5 ms·

The big ones since the 50s are Medicare, Medicaid and COLA-adjusted Social Security.

Retric 8y ago
Social Security has been cut over the last 50 years. We have an older population, but full benifits start much later. So, if your talking cash flows it looks one way, if your talking about what laws are on the books it’s a different story. The Social Security trust fund further complicates the issue.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  SSDI was very stringent in 1950. Today it costs over $140 billion a year and covers vastly more people. Numerous free service and cash transfer programs have been created since 1950, which has caused total spending on social welfare programs to increase dramatically: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fivethirtyeight-gov4/16fivethirtyeight-gov4-blog480.jpg https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv...
  - Retric 8y ago
    Again that’s an oversimplification. States have moved people to SSDI while removing them from their own social programs. You really need to look at total government expenditure per person adjusted for gdp per person to see how things have changed over time. Tradional welfare programs really have been cut. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#/media/File%3AWelfare_Benefits_Payments_Graph.gif https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#/media/File%3AWelfar.... Social Security and Medicare play different roles today vs 50 years ago, but they are just one slice of a larger picture. That includes an aging population and other demographics issues, but also ever shifting bureaucracy and social norms. We created welfare under the belief that single mothers should raise their kids, now norms have changed. Remember, the first Social Security recipients never paid into the program. It was created with the belief we should support the elderly, now people need to ‘pay into’ the system. Further SS was created in 1935, meaning once again the USA used to have a more progressive outlook.
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      State social welfare spending has massively increased since 1950, both in real per capita terms, and as a percentage of GDP, so your narrative of states scaling back social programs is false. And states do not have the power to "move people to SSDI". Eligibility is determined by the federal government, and the federal government has expanded eligibility over the last 70 years. All broad-based measures of social welfarism show it has massively increased since 1950. I really don't understand how you can look at the spending statistics and claim social programs in general have been cut. >>Tradional welfare programs really have been cut. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#/media/File%3AWelfar... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#/media/File%3AWelfar.... Despite some instances of welfare reform and scale backs, the bigger picture, of total per capita welfare spending, and welfare spending as a percentage of GDP, shows welfare has been massively expanded: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fivethirtyeight-gov5/16fivethirtyeight-gov5-blog480.jpg https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv...
      - Retric 8y ago
        Pensions require old people, SS inflation adjusted formula has not increased the population got older. You can pretend the Social Security trust fund was not created, but that’s ignoring giant cash flows. Heathcare has increased dramatically, then again 80 years ago their was simply fewer things to spend heathcare dollars on. You can’t buy cancer drugs that don’t exist. On top of that the US system is designed to enrich heathcare providers, not nessisarily provide good heathcare. The VA runs a heathcare system becase using the public one costs to much. That stacked bar chart is further designed to hide the recent reduction in one category ‘welfare’ as other categories increased. Which means it does not support your point.
        CryptoPunk 8y ago
        SS is not the entirety of social welfare spending. It's not even the entirety of SS-related spending. There is, as I've just mentioned, SSDI. Total social welfare spending at all levels of government has increased massively, at a rate that greatly exceeds what can be explained by population aging. >>Heathcare has increased dramatically, then again 80 years ago their was simply fewer things to spend heathcare dollars on. That doesn't change the fact that government is forcibly redistributing a greater portion of economic output toward healthcare spending. >>That stacked bar chart is further designed to hide the recent reduction in one category ‘welfare’ as other categories increased. Real welfare spending per capita has continued to increase. That graph is spending as a percentage of GDP, and GDP is increasing, so a steady ratio means increasing spending. Moreover, welfare spending is vastly greater now, as a percentage of GDP, than it was in 1950 or even 1970. It seems like you're ignoring every piece of evidence suggesting a shift toward social democracy with expanding social welfare spending, to maintain a narrative of social welfare programs being cut.

Social Security has been cut over the last 50 years. We have an older population, but full benifits start much later. So, if your talking cash flows it looks one way, if your talking about what laws are on the books it’s a different story. The Social Security trust fund further complicates the issue.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
SSDI was very stringent in 1950. Today it costs over $140 billion a year and covers vastly more people. Numerous free service and cash transfer programs have been created since 1950, which has caused total spending on social welfare programs to increase dramatically: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fivethirtyeight-gov4/16fivethirtyeight-gov4-blog480.jpg https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv...
- Retric 8y ago
  Again that’s an oversimplification. States have moved people to SSDI while removing them from their own social programs. You really need to look at total government expenditure per person adjusted for gdp per person to see how things have changed over time. Tradional welfare programs really have been cut. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#/media/File%3AWelfare_Benefits_Payments_Graph.gif https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#/media/File%3AWelfar.... Social Security and Medicare play different roles today vs 50 years ago, but they are just one slice of a larger picture. That includes an aging population and other demographics issues, but also ever shifting bureaucracy and social norms. We created welfare under the belief that single mothers should raise their kids, now norms have changed. Remember, the first Social Security recipients never paid into the program. It was created with the belief we should support the elderly, now people need to ‘pay into’ the system. Further SS was created in 1935, meaning once again the USA used to have a more progressive outlook.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    State social welfare spending has massively increased since 1950, both in real per capita terms, and as a percentage of GDP, so your narrative of states scaling back social programs is false. And states do not have the power to "move people to SSDI". Eligibility is determined by the federal government, and the federal government has expanded eligibility over the last 70 years. All broad-based measures of social welfarism show it has massively increased since 1950. I really don't understand how you can look at the spending statistics and claim social programs in general have been cut. >>Tradional welfare programs really have been cut. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#/media/File%3AWelfar... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#/media/File%3AWelfar.... Despite some instances of welfare reform and scale backs, the bigger picture, of total per capita welfare spending, and welfare spending as a percentage of GDP, shows welfare has been massively expanded: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fivethirtyeight-gov5/16fivethirtyeight-gov5-blog480.jpg https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv...
    - Retric 8y ago
      Pensions require old people, SS inflation adjusted formula has not increased the population got older. You can pretend the Social Security trust fund was not created, but that’s ignoring giant cash flows. Heathcare has increased dramatically, then again 80 years ago their was simply fewer things to spend heathcare dollars on. You can’t buy cancer drugs that don’t exist. On top of that the US system is designed to enrich heathcare providers, not nessisarily provide good heathcare. The VA runs a heathcare system becase using the public one costs to much. That stacked bar chart is further designed to hide the recent reduction in one category ‘welfare’ as other categories increased. Which means it does not support your point.
      - CryptoPunk 8y ago
        SS is not the entirety of social welfare spending. It's not even the entirety of SS-related spending. There is, as I've just mentioned, SSDI. Total social welfare spending at all levels of government has increased massively, at a rate that greatly exceeds what can be explained by population aging. >>Heathcare has increased dramatically, then again 80 years ago their was simply fewer things to spend heathcare dollars on. That doesn't change the fact that government is forcibly redistributing a greater portion of economic output toward healthcare spending. >>That stacked bar chart is further designed to hide the recent reduction in one category ‘welfare’ as other categories increased. Real welfare spending per capita has continued to increase. That graph is spending as a percentage of GDP, and GDP is increasing, so a steady ratio means increasing spending. Moreover, welfare spending is vastly greater now, as a percentage of GDP, than it was in 1950 or even 1970. It seems like you're ignoring every piece of evidence suggesting a shift toward social democracy with expanding social welfare spending, to maintain a narrative of social welfare programs being cut.