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.
Corporate welfare costs us much more than social welfare. Big oil subsidies, sugar, pharmaceuticals, just to name a few.....
No, it doesn't, that's ridiculous. Whoever told you that is lying to you. Big time. Using numbers from 2012, Corporate welfare and foreign aid was about 4% of the budget. Social welfare was about 55% of the budget.
No, it doesn't, that's ridiculous. Whoever told you that is lying to you. Big time. Using numbers from 2012, Corporate welfare and foreign aid was about 4% of the budget. Social welfare was about 55% of the budget.
Where's that from, Heritage? Here are some numbers for you:
About 11 percent of the federal budget in 2014, or $370 billion, supported programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship. Spending on safety net programs declined in both nominal and real terms between 2013 and 2014 as the economy continued to improve. These programs include: the refundable portions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, which assist low- and moderate-income working families through the tax code; programs that provide cash payments to eligible individuals or households, including Supplemental Security Income for the elderly or disabled poor and unemployment insurance; various forms of in-kind assistance for low-income families and individuals, including SNAP (food stamps), school meals, low-income housing assistance, child care assistance, and assistance in meeting home energy bills; and various other programs such as those that aid abused and neglected children.
The Cato Institute, never a big supporter of lefty issues, has compiled an interesting array of corporate welfare stats that seem to support the idea that this hand-off to the wealthy has been the real threat to those who complain of a "redistribution" of tax dollars. I'd have to say that I for one am pretty upset about this little scheme of redistribution.
From Cato: The numbers behind corporate welfare expenses
$2.1 billion – amount of tax dollars lost due to loophole of classifying earned income as capital gains
$58 billion – amount given to corporations in tax breaks for offshore profits
encourages large companies to conceal their profits in offshore accounts
$59 billion – amount of taxes avoided by wealthy taxpayers
capital gains and dividends are taxed at only 15% and provides the bulk of new wealth
$700 billion – amount given in bank bailouts considered corporate welfare because there were no strings attached / no accountability for spending it
$9 trillion – low and no interest loans to major corporations and banks from the Federal Reserve
Now some of our esteemed posters who have claimed this redistribution to be the equivalent of slavery and unlawful compulsion should be able to see the class on top as a threat to our sense of democracy, I have never given my support to this kind of spending of my taxes, yet I do acknowledge the necessity of social welfare as a bulwark against an inevitable societal breakdown. We needn't be feeding the rich, it only encourages them..
Where's that from, Heritage? Here are some numbers for you:
About 11 percent of the federal budget in 2014, or $370 billion, supported programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship. Spending on safety net programs declined in both nominal and real terms between 2013 and 2014 as the economy continued to improve. These programs include: the refundable portions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, which assist low- and moderate-income working families through the tax code; programs that provide cash payments to eligible individuals or households, including Supplemental Security Income for the elderly or disabled poor and unemployment insurance; various forms of in-kind assistance for low-income families and individuals, including SNAP (food stamps), school meals, low-income housing assistance, child care assistance, and assistance in meeting home energy bills; and various other programs such as those that aid abused and neglected children.
1) No it's not from Heritage. I don't get facts from propaganda. It's from the actual Federal Budget, as published on the internet, my calculator, Microsoft Excel, and knowledge from the graduate level accounting classes I aced with flying colors.
2) Social Security (the way it is actually executed, not the way people think it works), and health insurance benefits ARE social welfare. They are handouts. I know that propaganda likes to discount them to make the numbers look small, but make no mistake, they are the LIONS share of social welfare. Food stamps is nothing compared to the amount of money the federal government hands out for medical care, for both the elderly and the poor. It's absolutely 100% social welfare.
3) Your numbers actually prove my point. According to YOUR info, 59% of the budget goes to social welfare (social security, health insurance, and other misc handouts). Which means it's gone up 4% since 2012. Dude, that's a lot. Especially when only 86% is actually "paid for" with tax revenue and the rest is borrowed.
You saw the numbers yourself, and you saw them say "other than health insurance or Social Security benefits". Think, actually think, about why they are saying that? How are they spinning the story? What do the actual cold hard numbers say? How much are we actually spending on running a government and a military, compared to how much we are just using for income distribution, honestly and truly? Look at it without bias, and it's staggering.
Take all the monies collected for all social services and then pay every single person in the country over the age of 18 $20,000 per year. But all social services are fully eliminated. No welfare, no food stamps, no unemployment, no housing money.... NOTHING.
People can take their $20K and use it to live on if they don't desire to work. Or, if they want to achieve more they can work in any way they want to. No one needs to beg for money. That's over. And the money is static.
How think ye?
Better yet, CUT the ones on it that don't have to be, off. Problem solved.
1) No it's not from Heritage. I don't get facts from propaganda. It's from the actual Federal Budget, as published on the internet, my calculator, Microsoft Excel, and knowledge from the graduate level accounting classes I aced with flying colors.
2) Social Security (the way it is actually executed, not the way people think it works), and health insurance benefits ARE social welfare. They are handouts. I know that propaganda likes to discount them to make the numbers look small, but make no mistake, they are the LIONS share of social welfare. Food stamps is nothing compared to the amount of money the federal government hands out for medical care, for both the elderly and the poor. It's absolutely 100% social welfare.
3) Your numbers actually prove my point. According to YOUR info, 59% of the budget goes to social welfare (social security, health insurance, and other misc handouts). Which means it's gone up 4% since 2012. Dude, that's a lot.
You saw the numbers yourself, and you saw them say "other than health insurance or Social Security benefits". Think, actually think, about why they are saying that? How are they spinning the story? What do the actual cold hard numbers say? How much are we actually spending on running a government and a military, compared to how much we are just using for income distribution, honestly and truly? Look at it without bias, and it's staggering.
Oh please, you want to dump everything into Welfare in order to make it look like those welfare wastrels are robbing us blind, I've heard it before, and I recognize the argument. Social Security is 24% of the budget, do you really want to call SS "welfare" Included in the healthcare costs on the graph I posted, a good amount of that is for ACA subsidies which benefit WORKING people; a family of 4 can earn up to $94,200 and still get a subsidy- is that your idea of welfare?
Oh please, you want to dump everything into Welfare in order to make it look like those welfare wastrels are robbing us blind, I've heard it before, and I recognize the argument. Social Security is 24% of the budget, do you really want to call SS "welfare" Included in the healthcare costs on the graph I posted, a good amount of that is for ACA subsidies which benefit WORKING people; a family of 4 can earn up to $94,200 and still get a subsidy- is that your idea of welfare?
I don't understand you, of course it's welfare. Any money that is handed out for which the government does not get a good or service in return is welfare.
From the dictionary "a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b : an agency or program through which such aid is distributed"
Why do you not consider it welfare if it is in a program called "Social Security" or if it benefits working people? That makes no sense. It's still a handout. It's still welfare. Sure it may be a type of welfare that you approve of, but that doesn't make it not welfare. It's still redistribution of income, handing out money to someone who needs it without getting a good or service in return.
I'm concerned about where you are getting your information, it is very very propaganda heavy. You are reciting stances that don't make sense with reality. If I were you, I would really start trying to learn how to take things people/media tells you with a grain of salt, and go do research to find proof. Really think through things yourself, and don't take what people tell you at face value. Sometimes people can be very gullible without realizing it, and other people can take advantage of them, and hurt them. There are lots of con men out there, and many of them look and feel legit until it is too late. Someone is feeding you lines and lies. Do your homework, don't fall for it.
There is no luck, there is reality. You are born however you are born, with lots of free stuff or nothing at all. Your job is to play the hand you are dealt, good or bad, without complaint and without making victims of others. Bad luck does not give you rights, nor does it create an account payable with your name on it. People keep bringing up the phony nonsense of "privilege". There is no privilege. There is reality. If you are born with rich parents and never have to work, you owe nobody anything. Nothing. Nada. If you are born with nothing, you are not then entitled to take from others. You have to work and scrape and struggle while others may not have to. TOO DAMNED BAD. That's REALITY. Bad luck DOES NOT CREATE RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES OR A METAPHYSICAL GREEN LIGHT TO ENSLAVE OTHERS.
You play the hand you are dealt, good or bad. You deserve nothing for being born with nothing. And you are not born into bondage if your parents have stuff to give you where others do not.
Freedom means just that. You are born free, the rest is up to you. Good or bad. Rich or poor. Talented or useless. Healthy or diseased. Good parents or crack addict parents. None of it matters a whit, and we should do NOTHING TO MAKE PEOPLE EQUAL. They are not, and they never will be. There is no equality. Nor should there be. Nor will there ever be. It should not even be a goal, because it is not a worthy or good idea. EQUALITY IS EVIL!
You still don't get it, do you. Some people aren't dealt any cards or a hand to play. Most people aren't born knowing how to play those cards. If you were, pin a rose on you. Most of us, though, need to be taught how to play those cards and if there is no one to teach us and no one to guide us, how are we supposed to know anything about the game? Osmosis?
I don't know about you, but I can't remember any classes in school about bank loans, savings accounts, interest, the stock market, IRAs and 401Ks. Who taught you to write a check - your parents? And what if they hadn't?
I'll have to disagree with you on your opinion that if you are born rich you don't owe anyone anything. "To whom much is given, much is expected."
And as for being poor and not being owed anything for it, fine. But that's pretty shortsighted. All you have to do is look around you to see the effects of that. Yes, we have a welfare state in this country. But what would happen if these people could work at a better job? Get more pay? Be more productive?
I'm as sure as anyone that a certain percentage are always going to look for the easy way out. But for the rest, what if they could be turned into assets? Take education, for example. More education means more jobs which means higher paychecks which means more taxes being paid into city, county, state and government, and less money being used for social services. So why are so many people so resistant to making education free and then calling it a handout?
As someone just pointed out, our economy is based on spending. More people with more money means more spending, which is good for the economy. You may sneer at food stamps, but let me ask you, do you think the stores are giving away that food? What do you suppose would happen to grocery stores if all the people they sell to on food stamps suddenly disappeared? How do you think that would affect sales? How many stores do you think would close and how many people would lose their jobs, and in turn, be unable to buy groceries or pay rent? Think about that.
From the dictionary "a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b : an agency or program through which such aid is distributed"
When did Social Security become a 'needs based program'
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.
Included in the healthcare costs on the graph I posted, a good amount of that is for ACA subsidies which benefit WORKING people; a family of 4 can earn up to $94,200 and still get a subsidy- is that your idea of welfare?
