Why can't Public Assistance increase?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Czernobog, Jun 22, 2016.

  1. Czernobog
    Offline

    Czernobog Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2014
    Messages:
    5,568
    Thanks Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Corner of Chaos and Reason
    Ratings:
    +1,641
    Ya know. I keep hearing from fake conservatives about how we spend too much on welfare. Welfare would cause taxes to raise. Poor people want to steal more of my money. Blah, blah, blah.

    Some interesting statistics:

    Finland spends 3.2% of its federal budget on public assistance.

    Great Britain spends a little over 4.6%

    Israel spends 2.4%

    Norway spends a whopping 6.2%.

    And the US? 0.7%. That's it.

    So, why can't we just increase that to 2%? We can take that 2% away from our bloated military budget. It would still make us the Western nation that spends the least amount of money on their poor, but imagine the massive effect that would have on poverty in this country. And it wouldn't even cost the tax payers one. Red. Cent. more than they are paying, now. Because I'm not suggesting increasing the budget. I'm suggesting giving public assistance a slightly larger piece of the existing budget.

    Why is that such an outrageous idea?
     
    • Funny Funny x 11
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. LaDexter
    Offline

    LaDexter Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2016
    Messages:
    7,320
    Thanks Received:
    617
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +4,326
    Why can't we just cut it to ZERO???
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. Jarhead
    Offline

    Jarhead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    20,665
    Thanks Received:
    2,375
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,415
    because our career minded politicians are not willing to have that extra money come from initiatives that satisfy the desires of their respective constituents.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Soggy in NOLA
    Offline

    Soggy in NOLA Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2009
    Messages:
    37,466
    Thanks Received:
    4,950
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,971
    If things were going well, the need would be very low.

    You FAIL. AGAIN.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Czernobog
    Offline

    Czernobog Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2014
    Messages:
    5,568
    Thanks Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Corner of Chaos and Reason
    Ratings:
    +1,641
    Because every non-third-world-nation in the World recognizes that part of the social contract of an enlightened society is that we care for our poor. I'm sorry if you cannot recognize the social, economic, and health benefits of reducing poverty in our nation. Perhaps you should move to one of those third-world countries where they don't care, and let the rich freely rape, and pillage the poor.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Czernobog
    Offline

    Czernobog Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2014
    Messages:
    5,568
    Thanks Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Corner of Chaos and Reason
    Ratings:
    +1,641
    Really? There was a time in our nation where poverty was zero? When was that?
     
  7. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    36,708
    Thanks Received:
    5,079
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Ratings:
    +17,443
    When you subsidize laziness and acceptance of poverty, you get what you pay for.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  8. Czernobog
    Offline

    Czernobog Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2014
    Messages:
    5,568
    Thanks Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Corner of Chaos and Reason
    Ratings:
    +1,641
    Well, like I said, not a single civilized nation in the world agrees with you.

    Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
     
  9. NightFox
    Offline

    NightFox Wildling

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2013
    Messages:
    6,757
    Thanks Received:
    1,374
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    North beyond the Wall
    Ratings:
    +5,722
    You realize that in the U.S. only (approximately) $0.17 of every subsidy dollar goes to people that are actually POOR, which means that $0.83 goes to people that are NOT POOR, if we stopped subsidizing people (including businesses) that are not poor we could afford to provide better for people that actually need public assistance.

    BTW what those other countries spend is completely irrelevant, they're not us, they have completely different institutions, customs, demographics and population sizes AND they also get massive subsidies in the form of defense courtesy of U.S. Taxpayers.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Anathema
    Online

    Anathema Crotchety Olde Man

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2014
    Messages:
    9,286
    Thanks Received:
    887
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    The Olden Days
    Ratings:
    +5,411
    You want an answer? I'll give you an answer - though you'll never understand or accept it.....

    The US Constitution make NO PROVISIONS for the expenditure of Federal funds on ANY form of welfare. Not for social or personal welfare.

    Therefore the 0.7% the United States spends on these things is 0.7% too much.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1

Share This Page