DEFENSE vs WELFARE SPENDING

[WebSpinner]

just perused some figures released by the CRS (congressional research service, not a dem or repub outfit) and actually since 1993, means tested welfare programs have been outspending defense $1.33 to $1.00. the spending on these 80 programs exceed the spending on medicare, social security and defense ($736 billion fed plus another $300+billion from states). what is worse, the obama adm projects these programs to grow to a ration of $2.33 to $1.00, welfare vs defense, over the next 10 years. now if we are coming out of the recession, it seems these numbers should begin to come down not go up. i believe, know, that all of our budget needs to be cut, ALL but since T has been saying that defense was our largest budget item, thought i would share. houston, we have a problem and god bless the individuals who have to sort this stuff out and bring us back to reality on spending "funny money". would not wish to be captain of this ship, she is listing and taking on water.

This post was edited on 10/19 9:21 AM by WebSpinner

 

[TheUserPreviouslyKnownAsTO]

Spinner, just look at the demographics. If you want to get rid of social security, I would be for it. My generation is not going to see the benefit of it. You forget social security is considered a welfare portion of the budget. Why do you think it balloons so much in the next 20 years? It isn't because of traditional welfare, but because the boomers (like yourself) are and have put this country to the brink of bankruptcy. Do you have a solution to the problem? One could say that the institution of Obamacare would alleviate some of these problems. You talk about social welfare spending as a problem, but my best guess is that if the government took away social security (especially under Obama, although Romney would get rid of it...why would he help the 47%), you would scream bloody murder.

 

[WebSpinner]

TO, am all for cutting SS, a flawed system already bankrupted and going to get worse as people live longer and the baby boomers start receiving money instead of depositing money into the system. the numbers above are for mean-tested welfare, not SS, or medicare. am for cutting govt back to where we balance the budget, let the chips fall where they may, i will be hurt, everyone would be hurt but we have to do it, cannot keep going at this pace. we, as a nation, cannot afford to put obamacare into our budget, just adds to our already out of control deficit and it has not even hit full force yet but when it does and the bureaucrats begin rationing my, your healthcare, we will all say, WTF? all of us boomers have been planning this for decades, yes, we have always wanted to bankrupt the country, always our long term goal. it is not us, it is the programs put into place by our representatives that are causing the problem, don't blame us for being born at a certain time. am all for eliminating all the govt programs if you feel that is the way, let's do it. we must get more people pulling the wagon and fewer people on the wagon, boomers, slackers, those who really need help, etc. the 47% deal, the war on women deal, the not showing all of his taxes deal is all politics, no substance at all. we need a leader who is more interested, really interested, in getting people back to work not adding to the govt rolls, who loves this country, not apologizing for it, who understands economics, what runs our engine and makes us roll. whoever wins this election is not going to solve our financial problems, too late, it will take us going over the cliff for our elected officials to actually take action to start solving it and continuing to raise the debt ceiling is not the answer, just keeps kicking the can down the road. i would applaud obama if he cut or eliminated SS or any other govt program, that would be the start to getting us healthy again but unfortunately, he is for adding more programs, adding more takers to old and new programs, he is going the opposite way of where we need, have to be going. i don't care which party or individual starts the process of dismantling our bloated govt but will vote for whomever says that is what they want to do and will work for it, if it is obama, he has my vote, if romney, has my vote, not a party guy, both parties have led us to this time in our history. again, it is not just the social/welfare programs i rail against, it is ALL of them, we need to cut all of them. my only thoughts on my post was to let T know that just the means-tested welfare is indeed larger than the defense budget, not counting SS or medicare since he had said several times that defense was the biggest part of the budget. believe me, am for cutting everything in govt not just social progams and i apologize to you personally for being born when i was, am just an AH who does not care.

 

[tarrantula]

I'll join this conversation with trepidation based on a limited knowledge of a complex subject. I will say that my friend Spinner and I start on the same page...we both see the financial crisis that is looming over our country as a threat that could plunge our nation into bankruptcy.. I agree with his cry that we must do something quickly or our country could face the fiaso that has overcome Greece and other European countries. I disagree with his assignation of blame on a partisan basis. Clinton had the budget in good shape when he left office..Bush left a major crisis when his 8 years ended and I will concede that things have not improved over the last four years...although I point out that large sums had to be spent at the beginning of the Obama term to deal with the financial crisis (banking crisis auto industry ie). I don't think that he is correct on some of his budget assertions.

The budget consists of Mandatory and Discretionary spending items. The President proposes...Congress adopts.
Under the 2013 proposed budget that Obama has presented, the total figure is 3.67 trillion dollars. A frightening figure in light of the current debt crisis and the current lack of growth in our economy. The Mandatory portion of the budget (debts that are obligations) makes up 62% of the figure. Social Security payments take up 1/3 of the Mandatory allocation.The Discretionary portion (where most of the argument and criticism lies) makes up 31% of the total budget.. Interest on the current debt takes up the remaining 7%. I don't see either party proposing a default on current Social Security oblications, but a prospective(change the rules for contributions and payouts for those entering the program) phase out or pay out adjustment could happen in the future. Neither party is going to touch that hot potato in a Presidential election year.

Under the President's proposal, the Military budget would be 31% of his proposal for discretionary spending. Spinner sugests that entitlements involve a larger sum than military, he may well be correct, but they are mandatory payments, not discretionary. If we are to change payments on those obligations, the proposal should come from Congress, not the President. Congress does have some control on a portion of the entitlement debt. For instance, they can change the eligibility level for food stamps if they see fit...I'm speaking now about something on which I am no expert, but I assume that they could do away with the entire program if they agreed. The current debt would remain, but we would reduce spending in the future.I will give credit to the Republican House who rose up in 2011 and demanded cuts in spending. Although, I would point out that no such movement arose during the Bush years when we went from good economic shape to large debt. The sad thing is that when it comes to Congress, I don't see much difference in Democrats or Republicans as far as putting aside political strife and personal agendas for the good of the country.

As Spinner has told us, we are a nation in dire financial straits...as are many of the nations of the world. I regard the removal of tariffs as a prime element in the flow of jobs from our country to Asia and South America where cheap labor abounds. 2007 was a disastrous year for this country. "Jobs" is a major topic of the election this year with both candidates promising new jobs for the future. I don't personally see any substance to the promises of either man. As I've said before, I am a fan of Ron Paul because he provides details to his promises. My personal sense is that Romney is gaining ground rapidly in the closing weeks before the election...I attribute that mostly to the feeling that he will ride the same groundswell that put Obama into office 4 years ago. A sense by the people of this country that hard times are more likely to change with a change in leadership. If he is the choice, I will pray for his success because I agree absolutely with Spinners assessment of the size of the crisis.

 

[WebSpinner]

we need a one-term president and one term legislators who will come together, fight, yes, debate, yes, but with the thought in mind, they have to attack every inch, mandatory (the term mandatory, needs to go away) and discretionary. the problem being right now, there are too many legislators who feel things are off limits, there can be no items off limits, period. they cannot think about reelection, they have to think, save our country. unfortunately, don't think cbs, nbc, cnn, abc, fox, the print press, educates americans on how bad, critical, this deal really is and most folks feel like they should just keep raising the debt ceiling and keep it all going. we are in for a big fight no matter but if we all realize that we all have to sacrifice, yes, even the 47%, even seniors, we can lick it but if we all fight to save our pet deals, will not happen and why i feel, unfortunately, that we will have to go over the cliff to really see us do what we need to do. i will be OK, but i really feel for my daughter, my son and their kids, they could really have a tough time.

This post was edited on 10/20 2:11 PM by WebSpinner

 

[tarrantula]

Amen to that message.