Why can't Public Assistance increase?

[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

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.

I don't see how that changes what I said, but why should a 16 year old kid in his first job earn a "living wage?"

 

[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%?

No, it not included in the silly 0.07 number.

No, it not included in the silly 0.07 number.

What should the number be?

What about the people that live longer than their social security contribution? Where does that money come from?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

So if you're poor, why not get a job?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

I don't hate or even find the poor disgusting. In reality, I'm one of them..the only difference being that I work despite the fact that working actually results in a lower standard of living for me. I have no disposable income at all because I bear the full burden of food, housing, utilities, travel. The state dependent parasites are what they have been made. Whatever income they earn, no matter how little, IS *disposable income* because all their necessities are funded by me. So Shakeena who works 3 hours a week at McDonald's is able to use that money to pay for makeup, shoes, a car..that I can't afford..despite the fact that I earn (from employment) 10x what she earns in a month.

The people I hate and hold in disgust are the elitist garbage who think they have the right, and the authority, to take money from MY children in order to give it to Letitia in Philly, because my children don't *need* the money I earn as much as a crack whore does.

 

[BluesLegend]

Get a job and pay your own damn bills you lard ass mooching sponges I'm tired of carrying you people.

 

[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%?

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.

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.

You don't pay any taxes, such as sales tax?

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.

You've NEVER had a job that contributed to social security?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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 spend more than any other country on public assistance. Tell me, what other country would you rather live in if poor?

The truth of the matter is that in some cases, the so-called poor do better than middle-class working families. HUD buys and rents homes in the suburbs and is now targeting wealthy areas to put their lowlifes.

Giving people more money is no way to solve poverty. If you really want to solve poverty, what we need to do is not give anybody welfare until they are fixed first. No more having children while on welfare. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree in most cases. And if we are going to give the poor more incentives to have more poor children, poverty can never be solved.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

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

Cut what part of the budget?

Our deficits ARE insane. Made possible by the guy who was President from 2001-2008.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

Computers, cell phones, televisions................

 

[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%?

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

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

How much do you, or are you going to be paid in social security?

 

[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.

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.

You don't pay any taxes, such as sales tax?

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.

You've NEVER had a job that contributed to social security?

Okay. First of all, I wasn't speaking of myself, in particular - I was speaking in the hypothetical. Second, sales tax is a state, and local thing, has nothing to do with the federal budget, and is not relevant to the discussion. Finally, sure, in this scenario, let use assume that I am, or have, flipped burgers. I will get back about what I put in. Social Security benefits are based on one's contributions, not one's need, unlike public assistance. It is not entitlement.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

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?

Computers, cell phones, televisions................

No. No. And. No. Televisions cost no where near what they did in 1995. Nor do computers, or cell phones.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[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.

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

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

'They' thought of paying for infrastructure for 50 States and 7 territories? 'They' were pretty good!

 

[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.

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

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

'They' thought of paying for infrastructure for 50 States and 7 territories? 'They' were pretty good!

Yeah, what these alleged Constitutional advocates always seem to want to forget is that if we are only funding things that the Constitution allowed for, then the first thing we need to do is disband our standing army. Guess what? No where in the Constitution did it make allowances for a standing army. I'd be willing to bet that OnePercenter would really rather not do away with that "unconstitutional" body...

 

[Anathema]

'They' thought of paying for infrastructure for 50 States and 7 territories? 'They' were pretty good!

No. They thought about paying for Postal Roads (major, interstate routes) and the buildings necessary for running the Federal Government. Anything beyond that (infastructure-wise) is not part of what's approved in the Constitution.

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

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.

Over the last 40 years, I've had the opportunity to travel to almost every continent and country......I prefer here.

If the US constitution provides for amendments, then why is everything skewed toward the rich/wealthy, and business? Did you vote wrong?

 

[koshergrl]

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

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

'They' thought of paying for infrastructure for 50 States and 7 territories? 'They' were pretty good!

Yeah, what these alleged Constitutional advocates always seem to want to forget is that if we are only funding things that the Constitution allowed for, then the first thing we need to do is disband our standing army. Guess what? No where in the Constitution did it make allowances for a standing army. I'd be willing to bet that OnePercenter would really rather not do away with that "unconstitutional" body...

"The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....Article I, Section 8, Clause 12"

Presumably, we revisit this every couple of years. If we don't, we should address it.

 

[kaz]

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

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

Cut what part of the budget?

Our deficits ARE insane. Made possible by the guy who was President from 2001-2008.

Again a brain dead liberal. It was W and Obama, two peas in a pod. And cut all of it. Including the military

 

[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

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

'They' thought of paying for infrastructure for 50 States and 7 territories? 'They' were pretty good!

Yes, they were

 

[Anathema]

Yeah, what these alleged Constitutional advocates always seem to want to forget is that if we are only funding things that the Constitution allowed for, then the first thing we need to do is disband our standing army. Guess what? No where in the Constitution did it make allowances for a standing army. I'd be willing to bet that OnePercenter would really rather not do away with that "unconstitutional" body...

The standing army isn't unconstitutional. What is, is the funding of that group for more than 24 months at one time/in one bill.

Honestly, I'd like to seriously reduce military spending, by returning all foreign based troops and putting green them in airports/ports/bus terminals and on the border.