Mine Was Earned, Your's Is Welfare

I have long been struck by the oddity of the everyday Republican voter being so adamantly against "welfare" but not minding at all Social Security.

The refrain I usually hear, or see in memes on facebook is something like, "Entitlements?  My Social Security was EARNED by me and PAID IN by me!  It's not an entitlement!"

The premise then is that what the person had deducted from their paycheck from the age of 16 to 62 - 46 years - was then sufficient to cover what they will receive from the government from the age of 62 to 78 - 16 years.  Or, in some cases longer, but the guys who make this argument figure it's valid no matter what the math.  

It could be that a woman married in college, never held a job till she was divorced at 50, worked 12 years, then lived to 100.  In that case, she paid in for 12 years, and collected for 38.  But it's still not welfare, she "paid in".  Another may have worked from 14 to 68 - 54 years, then died of a heart attack at 72.  54 years paying in, and 4 years collecting.  Somehow neither of these people is on welfare, both paid in exactly properly, and both only got back "their" money.

Thank you for that insight, Whitey McPrivileged!

Now the truth is, it is voters being made to put in this money - over a great deal of time or hardly any - and those voters then sit by and watch their representatives spend that money on everything but a savings account for Social Security.  Having then watched them spend all the "savings" on wars, social programs, rockets to the Moon and such for 40 or 50 years, they then calmly hold out their hand afterward and ask, "Where's that money we saved?"

They know it will just be took from the next generation - as they complained loudly enough over the last generation taking it from them.  But somehow, that's not "welfare".  That's not a "Ponzi scheme".  That's somehow fair.

Well, what is fair to be put in, versus what then a person should get out?  I mean, few people have a problem with the "normal" case of 46 years of work for 16 years of Social Security - so is that then what is "fair"?

But wait, what of the military, who will take a boy of 17, let him work for them for but 20 years, then give him half pay for the rest of his life?  20 years in - and 42 years got back out!  Some how that's not welfare!

What of Congress or the President?  Did you know that one four year term gets the President "retirement" pay?  And that one two year term as a member of the House gets them "retirement" pay?

You may hold office in Congress at the age of 25.  So, let's see - 2 years in, leave at 27, and 51 years of collecting?  And that's not welfare?  Heck, I think that's the actual record of getting a ton back for virtually nothing in!

But wait, what of our "business leaders"?  CEOs, Bankers, Brokers?  For no more in than anyone else - so, zero - they "get back" billion dollar bailouts, tax breaks so vast that they are excused from paying taxes for decades, subsidies sufficient to buy entire industries and trillion dollar quantitative easings?  What's that "not welfare" add up to?  0 in, and infinity out?  Yeah, that's got to be the record.

Oh, but did I forget Donald's pet peeve?  Social Security Disability?  Yeah, I think I did forget that one.  That's where that's supposed to be "welfare".  Kind of odd, though, because that is paid for the EXACT same way as regular Social Security is paid for - by the workers.

A person receiving it gets it based on how much work they did before the disability.  If they worked more than some, they get a bit more than some.  Pretty much like Social Security retirement pay.  The more you work, the more you then get when you can't work any more.

Thus someone blinded at 18 might get $600 per month.  Kind of a crime to treat them so poorly, but that's another article.  If a person is blinded at the age of 30 though, then depending on income, it will be greater.  Say, perhaps, $800.  At 40, it might be - again, depending on many factors, but principally on work history, $1,000.  If they worked a ton more, and earned more money than average, then I think it can get up as high as $1,400, but that is pretty rare.

And not all that much, when you do the math.  Certainly not comparable to our 'retired' legislators.

How then is Social Security Disability "welfare"?  They work, they pay in, they get back.  Is it 42 years of work for 16 years of pay out?  No.  But nor is it 2 years of work for a half century of a pay out!  Instead, you see that it's about at "military" levels.  Anyone care to call the veterans "welfare bums"?  No?

But it's okay to call the disabled "welfare bums"?

Ahh, but I hear the cries from those reading this - "But...but...but...thems ain't 'real' disabilities!  They ain't blind, Ah ain't complainin' 'bout no blind folks!  They got like PTSD or Depression or Psychological crap that ain't real, thems the one Ahm upset with!"

Well, again, I might wonder how many of those Republicans are telling that to Veterans who return home with PTSD, Depression and "Psychological crap".  Though I'm sure they'd rush to assure me that when it's a vet, it's "real".  Because in Republican world, war is real, they get that, but life in general?  I guess one can only get their mind hurt and/or disabled by stuff they approve of.

War - yes.  Life - no.

Truth is, applying for Social Security Disability is no cake walk, nor is it easy to defraud.  The process generally takes around a year to a year and a half.  You cannot be working while you apply - ponder how that plays out.  Most all of the applications will be rejected.  Yeah, it's like 80% or thereabouts.  Not only your own doctors, but government selected doctors must sign off on this.  Paperwork backing must accompany the application.  Quite a bit of it. 

I have seen the application, and I sharply question the idiotic premise that those of our inner cities and trailer courts are educated sufficiently to pull this off in any noticeable number of cases.  Folks notoriously unable to see a job application through are all of a sudden up for a year and a half of doctors, bureaucrats, attorneys and such?  

Does this mean I'm saying no abuses take place?  Of course not.  There are those who game any system.  And just as there are those who put hardly anything into running the nation - that two year Congressman - and just as there are those who get far more back in retirement than they ever put in during their working years, and even just as some Veterans are gold-bricking dorks, so do some few abuse Social Security Disability.

Here's the thing, though.  I don't see Donald or the Republicans going after the Bankers to make sure they use those bailouts appropriately.  I see no oversight called for about our ex-Congressmen and Presidents who receive so much.  Did you know Jimmy Carter still has a nearly $200,000 per year office in Atlanta, Georgia paid for with our tax dollars?  

And he's the most frugal of the ex-Presidents, most claim half a million dollars annually for their own offices.  And that doesn't count any of their retirement salaries, Secret Service guards and on and on.

No, Republicans have no trouble with "welfare" they like.  Or their gramma's welfare.  Or the welfare they bank on when they turn 62.  More going to the person then they put in is NEVER a problem for them if they like the person.  Bankers, Veterans, former Senators, and THEMSELVES - it's all good.

But let some woman raped into suicidal depression collapse into PTSD, Social Anxiety Disorder, Agoraphobia and be unable to leave home, let alone go to work, and it's "Well, now hold on, how do we know she ain't fakin' it for all that free money?"  "Free" money she literally had to work for!

Well, you don't know if she's faking.  Just like you don't know whether the Veteran was brave or a coward trying to shirk his duty.  Or whether the Congressman was a statesman or a thief.  Or whether the retired guy was a hard worker or goofing off his entire career.  Or whether the banker made a poor investment choice or out right stole it.

And since you don't know, can't know, and never will know, it would be far more intellectually honest of Republicans, and their President, to stop pretending that this is some kind of "fairness" issue in which they just want to make sure no Working Joe is getting robbed by lazy bums.

Working Joes probably are being robbed for Lazy Bums, but those bums are more likely to be found in Congress and Wall Street then in the poor folk's single wides and one bedroom studio apartments. 

When you learn then of a man or woman on disability, do not be so ignorant as to think that if there is no cane, no wheelchair, no hearing aid, that they must then be faking.  To not be so hypocritical as to think that if it is a form YOU'RE not eligible for that it must not be "proper". 

What is good enough for every President and Congressman, what is good enough for every 20 year veteran, what is good enough for every person over 62, what is good enough for every Banker, and what is good enough for YOU reading this, is definitely good enough for those who had the misfortune to succumb to a disability that many aren't educated enough to know as "real".

They get based on what they paid in through their work - same as your gramma.  Tell the Donald who pays no taxes in at all to leave the disabled who did pay taxes alone.

Teenage Level Accountability

"Teenage Level Accountability"

I saw an article today in which someone pointed out something that I've pointed out - and been to all appearances alone in pointing out - for years.

That middle aged policemen should be held to the same standards as teenage soldiers overseas.

The article was about a policeman who was found "not guilty" of murder, even though he had shot to death some unarmed white guy after five minutes of making him do a bunch of weird circus tricks in the hallway of a hotel.

The writer made mention of the fact that he'd seen Al Qaida terrorists treated with more dignity and decency while being apprehended in war zones. The writer mentioned that we do in fact have "rules of engagement" for our teen soldiers, but none apparently for cops.

I know from my own service that the Air Force Security Police could not - and do not - get away with what I see in the non-military world. And would anyone claim that the danger is less for policeman on a 20,000 person base than a 10,000 person town?

At 17, I was in the United States Armed Forces Police Academy for the police forces of the Air Force and Marines. I graduated shortly after I turned 18, on the 16th of December, 1986. So pretty soon, it will have been 31 years since I left the Academy.

But I still remember the Rules of Force. And I can say calmly and dispassionately and with no malice towards any particular cop or cops in general that I see them violated each day in the news.

Civilian police are simply not held to the same standard - or any where near - as teen cops in the military. Or teen soldiers dealing with militants, insurgents and terrorists.

The writer of the article I saw pointed out most of all that "fear" - a fear that police can legitimately feel - is not an end all be all excuse for shooting first and never having it questioned later.

Fear can be felt - yes. But they are trained and paid to deal with this kind of thing, and paid far better than Privates in the Army are.

This is NOT an attack against the good and decent policeman out there, however many many or few the individual reader of this feels there are. Those good and decent policeman in many cases voluntarily DO hold themselves to the high standards of a soldier in a war, because they are moral, and because they signed up to aid people, not to exercise power trips.

It is a plea, though. That all people, including the good cops, start to realize that having a touch more accountability - even that minimal amount we expect of 17 to 21 year old kids - should apply to those civilians (and yes, cops are civilians) at home.

"To serve and protect". Good cops make that mean something. Every day. It's time for they, and the rest of us, to not shy away from expecting a touch up of accountability.

You donate more than Trump

According to an article from the New Yorker, back in September of 2016, "the public records indicate that over the past quarter of a century, he (Donald Trump) has given away less than $5 million of his own money.  According to his own estimate, he is worth in excess of $10 billion.  If we take him at his word, that means his charitable contributions come to about 0.05 per cent of his fortune, or five cents for every $100."

Had Donald become more generous since then?  To listen to his press secretary, one would think so.

Trump has recently donated his quarterly Presidential paycheck of $100,000 to charity.  He has so far donated all his Presidential quarterly paychecks to charity.  Yay, Trump.  His press secretary said this was due to his "compassion" and "patriotism".  And certainly $400,000 per year sounds like a lot of compassion and patriotism. 

But, well, how much compassion and patriotism does that work out to?  You know, compared to your average Joe Citizen?

First, we must determine how much $400,000 is to Donald.  Not easy, but doable.  We know that he has claimed to be worth $10,000,000,000. 

As to the "income" off of that we can only guess.  Donald isn't as forthcoming as other Presidents, and won't disclose his taxes.  But we can guess.  The average interest rate on a savings account is six percent.  So that's at least $600,000,000 that Donald is receiving in income per year.

I say "at least" as most businessmen have their money invested in ways that give them a substantially higher rate of return than just the average interest rate.  They sure aren't bringing in less, or they'd just give their assets to the bank and make that six percent!

To then find the percent of giving Donald is doing, we have to take the $400,000 of annual giving and divide that by the $600,000,000 of annual income.  This does not work out to ten percent, like some churches encourage.  It does not work out to 1%.

It works out to .00016, or 16/100ths of 1%.  Less than the previously cited .05, or instead of a nickel per $100, 1.6 pennies per $100.

So how much would Poory McMinimumwage have to give to feel as much of a pinch as Donald does?

A minimum wage worker is going to bring in $15,000 per year - well, before taxes and withholding, but let us go with that.  If we do the math, the man making minimum wage would have to give $2.50 per quarter, for a whopping $10 in a whole year, if he wanted to feel as much pain in giving as Donald does.

Yes, really.  I'm suspecting then that there is an awful lot of "compassion" and "patriotism" among the least of these are brethren.  A minimum wage man flipping a single quarter into the offering plate each week at church would be giving MORE of his time and effort than our President is.

An alcoholic bum, showing up at an AA meeting once per month and putting in the buck for coffee each time, is giving MORE of his time and effort than our President is.
 
Looked at another way, the minimum wage worker would have to work one hour and fifteen minutes to match Donald's generosity.  Same with you.  So take your annual income, divide it by 50 weeks in a working year, and divide that by 40 hours in a working week, and that's your "hourly".  Multiply that by 1.25, and that's how much you have to give to match our President's "compassion" and "patriotism".

And if we assume that no one reading this earns more than $250,000 a year, then so long as you donated at least $156.26 then you've out donated our President.  And I know many, including myself, who while not earning a quarter of a million per year, donate more than $156.26 per month. 

Let's admit it then.

Our President is - as has been said before by many - the stingiest and least giving billionaire in American history.  And if his donations are to measure - as his press secretary said - his "compassion" and "patriotism", well then...

...I'm sure that press secretary is correct.