PDA

View Full Version : Interesting write-up on entitlements and disposable income



AUTaxMan
01-17-2012, 01:15 PM
Essentially, the author shows that a head of household making minimum wage has more disposable income than a family making $60K per year due to entitlements. Also shows that a head of household who works one week per month at minimum wage has 92% of the disposable income of the $60K family.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-household-making-minimum-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak

mrveggieman
01-17-2012, 01:45 PM
Essentially, the author shows that a head of household making minimum wage has more disposable income than a family making $60K per year due to entitlements. Also shows that a head of household who works one week per month at minimum wage has 92% of the disposable income of the $60K family.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-household-making-minimum-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak

Yes some people do abuse the system but most do not. What do you suggest. Cut everyone off even those who fell on hard times or those who did not chose to have an abortion and now have no way to take care of their child. Just let innocent babies starve to death because of their sins of their parents? Please let us know. BTW my wife and I do work and recieve no gov't assistance.

AUTaxMan
01-17-2012, 02:01 PM
Yes some people do abuse the system but most do not. What do you suggest. Cut everyone off even those who fell on hard times or those who did not chose to have an abortion and now have no way to take care of their child. Just let innocent babies starve to death because of their sins of their parents? Please let us know. BTW my wife and I do work and recieve no gov't assistance.

This does not demonstrate abuse of the system. It demonstrates that the system as it is set up incentivizes people not to work. Don't demagogue the issue with hypotheticals of starving babies, rolling grandma off the cliff, etc. Of course there needs to be a system in place to take care of them. However, the system we have now tells people that it doesn't matter if you become a productive member of society. If you choose not to do so, we'll still take care of you.

mrveggieman
01-17-2012, 02:07 PM
This does not demonstrate abuse of the system. It demonstrates that the system as it is set up incentivizes people not to work. Don't demagogue the issue with hypotheticals of starving babies, rolling grandma off the cliff, etc. Of course there needs to be a system in place to take care of them. However, the system we have now tells people that it doesn't matter if you become a productive member of society. If you choose not to do so, we'll still take care of you.


I agree the system does indeed need to be corrected. It's a same that gas is so expensive that it is cheaper to be on unemployment and not have to drive your car to a jobsite than it is to put gas in your car to drive to work. However most of the republicans and some of the democrats do not care about the plight of the common man and weather he eats or nots let alone has a roof over his head.

AUTaxMan
01-17-2012, 02:10 PM
However most of the republicans and some of the democrats do not care about the plight of the common man and weather he eats or nots let alone has a roof over his head.

I disagree with this statement. I believe that most republicans are concerned with the plight of the common man. Hence the "obstructionism" of the reps in congress and the ideas being proposed by the rep presidential candidates.

I actually got this article from Boort'z blog, as I was reading on Santorum's comments in the debate last night re poverty in America.

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/jan/17/poverty-matter-choice/

tsjct
01-17-2012, 02:29 PM
I agree the system does indeed need to be corrected. It's a same that gas is so expensive that it is cheaper to be on unemployment and not have to drive your car to a jobsite than it is to put gas in your car to drive to work. However most of the republicans and some of the democrats do not care about the plight of the common man and weather he eats or nots let alone has a roof over his head.

Why is Gas so HIGH? Maybe if Obama would let the pipeline from Canada be built and open up some of the EPA protected areas for drilling gas prices would not be so high. Those darn republicans just drive the cost of gas up everyday. :rolleyes:

tsjct
01-17-2012, 02:30 PM
How about unemployment at 99 weeks?? Is that abuse LOL. I say make them do something for that money instead of turn in BOGUS job applications to stay on unemployment.

mrveggieman
01-17-2012, 02:54 PM
How about unemployment at 99 weeks?? Is that abuse LOL. I say make them do something for that money instead of turn in BOGUS job applications to stay on unemployment.

I wouldn't have a problem with more manditory job training classes or other required activities for people recieving unemployment. However speaking as a person who was unemployed for a while I know for a fact that not everyone who is recieving unemployment is sitting on their chops playing video games and drinking beer.

Star_Cards
01-17-2012, 03:01 PM
Why is Gas so HIGH? Maybe if Obama would let the pipeline from Canada be built and open up some of the EPA protected areas for drilling gas prices would not be so high. Those darn republicans just drive the cost of gas up everyday. :rolleyes:

you're blaming gas prices on Obama? gas has been high for way more than Obama's term. There are many factors that have gas prices up. You insinuating that's it's Obama's fault is rather ridiculous in my opinion.

Star_Cards
01-17-2012, 03:04 PM
How about unemployment at 99 weeks?? Is that abuse LOL. I say make them do something for that money instead of turn in BOGUS job applications to stay on unemployment.

I agree with this. It might get tricky doing this, but seems like something could be worked out. Sure there becomes some issues with skills and legalities and such, but I always wonder if there's something that some people could to in exchange after a certain amount of time on the service.

AUTaxMan
01-17-2012, 03:12 PM
you're blaming gas prices on Obama? gas has been high for way more than Obama's term. There are many factors that have gas prices up. You insinuating that's it's Obama's fault is rather ridiculous in my opinion.

As someone who does a substantial amount of work in the oil and gas industry, I can tell you with certainty that if Obama declared an end to his war against domestic energy production, oil and gas prices would materially decrease.

AUTaxMan
01-17-2012, 03:12 PM
I agree with this. It might get tricky doing this, but seems like something could be worked out. Sure there becomes some issues with skills and legalities and such, but I always wonder if there's something that some people could to in exchange after a certain amount of time on the service.

I like Newt's idea about tying jobless benefits to job training programs.

Star_Cards
01-17-2012, 03:15 PM
As someone who does a substantial amount of work in the oil and gas industry, I can tell you with certainty that if Obama declared an end to his war against domestic energy production, oil and gas prices would materially decrease.

so why exactly were they up earlier in the decade?

duane1969
01-17-2012, 03:28 PM
so why exactly were they up earlier in the decade?

Post-Katrina excuse by gas companies to keep prices high. When Katrina happened prices skyrocketed and they never went down. Take a look at profit margins for gas companies in post-Katrina times, they were record-setting.

When Katrina hit in 2005 a barrel of oil was right at $60 and a gallon of gas was around $1.75. Today a barrel of oil is $98 and a gallon of gas is around $3.40-$3.50. So oil is 50%-60% higher than it was pre-Katrina but gas is 150%-200% higher than it was pre-Katrina.

habsheaven
01-17-2012, 03:38 PM
I heard somewhere; that if the oil proponents had their way TODAY, consumers would still not see any noticeable reduction in gas prices for at least 10 years.

I challenge anyone on the right to bookmark this thread and come back to it in the next few years when Obama is defeated and the DRILL, DRILL, DRILL BABY mantra is realized.

Star_Cards
01-17-2012, 03:47 PM
Post-Katrina excuse by gas companies to keep prices high. When Katrina happened prices skyrocketed and they never went down. Take a look at profit margins for gas companies in post-Katrina times, they were record-setting.

When Katrina hit in 2005 a barrel of oil was right at $60 and a gallon of gas was around $1.75. Today a barrel of oil is $98 and a gallon of gas is around $3.40-$3.50. So oil is 50%-60% higher than it was pre-Katrina but gas is 150%-200% higher than it was pre-Katrina.

Exactly, I feel that if we produced more oil here in the US the companies would find ways to keep prices high, because they know they can do it. It's obvious it's all a game when gas will drop 30 cents over 2 weeks and then all at once they bring it back up 35 cents. I really don't think any politician has control over gas prices.

AUTaxMan
01-17-2012, 04:23 PM
Exactly, I feel that if we produced more oil here in the US the companies would find ways to keep prices high, because they know they can do it. It's obvious it's all a game when gas will drop 30 cents over 2 weeks and then all at once they bring it back up 35 cents. I really don't think any politician has control over gas prices.

Oil companies have very little influence over the price of gasoline. They have razor thin profit margins on gasoline sales. The price of gasoline is mostly affected by OPEC, the commodities market, the cost of complying with governmental regulations, refining costs, transportation costs, and taxes. Obama could encourage the construction of another refinery in the U.S. He hasn't (although he did give a $2.8 billion loan for a refinery to be constructed in Columbia). He could decrease the pointless, bureaucratic regulatory burdens that cost oil companies hundreds of millions of dollars. He has increased them. He could lift his moratorium on domestic energy production, which would decrease transportation costs and increase supply, to a degree. He hasn't. And by extending the olive branch to the oil companies, he could demonstrate to the market that the U.S. is actually interested in becoming more energy independent, which should drive down the price of crude. So, IMO, Obama could materially affect the price of gasoline by being friendly to the American oil companies instead of declaring war on them.

pghin08
01-17-2012, 04:36 PM
Is anyone even paying attention to what is going on in the Strait of Hormuz? You want to talk about an increase in oil prices? Yikes.

AUTaxMan
01-17-2012, 04:41 PM
Is anyone even paying attention to what is going on in the Strait of Hormuz? You want to talk about an increase in oil prices? Yikes.

No kidding.

Star_Cards
01-17-2012, 04:50 PM
Oil companies have very little influence over the price of gasoline. They have razor thin profit margins on gasoline sales. The price of gasoline is mostly affected by OPEC, the commodities market, the cost of complying with governmental regulations, refining costs, transportation costs, and taxes. Obama could encourage the construction of another refinery in the U.S. He hasn't (although he did give a $2.8 billion loan for a refinery to be constructed in Columbia). He could decrease the pointless, bureaucratic regulatory burdens that cost oil companies hundreds of millions of dollars. He has increased them. He could lift his moratorium on domestic energy production, which would decrease transportation costs and increase supply, to a degree. He hasn't. And by extending the olive branch to the oil companies, he could demonstrate to the market that the U.S. is actually interested in becoming more energy independent, which should drive down the price of crude. So, IMO, Obama could materially affect the price of gasoline by being friendly to the American oil companies instead of declaring war on them.

I see