Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Welfare spending peaked in 2010 and has been declining ever since.
It put money into the economy that otherwise would not have been there.
Can it be reduced more and sooner? Sure. I'll leave it to the economists to determine the impact on overall economy. Austerity can trigger another recession and we are right back where it started.
Do you have proof showing that it dropped? Also, you are not putting money into the economy. You are taking money out of the pockets of the working class into the pockets of welfare recipients so there is no gain. You take more money out of my pocket then that's less money that I can put into the economy. See how that works?
The 3.7 trillion was just an investment by the federal government and the taxpayers in preventing a loss over a period of years in US GDP of an amount in excess of 3.7 trillion if the money had not been redistributed in the form of welfare.
It would have been far more expensive to attempt to control the riots in the streets and prolonged Marshall Law as well as repair destruction to infrastructure and the overall death toll if the money had not been given out.
The consequences of anything less than 3.7 trillion being redistributed over the course of the last five years would have been catastrophic. I am referring to the level of civil unrest and violence that would ensue if the people capable of it were not pacified with just enough to survive off of and/or if they were forced to live without the welfare.
The 3.7 trillion was dispersed in the various forms that it was because the average American is unwilling to deal with the aftermath of that money not being given to the recipients that receive it.
Cut the distribution of that money off for at least six months and the average American that is not a recipient of welfare would come to terms real fast with the end result of what would occur as well as more than likely be begging their state and federal governments to initiate the distribution again.
Basically, what I am saying is. . . . . .
End the $3.7 trillion in welfare over an average five year period - and all hell will break loose.
That money that is taken from taxpayers and re-directed towards the recipients of welfare is nothing more than an insurance premium against a scenario that is far worse than confiscatory taxation and redistribution of wealth.
It is time for the payers of welfare (taxpayers) to be intellectually and emotionally honest with themselves when they rant and rave about being 'against welfare'. They refuse to come to terms with what would occur if welfare did not exist.
the Skydive Outlaw
The bulk of welfare cretins are incapable of mounting much in a way of a revolution. At the first sign of resistance they will melt away. Don't be scared.
Started a thread about this girl. Uses her $2500 tax "refund" to splurge on a bag. She is 21 and about to be a mother of two. She works at Home Depot probably part-time, probably has no husband and probably gets food stamps etc.
Liberals why should the taxpayer fund her purchase of a bag?
It wasn't money taken from tax payers, as of now much of it is borrowed money. So that is putting money into a struggling economy, not taking from it.
Yeah borrowed from ourselves. Print money out of thin air and borrow it from the Fed and then hand it out to people who will never be able to afford to pay it back.
That will work out real well in the long run won't it ?
And where did the money come from??? Oh yea, they took it OUT of the economy
When you take money away from the tax payer, that's less money that they have to spend to stimulate the economy. Thought this would be common sense, but here we are...
Nothing was taken out of the economy... It was redistributed. Stop repeating that right wing lie.... Nothing left the economy so stop inventing.economic theory.
But hey, lets not redistribute that wealth. Are these taxpayers going to buy extra cars, food, and other necessities that would create demand? They sure as hell aren't using that increase wages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
medicare is a perfect example of politicians NOT relizing the unintended consequences of their actions.
When companies that provided health care insurance to its retirees found out the the gov't had a program that would provide health care insurance to ANYONE, the companies said to themselves, "Why should we provide a service at a cost to us when the gov't is offering a plan at no cost to us".
The politicians never envisioned that these companies would drop paying for retirees health care insurance hence, tens of thousands of retirees enrolled in Medicare which ballooned the participation which in turn dramatically increased the cost of the program.
Just another example of why the government should sat out of competing with private enterprise.
Really? Considering the private sector has been depressing wages and cutting benefits for decades, that's a great reason for govt to make up the difference. Someones gotta stand up for the workers.
Started a thread about this girl. Uses her $2500 tax "refund" to splurge on a bag. She is 21 and about to be a mother of two. She works at Home Depot probably part-time, probably has no husband and probably gets food stamps etc.
Liberals why should the taxpayer fund her purchase of a bag?
Yeah borrowed from ourselves. Print money out of thin air and borrow it from the Fed and then hand it out to people who will never be able to afford to pay it back.
That will work out real well in the long run won't it ?
Well hopefully it won't work out long term.... That's the idea. Deficit spending has been decreasing as the economy slowly improves.
Ignorant conservatives and conservative pundits are trying make people believe this type of deficit spending is long term. It's simply a reaction to the economy.
Yeah borrowed from ourselves. Print money out of thin air and borrow it from the Fed and then hand it out to people who will never be able to afford to pay it back.
That will work out real well in the long run won't it ?
Actually it has in the past, and it is always easier to pay back borrowed money when the economy is doing good than when it is doing bad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
