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.
Most of the federal budget is allocated to handout spending. And yet, liberals say we need to cut defense spending which only accounts for about 16% of the budget.
Do they not understand that even if we cut the entire defense budget, we would still end up with a budget deficit? Why do they not understand that all this welfare spending is simply not sustainable?
Oh, and the handout spending (2.33 T) as a percentage of the estimated 2015 federal tax revenue (3.2 T) is about 73% That means that almost 3/4 of the tax money you send to the federal government goes straight to handouts. And they still claim it's not enough.
Excuse me, calling Social Security "handout spending," is a complete lie. Workers pay for Social Security over their entire working life. It isn't a free-bee. The same is true for Medicare, workers pay for the benefit. You also call this "welfare." It is not, for the same reason.
As for what is aid to the poor, Medicaid, SNAP, etc., that spending has been flat for decades.
Defense spending is 18 percent of the budget, or $615 billion.
But I don't understand what you are proposing. It sounds like you want to collect Social Security revenues just not spend it on the people that paid it.
Excuse me, calling Social Security "handout spending," is a complete lie. Workers pay for Social Security over their entire working life. It isn't a free-bee. The same is true for Medicare, workers pay for the benefit. You also call this "welfare." It is not, for the same reason.
As for what is aid to the poor, Medicaid, SNAP, etc., that spending has been flat for decades.
Defense spending is 18 percent of the budget, or $615 billion.
But I don't understand what you are proposing. It sounds like you want to collect Social Security revenues just not spend it on the people that paid it.
Actually you are promoting the lie further that SS, Medicad, Medicare are not handouts.
Yes workers pay for those programs, but it's to pay someone else's tab, not their own.
Reagan?? Really? FYI it's 2015 and Obama is the president.
Apparently you skipped over Bush. I'm sure somehow, some way, it's his fault too.
Applies and oranges. Please point out where I speak about "entitlements"? Good for you that your investments increased under Obama. WTH does that have to do with anything?
You don't get it do you? Democrats keep throwing money at dead beats to keep them down and buy the vote. That goes back to the 60s. The Republicans want to shave back on welfare. That would actually be an incentive for people to find a job. If you know that you couldn't survive without welfare, what is the choice? Here comes the dirty little words: get a job!!!!! Seems the idea of "working" is a dirty idea. Those dead beats and democrats would be screaming how republicans were taking "their" (the recipient) money away from them.
FYI: What I pay in taxes could support a family of 4 for an entire year.
Nope, nothing to do with Bush or Obama or maybe it has to do with both. But REAGAN is the one who cut capitol gains and the top tax tier.
I get it. You do not. Newsflash: THE POOR DON'T VOTE! So there are few votes to be "bought." The people like you OTOH, DO VOTE and the GOP has been "buying your vote" for decades.
If you lived in 1960, your taxes would probably feed a family of 8. Count your blessings.
NO ONE with any brain wants to "stay on welfare." That's what you don't "get." A single person gets under $800 A MONTH MAX plus about $150 foodstamps. That's about ~10k per year. Does that seem like something you would want to live on? HINT: no it doesnt because you paid more than that in taxes alone last yeat!
You can make DOUBLE what SSI would give you at a job that pays just $9 per hour.
The giveaway that the linked article is a spin piece is that it is from the Washington Times, hardly an unbiased source. The second is that it is from 2012, and discusses the "last few years." Anything unusual about the the period 2009 - 2012? It was a period right in the center of the Great Recession with high unemployment. Yes, SHOCKING, the government spent more money on the needy during the worst economy since the Great Depression. I guess conservatives would rather have those people die in the streets and reduce the surplus population.
Let's look at that with updated numbers of federal plus state expenditures on Welfare and the projection to 2020.
.........
This is a completely different picture than the OP wants to paint. In the worst of the Great Recession, the nation spent 4.5% of GDP on welfare. That has shrunk to 2.5%.
Actually you are promoting the lie further that SS, Medicad, Medicare are not handouts.
Yes workers pay for those programs, but it's to pay someone else's tab, not their own.
SSDI is just like any other disability insurance that you pay into. You would never call someone who collects on a private policy one who "takes handouts."
Medicare and retirement is much like pensions that you pay into. Would you call the people who collect on those "takers?"
In all scenerios above, your CURRENT PAYMENT is paid out to CURRENT RECIPIENTS.
Actually you are promoting the lie further that SS, Medicad, Medicare are not handouts.
Yes workers pay for those programs, but it's to pay someone else's tab, not their own.
So? That's what insurance does. It takes in premiums and spends a portion of those premiums settling claims. I guess you denounce the concept of insurance too.
The giveaway that article is a spin piece is that it is from the Washington Times, hardly an unbiased source. The second is that it is from 2012, and discusses the "last few years." Anything unusual about the the period 2009 - 2012? It was a period right in the center of the Great Recession with high unemployment. Yes, SHOCKING, the government spent more money on the needy during the worst economy since the Great Depression. I guess conservatives would rather have those people die in the streets and reduce the surplus population.
Let's look at that with updated numbers of federal plus state expenditures on Welfare and the projection to 2020.
.........
This is a completely different picture than the OP wants to paint. In the worst of the Great Recession, the nation spent 4.5% of GDP on welfare. That has shrunk to 2.5%.
Thank you for posting this.
I honestly think they would rather them "die in the streets." Some will actually admit this.
I honestly think they would rather them "die in the streets." Some will actually admit this.
And they're all "pro-life" of course.
As John Kenneth Galbraith said, "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
SSDI is just like any other disability insurance that you pay into. You would never call someone who collects on a private policy one who "takes handouts."
Medicare and retirement is much like pensions that you pay into. Would you call the people who collect on those "takers?"
In all scenerios above, your CURRENT PAYMENT is paid out to CURRENT RECIPIENTS.
All pensions and insurances work this way.
As I recall, my insurance premiums don't depend on my salary.
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.
I'm sure somehow, some way, it's his fault too.
Good for you that your investments increased under Obama. WTH does that have to do with anything? 
