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?

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.

Which is still a need, that we are not meeting. Your point?

 

[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 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?

 

[Anathema]

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

You could probably count the number of people in the world I like and/or respect on both your hands and have fingers to spare. That doesn't mean I hate everyone else. It simply means those people in the middle really don't exist in my mind. They're just there. Meaningless bodies that float through the world with no impact on me.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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?

Nothing says freedom and liberty more than serfdom.

 

[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.

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

Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local for 2016 - Charts Tables History

 

[LaDexter]

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.

Ah, in most countries, the rich and the government are 1 and the same, and everyone else is poor. Here, Democrats want to make everyone not part of the Democratic Party poor, and everyone who supports the Democrats gets a government check.

The poor were much better off in the US with Gingrich/Clinton and government spending at 25% of GDP, instead of 50% today after the "period of American WO (W+O)."

Hopefully, we won't add to that disaster by making it 24 years of WOH!!!

 

[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???

 

[Czernobog]

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

You could probably count the number of people in the world I like and/or respect on both your hands and have fingers to spare. That doesn't mean I hate everyone else. It simply means those people in the middle really don't exist in my mind. They're just there. Meaningless bodies that float through the world with no impact on me.

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.

 

[LaDexter]

try this one, just Federal...

 

[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.

Which is still a need, that we are not meeting. Your point?

We are more than meeting a for the most part, manufactured need.

 

[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.

Ah, in most countries, the rich and the government are 1 and the same, and everyone else is poor. Here, Democrats want to make everyone not part of the Democratic Party poor, and everyone who supports the Democrats gets a government check.

The poor were much better off in the US with Gingrich/Clinton and government spending at 25% of GDP, instead of 50% today after the "period of American WO (W+O)."

Hopefully, we won't add to that disaster by making it 24 years of WOH!!!

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.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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?

 

[JBond]

A good read that goes more than skin deep on this topic.

How the U.S. spends more helping its citizens than other rich countries, but gets way less

How the U.S. spends more helping its citizens than other rich countries, but gets way less

 

[Czernobog]

try this one, just Federal...

Interesting Chart, but again, I am not talking about increasing the budget, only in adjusting how that budget is allocated.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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

 

[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.

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*****

 

[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 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.

 

[hunarcy]

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.

 

[LaDexter]

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....

 

[Czernobog]

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.