3 ms·
"The main function of our government is to write checks to middle-class and wealthy voters." Unless I'm reading those graphs wrong (pretty sure I'm not), even
by rauljara 15y ago
"The main function of our government is to write checks to middle-class and wealthy voters."
Unless I'm reading those graphs wrong (pretty sure I'm not), even though a smaller share of entitlement checks are going to the very poor, a majority of entitlement spending is going to the bottom two fifths, and a plurality to the bottom fifth. Which doesn't sound like "middle-class and wealthy voters" to me.*
That quote seems to be the basis of the entire rest of the post. Starting off with a false premise is not a good way to build a case.
*yes, some of the people in the second fifth are middle-ish income. But someone who is in the second fifth, but closer to the first is still pretty poor.
- anamax 15y ago> Unless I'm reading those graphs wrong (pretty sure I'm not), Unless the graphs show "overhead and expenses", you are. Govt spending on the poor supports a large number of middle-class administrators and the like who get a huge fraction of the money. Never confuse inputs with outputs.
- rauljara 15y agoHate to be that guy, but citation needed. I don't know about all of the entitlement programs, but according to the AMA+, the official cost of medicare overhead was 3.1% in 2005. Which does not sound like a "huge fraction" to me. I don't know about other entitlement programs. I am always open to evidence. + http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004083 http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourc...
- cs702 15y agoAgree -- the whole argument starts off with a false premise. I'm not surprised. The author, John Cochrane, a 'freshwater economist' (look it up), always sounds to my ears like a broken record: I can usually guess, a priori, what position he will take, and often even what his arguments will be, in response to any economic issue -- occasionally by torturing the facts, as in this case. To his credit, sometimes he can change his mind -- here's an example: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/anti-keynesian-revisionism/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/anti-keynesian-r...