or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Welfare State
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Welfare State

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 

1000

 

 

Quote:
A new chart set to be released later today by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee details a startling statistic: “Over 100 Million People in U.S. Now Receiving Some Form Of Federal Welfare.”
 
“The federal government administers nearly 80 different overlapping federal means-tested welfare programs,” the Senate Budget Committee notes. However, the committee states, the figures used in the chart do not include those who are only benefiting from Social Security and/or Medicare. 
 
Food stamps and Medicaid make up a large—and growing—chunk of the more than 100 million recipients. “Among the major means tested welfare programs, since 2000 Medicaid has increased from 34 million people to 54 million in 2011 and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps) from 17 million to 45 million in 2011,” says the Senate Budget Committee. “Spending on food stamps alone is projected to reach $800 billion over the next decade.”
 
The data comes “from the U.S. Census’s Survey of Income and Program Participation shows that nearly 110,000 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011. (These figures do not include other means-tested benefits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit or the health insurance premium subsidies included in the President’s health care law. CBO estimates that the premium subsidies, scheduled to begin in 2014, will cover at least 25 million individuals by the end of the decade.)”
 
This is not just Americans, however. “These figures include not only citizens, but non-citizens as well,” according to the committee.

 

Source

 

Welcome to the United Welfare States of America.

 

Raising taxes on the 1% won't even begin to dig us out of the hole we're in.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2 of 8

Well we have certainly had many discussions on here about candidates, their electability and how to "walk back" the large numbers of people who now are creatures of the entitlement system.

 

The reality is that anything that threatens their monthly check is considered scary and horrifying. Sadly the only solution to that might be to pick the least scary candidate and that is what the Republican party has done now for I'd say every election since the end of Reagan's second term. Who's going to take the hits and make the changes and can they really be made? Can you lead of the populace doesn't want to follow?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #3 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Well we have certainly had many discussions on here about candidates, their electability and how to "walk back" the large numbers of people who now are creatures of the entitlement system.

 

The reality is that anything that threatens their monthly check is considered scary and horrifying. Sadly the only solution to that might be to pick the least scary candidate and that is what the Republican party has done now for I'd say every election since the end of Reagan's second term. Who's going to take the hits and make the changes and can they really be made? Can you lead of the populace doesn't want to follow?

 

I've read your thoughts and arguments on this and, assuming Romney wins (that possibility seems greater more recently), I hope you're right. That said, I feel like I'm personally in the "once bitten, twice shy" or maybe the "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" category right now. I'd so like to be wrong on this.

 

Also agree that leading people that don't want to follow is a vexing issue. I fear that the only thing that will fundamentally get this country on track is a serious and significant event or series of events. And, in that, there's a great risk that it will become the spring board for greater government growth, spending, control, etc.

 

There are some fundamental mind shifts that need to happen. I don't know how that happens. Perhaps the direct and obvious failure of X to do what it claims it can do. But there's enough propaganda going on that people seem to buy hook, line and sinker that when X fails, the blame goes to Y. It seems to be a profound failure or logic and reason.

 

One of the foundational goals must be education, I think. Helping people understand the things that work and don't, the things that will succeed and won't, the things that are right and wrong, the things that destroy and the things that create, the things that make us all better off (perhaps unequally rich) and the things that make us all worse off (equally poor). But there are some stubborn minds out there.


Edited by MJ1970 - 8/8/12 at 3:11pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #4 of 8
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Well we have certainly had many discussions on here about candidates, their electability and how to "walk back" the large numbers of people who now are creatures of the entitlement system.

 

The reality is that anything that threatens their monthly check is considered scary and horrifying. Sadly the only solution to that might be to pick the least scary candidate and that is what the Republican party has done now for I'd say every election since the end of Reagan's second term. Who's going to take the hits and make the changes and can they really be made? Can you lead of the populace doesn't want to follow?

 

No, I still won't vote for Romney.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #5 of 8

Penn Jillette on the welfare state:

 

 

Quote:

"It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

 

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #6 of 8

Pssssst.... Here's the other welfare state: 

 

The US government subsidizes corporations to the tune of $92 BILLION annually. This is 156% more than the annual federal budget for traditional social programs - the ones that get right-wingers so pissy, some $60 billion. Not to forget, the uber-dupicitous Ayn Rand was a grateful recipient of some of these traditional social welfare programs against which her philosophy was so blazingly virulent.

 

Then we got the Bankster Parasites™ and Wall Street Welfare Queen bailouts - taxpayer funded socialism to rescue the capitalists - and no-bid contracts for warmongers.... thats in another league altogether.

 

Don't tell anyone.... its neither politically correct, nor polite conversation.

 

OK, Carry on.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #7 of 8
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Not to forget, the uber-dupicitous Ayn Rand was a grateful recipient of some of these traditional social welfare programs against which her philosophy was so blazingly virulent.

 

Because it's unreasonable to expect people who are critical of the system and who were forced to pay into that system under threat of violence to try get anything back out of it, right?

 

Here's Ayn Rand's own explanation:

 

Quote:
...the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

 

Otherwise, I agree that the big banks and corporations are a huge part of the problem.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #8 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

The US government subsidizes corporations to the tune of $92 BILLION annually.

 

Which, of course, should be ended.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

This is 156% more than the annual federal budget for traditional social programs - the ones that get right-wingers so pissy, some $60 billion.

 

You picked one social program. Nice. You link only to HUD, but fail to even mention HHS which spends around $900B a year or Labor which spends $130B a year. :roll eyes:

 

Absolutely the corporate welfare should be ended. But let's not pretend that is the largest part of the budget.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Then we got the Bankster Parasites™ and Wall Street Welfare Queen bailouts - taxpayer funded socialism to rescue the capitalists - and no-bid contracts for warmongers.... thats in another league altogether.

 

Which, of course, should be ended.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Welfare State