Is your state going broke?

[trev]

In California it's about 25% of the budget.

[mvscal]

Welfare for the poor is a very small percentage of the budget

Uh, actually it isn't. Not that you really give shit about the hungry or the homeless.

[Mace]

Welfare for the poor is a very small percentage of the budget

Uh, actually it isn't. Not that you really give shit about the hungry or the homeless.

What is traditionally characterized as "welfare" (food stamps and AFDC) make up about 2% of the federal budget. A lot of other entitlement programs get thrown into the mix when politicians start throwing out numbers.

Any you have no fucking idea what I give a shit about, dumbfuck.

[mvscal]

What is traditionally characterized as "welfare" (food stamps and AFDC) make up about 2% of the federal budget. A lot of other entitlement programs get thrown into the mix when politicians start throwing out numbers.

Entitlements aren't welfare? Really? Sure about that?

Any you have no fucking idea what I give a shit about, dumbfuck.

You run a soup kitchen or homeless shelter? Manage a nonprofit org to help? No? Just what exactly do you do for the homeless and hungry other than vote for assholes who will confiscate the most money from productive citizens?

[smackaholic]

I haven't a problem with welfare, so long as it is temporary and some sort of work is required in return.

It is a very small part of the fed budget, but, apparently is a pretty damn good chunk of some states. I am sure mine is one of them. Lilly white Iowa, prolly not so much.

If anyone would like a good read on the gubmint worker pension scam, read William Simon's A time for truth. My father in law gave it to me to read nearly twenty years ago. Simon talked about the ridiculous city worker pension plans in NY which were a large part of the reason NYC went bankrupt in the 70s. This book was written in '78. Seems like it could have been written last week, with what is currently going on with these out of control pensions. Trouble is, now it isn't just new york.

A few weeks back I was listening to somebody, forget who it was, I think it might have been stuart varney in Fox News. He said it all went back to JFK who got legalized public sector employee unions.

He pointed out that private sector unions are not a problem in that they are self regulating. If a company caves into too many demands, they go tits up. The public sector doesn't have this worry. Well, not till now, anyway.

So what will happen, when the inevitable happens? Will all these public sector pensioners be told to pound sand and have to settle for 30 cents on the dollar? I don't see any other possible outcome.

[Mace]

Entitlements aren't welfare?

I clearly identified what most people consider to be welfare and that those payouts make up 2% of the federal budget. Go ahead and dispute that if you don't mind being a complete fucking idiot. I don't consider social security and medicare to be welfare since everyone who works contributes to the systems.

You run a soup kitchen or homeless shelter? Manage a nonprofit org to help? No? Just what exactly do you do for the homeless and hungry other than vote for assholes who will confiscate the most money from productive citizens?

So you have to run a soup kitchen or homeless shelter to "care" about the hungry and homeless? You have no idea who I voted for, dumbass, nor do I know how you cast your vote. Oh wait, you don't vote. I forgot. :roll:

[mvscal]

Entitlements aren't welfare?

I clearly identified what most people consider to be welfare and that those payouts make up 2% of the federal budget.

I clearly don't give a fuck what most people consider welfare. Even using your own criteria, you are still way off. It's abundantly clear that you don't have a fucking clue.

Welfare entitlements comprise 28% of the Federal budget not 2%, fucktard.

Unemployment/welfare: 16.13%
Medicaid: 8.19%
Health & Human Services: 2.22%
HUD: 1.34%

I'm sure there is even more buried in various other agencies but that should be enough to make the point that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

So you have to run a soup kitchen or homeless shelter to "care" about the hungry and homeless?

Yeah you have to do something other than wring your hands and flap your dicksuckers. So? What great deeds of charity do you do in the name of combating hunger and homelessness? Toss a few cans of creamed corn into the food drive bin once a year? Do you even do that much?

[Cuda]

hey, no fair! they use some of those colo(u)rs at least 3 times

[Mace]

The programs I listed comprise 2% of the budget, you stupid sonofabitch. You can now go fuck yourself.

[Dr_Phibes]

I clearly don't give a fuck what most people consider welfare.

Clearly not, you've singlehandedly redefined the concept. It's very.. creative.

[trev]

Mace, this thread is about state government. Why are you talking about federal? Welfare is welfare. We take care of a lot of people. And it costs more than 2%. It's about 25% in California. I wish it was 2%.

[Mace]

Mace, this thread is about state government. Why are you talking about federal? Welfare is welfare. We take care of a lot of people. And it costs more than 2%. It's about 25% in California. I wish it was 2%.

I thought Arnold ended welfare in California.

[smackaholic]

Well it was the first to get cut. But they did extend rent control another decade, I was happy with that.

why the fukk should you get subsidized housing? i can maybe see it for single moms....maybe.

single jizzmoppers with no dependents?

give me a fukking break.

get a roomate or three or move to a place where a jizzmopper salary will pay market rates.

the rent control scam is for aholes that don't want to live within their means. period.

the country as a whole has been doing that for way too long. no we have to make up new fukking numbers big enough to describe the levels of debt. and our grandkids are gonna be handed the tab. nice.

keynesian economic model has failed. time to flush it.

sad thing is, i think the concept of keynesian economics is a good one. save in good times, borrow in bad to level things out. trouble is, it requires responsible adults to carry out such a policy. we don't have such a thing. the whores in dc have the financial discipline of a crackhead. they have borrowed a lot in good times, borrowed even more in bad and barry has stepped up this game exponentially.

[Screw_Michigan]

You don't know jack shit about rent control policy nor rent control in the District. I'm glad you're getting your panties all bunched up over it, so I'm glad rent control is getting over on you. Go fuck yourself, cunt.

[smackaholic]

You don't know jack shit about rent control policy nor rent control in the District. I'm glad you're getting your panties all bunched up over it, so I'm glad rent control is getting over on you. Go fuck yourself, cunt.

i don't need to know specifics of DC rent control. I know there are 2 ways to attain it.

the first is to force a landlord to charge something other than market rates. I am fairly certain that 99.9999999% of the time, it is less. Don't know of examples where this method of rent control results in higher rents, although it could happen, I guess. In either case, there is another term for it. Stealing, from the landlord in this case.

the second method is to subsidize the rent by payments from the gubmint to the landlord. this is theft on a few levels. it is theft from the tax payer directly and it also results in a higher "market" rate among properties in general, which is theft from renters. this of course is simple supply and demand, a concept that seems to fly straight over the head of libtard.

if you know of a different method of controlling rent, let's hear it, douchebag.

[Screw_Michigan]

Nobody fucking cares. You don't live here. You don't vote here. Your take is irrelevant.

[Derron]

Mace, this thread is about state government. Why are you talking about federal? Welfare is welfare. We take care of a lot of people. And it costs more than 2%. It's about 25% in California. I wish it was 2%.

Because it is all funded by taxes . Taxes...money that the government takes from working people and redistributes to the "needy" or the "system playas", and that the government fucks away.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Yeah...you're country is in a shithole because lazy deadbeats got an extra slab of gubmint cheese...




Slit you own throats, class traitors.

[H4ever]

[There should be ZERO deductions.



STOP STEALING!!!!!


There should be NO corporate taxes. Corps are owned by people. If those people make money through corp earings, let it be taxed like all other earned income.

.

You mean to tell me you support an end to corporate welfare, too? I'm cool with that. But, you better make sure there are laws to ban outsourcing to 12 cent an hour jobs in China. Because as soon as coporations can no longer deduct golfing trips to Cabo and the gubmint checks stop flowing in....the only thing left is corporate headquarters on American soil with a P.O. Box to receive the profits off third-world backs. Say bye bye to American jobs and hello to massive unemployent, poverty, hunger and lawlessness as the country teeters on the bring of anarchy.

[smackaholic]

[There should be ZERO deductions.



STOP STEALING!!!!!


There should be NO corporate taxes. Corps are owned by people. If those people make money through corp earings, let it be taxed like all other earned income.

.

You mean to tell me you support an end to corporate welfare, too? I'm cool with that. But, you better make sure there are laws to ban outsourcing to 12 cent an hour jobs in China. Because as soon as coporations can no longer deduct golfing trips to Cabo and the gubmint checks stop flowing in....the only thing left is corporate headquarters on American soil with a P.O. Box to receive the profits off third-world backs. Say bye bye to American jobs and hello to massive unemployent, poverty, hunger and lawlessness as the country teeters on the bring of anarchy.

bullshit.

choking regulation and tax law complexity chases away bidness. it doesn't attract it.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

choking regulation and tax law complexity chases away bidness. it doesn't attract it.

"Goddamn right!"

Sincerely,

India

[BSmack]

bullshit. choking regulation and tax law complexity chases away bidness. it doesn't attract it.

Tell me, what is the biggest expense most businesses have, taxes or payroll?

[smackaholic]

bullshit. choking regulation and tax law complexity chases away bidness. it doesn't attract it.

Tell me, what is the biggest expense most businesses have, taxes or payroll?

Depends on the business. I suspect that in most cases, it's payroll.

What's yer point?

Are insinuating that it's all about payroll and nothing else matters? Surely, you aren't that much of a dumbfukk.

[Derron]

bullshit. choking regulation and tax law complexity chases away bidness. it doesn't attract it.

Tell me, what is the biggest expense most businesses have, taxes or payroll?

Depends on the business but you can expect it to go pretty close to this:

Payroll/labor direct cost
Insurance - all forms
Fucking taxes - government fees - permits etc.

Insurance and taxes can go back and forth at number 2....but in a big surprise to you libtards..fucking taxes and government fees are a huge expense, and have to be paid before your gross margin can go towards your G & A, and the huge bad fucking word PROFIT !

If you can keep your taxes and government interference fees down, you can provide more jobs, produce more widgets, build more buildings..the more of that revenue that goes to the fucking government is that much less flipping in the economy. Dispute that.

[H4ever]

French revolution in America.... eat the rich....

Yea..fuck Americans...let's get the bottom line fat.

Enjoy.

[mvscal]

The programs I listed comprise 2% of the budget, you stupid sonofabitch. You can now go fuck yourself.

The programs you list are a drop in the Federal welfare bucket. You know that but try to pretend otherwise. That makes you a lying piece of shit and a stupid, fucking joke.

It's 28%, twat. Deal with it.

[mvscal]

bullshit. choking regulation and tax law complexity chases away bidness. it doesn't attract it.

Tell me, what is the biggest expense most businesses have, taxes or payroll?

I couldn't help but notice that you ignored the cost of regulatory compliance. It's the way of intellectually dishonest cunts such as yourself.

[Mace]

The programs I listed comprise 2% of the budget, you stupid sonofabitch. You can now go fuck yourself.

The programs you list are a drop in the Federal welfare bucket. You know that but try to pretend otherwise. That makes you a lying piece of shit and a stupid, fucking joke.

It's 28%, twat. Deal with it.

I'm not "pretending" anything and the 2% I listed is accurate for ADC and food stamps. The only one pretending is you pretending to be intelligent. You're not, mvsgooglecal....you're just a pretender who's not smart enough to comprehend everything you google.

[mvscal]

I'm not "pretending" anything and the 2% I listed is accurate for ADC and food stamps.

Of course that is one of the oldest dodges in the book. It doesn't work on anybody anymore except maybe idiots like you.

Define "welfare" in the narrowest possible terms and then point and say, "Oh, look. It's only 2% of budget. Have a heart." Unfortunately for you, it is an intellectually dishonest statement which conveniently ignores hundreds of billions in additional entitlement spending. ADC and food stamps barely even qualify as the tip of the welfare iceberg.

So stop lying, asshole.

[Mace]

I'm not "pretending" anything and the 2% I listed is accurate for ADC and food stamps.

Of course that is one of the oldest dodges in the book. It doesn't work on anybody anymore except maybe idiots like you.

Define "welfare" in the narrowest possible terms and then point and say, "Oh, look. It's only 2% of budget. Have a heart." Unfortunately for you, it is an intellectually dishonest statement which conveniently ignores hundreds of billions in additional entitlement spending. ADC and food stamps barely even qualify as the tip of the welfare iceberg.

So stop lying, asshole.

I clarified my statements right from the start as ADC and food stamps being the two programs most folks bitch about for handing out money and food to deadbeats, and correctly pointed out that those two programs make up 2% of the federal budget. Oh gee, I didn't know that there are lots of other forms of welfare (corporate welfare, medicaid, social security, et al. :roll: ). You counter with a pie graph that you're not smart enough to read. Yeah, nice work.

[mvscal]

You counter with a pie graph that you're not smart enough to read. Yeah, nice work.

Read this, dumbfuck.

Unemployment/welfare: 16.13%
Medicaid: 8.19%
Health & Human Services: 2.22%
HUD: 1.34%

You're done.

[Mace]

Myth: Welfare is to blame for runaway government spending.

Fact: Middle-class entitlements are to blame for runaway government spending.



Summary

The two largest welfare programs for the poor, AFDC and food stamps, each take up only 1 percent of the combined government budgets. Attempts to expand the definition of "welfare" to make this figure larger will inevitably include popular middle class programs like Medicaid and student loans.



Argument

One of the most popular myths is that welfare is a serious drag on the economy. Actually, it barely registers on the radar screen. The most vilified form of welfare is Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which allegedly gives poor mothers a financial incentive to avoid work and have babies. Yet in 1992, AFDC formed only 1 percent of the combined federal and state budgets. Food stamps also took up 1 percent. Both programs cost $24.9 billion each, comprising 1 percent each of the combined federal, state and local budget of $2,487 billion. (1)

Comparing the size of federal AFDC to other federal programs puts a great deal in perspective:

Federal AFDC Expenditures as Compared to Federal Spending in Other Areas (1993) (2)

Agency $ billions
--------------------------
AFDC 12
Medicaid 76
Medicare 131
Defense 281
Social Security 305
To rescue their point that welfare is responsible for runaway government spending, conservatives must expand the definition of "welfare" as much as possible. Unfortunately, AFDC and food stamps are by far the largest welfare programs for the poor, and any expanded definition is going to include popular middle class programs like Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, and pensions for needy veterans. In other words, conservatives must villainize the middle class if they wish to villainize the poor. But for the moment, let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and accompany their line of argument to the end:

Many conservatives expand "welfare" to include all one-way transfers of cash, goods or services to persons who make no payment and render no service in return. The Library of Congress provides a list of such programs (which will be included in the appendix below). In 1992, these expenditures for combined federal, state and local governments came to $289.9 billion, or 12 percent of the combined budget of $2,487 billion. (3) Keep in mind that this 12 percent includes such popular middle class programs as Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, pensions for needy veterans, etc.

If conservatives are still frustrated that this does not prove their point that government is drowning in welfare, then they might try expanding "welfare" to include all social welfare expenditures, which include every entitlement program under the sun, including Social Security and Medicare. (Forget, for the moment, that the middle class is defending these programs with bazookas and rocket launchers.) In 1992, these expenditures comprised 62 percent of combined government outlays. However, at least at the federal level, these benefits are paid to literally every income bracket, and in a remarkably proportional manner:

Distributions of Federal Funds by Income Bracket, Compared to Distribution
of Households by Income Bracket, CY 1991 (4)

Percent of Percent of
Income all households all benefits
-----------------------------------------------
Under $10,000 16.4% 17.8%
$10,000 - $20,000 18.8 21.7
$20,000 - $30,000 17.0 17.2
$30,000 - $50,000 23.6 21.8
$50,000 - $100,000 19.1 15.9
Over $100,000 5.1 5.6
As the above chart shows, the conservative's absurdism is now complete; he has declared class war against every member of society. But at least he has proven his point.

Return to Overview

Endnotes:

1 Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, "Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY 1990-92," Report 93-832 EPW, and earlier reports; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Government Finances, series GF, No. 5, 1992.

2. Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1995 (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office), tables 3.2, 5.1, 16.1.

3. Library of Congress.

4. Benefit distributions by income bracket are based on unpublished CBO analysis of Current Population Survey (Census) and Statistics of Income (IRS) income data. Benefit payments tabulated here (a total of $534 billion) represent the 81 percent of federal entitlement outlays in 1991 that could be allocated by income bracket. They include Social Security (OASDI), Railroad Retirement, civil service and military retirement, veterans' cash benefits, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, workers' compensation, Food Stamps, AFDC, SSI, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Although consistent data on the other 19 percent of federal benefit payments are not available, it is unlikely that inclusion of the remaining entitlement programs (ranging from Medicaid to farm price supports)would significantly alter the overall benefit distribution. Source: Neil Howe, How to Control the Cost of Federal Entitlements: The Argument for Comprehensive "Means-Testing" (National Taxpayers Union Foundation; 1991).

APPENDIX A

The following is a breakdown of the larger welfare budget. This is not a list of social welfare spending, but rather the type of welfare that comes under the most criticism: one-way transfers of benefits that require no immediate service or payment in return. Technically, Medicaid is the largest item, but this is a special exception, since about three-fourths of Medicaid goes to the elderly, the blind and the otherwise disabled.

Conservatives object to excluding Medicaid as welfare income for the poor. But early in 1996, a distinguished National Academy of Sciences panel issued a major report on how poverty should be measured. It concluded that health care coverage, both public and private, should not be included as income. Part of the reason is because Medicaid is an insurance program, and its payments go directly to doctors and hospitals, not to insured families. Families cannot use Medicaid to purchase basic necessities like food, clothing, shelter, etc.

The purpose of the following list is to show two things. First, AFDC and Food Stamps are by far the largest items on the welfare budget, since they are usually awarded together to welfare recipients. Critics of welfare who try to add up every form of welfare imaginable and then claim that Welfare Queens live on $20,000 a year will find there is not enough money in the budget to make that an across-the-board generalization. Furthermore, the same people do not collect these programs; they are spread across the population, and are often exclusionary by law.

Second, it shows how much of the welfare budget goes to things like school loans, job training and veteran's medical care. Some liberals, like James Carville, have argued that one of the largest items, the Earned Income Tax Credit, fails to qualify as welfare at all, since it is a tax refund that workers earn. (This author disagrees; all tax breaks are welfare, whether given to the poor or the rich.)

Combined Federal, State and Local Welfare Budget, 1992 (millions)

Medicaid $118,067
AFDC 24,923
Food Stamps 24,918
Supplemental Security Income 22,774
Lower income housing asst. 12,307
Earned Income Tax Credit 9,553
Veterans medical care 7,838
Stafford loans 5,683
Social Services (Title 20) 5,419
Pell Grants 5,374
Low-rent public housing 5,008
General medical assistance 4,850
Foster Care 4,170
School Lunch 3,895
Pensions for needy veterans 3,667
General Assistance 3,340
Head Start 2,753
Food supplements,
Women, infants and children 2,600
Training for disadvantaged
youth and adults 1,744
Low-income energy assistance 1,594
Rural housing loans 1,468
Indian Health Services 1,431
Summer youth employment 1,183
Maternal and child health 1,059
JOBS and WIN 1,010
Job Corps 955
Child care block grant 825
School Breakfast 782
Child care for AFDC 755
Nutrition Program for Elderly 659
Housing interest reduction 652
Child and adult care food program 624
"At risk" child care 604
Source: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, "Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY 1990-92," Report 93-832 EPW and earlier reports.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-runawaywelfare.htm

[Smackie Chan]

No data more recent than '92 was available?

[mvscal]

No data more recent than '92 was available?

None that would support his horseshit argument anyway. He is doing a fine job of kicking his own ass, though.

From his own source:

Many conservatives expand "welfare" to include all one-way transfers of cash, goods or services to persons who make no payment and render no service in return.

Well, yes. What else could you possibly call one way transfers or cash, goods or services to persons who make no payment and render no service in return other than welfare?

In 1992, these expenditures for combined federal, state and local governments came to $289.9 billion, or 12 percent of the combined budget of $2,487 billion.

So, 18 years ago "only" 12% of budget was going to welfare. That number has now ballooned to 28% and rising. As the old saying goes, eventually socialists will run out of other peoples' money.
That eventuality is coming up real fucking quick.

[Mace]

I posted the data to support my arguement that ADC and food stamps make up 2% of the federal budget, which they do, and also data that also supports your definition of welfare. My contention all along, which I've proven, is that "welfare" for the poor (food stamps and ADC) consists of 2% of the budget and your only recourse is to include all other forms of entitlement programs in an attemp to support your claims. Typical dumbfuck move on your part to argue apples and oranges. Now fuck off.

[mvscal]

My contention all along, which I've proven, is that "welfare" for the poor (food stamps and ADC) consists of 2% of the budget

You haven't even proven that much, idiot. You've proven that that tiny sliver of overall welfare spending was 2% of the budget...IN 1992.

Try to keep up.

[smackaholic]

nothing like a nice little IKYABWAI death match to convey the xmas spirit.

g0d bless us, one and all....except lets turd.

[Mace]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... udget.html

2011 Budget $3.69 Trillion

Food Stamps $80.8 Billion (2.19%)

AFDC ended in 1996. It has been replaced by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid_to_Fam ... t_Children

TANF $18.59 Billion (0.50%)

Mace's 2% figure is off by 34.5%.

Okay, so those two programs now make up 2.69% of the federal budget. I stand corrected. It's still a drop in the bucket, which was my point, and it's not these social welfare programs that are breaking the country.

[mvscal]

, and it's not these social welfare programs that are breaking the country.

Yeah, it's all the other social welfare programs. Jesus Christ on a fucking Stick, you are a blithering dumbfuck.

[Dr_Phibes]

TANF reads more like an investment programme than a form of welfare. You let these people rot and you chip away at consumer spending.
Anyway, seeing as welfare was a band-aid concept designed to keep the masses placated when they haven't got anything to do, shows there's something seriously wrong. But hey, a conscious decision that an economy works better when money makes money, rather than people making things was made and you've got to live with it.