83 welfare programs makes for Govt’s biggest expendeture in 2011 (20 posts)

|
  • Profile picture of limalimamike limalimamike said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/report-welfare-governments-single-largest-budget-item-in-fy-2011-at-approx-1-03-trillion/

    1.03 TRILLION dollars for welfare in 2011. Damn shame.

  • Profile picture of think4yourself think4yourself said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    I’d like to know exactly what ‘means tested’ implies. The purpose and ultimate goal of these programs should be to foster eventual self sufficiency. What are welfare programs seem to be fostering unfortunately is continual government dependency. I have no problem with my tax dollars being spent on helping individuals and families become self reliant in the near future. The problem is, the politicians in Sacramento and DC expect so very little of welfare recipients. The system has produced multiple generations of ‘I can’t’ people. The concept of working for a living eludes many of them. And it will continue as long as we have administrations that echo entitlement thinking while demonstrating contempt for wealth. Why work hard when those greedy rich people can ‘pay their fair share’? I honestly believe America has been taken on a irreversible course. I hope I’m wrong, but afraid that no amount of fiscal conservatism will be able to crash this party. The majority of the American electorate are too drunk on ‘me-ism’ and ‘entitlementism’ to care. The GOP are fighting a futile uphill battle.

  • Profile picture of Deleted User said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    t4y, you are correct in your observation that it can’t be fixed. Over half the population believe that there is some infinite well of money that will pay for everything and it will all be just fine if we tax the greedy rich. When in fact, you could take everything from the rich and it still wouldn’t make a very big dent in the debt. The politicions don’t have the will to do anything and it will eventually collapse under its own weight. I used to think that when it got to that point we would have a civil war or revolution but I don’t think there are enough people left with the cajones to revolt. Those people are all dying off. We have created a nutered semi-literate society that will just go down with a wimper.

  • Profile picture of Geoffrey Thorpe Geoffrey Thorpe said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    And the huge socialist program known as the military-industrial complex, plus various other subsidies to agriculture, energy, etc., total well over $1 trillion per annum. In the words of the great Paul Krugman, government is essentially an insurance company with an army.

  • Profile picture of grumpy grumpy said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    What’s going to happen when EVERYONE is on Welfare? Someone will have to go back to work to pay for it. Poor babies. LOL
    Get a job and pay your own bills people!

  • Profile picture of Geoffrey Thorpe Geoffrey Thorpe said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    Andy: knock it off with the name-calling already.

  • Profile picture of John  Bravo John Bravo said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    “And the huge socialist program known as the military-industrial complex:”

    Actually, it is one of the few programs specifically called out in the Constitution that the federal government is authorized to do.

  • Profile picture of Geoffrey Thorpe Geoffrey Thorpe said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    The Constitution provides for the military-industrial complex? I don’t think so…and then there’s this:

    “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”

    So why it that expenditure so ongoing? Is it because of the numerous wars we’ve engaged in? Many of which have been wars of choice and not of defense (or defence, as the document notes)…

  • Profile picture of catpaw catpaw said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    How many people get a portion of that money? Would make more sense to put them to work for a living wage.
    Or we could just shut off the money faucet all together. Wouldn’t revive the economy, but wow, look at the money we’d save. Eurozone did that and things seems to be working out o.k. for them.

  • Profile picture of think4yourself think4yourself said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    “And the huge socialist program known as the military-industrial complex, plus various other subsidies to agriculture, energy, etc., total well over $1 trillion per annum”

    Well, it depends on the way you look at it Geoff. While those jobs are taxpayer funding, many of those workers are reinvesting via the income taxes they pay and the sales taxes on their expenditures. Those are well paying jobs which means much of what they make gets reinvested in the economy. Not to mention that many of these government contracts allow companies the human resources, infrastructure, and expertise to venture into private/ commercial development. Boeing would be a prime example. We, at least see a marginal return on our investment. Welfare programs that don’t feed people into the work force provides no return. We might as well be flushing that trillion dollars down the toilet.

  • Profile picture of Geoffrey Thorpe Geoffrey Thorpe said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    T4Y, the ‘welfare’ programs also see money get reinvested into the economy. The needy tend to spend the money on things like food and housing and clothing and all the other basic necessities of life. They’re not hoarding the money, and they’re paying sales taxes (perhaps not federal income taxes because their incomes are too low) and other taxes. No return? Tell that to the convenience store owner or the retailer or the farmer who earns a decent living selling stuff to the poor.

  • Profile picture of think4yourself think4yourself said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    But they aren’t buying the big ticket items such as homes and cars. Aerospace engineers are. Its simple math, Geoff. Most individuals on assistance are buying what I would consider sustainance goods (food, shelter, basic clothing). Its a very small fraction of sales tax revenue. Have you ever lived on assistance? And those ‘socialist programs’ you mention reinvest ten times more into the economy than welfare does simply because they have more disposable income.

  • Profile picture of limalimamike limalimamike said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    WOW
    is someone actually arguing the point that welfare is needed more than a military?

    Maybe the welfare queens can beat the terrorists over the head with their EBT cards LOL

  • Profile picture of limalimamike limalimamike said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    the ‘welfare’ programs also see money get reinvested into the economy.

    please provide examples
    That money is nothing but retreaded money from tax collection that wasn’t earned. It usually goes to buy things that are beyond basics, Jordan shoes, 28″ wheels, drugs, weaves, pedi/mani’s

    There is a reason why local liquor stores will trade food stamps for pennies on the dollar.

  • Profile picture of think4yourself think4yourself said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    Mike, I think that’s the exception rather than the rule. I’ve been in many of those homes. For the most part, they’re buying basics. When you look at how many recipients are on aid and how many are spending that aid on luxury items, its a very small percent. Even welfare recipients are deserving of some level of entertainment and leisure-that is if they’re basics are already covered. That’s never been my concern. My concern has been that these programs have failed to lead families to self sufficiency. And that failure HAS been the rule, rather than the exception. Success stories in many of these programs are so few and far between. And for the longest time, data has been skewed and manipulated to keep these ineffective programs working. These programs benefit the employees that administer it moreso then the people they hope to serve. You have to wonder if programs have been kept around simply so that someone can have a job or there’s a powerful union keeping it going and keeping said program immune from any real accountability or scrutiny. There needs to be less pen pushing and more people pushing.