moonbattery logo

Feb 26 2013

Dependence Death Spiral Widens

The dependence death spiral is a condition in which the worse mess collectivist bureaucrats make of an economy, the more certain they are to be reelected, because ever more people are dependent on government handouts. As this shifts the political spectrum to the left toward increasing government control, it becomes ever more difficult to do business, and therefore to find a job. This cycle reduced Detroit from one of the greatest cities in the world to the dysfunctional pustule it is today in only a few decades. With Obama, Democrats have taken the spiral nationwide. Already there are reportedly 11 states where the makers no longer outnumber the takers:


Michael explains why the situation will continue to deteriorate:

Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reports that in fiscal year 2011, between food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average U.S. household below the poverty line received $168.00 a day in government support. What’s the problem with that much support? Well, the median household income in America is just over $50,000, which averages out to $137.13 a day. To put it another way, being on welfare now pays the equivalent of $30.00 an hour for a 40-hour week, while the average job pays $25.00 an hour.

Those who work for a living are voluntary slaves to those who vote for a living.

Detroit can indefinitely shamble around like a zombie, dead and yet still feeding, because the state and federal governments pump it full of artificial life in the form of other people’s money. What’s going to happen when Hopey Change reduces the entire USA to Detroit? Absolute economic, social, and political collapse.

The hard left milieu that produced Obama has been dreaming about this for generations. After all, before masterminds can impose the ideal oligarchical collectivist utopia, they have to sweep away what came before.

On a tip from Artfldgr.

15 Responses to “Dependence Death Spiral Widens”

  1. Pegon Zellschmidt says:

    How about that, libs? Only three states in the deep south plus KY. NY, ME, HA, CA, IL, OH, and NM (New Migrant). Go South!!

  2. Nick says:

    Guess what?! I’m quitting my job!

  3. John Knoefler says:

    Unfortunately for accurracy no one bothered to figure in government employees and contractor earning tax money through government contracts as well as thier employees and suppliers and then factor in the employees of those suppliers. Also factor in tax accountants who exist solely to help us pay for this monstrosity.

  4. Paul M Johnson says:

    The issues of the near future will only be solved by blood and iron !!! Praise GOD and pass the AR-15 ammunition !!

  5. Lester Sequester says:

    The great Dr. Savage was talking about this last night. He did this thing called basic mathematics and figured out that in some places welfare paid as much a good job.

  6. Tic Temper says:

    That $168 to $137 comparison wasn’t true the first time it was tried with different numbers a couple of months ago. It isn’t true now.

    That doesn’t mean that various types of welfare aren’t out of control; it just means that this particular argument is used only by the innumerate to convince the retarded.

  7. Beautiful Kryzhakstan says:

    Tic vermin Dr. Savage is 300 times smarter than you will ever be.

  8. Rufus says:

    Tick can you back up your claim the comparison isn’t true?

  9. M.Wilson says:

    Even if you assume that welfare income is equal to the average wage, how do you expect to pay for that by taxing any percentage of said wages when the number of people on welfare is equal to or greater than the number of people working?

    No amount of tax hikes can overcome such a situation, since in order to pay an equal number of people more for welfare than for working, you would need more money than all the working people make in total. Good luck collecting a 130% tax rate, it’s not going to happen.

    In such a situation, the only way to avoid massive deficits and money printing would be to drastically reduce the number of people eligible for welfare, or drastically reduce what welfare pays out. It’s simple math.

    On the nationwide level, our welfare spending busts the budget all by itself. If you consider welfare spending untouchable, then you’re already in debt by the time that’s done being paid. Balancing the budget without cutting welfare is mathematically impossible. The solution, then, is to cut welfare. You could balance the entire budget by cutting welfare in half. If you eliminated it entirely, we would have more than $1 trillion in surplus. It’s pretty obvious where all our money is going.

  10. Son of Taz says:

    Once again, another leftist pigeon has dropped a turd and left.

    It must be painful to be so stoopid. Tic?

  11. Tic Temper says:

    Sorry, I didn’t hang around for responses.

    The only one worth responding to is Rufus. You’re misplacing the burden of proof; but, yes, I can.

    Though the link to Savage isn’t working right now, there was a report a couple months ago that inspired a few similar posts on various websites. It represented things in a slightly different way, but I am assuming that the source of the numbers is the same. The Senate Budget Committee is not the source — they merely cite from the source (which I forget). If that assumption is wrong, feel free to either ignore my comment or state what the source is.

    The comparison is take home salaries for the working man, compared to cash payments + health care + employment, administration, and overhead of the entire welfare system for those on welfare. That is, the COST of the welfare system is divided by those receiving various forms of welfare.

    A fair comparison would be to compare this to the entire cost of employment divided by the number of employees. This would include any health insurance, and it would include (per employee) the cost of an entire HR Department, all time for all employees spent in making employment decisions (including interviews), AND apportionment among employees a per employee portion of the cost of RENT, ELECTRICITY, PLUMBING, JANITORIAL SERVICES, PENS & PAPER, and any other form of overhead — those are the COSTS involved in keeping every working man employed.

    In the comparison provided, the COST is included for one group, but not the other. It’s apples and oranges.

  12. M.Wilson says:

    And the costs of keeping private sector employees working is shouldered entirely by the businesses that keep them employed, save for unprofitable businesses that are heavily subsidized (another form of vote-buying that should be stopped). Private workers are a positive source of tax revenue, while the entire welfare system is a drain on tax revenue. If the drain is larger than the source, you get deficits.

    The point of the comparison is to check the feasibility of paying one group by taxing the income of the other.

    If, out of 100 people, 50 pay taxes and 50 are given those taxes, then if your average tax rate is 30% then the receivers must make less than 30% of what the payers make in order for the budget to balance, with how much less being determined by the overhead costs of getting that money to them.

    If, out of 100 people, 50 pay taxes, 50 receive those taxes, and both groups make the same amount, it will be impossible to balance the budget on anything less than a 100% tax rate, and there will be no room left for anything else.

    If 40 people pay taxes, 60 people receive those taxes, and the receivers make more than the payers, you’re downright screwed.

    Now, if you still wish to argue over the incompleteness of the model (setting aside Gödel’s incompleteness theorems) a more accurate complaint would be that it does not evaluate all sources of tax revenue, only individual income tax, which is 42% of all tax revenue. Welfare spending is roughly 60% of all spending and accounts for a little over 100% of all actual revenues, which corresponds with the expected results of this comparison.

    Also, you did read that right. If you prioritize spending to pay welfare first, it will use up all the tax revenue by itself and everything after that is debt. Reality, as it turns out, has conformed very closely to the prediction made by this model. You cannot balance the budget without cutting welfare.

  13. litecola says:

    Amazing Pretzel Logic. Cost of employment? AKA operating expenses? Return to the perspective of an average citizen or family: how much do I receive by working (if I can even find a 40hr/week job) versus how much do I receive by living on the dole? If it’s even closely, never mind more, profitable to live like a leech, most folks without a work ethic or aspirations will happily choose parasite. Some folks with aspirations will still choose parasite and then become entrepreneurs on the black market. Spending time with ex-Cubans has given me good perspective on the mechanics of a welfare state, but reading objective accounts of communist life would provide similar perspective.

  14. dabouv says:

    Truly scandalous if it were true but like most of the stuff put out by right wing media, it is bullshit.

  15. Tic Temper says:

    “The point of the comparison is to check the feasibility of paying one group by taxing the income of the other.”

    1. No, it’s not. Not even close. Neither is it the point of posts highlighting the false comparison.

    2. Everything else you said is perfectly true; but has no relation to the comparison presented or the reasons for presenting it.

    3. What you wrote is a GOOD reason to limit or do away with welfare. The comparison is a BOGUS reason.

    4. I agree with you on what you wrote. But your defense of (and defensiveness about) what I can only call unnecessary propaganda, is senseless.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy