Why can't Public Assistance increase?

[OnePercenter]

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

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

Isn't social security included in the 0.7%?

 

[JBond]

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.

Adjusted for inflation, it could be rolled back 1995 numbers.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Okay. So why can't we spend more on pubic assisxtance. What are we spending our budget on, that is running so tightly, thatg we could not allocate some of it to increase public assistance, and poverty prevention? You keep pointing to their lack of a need to spend on military, as if that, somehow, implies that our military budget, because we have to spend money on the military that they do not, somehow prevents us from increasing money spent to fight poverty.

Do you think our military budget prevents us from doing what those countries do?

 

[JoeNormal]

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

I've been hearing about how the Nordic countries are going bankrupt under their generous welfare state for about 30 years. Somehow, they're still here and the people are still the happiest. Maybe they've figured out something that Americans seem to be too stupid to understand. They adapt to the current situation.

 

[LaDexter]

We heard the same noises from Billary about how we couldn't cut taxes and spending in the same budget. Billary now takes credit for those budgets, because they validated the theories of Milton Friedman....

Can we cut spending...??

YES WE CAN as long as we do not vote for Hillary!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[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

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

Isn't social security included in the 0.7%?

No, it not included in the silly 0.07 number.

 

[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.

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.

Ok, what should be cut? In fiscal year 2015, the federal government spent $3.7 trillion, amounting to 21 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). Of that $3.7 trillion, over $3.2 trillion was financed by federal revenues. The remaining amount ($438 billion) was financed by borrowing. As the chart below shows, three major areas of spending each make up about one-fifth of the budget:

• Social Security: Last year, 24 percent of the budget, or $888 billion, paid for Social Security, which provided monthly retirement benefits averaging $1,342 to 40 million retired workers in December 2015. Social Security also provided benefits to 2.3 million spouses and children of retired workers, 6.1 million surviving children and spouses of deceased workers, and 10.8 million disabled workers and their eligible dependents in December 2015. You claim that Social Security shouldn't be counted, but it is one of the largest portions of the budget. How can you change that?
• 
  
• Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and marketplace subsidies: Four health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace subsidies — together accounted for 25 percent of the budget in 2015, or $938 billion. Nearly two-thirds of this amount, or $546 billion, went to Medicare, which provides health coverage to around 55 million people who are over age 65 or have disabilities. The rest of this category funds Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA subsidy and exchange costs. In a typical month, Medicaid and CHIP provide health care or long-term care to about 72 million low-income children, parents, elderly people, and people with disabilities. (Both Medicaid and CHIP require matching payments from the states.) In 2015, 8 million of the 11 million people enrolled in health insurance exchanges received ACA subsidies, at an estimated cost of about $28 billion. Don't see much room for change there.
• 
  
• Defense and international security assistance: Another 16 percent of the budget, or $602 billion, paid for defense and security-related international activities. The bulk of the spending in this category reflects the underlying costs of the Defense Department. The total also includes the cost of supporting operations in Afghanistan and other related activities, described as Overseas Contingency Operations in the budget, funding for which totaled $74 billion in 2015.

Two other categories together account for another fifth of spending:

• Safety net programs: About 10 percent (not 6.2%) of the federal budget in 2015, or $362 billion, supported programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship. Spending on safety net programs declined in both nominal and real terms between 2014 and 2015 as the economy continued to improve.
  
  These programs include: the refundable portions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, which assist low- and moderate-income working families; programs that provide cash payments to eligible individuals or households, including Supplemental Security Income for the elderly or disabled poor and unemployment insurance; various forms of in-kind assistance for low-income people, including SNAP (food stamps), school meals, low-income housing assistance, child care assistance, and help meeting home energy bills; and various other programs such as those that aid abused and neglected children.
  
  Such programs keep millions of people out of poverty each year. A CBPP analysis using Census’ Supplemental Poverty Measure shows that government safety net programs kept some 38 million people out of poverty in calendar year 2014. Without any government income assistance, either from safety net programs or other income supports like Social Security, the poverty rate would have been 27.3 percent in 2014, nearly double the actual 15.3 percent. And these programs reduced the depth of poverty for millions more, even when not bringing them above the poverty line.
  
  
• Interest on the national debt: The federal government must make regular interest payments on the money it borrowed to finance past deficits — that is, on the national debt held by the public, which reached $13 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2015. In 2015, these interest payments claimed $223 billion, or about 6 percent of the budget.
  

 

[Meathead]

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


Why is that such an outrageous idea?

Your stats are outrageous:

Safety net programs: About 10 percent of the federal budget in 2015, or $362 billion, supported programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship. Spending on safety net programs declined in both nominal and real terms between 2014 and 2015 as the economy continued to improve.

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[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.

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

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

Isn't social security included in the 0.7%?

I don't believe so. Social security is retirement insurance. It is not public assistance. Everyone wants to act like it is. I recieve public assistance, because I am poor, not because I made any sort of contribution.

If I didn't make any contribution to Social Security, I don't receive any social security, when I retire. You can call it an "Entitlement", or a public assistance program, all you like. It's just not.

 

[kaz]

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.

Okay. So why can't we spend more on pubic assisxtance. What are we spending our budget on, that is running so tightly, thatg we could not allocate some of it to increase public assistance, and poverty prevention? You keep pointing to their lack of a need to spend on military, as if that, somehow, implies that our military budget, because we have to spend money on the military that they do not, somehow prevents us from increasing money spent to fight poverty.

Do you think our military budget prevents us from doing what those countries do?

We need to cut the rest of the budget ... and not spend it ... Our deficits are insane

 

[kaz]

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

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

Isn't social security included in the 0.7%?

I don't believe so. Social security is retirement insurance. It is not public assistance. Everyone wants to act like it is. I recieve public assistance, because I am poor, not because I made any sort of contribution.

If I didn't make any contribution to Social Security, I don't receive any social security, when I retire. You can call it an "Entitlement", or a public assistance program, all you like. It's just not.

Social Security is welfare. There is no "trust fund." Government is simply taxing taxpayers and giving the money to people who didn't earn it just like every other welfare program

 

[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?

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.

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

Which is the problem running a country using a plan written 200+ years ago.

 

[LaDexter]

Cut ObamaCare, W's socialization of senior drugs, the DEA, convert the NEA into block grants only to states with valid voucher based choice programs, eliminate the climate change research funding completely except for data collection and post the data directly online, cut all funding to Israel and Saudi Arabia, and pull troops out of the Middle East entirely. Cut the crap out of Homeland Security, the NSA. Legalize marijuana.

Yeah, I'd get us back to a surplus in a big hurry...

 

[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?

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.

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

Which is the problem running a country using a plan written 200+ years ago.

They thought of that, 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4 and you can change it

 

[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?

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

That's your take on our answers?

Really?

It is one thing to fall for the spin...

Its another thing to create the spin in your head and believe it as fact.

That's kind of sad.

 

[Anathema]

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

Which is the problem running a country using a plan written 200+ years ago.

Then please feel free to leave for somewhere you prefer. The US Constitution provides means for amendment. If the majority of Americans want this changed, work to amend Article I, Section 8. UNTIL THEN, we should not be ignoring those provisions simply because you don't like them.

 

[hadit]

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.

Okay. So why can't we spend more on pubic assisxtance. What are we spending our budget on, that is running so tightly, thatg we could not allocate some of it to increase public assistance, and poverty prevention? You keep pointing to their lack of a need to spend on military, as if that, somehow, implies that our military budget, because we have to spend money on the military that they do not, somehow prevents us from increasing money spent to fight poverty.

Do you think our military budget prevents us from doing what those countries do?

No, the massive Obama deficit prevents us from doing what those countries do.

You seem eager to cut the military budget to pay for more welfare. Fine, which nation are we going to pull out of? And what other parts of the budget are you going to cut to find the billions we'll need? Remember, we'll have to stay revenue neutral, and EVERY government program ALWAYS ends up costing multiple times as much as is projected, so you're going to have to find a LOT of money. Keep in mind as well that you're going to face massive resistance, because the entrenched Washington bureaucracy, of which Hillary is the preferred candidate, does not take kindly to even slowing down the rate of increase in their budgets.

 

[boedicca]

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.

It's a PONZI scheme paid for by current workers whose ratio to recipients is collapsing.

 

[boedicca]

We heard the same noises from Billary about how we couldn't cut taxes and spending in the same budget. Billary now takes credit for those budgets, because they validated the theories of Milton Friedman....

Can we cut spending...??

YES WE CAN as long as we do not vote for Hillary!!!!!!!!!!!!

Norway's welfare state is funded by Fossil Fuel Oil Profits.

 

[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?

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

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

If all jobs paid a living wage you'd have a point.