I get conservative guys point about public assistance

[kinev]

Do you realize that in many parts of the country, gas stations and 7/11-type markets really are the only options that many, many people have when it comes to food? These are called Food Deserts, are recognized by the FDA, and it is a huge problem.

So, what do you do? Just assume these people will make the "better" choice of finding other options, 10, 15, 20 miles or more away (of course many will have to figure out how to get there), or at the very least, allow them to use EBT for their only real food options, as shitty as they may be? Tough choice. Neither really is a good solution for them, but only one option is the only one that works (currently)

Yeah, I'm familiar with food desserts. I'm not sure what the ultimate solution is, though. Most people can recognize that there is a balance between helping and enabling. Personally, I would prefer to rely on private charities to help the poor instead of the federal and/or state governments. Everyone knows governments aren't the most efficiently run operations and they are famous for wasting money. I also believe in the power of supply and demand. Maybe create tax incentives for local business to open grocery stores in the food desserts? If they go out of business, then the people within the deserts prefer the 7-11 food.

That being said, the least successful war the US has ever engaged in is the war on poverty. Since it's implementation in '64, $22 TRILLION dollars have been spent to decrease the poverty rate from 17.3% to 14.5%. That's great news for those 2.8%, but how much of that $22,000,000,000,000 could be better spent?

 

[nickqt]

Yeah, I'm familiar with food desserts. I'm not sure what the ultimate solution is, though. Most people can recognize that there is a balance between helping and enabling. Personally, I would prefer to rely on private charities to help the poor instead of the federal and/or state governments. Everyone knows governments aren't the most efficiently run operations and they are famous for wasting money. I also believe in the power of supply and demand. Maybe create tax incentives for local business to open grocery stores in the food desserts? If they go out of business, then the people within the deserts prefer the 7-11 food.

That being said, the least successful war the US has ever engaged in is the war on poverty. Since it's implementation in '64, $22 TRILLION dollars have been spent to decrease the poverty rate from 17.3% to 14.5%. That's great news for those 2.8%, but how much of that $22,000,000,000,000 could be better spent?

Ah, yes, statistics rather than actual numbers.

How many people were poor in 1964? How many people are poor now? How many millions of people are not poor because they live in a civilized society that doesn't let its poor die in the gutters?

Protip: the government, which is to say, US citizens, provide assistance to the poor because private charities haven't been able to keep up, nor would a civilized society allow its citizens in need to have to rely on the charity of private individuals to help them.

 

[kinev]

Ah, yes, statistics rather than actual numbers.

How many people were poor in 1964? How many people are poor now? How many millions of people are not poor because they live in a civilized society that doesn't let its poor die in the gutters?

Protip: the government, which is to say, US citizens, provide assistance to the poor because private charities haven't been able to keep up, nor would a civilized society allow its citizens in need to have to rely on the charity of private individuals to help them.

Ummmm, statistics are actual numbers. Given that it's percentages, the population in 1964 was 191 million, so about 33.2 million people and 2014 (where the 14.5% came from; it's 15% in 2016) 318 million, so about 46.1 million. How do the actual numbers make your point? More people by absolute numbers are considered in poverty after spending over $22 trillion (2014).

https://budget.house.gov/waronpoverty/

False dichotomy: the only two choices aren't to spend $22 trillion or let people die in the gutters. Was the US a civilized society prior to 1964? Do you think the federal government is the most efficient method for helping the poor? Are they helping? We can totally eliminate poverty by going into massive debt and giving every person in the US a million dollars. Would that be smart? Why not? How do you define "in need"? Are you willing to go into personal debt to keep people out of the gutters? Why not? Is it justifiable to get the government to force that debt on everyone? Why is it different?

 

[nickqt]

Ummmm, statistics are actual numbers. Given that it's percentages, the population in 1964 was 191 million, so about 33.2 million people and 2014 (where the 14.5% came from; it's 15% in 2016) 318 million, so about 46.1 million. How do the actual numbers make your point? More people by absolute numbers are considered in poverty after spending over $22 trillion (2014).

https://budget.house.gov/waronpoverty/

False dichotomy: the only two choices aren't to spend $22 trillion or let people die in the gutters. Was the US a civilized society prior to 1964? Do you think the federal government is the most efficient method for helping the poor? Are they helping? We can totally eliminate poverty by going into massive debt and giving every person in the US a million dollars. Would that be smart? Why not? How do you define "in need"? Are you willing to go into personal debt to keep people out of the gutters? Why not? Is it justifiable to get the government to force that debt on everyone? Why is it different?

You really want to pick 1964?

Because the answer is clearly, fuck no, it wasn't civilized. For a whole host of reasons, nevermind Medicaid/Medicare, Social Security, etc.

And I asked for numbers, not statistics, because saying that the war on poverty has "only" helped reduce poverty by 3%, as if 3% doesn't equate to helping out MILLIONS of people and their families over the past 63 years.

Not to mention that when it helps people out, it goes to different people at different times, often helping lift people out of poverty permanently, while helping the newly impoverished, unless you want to pretend that it's only the same people who've been poor for the past 63 years.

Absolute numbers?

17.3% of 318 Million = 55 million people.
14.5% of 318 Million = 46 million people.

That means 9 million of your fellow citizens are not living under the poverty line right now, who might be had the programs not been in existence. That's right now. Never mind any one particular point in time over the past 63 years.

And that is just the "reduction" in people living under the poverty line, not taking into account how many millions of people are able to eat and live inside because of those programs. Just dismissing the programs as "only reducing", never mind the fact that they are meant to help people who are IN poverty.

22 Trillion / 63 Years = $350,000,000 per year. Which sounds like a lot until you remember what the GDP is. Which sounds like a lot until you remember how much is spent on bombs and bullets each year, acting as a job welfare program for companies like Boeing, Raytheon, etc.

And, of course, until you remember that the money that goes into helping people, gets spent DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY. It isn't put into offshore accounts, or given to Wall St. to inflate bubbles. It gets spent at local businesses, corporations, babysitters, etc. In other words, the money simply helps a few MILLION people out, before it goes Right. Back. Into. The. Economy.

But you're left with a giant strawman you carefully douse with napalm before smiling and lighting it ablaze. No one is talking about giving everyone a million dollars, or forcing anyone into debt. It's a government assistance program that can be funded and stewarded more or less, depending on whether the people in charge are competent, incompetent, or shitbags who don't care.

Until politicians and the electorate are able to grapple with the actual problems, instead of the symptoms, we have to treat the symptoms. Poverty is a symptom of corporate capitalism. Full stop.

 

[agent00f]

Ummmm, statistics are actual numbers. Given that it's percentages, the population in 1964 was 191 million, so about 33.2 million people and 2014 (where the 14.5% came from; it's 15% in 2016) 318 million, so about 46.1 million. How do the actual numbers make your point? More people by absolute numbers are considered in poverty after spending over $22 trillion (2014).

https://budget.house.gov/waronpoverty/

False dichotomy: the only two choices aren't to spend $22 trillion or let people die in the gutters. Was the US a civilized society prior to 1964? Do you think the federal government is the most efficient method for helping the poor? Are they helping? We can totally eliminate poverty by going into massive debt and giving every person in the US a million dollars. Would that be smart? Why not? How do you define "in need"? Are you willing to go into personal debt to keep people out of the gutters? Why not? Is it justifiable to get the government to force that debt on everyone? Why is it different?

You really want to pick 1964?

Because the answer is clearly, fuck no, it wasn't civilized. For a whole host of reasons, nevermind Medicaid/Medicare, Social Security, etc.

And I asked for numbers, not statistics, because saying that the war on poverty has "only" helped reduce poverty by 3%, as if 3% doesn't equate to helping out MILLIONS of people and their families over the past 63 years.

Not to mention that when it helps people out, it goes to different people at different times, often helping lift people out of poverty permanently, while helping the newly impoverished, unless you want to pretend that it's only the same people who've been poor for the past 63 years.

Absolute numbers?

17.3% of 318 Million = 55 million people.
14.5% of 318 Million = 46 million people.

That means 9 million of your fellow citizens are not living under the poverty line right now, who might be had the programs not been in existence. That's right now. Never mind any one particular point in time over the past 63 years.

And that is just the "reduction" in people living under the poverty line, not taking into account how many millions of people are able to eat and live inside because of those programs. Just dismissing the programs as "only reducing", never mind the fact that they are meant to help people who are IN poverty.

22 Trillion / 63 Years = $350,000,000 per year. Which sounds like a lot until you remember what the GDP is. Which sounds like a lot until you remember how much is spent on bombs and bullets each year, acting as a job welfare program for companies like Boeing, Raytheon, etc.

And, of course, until you remember that the money that goes into helping people, gets spent DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY. It isn't put into offshore accounts, or given to Wall St. to inflate bubbles. It gets spent at local businesses, corporations, babysitters, etc. In other words, the money simply helps a few MILLION people out, before it goes Right. Back. Into. The. Economy.

But you're left with a giant strawman you carefully douse with napalm before smiling and lighting it ablaze. No one is talking about giving everyone a million dollars, or forcing anyone into debt. It's a government assistance program that can be funded and stewarded more or less, depending on whether the people in charge are competent, incompetent, or shitbags who don't care.

Until politicians and the electorate are able to grapple with the actual problems, instead of the symptoms, we have to treat the symptoms. Poverty is a symptom of corporate capitalism. Full stop.

Kinev is just parroting fake numbers as degenerates are prone to do:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...2599058-faf9-11e2-a369-d1954abcb7e3_blog.html

The funny thing is that by far the large portion of gov spending is military, aka white welfare, which his peers are particularly keen to keep if not increase.

 

[kinev]

You really want to pick 1964?

Because the answer is clearly, fuck no, it wasn't civilized. For a whole host of reasons, nevermind Medicaid/Medicare, Social Security, etc.

And I asked for numbers, not statistics, because saying that the war on poverty has "only" helped reduce poverty by 3%, as if 3% doesn't equate to helping out MILLIONS of people and their families over the past 63 years.

Not to mention that when it helps people out, it goes to different people at different times, often helping lift people out of poverty permanently, while helping the newly impoverished, unless you want to pretend that it's only the same people who've been poor for the past 63 years.

Absolute numbers?

17.3% of 318 Million = 55 million people.
14.5% of 318 Million = 46 million people.

That means 9 million of your fellow citizens are not living under the poverty line right now, who might be had the programs not been in existence. That's right now. Never mind any one particular point in time over the past 63 years.

And that is just the "reduction" in people living under the poverty line, not taking into account how many millions of people are able to eat and live inside because of those programs. Just dismissing the programs as "only reducing", never mind the fact that they are meant to help people who are IN poverty.

22 Trillion / 63 Years = $350,000,000 per year. Which sounds like a lot until you remember what the GDP is. Which sounds like a lot until you remember how much is spent on bombs and bullets each year, acting as a job welfare program for companies like Boeing, Raytheon, etc.

And, of course, until you remember that the money that goes into helping people, gets spent DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY. It isn't put into offshore accounts, or given to Wall St. to inflate bubbles. It gets spent at local businesses, corporations, babysitters, etc. In other words, the money simply helps a few MILLION people out, before it goes Right. Back. Into. The. Economy.

But you're left with a giant strawman you carefully douse with napalm before smiling and lighting it ablaze. No one is talking about giving everyone a million dollars, or forcing anyone into debt. It's a government assistance program that can be funded and stewarded more or less, depending on whether the people in charge are competent, incompetent, or shitbags who don't care.

Until politicians and the electorate are able to grapple with the actual problems, instead of the symptoms, we have to treat the symptoms. Poverty is a symptom of corporate capitalism. Full stop.

Picked 1964 because that's when the "War on Poverty", which is what I was alluding to, was started by Johnson. We won't ever agree on this, but I recognize your point of view about society only being civilized if we have these specific social programs in place. We have different concepts of what civilized means. I may be wrong, but your definition seems to be linked to political programs.

Yes, getting millions of people out of poverty is good; was that the most efficient way of doing it? See million dollar debt analogy from earlier. Is it still it still a good system if we spend $22 trillion to help thousands of families? What about hundreds? What about 1? Yes, it's hyperbole, but I'm assuming that even you would recognize that spending $22 trillion dollars over 50 years to prevent one family from sleeping in the gutter would be ridiculous (because it intentionally is). THAT is the essence of the argument; you think <5% reduction is a good ROI and I don't. We both have lines; we just draw them at different places.

The $22 trillion is three times the amount of money we've spent on all of our wars combined. https://budget.house.gov/waronpoverty/ Government spending on social programs is almost 4 times (3.8) more than defense spending (which is too high, as well). https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51110 So, we already spend WAY more on social programs than defense.

If the money wasn't coming from a federal government that can print more when they need to and sink us further into debt, I'd agree with you about it circulating in the economy. Social welfare programs don't create any goods nor services. Neither does the federal government; it just redistributes money from the people.

The million dollar analogy is an exaggeration to prove a point. Like it or not, we ALL are forced into debt already to the tune of $19.8 trillion (106% of GDP in 2016) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States You trust the federal government to manage that; I don't. I don't think we'll agree on that one, either.

"Poverty is a symptom of corporate capitalism. Full stop." So poverty never existed before capitalism, as an economic system, was created? Really? You want to stick with that...?

Kinev is just parroting fake numbers as degenerates are prone to do:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...2599058-faf9-11e2-a369-d1954abcb7e3_blog.html

The funny thing is that by far the large portion of gov spending is military, aka white welfare, which his peers are particularly keen to keep if not increase.

Durrrr...I know. Numbers is hard....durr. Moron.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb12-172.html

https://budget.house.gov/waronpoverty/

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51110

http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/119/2016

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...art-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/

 

[agent00f]

Picked 1964 because that's when the "War on Poverty", which is what I was alluding to, was started by Johnson. We won't ever agree on this, but I recognize your point of view about society only being civilized if we have these specific social programs in place. We have different concepts of what civilized means. I may be wrong, but your definition seems to be linked to political programs.

Yes, getting millions of people out of poverty is good; was that the most efficient way of doing it? See million dollar debt analogy from earlier. Is it still it still a good system if we spend $22 trillion to help thousands of families? What about hundreds? What about 1? Yes, it's hyperbole, but I'm assuming that even you would recognize that spending $22 trillion dollars over 50 years to prevent one family from sleeping in the gutter would be ridiculous (because it intentionally is). THAT is the essence of the argument; you think <5% reduction is a good ROI and I don't. We both have lines; we just draw them at different places.

The $22 trillion is three times the amount of money we've spent on all of our wars combined. https://budget.house.gov/waronpoverty/ Government spending on social programs is almost 4 times (3.8) more than defense spending (which is too high, as well). https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51110 So, we already spend WAY more on social programs than defense.

If the money wasn't coming from a federal government that can print more when they need to and sink us further into debt, I'd agree with you about it circulating in the economy. Social welfare programs don't create any goods nor services. Neither does the federal government; it just redistributes money from the people.

The million dollar analogy is an exaggeration to prove a point. Like it or not, we ALL are forced into debt already to the tune of $19.8 trillion (106% of GDP in 2016) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States You trust the federal government to manage that; I don't. I don't think we'll agree on that one, either.

"Poverty is a symptom of corporate capitalism. Full stop." So poverty never existed before capitalism, as an economic system, was created? Really? You want to stick with that...?



Durrrr...I know. Numbers is hard....durr. Moron.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb12-172.html

https://budget.house.gov/waronpoverty/

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51110

http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/119/2016

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...art-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/

Hardly surprising that the degenerate followup to posting fake numbers is pretending to be too dumb to read/think, and revealing themselves to be a piece of shit in general. For the former attribute, the link above trivially explains why Paul Ryan's magically lower 15trillion is misleading, but of course you're all too aware learning anything is not meant for you.

For the latter, the majority of non-discretionary spending is on people too old to work, and it figures the degenerate position on them is it's a waste to throw money away on these non-productive resources when we can be using that money to kill politically disposal brown people. Let the elderly in your family know of this next time you see them instead of pretending to be kind to their face.

 

[Jhhnn]

Social welfare programs don't create any goods nor services. Neither does the federal government; it just redistributes money from the people.

Funny that. I repaired transit vehicles for decades. It was definitely a job & we obviously provided service... I suppose all of the teachers in public schools provide no service...

I could go on & on but I suspect you're more interested in reciting the creeds of conservatism than actually thinking at all.

 

[crashtech]

Infrastructure and transportation spending are one of the better uses of public funds, imo.

 

[agent00f]

Funny that. I repaired transit vehicles for decades. It was definitely a job & we obviously provided service... I suppose all of the teachers in public schools provide no service...

I could go on & on but I suspect you're more interested in reciting the creeds of conservatism than actually thinking at all.

No, conservatives are more self-interested in preventing the elderly from stealing from them.

 

[kinev]

Funny that. I repaired transit vehicles for decades. It was definitely a job & we obviously provided service... I suppose all of the teachers in public schools provide no service...

I could go on & on but I suspect you're more interested in reciting the creeds of conservatism than actually thinking at all.

You're being civil, so I'm definitely willing to think about what you say. I'd agree that repairing transit vehicles and public school teachers are services. I don't see how those would fall under social welfare programs, though. I might have used the wrong term. School funds fall under state/local funding and I'm not sure what you did with transit vehicles. These are what are commonly recognized as social welfare programs (first Google result) https://singlemotherguide.com/federal-welfare-programs/

Hardly surprising that the degenerate followup to posting fake numbers is pretending to be too dumb to read/think, and revealing themselves to be a piece of shit in general. For the former attribute, the link above trivially explains why Paul Ryan's magically lower 15trillion is misleading, but of course you're all too aware learning anything is not meant for you.

For the latter, the majority of non-discretionary spending is on people too old to work, and it figures the degenerate position on them is it's a waste to throw money away on these non-productive resources when we can be using that money to kill politically disposal brown people. Let the elderly in your family know of this next time you see them instead of pretending to be kind to their face.

Which numbers are fake? I intentionally listed government sources and you listed a newspaper blog. When you said that "by far the large portion of gov spending is military, aka white welfare, which his peers are particularly keen to keep if not increase", that is just demonstrably false. Instead of recognizing that you were wrong, you double down on the attacks and baseless claims. I have no idea what you're saying in the second paragraph, though.

No, conservatives are more self-interested in preventing the elderly from stealing from them.

Everybody is interested in preventing others from stealing from them; we just define what is stealing differently.

 

[agent00f]

Which numbers are fake? I intentionally listed government sources and you listed a newspaper blog. When you said that "by far the large portion of gov spending is military, aka white welfare, which his peers are particularly keen to keep if not increase", that is just demonstrably false. Instead of recognizing that you were wrong, you double down on the attacks and baseless claims. I have no idea what you're saying in the second paragraph, though.

Too bad your actual source for "22 trillion" is the heritage foundation, which is literally paid right wing shilling. That's pretty easy to figure out for people who can use google, which you didn't consider being so used to hanging around your peers.

As to gov spending, what I said is completely true for discretionary spending, you know the part congress can actually do much about, ie. choose to spend. It's exactly correct that of what we choose to spend on, most goes to predominantly white welfare, you know the good kind that doles out easy manufacturing jobs and such to bomb brown people elsewhere.

Everybody is interested in preventing others from stealing from them; we just define what is stealing differently.

Sure, degenerates are evidently quite keen to define social programs that benefit the elderly & minorities as stealing, but not the spending on their own that happens to kill disposal ethnicities. What else is new.

 

[kinev]

Too bad your actual source for "22 trillion" is the heritage foundation, which is literally paid right wing shilling. That's pretty easy to figure out for people who can use google, which you didn't consider being so used to hanging around your peers.

As to gov spending, what I said is completely true for discretionary spending, you know the part congress can actually do much about, ie. choose to spend. It's exactly correct that of what we choose to spend on, most goes to predominantly white welfare, you know the good kind that doles out easy manufacturing jobs and such to bomb brown people elsewhere.

Sure, degenerates are evidently quite keen to define social programs that benefit the elderly & minorities as stealing, but not the spending on their own that happens to kill disposal ethnicities. What else is new.

Weird, I don't see the word "discretionary" anywhere in your original post...almost as if you were wrong. :O

Fair about the $22 trillion. I didn't use The Heritage Foundation directly, but the source I found was using it, so I was using it indirectly. I can't find a source that isn't using it, though. If you can, I'm open to read it. The House Budget Committee Report on the War on Poverty https://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/war_on_poverty.pdf just says:

"Despite trillions of dollars in spending, poverty is widespread" and "The federal government spent $799 billion on these programs in fiscal year 2012."

So, can we agree on $799 billion in 2012?

 

[agent00f]

Weird, I don't see the word "discretionary" anywhere in your original post...almost as if you were wrong. :O

The non-discretionary is for a reason, in part because the payroll tax/SS-medicare is a separate system, but mostly to prevent people like you from screwing over the "non-productive" ie old.

Fair about the $22 trillion. I didn't use The Heritage Foundation directly, but the source I found was using it, so I was using it indirectly. I can't find a source that isn't using it, though. If you can, I'm open to read it.

The House Budget Committee Report on the War on Poverty https://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/war_on_poverty.pdf just says:

"Despite trillions of dollars in spending, poverty is widespread" and "The federal government spent $799 billion on these programs in fiscal year 2012."

So, can we agree on $799 billion in 2012?

You can't find a "source" that doesn't use it because the lot are manufactured degen canards, for example the "House Budget Committee Report" wholly authored by the committee majority staff (literally noted in large letters on the front page), ie your ideological superiors same as the heritage foundation.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The non-discretionary is for a reason, in part because the payroll tax/SS-medicare is a separate system, but mostly to prevent people like you from screwing over the "non-productive" ie old.



You can't find a "source" that doesn't use it because the lot are manufactured degen canards, for example the "House Budget Committee Report" wholly authored by the committee majority staff (literally noted in large letters on the front page), ie your ideological superiors same as the heritage foundation.

Agent is kind of right on this. While I don't know the number and I don't want to present myself as a subject matter expert
I have heard numerous times that the big figure of aid usually includes the completely disabled and retired folks. I think it also includes people injured on the job. So that big huge number is actually smaller.
Good work on keeping it civil guys

 

[nickqt]

Picked 1964 because that's when the "War on Poverty", which is what I was alluding to, was started by Johnson. We won't ever agree on this, but I recognize your point of view about society only being civilized if we have these specific social programs in place. We have different concepts of what civilized means. I may be wrong, but your definition seems to be linked to political programs.

Yes, getting millions of people out of poverty is good; was that the most efficient way of doing it? See million dollar debt analogy from earlier. Is it still it still a good system if we spend $22 trillion to help thousands of families? What about hundreds? What about 1? Yes, it's hyperbole, but I'm assuming that even you would recognize that spending $22 trillion dollars over 50 years to prevent one family from sleeping in the gutter would be ridiculous (because it intentionally is). THAT is the essence of the argument; you think <5% reduction is a good ROI and I don't. We both have lines; we just draw them at different places.

The $22 trillion is three times the amount of money we've spent on all of our wars combined. https://budget.house.gov/waronpoverty/ Government spending on social programs is almost 4 times (3.8) more than defense spending (which is too high, as well). https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51110 So, we already spend WAY more on social programs than defense.

If the money wasn't coming from a federal government that can print more when they need to and sink us further into debt, I'd agree with you about it circulating in the economy. Social welfare programs don't create any goods nor services. Neither does the federal government; it just redistributes money from the people.

The million dollar analogy is an exaggeration to prove a point. Like it or not, we ALL are forced into debt already to the tune of $19.8 trillion (106% of GDP in 2016) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States You trust the federal government to manage that; I don't. I don't think we'll agree on that one, either.

"Poverty is a symptom of corporate capitalism. Full stop." So poverty never existed before capitalism, as an economic system, was created? Really? You want to stick with that...?



Durrrr...I know. Numbers is hard....durr. Moron.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb12-172.html

https://budget.house.gov/waronpoverty/

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51110

http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/119/2016

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...art-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/

The US spends about $1Trillion a year on the military. For decades and decades and decades.

What gets spent on the safety net, i.e. helping Americans, rather than Raytheon, Boeing, and our Saudi "allies" goes Right. Back. Into. The. Economy.

 

[Jaskalas]

All the old people will have died off, and most of their stupid mysticism and prejudices will go with them. The number of younger people that embrace their nonsense is shrinking, and they will be a quaint little minority some day. Hopefully in the above timeframe.

And I offer this. It already happened. In the 2016 election no less. It's just that a small segment in specific locations saw no economic hope from the Dems and clung to a used car salesman instead. He promised them bold economic initiative. They forgot which party he adopted to peddle his lies.

Next time they will remember that Republicans do not deliver. Next time we had best be the bold ones.

 

[Jhhnn]

One of the things that conservatives are gaga about is the Puritan work ethic of Jamestown, failing to realize that it had a moral imperative & social compact that cut both ways. Everybody needed to work to ensure survival & the leadership had a job for everybody. They didn't tell anybody that their services were no longer required... which is exactly what's happened in the current economy. Pemiscot County? Don't need 'em. Dump 'em. Appalachia? Same story. Camden? Detroit? No different.

Greed & technology have transformed the economic landscape, not in a way that favors ordinary Americans at all. We're letting the financial elite hog the pie & conservatives manage to blame the people who aren't getting any for that gluttony.

Quite why is beyond my comprehension.

 

[kinev]

The US spends about $1Trillion a year on the military. For decades and decades and decades.

What gets spent on the safety net, i.e. helping Americans, rather than Raytheon, Boeing, and our Saudi "allies" goes Right. Back. Into. The. Economy.

No, we don't spend a trillion annually on the military; we spent $522 billion in 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_by_Year But, I agree with you, that is too much as well.

Again, welfare payments are just redistributions: that money has to come from somewhere. The federal government doesn't make anything, it just takes money from those that do in the form of taxes and spreads that money around. That is not how economies grow. If it were, then we could tax everyone at 100%, spread that around, and magically double the GDP. Under that rationale, how is a dollar spent on Raytheon or Boeing not also going right back into the economy as well?

 

[nickqt]

No, we don't spend a trillion annually on the military; we spent $522 billion in 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_by_Year But, I agree with you, that is too much as well.

Again, welfare payments are just redistributions: that money has to come from somewhere. The federal government doesn't make anything, it just takes money from those that do in the form of taxes and spreads that money around. That is not how economies grow. If it were, then we could tax everyone at 100%, spread that around, and magically double the GDP. Under that rationale, how is a dollar spent on Raytheon or Boeing not also going right back into the economy as well?

That's the amount listed in the budget. Everything not listed, or listed as something else that goes to maintaining/delivering weapons is about a Trillion, more or less.

If we can compromise at .75 Trillion/year, do the math on the past 63 years (since '64), and then compare it with the amount spent to help your neighbors creating a first world western civilization.

When you ask how money sent to Raytheon and Boeing isn't put back into the economy, it's because many people who benefit from those payments are able to stash that money into bank accounts. Whereas, giving someone who needs helping buying food tomorrow means the money goes right back into the economy, directly, rather than being used to provide Wall St. criminals an opportunity to collect Fees, Commissions and Bonuses while inflating financial bubbles.

 

[bshole]

"Despite trillions of dollars in spending, poverty is widespread" and "The federal government spent $799 billion on these programs in fiscal year 2012."

So, can we agree on $799 billion in 2012?

Funny thing about that, Congress at this very moment is talking about repealing the inheritance tax which would result in $53 billion gift to a single family.. the Waltons and more than a trillion dollars for the families of a few hundred of America's wealthy. Money that will not get fed back into the economy and instead will be funneled to politicians by those families. Ironically the Waltons made their fortune by exporting American jobs overseas. They spent a lifetime harming America, crippling the middle class and now they want to change the law so that they continue using that money to prevert our political system for decades to come. And you are worried about helping the dirt poor? If you were a student of history you would know that turning your back on the poor is one of the fastest routes to violent revolution.

I find it somewhat repugnant to be bitching about billions to the most needy while contemplating TRILLIONS to the 0.001%ers.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, we don't spend a trillion annually on the military; we spent $522 billion in 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_by_Year But, I agree with you, that is too much as well.

Again, welfare payments are just redistributions: that money has to come from somewhere. The federal government doesn't make anything, it just takes money from those that do in the form of taxes and spreads that money around. That is not how economies grow. If it were, then we could tax everyone at 100%, spread that around, and magically double the GDP. Under that rationale, how is a dollar spent on Raytheon or Boeing not also going right back into the economy as well?

Interesting that you'd link a source that contradicts your numbers in an obfuscational post. Your link says $637B in 2015. It was about the same in 2014.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2014/11/11/how-much-do-we-spend-our-nations-veterans/

It doesn't include spending on veterans- there would be a lot fewer with problems if we didn't keep sending them out to get shot up & fucked up.

That's $791B or so each year. I'm confident that there are other bits of spending on behalf of the military tucked away here & there.

But never mind. Let's puff that up, Cut taxes for the financial elite & fuck them poors.

Cuz Freedumb! Cuz MAGA!

 

[agent00f]

Funny thing about that, Congress at this very moment is talking about repealing the inheritance tax which would result in $53 billion gift to a single family, the Waltons and more than a trillion dollars for the families of a few hundred of America's wealthy. Money that will not get fed back into the economy and instead will be funneled to politicians by those families. Ironically the Walton's made their fortune by exporting American jobs overseas. So they spent a lifetime harming American, crippling the middle class and now they don't want to change the law so that they continue using that money to prevert our political system for decades to come. And you are worried about helping about the dirt poor? If you were a student of history you would know that turning your back on the poor is one of the fastest routes to violent revolution.

I find it somewhat repugnant to be bitching about billions to the most needy while contemplating TRILLIONS to the 0.001 percenters.

Hey now, the whole Walton clan deserve that money from all their hard work not like their lazy employees on the public dole.

 

[buckshot24]

I find it somewhat repugnant to be bitching about billions to the most needy while contemplating TRILLIONS to the 0.001 percenters.

Isn't that their money?

 

[bshole]

If your pay had kept pace with your productivity, your paycheck would be approximately twice as large as it currently is. It sure would be easier to help the poor if that was true for all working Americans wouldn't it?