Why can't Public Assistance increase?

[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?

 

[LaDexter]

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

 

[Jarhead]

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 our career minded politicians are not willing to have that extra money come from initiatives that satisfy the desires of their respective constituents.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

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

You FAIL. AGAIN.

Really? There was a time in our nation where poverty was zero? When was that?

 

[martybegan]

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.

When you subsidize laziness and acceptance of poverty, you get what you pay for.

 

[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.

When you subsidize laziness and acceptance of poverty, you get what you pay for.

Well, like I said, not a single civilized nation in the world agrees with you.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[NightFox]

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 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.

 

[Anathema]

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.

 

[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

 

[koshergrl]

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.

When you subsidize laziness and acceptance of poverty, you get what you pay for.

Well, like I said, not a single civilized nation in the world agrees with you.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Gads will we ever stop hearing about how great all the *other* civilized countries have it sooo much better than the us?

"Progressives in America are often keen on promoting the European welfare state as an argument for big government, not least in the healthcare debate. They point to European countries, often the social-democratic Nordic countries, as role models, with their universal healthcare, public school system, generous social-safety net, and all the happy people who live there.

"This line of argument got a significant boost when Newsweek proclaimed that Finland was the best country in the world to live in, closely followed by Sweden and Switzerland. And of course they are happy. After all, there is no poverty in these great countries, the populace is educated, and people generally don't have a care in the world, because the benevolent government is always there to solve every problem.

"Many people have tried to dispel this myth, but it still persists. I don't presume to be able to put this issue to rest, but there are some things that should be known about this mythical utopia, the "best country in the world" — Finland."

The Bankrupt Finnish Welfare State

 

[boedicca]

SS is 24%, Health care is 12%, and Food Stamps & Unemployment Insurance are 12% of Federal Spending. That's about half of all federal spending going towards "public assistance", bub.

 

[JBond]

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.

We spend more on social programs and entitlements than the rest of the world combined. We also take in more people into the US than the rest of the world. We are a kind and generous country. The OP needs to learn how to use a calculator. The numbers are completely wrong.

 

[hadit]

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 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.

That is the correct motorcycle. The US could save a lot of money if we pulled our military out of all the places it's stationed now, but I wonder how many of those nations with lavish welfare states would be able to afford them when they had to pay the entire bill for their defense.

 

[Anathema]

Well, at least you guys are being honest about your hatred. It has nothing to do with your taxes as I demonstrated 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.

My disgust (not hatred) for the poor is a separate issue.

The issue of unconstitutional, illegal, and immoral Federal spending (and the taxation required to fund it) extends far beyond welfare and social services.

 

[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.

We spend more on social programs and entitlements than the rest of the world combined. We also take in more people into the US than the rest of the world. We are a kind and generous country.

By what are you measuring that, because the statistics demonstrate that, as a percentage of our national budget, we most certainly so not.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Really? There was a time in our nation where poverty was zero? When was that?

I said low, not zero. Do try and keep up.

 

[Czernobog]

My disgust (not hatred) for the poor is a separate issue.

Yes. Because we all have disgust for people we like, and respect...

 

[martybegan]

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.

When you subsidize laziness and acceptance of poverty, you get what you pay for.

Well, like I said, not a single civilized nation in the world agrees with you.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And most of those are stagnant population wise, and losing their character through immigration without assimilation.