70% Of U.S. Spending Is Writing Checks To Individuals

[g5000]

You're a fucking idiot. Piece of crap.

Defense is proper but we shouldn't be defending the entire effin world. Also we been spending on infrastructure for the past 150 years from the federal level. Investment is always good you 18th century piece of trash!

There is a good point in this.

Just as infrastructure is local, so should defense be local. We should not be paying for the defense of other countries.

I wonder how that would have turned out if we simply retaliated against the Japanese for Pearl Harbor and let Europe fend for itself.

Something tells me we would need a much larger military than we have right now.

Be careful what you wish for.

As I have pointed out many times in many topics here, we are not in a World War. And yet Defense spending has not been this high since WWII. Not even after adjusting for inflation. Not even during the hottest parts of the Cold War in which we faced an actual existential threat.

We are not faced with an existential threat, and we are not in a World War. In fact, our national debt is probably our greatest national security threat today.

It is time for other countries to stop living off the US taxpayer and start paying for their own defense.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Most of the red areas on this chart (made with U.S. Govt re[orted statistics) are what you described: Govt taking in money fromsome people an dhanding it to others. And in these cases, the people the govt is handing the money to, are NOT doing any work to earn it.

And this was mostly BEFORE Obama showed up.

I made this chart in 2011, with the latest data available at the time. It's time to update it. And that will make it look even worse.

According to your chart, interest on the national debt is unconstitutional. That is obviously bullshit. Nor is general welfare spending unconstitutional.

Yep, some of these people think we should never invest in our own country. That would put us at a serious disadvantage against Europe, China, Russia and most rest of the world. They wish to defund nasa, nws and stop investing in the best r&d on earth. The mind has trouble understanding such ideas that would hurt America.

 

[bendog]

We need to privatize soc sec and medicare! I've heard this before. .....

But did Obama create a new entitlement? You bet your sweet bippee. And 60% approved and the gop offered no alternative.

 

[Little-Acorn]

According to your chart, interest on the national debt is unconstitutional. That is obviously bullshit.

I love it when that publik eddicayshun shines through in people's reading and comprehension abilities.

 

[g5000]

1. Cut Defense spending. Let other countries pay for their own defense.

2. Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70 and index to 9 percent of the population going forward. We are living decades longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

3. Ban all tax expenditures, period.

These three simple things would generate a massive surplus which could be used to pay down the debt and lower tax rates for everyone.

 

[KNB]

What happens to the people of the United States when the government stops issuing welfare checks?

 

[Jarhead]

There is a good point in this.

Just as infrastructure is local, so should defense be local. We should not be paying for the defense of other countries.

I wonder how that would have turned out if we simply retaliated against the Japanese for Pearl Harbor and let Europe fend for itself.

Something tells me we would need a much larger military than we have right now.

Be careful what you wish for.

As I have pointed out many times in many topics here, we are not in a World War. And yet Defense spending has not been this high since WWII. Not even after adjusting for inflation. Not even during the hottest parts of the Cold War in which we faced an actual existential threat.

We are not faced with an existential threat, and we are not in a World War. In fact, our national debt is probably our greatest national security threat today.

It is time for other countries to stop living off the US taxpayer and start paying for their own defense.

the fact that your response starts with "we are not in world war" shows me that what I said went straight over your head.


By the way.....many cities in the northeast found themselves very short of street salt this year. Next ear, they have all put in orders for substantially more than they did this year...

It is known as "preparing for the worst"

 

[g5000]

We need to privatize soc sec and medicare! I've heard this before. .....

But did Obama create a new entitlement? You bet your sweet bippee. And 60% approved and the gop offered no alternative.

Don't forget the other trillion dollar medical entitlement created by Bush. And he didn't even bother to put tax hikes in the Act to try to pay for it!

 

[Little-Acorn]

Nor is general welfare spending unconstitutional.

"General Welfare" as the Framers used it, meant programs that benefitted all Americans equally. The alternative, "Local Welfare" in the parlance of the 1780s, referred to limited groups - what we now refer to as Special Interest Groups.

And spending on "Local Welfare" was carefully left OUT of the Constitution. That made it illegal to the Fed govt to spend money on.

The so-called "Welfare Clause" is a limitation on spending. The only way the Govt can spend money, is for Defense and for programs that helped everybody equally - which SS, Welfare, Obamacare subsidies, Medicare etc. clearly don't. Those things were specifically left "to the States, and the People" to take care of if they wanted to.

The "Welfare Clause" is probably the most-violated part of the Constitution, by the GOvt-Uber-Alles folks.

http://www.little-acorn.com/html/welfare.htm

 

[g5000]

I wonder how that would have turned out if we simply retaliated against the Japanese for Pearl Harbor and let Europe fend for itself.

Something tells me we would need a much larger military than we have right now.

Be careful what you wish for.

As I have pointed out many times in many topics here, we are not in a World War. And yet Defense spending has not been this high since WWII. Not even after adjusting for inflation. Not even during the hottest parts of the Cold War in which we faced an actual existential threat.

We are not faced with an existential threat, and we are not in a World War. In fact, our national debt is probably our greatest national security threat today.

It is time for other countries to stop living off the US taxpayer and start paying for their own defense.

the fact that your response starts with "we are not in world war" shows me that what I said went straight over your head.

You are the one who brought up WWII. We are not in a World War, so your argumnent falls on its face. We do not need to be defending other countries.

By the way.....many cities in the northeast found themselves very short of street salt this year. Next ear, they have all put in orders for substantially more than they did this year...

It is known as "preparing for the worst"

Should the federal government buy them salt if they won't do it? That's really the argument you are making, you just don't see it.

It's funny how some right wingers can see that giving a poor person a check creates an unhealthy dependence that prevents them from standing on their own two feet, and yet utterly fail to see we are creating an unhealthy dependence by other countries on us by paying for their defense.

If you buy into the theory that taking away a welfare check will force the leeching poor to get jobs, then you must be consistent and see that taking away money from leeching countries will force them to "prepare for the worst" for themselves.

 

[Little-Acorn]

What happens to the people of the United States when the government stops issuing welfare checks?

Q: What happens to a heroin addict when you cut off his smack?

A: Less than what happpens to Welfare addicts when you cut off their free gravy train. But for the same reason.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What happens to the people of the United States when the government stops issuing welfare checks?

Q: What happens to a heroin addict when you cut off his smack?

A: Less than what happpens to Welfare addicts when you cut off their free gravy train. But for the same reason.

Needs to go towards advancing that person and getting them back to work. Growing our economy should be the goal!

 

[Little-Acorn]

Needs to go towards advancing that person and getting them back to work. Growing our economy should be the goal!

WHAT needs to go towards advancing that person etc.?

Government payments?

Or private charities that grow to take up the slack for illegal govt payments getting cut off?

 

[g5000]

Needs to go towards advancing that person and getting them back to work. Growing our economy should be the goal!

WHAT needs to go towards advancing that person etc.?

Government payments?

Or private charities that grow to take up the slack for illegal govt payments getting cut off?

I love the naivete behind the theory that private charities will take up all the slack. There is no example in history of that ever happening. It is this fact which is the reason the government took up the cause, because private charity failed at it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Needs to go towards advancing that person and getting them back to work. Growing our economy should be the goal!

WHAT needs to go towards advancing that person etc.?

Government payments?

Or private charities that grow to take up the slack for illegal govt payments getting cut off?

More science,
More infrastructure
More r&D

They all pay well and can be done mostly by a agreement with the private sector. No reason to cut the funding for such things. Your way of doing things with the private sector without any government will still be around for people too so we both win

 

[boedicca]

I am sure Kim jong un doesn't want to invest in his people either. Has a big military that is in the mid 20th century but certainly doesn't have the infrastructure to win over the south.

You losertrians have the same beliefs.

What a steaming pile of Sophistry.

A militarized dictatorship which uses its armed forces to enslave its subjects is not even remotely equivalent to a constitutional republic with a duty to ensure national defense.

Of course, your hero Obama thinks the two are morally equivalent...and would love to have the same powers as the former.

 

[bendog]

Needs to go towards advancing that person and getting them back to work. Growing our economy should be the goal!

WHAT needs to go towards advancing that person etc.?

Government payments?

Or private charities that grow to take up the slack for illegal govt payments getting cut off?

I love the naivete behind the theory that private charities will take up all the slack. There is no example in history of that ever happening. It is this fact which is the reason the government took up the cause, because private charity failed at it.

it's akin to the Cato Institute theory that the Highway Trust Fund is unnecessary because "Washington DC passed a local tax to expand the interstate loop around DC." It's like they never drove I-95 outside DC.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Needs to go towards advancing that person and getting them back to work. Growing our economy should be the goal!

WHAT needs to go towards advancing that person etc.?

Government payments?

Or private charities that grow to take up the slack for illegal govt payments getting cut off?

I love the naivete behind the theory that private charities will take up all the slack.

I love the hysteria behind the bluster that screeches that private charities must take up ALL the slack, instead of charity helping some people, friends and family helping others, some people helping themselves by getting or creating jobs, etc.

When leftist fanatics come up with the "Absolutely one way or the other" dodge, you know they don't have much to say about helping the actual situation.

 

[bendog]

WHAT needs to go towards advancing that person etc.?

Government payments?

Or private charities that grow to take up the slack for illegal govt payments getting cut off?

I love the naivete behind the theory that private charities will take up all the slack.

I love the hysteria behind the bluster that screeches that private charities must take up ALL the slack, instead of charity helping some people, friends and family helping others, some people helping themselves by getting or creating jobs, etc.

When leftist fanatics come up with the "Absolutely one way or the other" dodge, you know they don't have much to say about helping the actual situation.

Well, I'm no fan of Obamacare, but the reason some bipartisan compromise didn't occur on HC, as it did on welfare reform, with limiting the duration of benefits coupled with child care tax credits and the EITC, isn't because the democrat party suddenly viewed compromise as akin to surrender.

 

[ScienceRocks]

WHAT needs to go towards advancing that person etc.?

Government payments?

Or private charities that grow to take up the slack for illegal govt payments getting cut off?

I love the naivete behind the theory that private charities will take up all the slack. There is no example in history of that ever happening. It is this fact which is the reason the government took up the cause, because private charity failed at it.

it's akin to the Cato Institute theory that the Highway Trust Fund is unnecessary because "Washington DC passed a local tax to expand the interstate loop around DC." It's like they never drove I-95 outside DC.

Reality and libertarianism doesn't mix very well. Name a country that uses it and maybe we can talk...Every single country invests in infrastructure, science and r&d of any real importance. Just that they hate government so much that they want the private sector to have free raine in doing what ever they damn well please and we all know that the private sector couldn't do it.