Iraq - $5,000 per Second

[jreeves]

No you won't. You'll find less than half that spending is aimed at the poor.

Again, you've presented a figure.... justify it. The fact is you can't. Either because you do not know how to look beneath the surface of your source and find out how they computed their $728B figure or, more likely, that when you try you find that in fact there is a lot of it which goes to the non-poor.

I did, I showed where unemployment spending by the feds is minuscule. Are there any other questions to the spending, if so then ask a specific question?

 

[Care4all]

I did, I showed where unemployment spending by the feds is minuscule. Are there any other questions to the spending, if so then ask a specific question?

Welfare, TANF, for the poor and indigent, is around 1-2%% of the total federal spending....?

If you include what is spent by the States also...which i believe your article did do such, then you also must include total state revenues with federal revenues to get a valid comparison number of what percentage of total state and fed revenues is spent on welfare for the poor and indigent.

 

[jreeves]

Welfare, TANF, for the poor and indigent, is around 1-2%% of the total federal spending....?

If you include what is spent by the States also...which i believe your article did do such, then you also must include total state revenues with federal revenues to get a valid comparison number of what percentage of total state and fed revenues is spent on welfare for the poor and indigent.

Actually the 728 billion comes solely from federal spending.

 

[Warner]

Actually the 728 billion comes solely from federal spending.

Exactly.

First you make an argument about Welfare spending, which is mostly done at the state level. Then you quote this $728B figure which is purely federal and is not actually what you imply it to be.

You have still failed to show that this $728B is spent on welfare for the poor, or even to define what a "social program" is.

 

[jreeves]

Exactly.

First you make an argument about Welfare spending, which is mostly done at the state level. Then you quote this $728B figure which is purely federal and is not actually what you imply it to be.

You have still failed to show that this $728B is spent on welfare for the poor, or even to define what a "social program" is.

I gave you a means-tested spending...you just fail to acknowledge it. That's fine, I didn't really expect you to.

 

[Warner]

I gave you a means-tested spending...you just fail to acknowledge it. That's fine, I didn't really expect you to.

I looked through the articles you linked. I didn't see any breakdown of how that $728B figure was derived. Maybe I missed it. Could you please point it out?

And also please point to where in the reference material the relevant data actually is located so I'm sure not to miss it!

 

[jreeves]

I looked through the articles you linked. I didn't see any breakdown of how that $728B figure was derived. Maybe I missed it. Could you please point it out?

And also please point to where in the reference material the relevant data actually is located so I'm sure not to miss it!

Remember this,
Total federal and state spending on welfare programs was $434 billion in FY 2000. Of that total, $313 billion (72 percent) came from federal funding and $121 billion (28 percent) came from state or local funds. (See Chart 1.)

 

[Warner]

Remember this,
Total federal and state spending on welfare programs was $434 billion in FY 2000. Of that total, $313 billion (72 percent) came from federal funding and $121 billion (28 percent) came from state or local funds. (See Chart 1.)

Grrr.... $728B.... now $434B.... chart 1 from where????

Come on man... I don't have time to hunt through the entire history of your posts looking for "chart 1", you have to give me a link. I'm willing to consider that you are not meaning to play games with your numbers but only if you will be strait forward with how you have derived them and from where they originate.

So far I've not been able to validate your figures... can you stop throwing new crap at me and get down to brass tacks?

 

[jreeves]

Grrr.... $728B.... now $434B.... chart 1 from where????

Come on man... I don't have time to hunt through the entire history of your posts looking for "chart 1", you have to give me a link. I'm willing to consider that you are not meaning to play games with your numbers but only if you will be strait forward with how you have derived them and from where they originate.

So far I've not been able to validate your figures... can you stop throwing new crap at me and get down to brass tacks?

Grrr.....Lmao

The $434 billion is a part of the 728 billion, as well as medicare and medicaid spending, that is only the tip of the iceberg my friend. If you want to argue in circles then go right on ahead. I have posted credible evidence to prove 728 billion, I refuse to play an accomplice to your stupidity. You can claim I am throwing new crap at you, but I have made the same claim all along. The claim is that the federal government is spending itself into bankruptcy through social spending.

 

[Warner]

Ummm... the $434B figure is from a different year than the $728B figure, so they are not the same.

Again, all I ask is provide the direct links to what your talking about. You claim to have provided them, and I've gone back through your posts looking for them, but alas... what I've seen does not say what you say it says!

Make a point and then provide a reference (i.e. a link) to the information which you claim substantiates it. Simple as that.

So far all you've done is post links to the top of long articles and claim they say things they do not!

I agree the Federal government is spending itself (or more appropriately our children) into bankruptcy - but I disagree as to the cause. I have shown, using both your references and others, that in fact there is as much "social spending" to benefit the rich in this country as there is to benefit the poor, though often it's packaged differently (bank bailouts, defense contracts for things like the BFV, subsidization of ADM in the form of bio-diesel, etc...), and of course the War (which is as much about redistributing wealth as anything else).

Come on man, re-post those "links" you claim prove your arguments, and this time show where in the reference it says what you say it does!

 

[jreeves]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
$294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare

Let me see here 40% of Medicare + 276.4 billion + 294=728.2 billion dollars
That's not counting welfare built into other departments. Plus the 728.2 billion dollars share of the national debt. Is that a credible enough website for you?

Obviously, you didn't look hard enough did you? Here's the breakdown of the 728 billion...how long do you plan on playing your little dog and pony show?