Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Policy

Reason Writers Around Town: Shikha Dalmia on Old People Displacing Poor People at the Federal Trough

Reason Staff | 11.3.2011 10:47 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

The left has been treating last week's CBO study showing that income inequality has been rising in America as the smoking gun it's always been looking for. But the study itself shows, notes Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia in her column in The Daily, that every income cohort made significant gains between 1979 and 2007, not just the rich. What's more, if Uncle Sam is doing less to help poor people now than previously, it is not because of heartless ideologues of the right. Rather, Great Society programs—Medicare and Social Security—that liberals themselves enacted have displaced federal programs for the poor.

[The study] found that in 1979, households in the bottom quintile received more than 50 percent of all transfer payments. In 2007, similar households received about 35 percent of transfers. "The shift reflects the growth in spending for programs focused on the elderly population (such as Social Security and Medicare), in which benefits are not limited to low-income households," the study explains. "As a result, government transfers reduced the dispersion of household income by less in 2007 than in 1979."

In other words, poor people are getting relatively fewer handouts thanks to the Great Society programs that liberals themselves put in place for the elderly. This demonstrates the core problem with unfettered redistributionism: Eventually, you run out of other people's money.

Read the whole thing here.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: How the Defense Department Will Escape the Super Committee's Budget Cuts

Reason Staff
PolicyInequalityClass WarMedicareSocial SecurityNanny StateWar on DrugsCivil Liberties
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (71)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Richard Head   14 years ago

    Death Panels for all!

  2. Alan Vanneman   14 years ago

    Since 1979, we have had a Republican president for 20 of the past 32 years. Earlier, Social Security benefits were massively boosted by President Richard Nixon (R). President Ronald Reagan (R) bragged about his contempt for the "War on Poverty" ("Poverty Won! Haw, haw, haw!") and also boosted Social Security in 1983. President Bush (R) gave us an entirely unfunded prescription drug plan for the old folks, which was conceived and justified by Republicans entirely on political grounds. How many articles will Shikha write trying to convince people that that hateful CBO report wasn't, you know, ENTIRELY ACCURATE?

    Get over it, Shikha. The top 1% have been making out like bandits, or maybe pirates, since, for whatever reason, libertarians seem more enamoured of seaborne theft. Write about something else, like whether or not Herman Cain talks dirty to broads. You might be able to win that one.

    1. wareagle   14 years ago

      nice straw man attempt. Since 1979, we have also had periods of Dem control of Congress, to include the entirety of both the Nixon and Reagan years. And, who gives a shit what the 1% have done?

      Income inequality is a cheap talking point trotted out by economic illiterates who have nothing else. It also underscores the central tenet of hte liberalism - its power rests with an uninformed populace, like people who believe they are owed some of the rich's money or that the rich only got that way at someone else's expense.

      1. Drake   14 years ago

        The libs so love the idea of a Dictator they forget we have a Congress.

        1. jtuf   14 years ago

          Having hundreds of leaders in charge of the federal government is too complicated for them to understand. They wouldn't know which direction to bow in.

    2. SugarFree   14 years ago

      Alan Vanneman|11.3.11 @ 10:28AM|#|show direct|ignore
      The man was disciplining his daughter for stealing the private property of others. Is Reason turning into the Social Workers' Daily all of a sudden?

      Context

      1. Episiarch   14 years ago

        Maybe Alan can review Mommie Dearest for us and defend Joan Crawford's actions. That would be rich.

        1. fish   14 years ago

          NO WIRE HANGARS...........!!!!

        2. T   14 years ago

          Or he could just write a crappy sequel about Joan rising from the grave to wreak havoc on her enemies.

          1. Groovus Maximus   14 years ago

            Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery of Zombie Dearest by A. N. L. Vanneman.

    3. PR   14 years ago

      President Bush (R) gave us an entirely unfunded prescription drug plan for the old folks, which was conceived and justified by Republicans entirely on political grounds.

      and here I thought it was because of all the sob stories about grandma taking cat medicine.

      1. Drake   14 years ago

        He also proposed reforming and partially privatizing Social Security.

    4. NAL   14 years ago

      You're making the same assumption that so many lefties who come to Reason make.
      Now follow me closely here: We are NOT Republicans. We agree that Nixon, Reagan and Bush II were huge spenders and each expanded government enormously, and that they each should be (have been) publicly flogged for doing so. That doesn't make it okay for Obama or anyone else to be an even bigger spender (by a large amount, I might add). We oppose government expansion, period. It doesn't matter which side is doing it.

      The point of the article is that the reason "Uncle Sam is doing less to help the poor", is because the entitlement program spending has crowded everything else out.

      Article summary: Lefties love entitlement programs but, ironically, entitlement programs are geared more toward the middle-class (including upper middle-class) more than they are toward the poor.

      1. wareagle   14 years ago

        Lefties love entitlement programs but, ironically, entitlement programs are geared more toward the middle-class (including upper middle-class) more than they are toward the poor.
        --------------------
        let's mine this sentence: lefties love entitlement programs. Recipients love them, too. Middle-class or upper recipients are more likely to vote than are the poor. Ergo, lefties love giving entitlements to people who are likely to vote for those who promise to continue the entitlements.

        Liberalism depends on a massively uninformed populace, which can include folks in the middle-class who should know that nothing is free but either don't know or don't care.

        1. Libertarians love enTitlements   14 years ago

          Lefties [Libertarians] love entitlement

          [fixed]

          Land enTitlement is the primary big-government program to restrict the free movement of people.

          Officer, am I free to gambol about forest and plain?

          No? Why? Libertarians love their government entitlements.

          1. MAESTRO   14 years ago

            Is this performance art?

          2. Episiarch   14 years ago

            HOWDY MISS RECTAL SURE IS A FINE DAY TODAY AIN'T IT? WOULD YOU CARE TO TAKE A GAMBOL AROUND THE SWAP WITH ME?

          3.   14 years ago

            Indian Warchief, am I free to gambol about forest and plain?

            NO!

            Same shit, different day.

            1. fish   14 years ago

              Rectal, do you drink the contents of the Summers Eve containers that your mom leaves outside you bedroom door?

              You're doing it wrong.

          4. Gamboled Bison   14 years ago

            I was exploring this cave the other day and found a copy of the Encyclopedia Prehistorica painted on the wall. According to that, well, let's just say that gamboling wasn't just frolicing around the forest. It also seemd to involve Bison and "bad touch".

          5. jtuf   14 years ago

            Yes, yes. We all know that the populist farmers who started the entire anti-bank movement in the 19th Century made their livings from land that the USA government stole from the Indians. So, when will Liberals denounce the government and the anti-bank movement?

        2. Fartriloquist   14 years ago

          That would explain a lot.

          1. Fartriloquist   14 years ago

            The 'explain a lot' remark was meant in reply to MAESTRO's question about performance art. I don't know why it ended up under wareagle's comment (though it seems equally appropriate either place).

            That is all.

      2. GILMORE   14 years ago

        Lefties love entitlement programs but, ironically, entitlement programs are geared more toward the middle-class (including upper middle-class)

        i.e. "Charity to themselves"

    5. romulus augustus   14 years ago

      After the electorate laughed at Goldwater for suggesting s.s. reform, the GOP -they can test the wind as well as anyone - decided it was a lost cause. But, speaking of Nixon et al,
      why do you think we bailed on the GOP and started the Libertarian Party in 1972? Point fingers all you want but don't do it in our direction.

    6. 16th amendment   14 years ago

      The people you mention -- Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bush II -- were not libertarians. When they passed these increases they were not even conservatives. Bush II also expanded the food stamp program gigantically even before the 2007 recession started, and increased federal education spending over 50%. They might have done these things to buy votes or compromise (just as Bill Clinton signed DOMA, Jerry Brown nixed his opposition to three strikes to get the prison union endorsement), or maybe because times were so good that filled with irrational exuberance they felt they could spend infinitely (such as SB400 in California which gives state workers generous pensions).

  3. juris imprudent   14 years ago

    Consider that SS recipients (without other income sources) are a major chunk of the bottom quintile. They shouldn't have [real] income growth over any period of time, which in turn drags down whatever other gains do show up in that quintile. SS recipients are the anchor of the bottom quintile.

  4. Dr. Foster   14 years ago

    Get over it, Shikha. The top 1% have been making out like bandits, or maybe pirates, since, for whatever reason, libertarians seem more enamoured of seaborne theft.

    Anal, what do libertarians have to do with any of this?

    You could have corrected the percentages significantly by letting many of the TBTFs....ta da...fail. The "One" chose not to do that.

    Why does the current administration hate the poor and love Wall Street so much?

    1. We   14 years ago

      what do libertarians have to do with any of this?

      Nothing! Ever! We are, as you know, irrelevant.

      1. We   14 years ago

        Sorry. "Irrelevant" is rather harsh.
        I meant to say ineffectual.
        Carry on.

        1. fish   14 years ago

          Why aren't you responding as one of your more entertaining personalities?

      2. Episiarch   14 years ago

        HI RECTAL IT'S COOTER! I WAS KINDA WONDERIN' IF YOU'D LIKE TO TAKE A WALK IN THE SWAMP LATER? I THOUGHT WE MIGHT EVEN SEE SOME GATORS AND THAT I WOULD SURELY SEE A SWAMP DONKEY!

        1. We   14 years ago

          Him sensitive!

          1. Episiarch   14 years ago

            WELL MISS RECTAL IF YOU'RE TALKIN' ABOUT MY FEELINGS FOR YOU THEN YOU'RE RIGHT, BUT I DON'T SEE WHY YOU HAVE TO BE SO MEAN ABOUT IT! WHAT DID COOTER DO TO MAKE YOU SO SORE?

      3. Warty   14 years ago

        HI RECTAL I GOT ANOTHER FLOWER FOR U ITS NOT AS PRETTY AS THE LAST ONE BUT AT LEAST THIS AINT GOT LICE AND I CAN'T SEE FLOWERS WITHOUT THINKING OF U CUZ UR MY PRETTY LITTLE FLOWER OK HAVE A NICE DAY NOW MISS RECTAL

        1. We   14 years ago

          It's funny when all the puppets dance! But where's SugarFree?

          1. fish   14 years ago

            We|11.3.11 @ 1:49PM|#

            It's funny when all the puppets dance! But where's SugarFree?

            At least you are now admitting to the multiple personalities. That's the first step on the road to recovery.

    2. Gilbert Martin   14 years ago

      "The top 1% have been making out like bandits, or maybe pirates, since, for whatever reason, libertarians seem more enamoured of seaborne theft."

      Not unless you can cough up some evidnce that the top 1% have all been convicted of actual theft in a court of law.

  5. Suki   14 years ago

    Those poor old people.

  6. Mike M.   14 years ago

    Obama must really detest those old people, considering that he wants to further cut the payroll tax in spite of the fact that 1) S.S. is now officially running cash negative, and 2) the Baby Boomers, the largest generation in American history, are becoming elegible for S.S. benefits.

    1. wareagle   14 years ago

      Obama, like all liberals, is preying on the ignorance of much of the American public. He believes many will only hear "tax cut" rather than "payroll tax cut" and he further believes that most have no idea what the payroll tax really is or what its intended purpose is.

      The left cannot abide touching actual income tax rates so it fritters on the edges with things like payroll. It's why you also hear things like "tax credit" so often.

      1. o2   14 years ago

        "The left cannot abide touching actual income tax rates..."
        _

        then u missed the entire tax-the-rich argument starting late last year to current.

        1. wareagle   14 years ago

          I meant touching them in a downward direction.

        2. Matrix   14 years ago

          shit4brains|11.3.11 @ 12:22PM|#
          "The left cannot abide touching actual income tax rates..."
          _

          then u missed the entire tax-the-rich argument starting late last year to current.

          Because the rich don't pay any taxes, right?

          1. o2   14 years ago

            they nede to pay moar taxs teh wignuts on here doesnt think they shuodnot pay none

            1. cw   14 years ago

              Got anymore straw men in there?

            2. ##   14 years ago

              Hmmm...seven misspelled words out of 16, no grammer, no punctuation, no capitalization, and no point. Parents really shouldn't let their preschoolers play with the computer.

  7. T   14 years ago

    You know why this happened? Old people vote, poor people don't. Ta da!

    Politicians pander to the most reliable voting group. That's a big shock.

  8. Metazoan   14 years ago

    I still don't really see why income inequality per se really matters. I mean, given that people do all sorts of different things, wouldn't you expect different outcomes?

    1. sarcasmic   14 years ago

      But, but, but it's not FAYER! That's why!

      We're all equal, right? I mean, all men are created equal, right? Well, they're not created because there's no creator, it's it not just men it's women too, and equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes, but, but, but we're supposed to be equal, man! That's what they told me in the public schools! We're all winners!
      And it's just not FAYER that some have more stuff than others. Especially because there's a fixed amount of wealth out there, like the Monopoly board game, and every rich person represents a bunch of poor people who got robbed!
      It's, like, about FAYERNESS and stuff, you know? Man? Dude?

      1. T   14 years ago

        I mean, all men are created equal, right?

        That was a marvelous bit of rhetoric, but it is provably, demonstrably, factually wrong.

        1. sarcasmic   14 years ago

          OMG you are like so racist and intolerant and stuff!
          You know?
          I mean, Mommy said nobody is better than me.
          All my teachers said the same thing. They didn't even do grades and stuff because that might make someone feel bad and stuff, and that's just mean and stuff.
          You know?
          So, like I'm going to go join the OWS people and stuff.
          You know?

      2. Troy   14 years ago

        Penis enlargement for ALL!!!!! It is not fayer that the Lexington Steele's get all the meat.

      3. Ed   14 years ago

        "Especially because there's a fixed amount of wealth out there, like the Monopoly board game"

        Not so. The rules specifically state that if the Bank runs out of money, the banker may write IOUs on paper slips in lieu of cash.

        1. T   14 years ago

          Who the hell plays monopoly so long the bank runs out of cash? I get bored way before that problem kicks in.

          1. Brandon   14 years ago

            Who has time to get bored with all the fist fights and smoldering wreckage of relationships?

    2. wareagle   14 years ago

      I still don't really see why income inequality per se really matters.
      ---------------------------------- Toss out shit like this - "income inequality", which has the sound of one person benefiting at another's expense - and you appeal to a combination of people's stupidity and some sense of fairness.

      Realizing that income inequality is a talking point that is unworthy of even bumper sticker status takes thinking and too many Americans refuse to engage in that. The left relies on people being uninformed. Recall that the mantra of health care as a political issue began long before Obamacare. You saw lots of sob stories to gin up support, and you already see that with income - Dems know some people will hyperventilate over another person's astronomical salary.

    3. R C Dean   14 years ago

      I still don't really see why income inequality per se really matters.

      A combination of the lefty prog inability to mind their own fucking business (which is apparently genetic) and simple envy.

  9. Troy   14 years ago

    Rectal makes me miss Lonewhacko.

    1. Warty   14 years ago

      DONT U SAY BAD THINGS ABOUT MISS RECTAL OR ILL DRIVE MY TRUCK OVER THERE AND WHOOP U

      1. Intes   14 years ago

        which Crowder are you?

        1. Warty   14 years ago

          HI MISS RECTAL THIS HERE TROY DONT SEEM TO LIKE U BUT I TOLD HIM OFF. HERE I GOT YOU THIS FLOWER IN THE SWAMP WHEN I WAS OUT HUNTIN COONS WITH MY DOGS I WANT U TO HAVE IT. OK MISS RECTAL HAVE A NICE DAY NOW

  10. GILMORE   14 years ago

    News Flash = "Poor Still Poor Despite Hundred Trillion in Middle-Class-Conceived Entitlements"

    I think the answer is clearly to spend more.

    1. Barack Obama   14 years ago

      I think the answer is clearly to spend more.

      When is that not the answer to the government's problems?

  11. GILMORE   14 years ago

    CLASS WARFARE, NOW!!!

    Headline from Yahoo Finance=

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/.....t;=&ccode;
    Bachmann says all Americans should pay taxes

    DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann is telling college students in politically important Iowa that all Americans should pay taxes since they all benefit from services such as roads and bridges, national defense and the courts.

    ROADZ!!!!

    Is it me or is the current GOP basically just a "I know you are but what am I" version of the Democratic party? They both use the same rationale for either soaking the Rich or bleeding everyone else.

    I think somewhere along the line this whole 'social-contract' thing turned into an excuse for stupid of epic proportions. Don't debate the social contract though!! Just who pays for it. BEAST NEED MOAR YOUR MONEYS!!

    1. Jordan   14 years ago

      If she's talking about taxing the people who use all kinds of government benefits but pay nothing in income taxes, then I'm fine with that.

      1. Jordan   14 years ago

        Standard libertarian disclaimer: I'd prefer nobody pay income taxes.

        1. GILMORE   14 years ago

          The key point here is not "Everyone Should Pay Their Fair Share!!" - its that neither GOP or Dems even pretend to ever address the actual issue of *their* role... The fact that it is *government* profiligacy and irresponsibility that is the source of the bleeding wound... instead, they each choose to point fingers at different segments of the electorate and tell their constituents, "They're not kicking in their fair share!! CLASS WARFARE!! GET EM!!"

          Its an endless headfake that apparently 99% (derp) of the country responds to... like a dog to a tennis ball, or cat to flashlight on the floor.

    2. Mainer   14 years ago

      It is so ingrained now that if you make a dollar, the government gets a piece of it. It's just a given that you aren't entitled to All the money you've earned.

  12. cynical   14 years ago

    So, apparently purging senescent cells has been found to keep mice healthier for longer. Seems that the older cells negatively impact tissues in a negative way, disproportionate to their overall numbers.

    Oh, that was totally off-topic, of course.

  13. jtuf   14 years ago

    In fairness to the Liberals, when the Great Society started, they never expected old people to live so long, and nationalized healthcare could bring life expectancy back down anyway.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Zohran Mamdani's Government-Run Grocery Stores Won't Lower Prices

Jack Nicastro | 6.25.2025 5:10 PM

On Housing, All New York Politicians Are Socialists

Christian Britschgi | 6.25.2025 4:30 PM

Reason Earns 15 Southern California Journalism Awards

Billy Binion | 6.25.2025 3:53 PM

Tariffs Are Keeping Interest Rates High

Eric Boehm | 6.25.2025 3:05 PM

The Biggest Impediment to Kathy Hochul's Pro-Nuclear Plan for New York Is the Government

Jeff Luse | 6.25.2025 2:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!