Why can't Public Assistance increase?

[Anathema]

And you find them all disgusting? You might not, but most rational people would call that hatred. One does not find someone disgusting, without first hating them.

Not all of them, but many. The faceless mass is generally in that position because they're simply going through the motions in life. They refuse to embrace the things that could separate them from the crowd. They refuse to better themselves. They're little more than zombies moving through life.

The poor draw additional ire from me because most are in their position due to actively (and often intentionally) ignoring what they should do in favor of what is easy for them.

 

[Czernobog]

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?

In Finland, all income is taxed, as are goods and services. Value-added tax (VAT) is known in Finland as arvonlisävero (ALV).

The State, the Municipalities, the Evangelic Lutheran Church and the Orthodox Church all have the power to levy taxes. Direct taxes include state income tax, wealth tax, inheritance and gift tax, and asset transfer tax, all payable to the State, municipal tax payable to the appropriate Municipality, and church tax payable to the Church. Indirect taxes include VAT added to the price of products, and excise and customs duties.

In the United Kingdom , personal allowance is the threshold above which income tax is levied on an individual's income. A person who receives less than his/her personal allowance in taxable income (such as earnings and some benefits) in a given tax year does not pay income tax; otherwise, tax must be paid according to how much is earned above this level. Certain residents are entitled to a larger personal allowance than others. Such groups include the over 65s (followed by an increased allowance for over 75s), blind people, and married couples where at least one person in the marriage (or civil partnership) was born before 6 April 1935. Indirect taxes such as VAT added to the price of products, and excise and customs duties also are levied.

Taxation in Israel include income tax with a maximum rate of 50%, capital gains tax, VAT of 17% and land appreciation tax. The primary law on income taxes in Israel is codified in the Income Tax Ordinance.

Taxation in Norway is levied by the central government, the county (fylkeskommune and the municipality (kommune). In 2012 the total tax revenue was 42.2% of the gross domestic product (GDP). Many direct and indirect taxes exist. The most important taxes — in terms of revenue — are VAT, income tax in the petroleum sector, employers’ social security contributions and tax on "ordinary income" for persons. Most direct taxes are collected by the Norwegian Tax Administration (Skatteetaten) and most indirect taxes are collected by the Norwegian Customs and Excise Authorities.

We should NOT have to pay so much taxes, but if those people decide to give their governments that much money, perhaps you should move to one of them to support their welfare system.

Again, you are talking about how revenue is collected, not how budgetary interests are allocated. I am not suggesting that we do anything that would increase taxes, only that we adjust how the budget, as it currently exists, be reallocated.

 

[Czernobog]

And you find them all disgusting? You might not, but most rational people would call that hatred. One does not find someone disgusting, without first hating them.

Not all of them, but many. The faceless mass is generally in that position because they're simply going through the motions in life. They refuse to embrace the things that could separate them from the crowd. They refuse to better themselves. They're little more than zombies moving through life.

The poor draw additional ire from me because most are in their position due to actively (and often intentionally) ignoring what they should do in favor of what is easy for them.

As I said, your hatred of the poor is noted. You are dismissed.

 

[Czernobog]

Why can't we just cut it to ZERO???

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.

View attachment 79019

If the poor in this country are already receiving something that's more than a lot of people in the third world countries receive...

Instead of bitching for more how about becoming truly enlightened by getting a job instead?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Your hatred of the poor is duly noted. Dismissed.

 

[hadit]

Your numbers are incorrect.
How Much Do Federal Entitlement Programs Like Social Security Cost As A Percentage Of GDP?

I was not referring to GDP. I was, specifically, referring to percentage of budget. Further more, social security is not public assistance, so any analysis that includes Social Security as an "entitlement" program, is flawed.

Sorry, it really is an entitlement program. Taxes from current workers pay the benefits of retired workers and all surpluses are automatically put into the general fund. There's no separate account where your money is stashed and you can go see it grow.

 

[Czernobog]

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?

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.

Well ,at least you guys are being honest about your hatred. It has nothing to do with your taxes as I demonstrates how we could do more for the poor, without increasing a single person's taxes.

You guys just hate poor people.

Thanks for the honesty.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Make all things equal before trying to compare. For just one example, most of the nations you cite are more homogeneous than is the US, and do not deal with the flood of poorly educated people we do. Many of them also rely on the presence of the US military to protect them from their neighbors. How trusting of the Germans do you think the French would be without GI Joe hanging around?

So what? We spend more on our military than our next 11 NATO allies combined. Are you seriously suggesting that we could not afford to cut a simple 2% out of our military budget, and still have the strongest military in NATO?!?!? Really???

Ah, yes, the old "we can always cut <insert least appreciated part of the budget here> to pay for more <insert most appreciated part of the budget here> gambit. Note that nowhere in my post did I even suggest we could not cut anything from the budget. What I did say was let's compare apples to apples instead of oranges to 5.

No, you mentioned, that, because they can afford to spend less on military, they can afford to spend more on public assistance. Well? Guess what? So can we.

 

[Anathema]

As I said, your hatred of the poor is noted. You are dismissed.

LOL. You have no idea what levels of hatred I can sit know to. My disgust of the poor is nothing compared to my feelings about many other groups, here in the USA and especially abroad.

 

[Czernobog]

Funny you should mention the Gingrich/Clinton government. Because they were also spending about 1.6% of the federal budget, at that time, on public assistance. I'm glad you agree that we should increase public assistance as a percentage of the budget.

How about a compromise?

As soon as we cut government spending back to the 1995 level, I'll support PA of 1.6% of that....

Well, there is one rather unrealistic expectation with that. Can you name a single thing that you can purchase today at the same price you would have purchased it for in 1995?

 

[Anathema]

No, you mentioned, that, because they can afford to spend less on military, they can afford to spend more on public assistance. Well? Guess what? So can we.

No. We can reduce military spending, remove ALL social spending (along with all other unconstitutional spending) and return that money where it belongs - in the hands of the taxpayers.

 

[hadit]

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.

Well ,at least you guys are being honest about your hatred. It has nothing to do with your taxes as I demonstrates how we could do more for the poor, without increasing a single person's taxes.

You guys just hate poor people.

Thanks for the honesty.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Make all things equal before trying to compare. For just one example, most of the nations you cite are more homogeneous than is the US, and do not deal with the flood of poorly educated people we do. Many of them also rely on the presence of the US military to protect them from their neighbors. How trusting of the Germans do you think the French would be without GI Joe hanging around?

So what? We spend more on our military than our next 11 NATO allies combined. Are you seriously suggesting that we could not afford to cut a simple 2% out of our military budget, and still have the strongest military in NATO?!?!? Really???

Ah, yes, the old "we can always cut <insert least appreciated part of the budget here> to pay for more <insert most appreciated part of the budget here> gambit. Note that nowhere in my post did I even suggest we could not cut anything from the budget. What I did say was let's compare apples to apples instead of oranges to 5.

No, you mentioned, that, because they can afford to spend less on military, they can afford to spend more on public assistance. Well? Guess what? So can we.

They can, only because we are there. We could save a lot of money by bringing all our troops home, sure. It wouldn't be enough to cover the Obama deficit, but we could save a lot of money. The point, however, is that if we did that, all of a sudden a lot of countries wouldn't be able to afford lavish welfare states any more. It's very hard to afford them if you have to pay all the bills yourself.

 

[Camp]

Funny you should mention the Gingrich/Clinton government. Because they were also spending about 1.6% of the federal budget, at that time, on public assistance. I'm glad you agree that we should increase public assistance as a percentage of the budget.

How about a compromise?

As soon as we cut government spending back to the 1995 level, I'll support PA of 1.6% of that....

Well, there is one rather unrealistic expectation with that. Can you name a single thing that you can purchase today at the same price you would have purchased it for in 1995?

Used Harley-Davidsons.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Why can't we just cut it to ZERO???

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.

View attachment 79019

If the poor in this country are already receiving something that's more than a lot of people in the third world countries receive...

Instead of bitching for more how about becoming truly enlightened by getting a job instead?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Your hatred of the poor is duly noted. Dismissed.

The ones I know receive enough for a roof over their head, clothes to wear, put food on the table, and receive adequate health care.

Some of them won't even sit in a classroom and listen to a two hour lecture about nutrition once a month so they can receive $200-$300 worth of food that doesn't count against their income because it's too much work.

I have no hate over the issue.

If it's too much work to sit in a classroom for a couple hours or picking up a broom and doing some actual work then....

*****SMILE*****

 

[JBond]

Your numbers are incorrect.
How Much Do Federal Entitlement Programs Like Social Security Cost As A Percentage Of GDP?

I was not referring to GDP. I was, specifically, referring to percentage of budget. Further more, social security is not public assistance, so any analysis that includes Social Security as an "entitlement" program, is flawed.

Regarding social security, if you get back more than you paid, it is an entitlement.

Also, do not forget to count the trillions in Obamacare costs. So far $2 trillion.

ObamaCare: $2 Trillion In Spending, $643M In Taxes, Insurance For $50k a Head - Breitbart

 

[Czernobog]

Well ,at least you guys are being honest about your hatred. It has nothing to do with your taxes as I demonstrates how we could do more for the poor, without increasing a single person's taxes.

You guys just hate poor people.

Thanks for the honesty.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Make all things equal before trying to compare. For just one example, most of the nations you cite are more homogeneous than is the US, and do not deal with the flood of poorly educated people we do. Many of them also rely on the presence of the US military to protect them from their neighbors. How trusting of the Germans do you think the French would be without GI Joe hanging around?

So what? We spend more on our military than our next 11 NATO allies combined. Are you seriously suggesting that we could not afford to cut a simple 2% out of our military budget, and still have the strongest military in NATO?!?!? Really???

Ah, yes, the old "we can always cut <insert least appreciated part of the budget here> to pay for more <insert most appreciated part of the budget here> gambit. Note that nowhere in my post did I even suggest we could not cut anything from the budget. What I did say was let's compare apples to apples instead of oranges to 5.

No, you mentioned, that, because they can afford to spend less on military, they can afford to spend more on public assistance. Well? Guess what? So can we.

They can, only because we are there. We could save a lot of money by bringing all our troops home, sure. It wouldn't be enough to cover the Obama deficit, but we could save a lot of money. The point, however, is that if we did that, all of a sudden a lot of countries wouldn't be able to afford lavish welfare states any more. It's very hard to afford them if you have to pay all the bills yourself.

11 times more than our first 11 NATO allies. We don't have to change one single thing, to decrease our military budget. All we have to do is decide to spend some of the bloated budget somewhere else. You guys all seem to want to act like our military budget is is being run on a shoestring, and would fall apart if a single cent were pulled out of it. It isn't, and it wouldn't.

 

[OnePercenter]

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?

If things were going well, the need would be very low.

You FAIL. AGAIN.

If things were going well, the need would be very low.

You FAIL. AGAIN.

0.7% isn't low?

 

[kaz]

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?

Another Democrat voter drive, pay people more money to stay dependent on government and vote for Democrats to earn their living. We need to make it harder on people to not work, not easier

 

[Unkotare]

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?

Because it wouldn't work, simpleton.

 

[hadit]

Make all things equal before trying to compare. For just one example, most of the nations you cite are more homogeneous than is the US, and do not deal with the flood of poorly educated people we do. Many of them also rely on the presence of the US military to protect them from their neighbors. How trusting of the Germans do you think the French would be without GI Joe hanging around?

So what? We spend more on our military than our next 11 NATO allies combined. Are you seriously suggesting that we could not afford to cut a simple 2% out of our military budget, and still have the strongest military in NATO?!?!? Really???

Ah, yes, the old "we can always cut <insert least appreciated part of the budget here> to pay for more <insert most appreciated part of the budget here> gambit. Note that nowhere in my post did I even suggest we could not cut anything from the budget. What I did say was let's compare apples to apples instead of oranges to 5.

No, you mentioned, that, because they can afford to spend less on military, they can afford to spend more on public assistance. Well? Guess what? So can we.

They can, only because we are there. We could save a lot of money by bringing all our troops home, sure. It wouldn't be enough to cover the Obama deficit, but we could save a lot of money. The point, however, is that if we did that, all of a sudden a lot of countries wouldn't be able to afford lavish welfare states any more. It's very hard to afford them if you have to pay all the bills yourself.

11 times more than our first 11 NATO allies. We don't have to change one single thing, to decrease our military budget. All we have to do is decide to spend some of the bloated budget somewhere else. You guys all seem to want to act like our military budget is is being run on a shoestring, and would fall apart if a single cent were pulled out of it. It isn't, and it wouldn't.

Again, I said nothing about the military budget being sacred. You really need to stop running around with such a broad brush. I'm merely pointing out that the countries you cite as being superior can afford their systems largely because we pay for their defense. Sure, I'll agree, let's pull all our military presence from everywhere around the world, wait 5 years, then see which nations have maintained their lavish welfare systems.

 

[Czernobog]

Funny you should mention the Gingrich/Clinton government. Because they were also spending about 1.6% of the federal budget, at that time, on public assistance. I'm glad you agree that we should increase public assistance as a percentage of the budget.

How about a compromise?

As soon as we cut government spending back to the 1995 level, I'll support PA of 1.6% of that....

Well, there is one rather unrealistic expectation with that. Can you name a single thing that you can purchase today at the same price you would have purchased it for in 1995?

Used Harley-Davidsons.

So, nothing? There is no thing that isn';t used, and beat up, that you can purchase for the same price as you did in 1995. Thanks for acknowledging that.

And that's the problem with trying to return to a 1995 budget. You think cost of living, cost of doing business, and inflation only affects individuals, and families? That budget is doled out for departments to pay salaries, and to buy shit. That costs more than it did in 1995. Now. Could the budget be reduced? I'm sure it could. However, to set some benchmark, like "the 1995 budget", is just stupid, specious, and unrealistic.