of the 99%. :patriot:

[indepat]

9. May the names of all responsible for this obscene depravity live forevermore in

infamy. :patriot:

[dajoki]

14. Yes!! n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

28. Obama tops on that list.

[99th_Monkey]

15. Not to mention that SS puts money INTO circulation, as Sr.s buy basic goods/services

Meanwhile Big banks and corps sit on their trillions and want still more
of OUR $$$$ to $it on while they watch the rest of us scramble for crumbs,
and die off quietly.

Fuck these "super" committee hired executioners, disguised as politicians
supposedly doing "the people's business". :puke:

[glinda]

17. More money for the 1%. People also die faster. Leaves more for them since the planet is crashing.

[sarcasmo]

22. The right says your local church will help.

[Mimosa]

27. Local churches are often full of poor people as well as those barely hanging on. n/t

[Mimosa]

26. K&R Excellent article!!!!! n/t