Why can't Public Assistance increase?

[Anathema]

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?

I prefer to give my money to the rich rather than the poor. I've found it to be a much more efficient investment. So, no I haven't voted wrong.

Nothing going changes because most Americans have no idea what they are voting for or how the system works.

 

[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!

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...

No, the Constitution doesn't say the military needs to be disbanded. It says no appropriation should be for more than two years. We pass appropriations every year

 

[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.

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.

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

A Ponzi scheme is defined as: 'a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.'

How exactly does that define the current Social Security Administration?

 

[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.

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.

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

A Ponzi scheme is defined as: 'a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.'

How exactly does that define the current Social Security Administration?

There is no trust fund, it's a non-existent scheme

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

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

Let's take-over and nationalize the gasoline and oil industry.

 

[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.

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?"

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?"

You'd eliminate the under employed and give those working more than one job their life back.

A 16 year old who works should be taken advantage of because of their age?

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

I don't hate or even find the poor disgusting. In reality, I'm one of them

Don't you find it disgusting that in the wealthiest country in the world we have poor people? It's called wage disparity, a Republican ideal.

 

[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.

I don't hate or even find the poor disgusting. In reality, I'm one of them

Don't you find it disgusting that in the wealthiest country in the world we have poor people? It's called wage disparity, a Republican ideal.

Our poor people are not poor by the standards of the rest of the world. Communism is the best way to guarantee the swelling of the ranks of starving children.

 

[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?"

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?"

You'd eliminate the under employed and give those working more than one job their life back.

A 16 year old who works should be taken advantage of because of their age?

Strawman. Why is a 16 year old working their first job worth paying enough to live on? They are doing it for the training/experience almost all the time

 

[deltex1]

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?

Why can public effort/education/self reliance/moral standards increase?

 

[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.

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

A Ponzi scheme is defined as: 'a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.'

How exactly does that define the current Social Security Administration?

The first recipients of SS received far more than they paid in on an inflation adjusted basis, and their were dozens of taxpayers per recipient. We are now below a 3:1 ratio, and given how the Feds manipulate the definition of inflation, future recipients are going to receive a fraction of a dollar for all of their taxes. Get ready for means testing, too.

Yep, it's a Ponzi scheme. Instead of INVESTING the money in accounts owned by the individuals, politicians SPENT IT and stuffed the fake lockbox with IOUs on future generations.

 

[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.

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

Let's take-over and nationalize the gasoline and oil industry.

Nyeahhhh. Let's get rid of the welfare state instead.

 

[Jarlaxle]

try this one, just Federal...

That chart is the best argument I have seen in a while for why Washington should echo with the roar of chainsaws as the budget is "adjusted".

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Actually, it's a Ponzi scheme.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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 NOT insurance of any sort, and the Supreme Court has ruled as such.

 

[Rozman]

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?

May I ask a question....

What is Norway's Federal budget?
What is the USA's Federal budget?.....

I have a feeling that the Federal budget for the USA might be a little bit bigger...

Liberals....
They never feel like we spend enough...

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

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

A Ponzi scheme is defined as: 'a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.'

How exactly does that define the current Social Security Administration?

The first recipients of SS received far more than they paid in on an inflation adjusted basis, and their were dozens of taxpayers per recipient. We are now below a 3:1 ratio, and given how the Feds manipulate the definition of inflation, future recipients are going to receive a fraction of a dollar for all of their taxes. Get ready for means testing, too.

I recall it hit 2.5:1 a couple years ago.

Yep, it's a Ponzi scheme. Instead of INVESTING the money in accounts owned by the individuals, politicians SPENT IT and stuffed the fake lockbox with IOUs on future generations.

The only difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme is that Charles Ponzi couldn't force people to invest at gunpoint, and couldn't crank out piles of funny money to pay his bills!

 

[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?

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?"

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?"

You'd eliminate the under employed and give those working more than one job their life back.

A 16 year old who works should be taken advantage of because of their age?

A 16 year old living at home has no expenses to speak of. He's working for a little spending money, valuable job experience and a work history. When he graduates from school and goes full time, he'll be ahead of his peers who didn't work. He's gaining, not being taken advantage of. Remember, you're trying to make the case that a worker's circumstances and needs should count for more than what the job is worth to the employer when it comes to setting pay. IF that is the case, and you want to be consistent, you should agree that a 16 year old kid living at home needs far less pay than a married adult with children.

 

[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?

May I ask a question....

What is Norway's Federal budget?
What is the USA's Federal budget?.....

I have a feeling that the Federal budget for the USA might be a little bit bigger...

Liberals....
They never feel like we spend enough...

It's because they feel like they never have enough of what we earn.

 

[boedicca]

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.

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

A Ponzi scheme is defined as: 'a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.'

How exactly does that define the current Social Security Administration?

The first recipients of SS received far more than they paid in on an inflation adjusted basis, and their were dozens of taxpayers per recipient. We are now below a 3:1 ratio, and given how the Feds manipulate the definition of inflation, future recipients are going to receive a fraction of a dollar for all of their taxes. Get ready for means testing, too.

I recall it hit 2.5:1 a couple years ago.

Yep, it's a Ponzi scheme. Instead of INVESTING the money in accounts owned by the individuals, politicians SPENT IT and stuffed the fake lockbox with IOUs on future generations.

The only difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme is that Charles Ponzi couldn't force people to invest at gunpoint, and couldn't crank out piles of funny money to pay his bills!

Timber!!!!