Why can't Public Assistance increase?

[depotoo]

In FY 2015 total US government spending on welfare — federal, state, and local — was “guesstimated” to be $1,031 billion, including $565 billion for Medicaid, and $466 billion in other welfare.

I don't know who fed you that bull because welfare spending for 2015 was over $1 TRILLION dollars

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?

 

[whitehall]

I wish fake liberals would stop using the Scandinavian countries as some sort of social model for the U.S. The U.S. supports ten freaking times more illegal aliens than the entire freaking population of Finland. The country formerly known as England treated the Irish like sub humans for the entire 19th century and now they are stuck with caring for all the countries they colonized under the gun. I guess the most popular name for male babies in London is still Mohammed.

 

[koshergrl]

I wish fake liberals would stop using the Scandinavian countries as some sort of social model for the U.S. The U.S. supports ten freaking times more illegal aliens than the entire freaking population of Finland. The country formerly known as England treated the Irish like sub humans for the entire 19th century and now they are stuck with caring for all the countries they colonized under the gun. I guess the most popular name for male babies in London is still Mohammed.

They don't know what the fuck they're saying, they just repeat shit they're told by their masters, verbatim.

 

[whitehall]

Try jumping over the fence or the freaking fjiord and apply for immediate public assistance in Finland as an illegal alien and see how far you get. You will find yourself on the first dog sled out of the country.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

Second, sales tax is a state, and local thing, has nothing to do with the federal budget, and is not relevant to the discussion.

Name one State that doesn't receive federal funding.

 

[OnePercenter]

'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.

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.

Electricity is unconstitutional?

 

[Anathema]

Electricity is unconstitutional?

If the US Government is running an electric company, YES. Thankfully, that us not the case in the vast majority of the country. The Government may regulate the industry but Washington leaves most of that to the States.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

Let me give you an indication of how SS works. If for whatever reason I started collecting SS now I get a certain amount however if I wait until I retire I will receive $200 less, That is a horrible investment.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Why should we find having poor people disgusting? It's not like we made them poor. They are responsible for their own poverty.

But I guess that defies the liberal playbook where very few are responsible for their own plight.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

Who is taking advantage of them? They applied for a job, agreed to work for X money, and the employer decided to accept the agreement.

Only a liberal would call that "being taken advantage of."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

You may have a point. They are much cheaper now than they were in 95 if you compare quality.

Back in the 90's, I paid the same amount for a 50" big screen that I paid for my 80" today. Today, a 50" big-screen is less than half of what I paid in the 90's.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

You may have a point. They are much cheaper now than they were in 95 if you compare quality.

Back in the 90's, I paid the same amount for a 50" big screen that I paid for my 80" today. Today, a 50" big-screen is less than half of what I paid in the 90's.

Indeed. I bought a Sony Bravia in 2006 that was top of the line. I paid about $2,500. I bought a Samsung 2 years ago, same size, for $1,500. Has aps, Wi-Fi, etc. Not to mention the picture is much better. Ahhh... technology.

 

[Jarlaxle]

But they last a quarter as long...............................

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Indeed. I bought a Sony Bravia in 2006 that was top of the line. I paid about $2,500. I bought a Samsung 2 years ago, same size, for $1,500. Has aps, Wi-Fi, etc. Not to mention the picture is much better. Ahhh... technology.

Back in 1980 I moved into my first apartment. I didn't care about the furniture so much, but I waned the best television I could buy. So I went to a bank and got a loan for $1,500 to purchase a brand new Curtis Mathis television set. It was beautiful. The picture never rolled once which was uncommon back in those rabbit ears days. It was a 25" tube television and I actually had a remote control for the first time in my life.

The same kind of 25" television today would be about $300.00 at most. And thanks to technology, it would be HD and a much superior picture and sound.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Indeed. I bought a Sony Bravia in 2006 that was top of the line. I paid about $2,500. I bought a Samsung 2 years ago, same size, for $1,500. Has aps, Wi-Fi, etc. Not to mention the picture is much better. Ahhh... technology.

Back in 1980 I moved into my first apartment. I didn't care about the furniture so much, but I waned the best television I could buy. So I went to a bank and got a loan for $1,500 to purchase a brand new Curtis Mathis television set. It was beautiful. The picture never rolled once which was uncommon back in those rabbit ears days. It was a 25" tube television and I actually had a remote control for the first time in my life.

The same kind of 25" television today would be about $300.00 at most. And thanks to technology, it would be HD and a much superior picture and sound.

Geeze, Curtis Mathis. The Rolls Royce of TV's!

 

[OnePercenter]

Electricity is unconstitutional?

If the US Government is running an electric company, YES. Thankfully, that us not the case in the vast majority of the country. The Government may regulate the industry but Washington leaves most of that to the States.

If the US Government is running an electric company, YES. Thankfully, that us not the case in the vast majority of the country. The Government may regulate the industry but Washington leaves most of that to the States.

Who built, maintains, and makes improvements on the power grid?

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

Why should we find having poor people disgusting? It's not like we made them poor. They are responsible for their own poverty.

But I guess that defies the liberal playbook where very few are responsible for their own plight.

Why should we find having poor people disgusting? It's not like we made them poor. They are responsible for their own poverty.

I never wrote that. I wrote: 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.

 

[OnePercenter]

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?

Who is taking advantage of them? They applied for a job, agreed to work for X money, and the employer decided to accept the agreement.

Only a liberal would call that "being taken advantage of."

Who is taking advantage of them? They applied for a job, agreed to work for X money, and the employer decided to accept the agreement.

Only a liberal would call that "being taken advantage of."

Any employer that doesn't pay a living wage is a predator.

 

[hadit]

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.

Why should we find having poor people disgusting? It's not like we made them poor. They are responsible for their own poverty.

But I guess that defies the liberal playbook where very few are responsible for their own plight.

Why should we find having poor people disgusting? It's not like we made them poor. They are responsible for their own poverty.

I never wrote that. I wrote: 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.

It's not a Republican ideal, any more than equally shared misery is a democrat ideal.

 

[Boss]

So, why can't we just increase that to 2%? We can take that 2% away from our bloated military budget. It would still make us the Western nation that spends the least amount of money on their poor, but imagine the massive effect that would have on poverty in this country. And it wouldn't even cost the tax payers one. Red. Cent. more than they are paying, now. Because I'm not suggesting increasing the budget. I'm suggesting giving public assistance a slightly larger piece of the existing budget.

Why is that such an outrageous idea?

Because it doesn't work... that's the best reason.

For over 80 years, we've been chasing this progressive lie and all it ever does is make more people dependent on government and loyal to the Democrat party who continues to dangle the carrot.

And we now have a new element to the problem, illegal immigration. So you are asking to increase the amount but we've increased the number of recipients by 300% since 1965.

Whenever you cut the military budget, you have to close bases. When you close a military base, an entire town is effected by that. All the stores, restaurants, hotels... all have to close as well. People who are employed due to a military contract are suddenly out of a job. So we don't live in a bubble where we can simply take 2% from the military and plop it over here... there are consequences and ramifications.

Here's a BETTER idea to address poverty... Remove government regulations and taxes so that the individual has more opportunity to use their skills, talents and abilities to prosper and thrive through their own entrepreneurial spirit. Motivate people by making it harder to just sit on your ass and draw a check. That's not saying we do away with ALL public assistance, there are some people who genuinely need help surviving, and that's fine.. .we can handle that. What we can't do is continue to lavish benefits on people with no expectation of them ever doing a thing to earn it. That's simply a recipe for creating more dependents and increasing poverty.