So you complain about how the US spends her money.

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Ok this thread is specifically about the budget, I'm tired of hearing people complain about spending money in Iraq, or in Defense in general.

Here's the deal...those are constitutional expenditures.

Here's an idea to pay off the debt, take the $600+ Billion USD going to Entitlements and Welfare (non-constitutional expenditures) and then stop paying for those bloated ineffecient programs that are collapsing our economy and find a BETTER way to support the common man.




posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
So...you think we should continue to fund wars, dictatorships, more nuclear weapons that won't ever be used unless we want to destroy the earth many times over, etc...and do away with Welfare and other help programs, because that is what is REALLY wrong with our spending.

As long as it makes sense to you!



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
So...you think we should continue to fund wars, dictatorships, more nuclear weapons that won't ever be used unless we want to destroy the earth many times over, etc...and do away with Welfare and other help programs, because that is what is REALLY wrong with our spending.

As long as it makes sense to you!


Yes, that's what the government exists for - to provide for Defense...not to provide for welfare for illegal immigrants.

And you can't destroy the earth with Nuclear weapons I don't feel like educating you about how wrong you are just go pick-up a book on Nuclear posture.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
Yes, that's what the government exists for - to provide for Defense...not to provide for welfare for illegal immigrants.


How could I be so silly! To think that all the money for welfare, medicare, and other help programs go only to illegal immigrants.

And wrong: governments exist to provide stability. That is the original plan of governments. Defense is part of that, but does not mean that should be valued over the citizens of the nation.


And you can't destroy the earth with Nuclear weapons I don't feel like educating you about how wrong you are just go pick-up a book on Nuclear posture.


You have no idea what nuclear posture it seems, as nuclear posture is basically where our nukes are aimed (like specific countries). Nowhere does nuclear posture say nukes cannot destroy the earth (life on earth). Meaning you haven't picked up a book on nuclear posture.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   

governments exist to provide stability. That is the original plan of governments.

The founders were pretty clear on what the US government existed for. It existed solely to preserve the natural rights of the american citizens, and it did this by having powers divided up amoung competing branches. THe government exists, in a sense, to be weak. It doesn't grant us rights, it merely exists to prevent us from denying each other our rights.

All that other stuff, like social welfare, is good, clearly, but also tangental to the purpose of government. Give more power to the government, like with welfare, and you give it more control, which it will abuse. That is what the founders wanted to prevent.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The founders were pretty clear on what the US government existed for. It existed solely to preserve the natural rights of the american citizens, and it did this by having powers divided up amoung competing branches. THe government exists, in a sense, to be weak. It doesn't grant us rights, it merely exists to prevent us from denying each other our rights.


They may have originally meant for it to be that way (like when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the beginning of the first Constitution Convention and Bill of Rights). But their actions (such as having the Electoral College to prevent mob rule [full Democracy]) clearly shows that their intention when creating the Constitution and trying to get the branches together and states was to create stability in the young nation.

I am glad you aren't agreeing with the above's^ ludicrous statements though.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
Yes, that's what the government exists for - to provide for Defense...not to provide for welfare for illegal immigrants.


How could I be so silly! To think that all the money for welfare, medicare, and other help programs go only to illegal immigrants.

And wrong: governments exist to provide stability. That is the original plan of governments. Defense is part of that, but does not mean that should be valued over the citizens of the nation.


And you can't destroy the earth with Nuclear weapons I don't feel like educating you about how wrong you are just go pick-up a book on Nuclear posture.


You have no idea what nuclear posture it seems, as nuclear posture is basically where our nukes are aimed (like specific countries). Nowhere does nuclear posture say nukes cannot destroy the earth (life on earth). Meaning you haven't picked up a book on nuclear posture.


No, the US Government is well defined it does NOT exist for the sake of "Wealth Redistribution" stop making a fake argument there's no contest, you are wrong.

And Nuclear Posture is the US position on Nuclear weapons, their deployment, their command and control, and their power.

There's a 300+ page Nuclear Posture Review perhaps you should read it it DOES define the destructive power of Nuclear weapons which are no where near "global".



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   
To cut spending on the Military doesn't hurt anyone but ourselves. Ask The people who watched the planes attack Pearl about Military spending.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 06:56 AM
link   
if we cut the social welfare programs, can we also cut the corporate/business welfare programs also? no more funding for hotels where there are already too many?? no more funding for new malls, drug research, OIL, ect....

and while we're at it...
no more stupid mandates, like the one just passed in tx that requires every young girl to take some stupid new vaccine...I mean, if I had a daughter, I'd prefer to wait a few decades find out what the side effects really are before she have it.

and....well....society needs to ease up some on their expectations, so don't employers. I mean, if I happen to fall and sprain my ankle, I know what is wrong with it, I know that if I just stay off it, it will more than likely heal itself. I don't need to go to the doctor for him to tell me this, but my employer just may require me to go get some stupid doctor's note so I don't get fired!!

and well, if I am a low wage earner, well, little baby chicks, goats, ect. just might be cheaper to raise for food than grocery story prices....you don't mind if I move them into the duplex next to you, do you??

and, well, my kids won't bother you too much if they knock on your door every now and then, asking to eat with you, since mommy and daddy don't have any food, will they?

will you mind the homeless family living beside your business site in that lovely shelter made of cardboard boxes? or how about that condemned building at the corner of your block that they plan on tearing down next week?

no....the public welfare programs provide more than just to the immigrants. it provides a safer, less contaminated environment for your child at school by providing healthcare to poor sick children. it provides a more pleasant atmosphere in your city by replacing the cardboard shelters and condemned fire traps with decent housing. It provides safety to you and your family by providing the necessities to those who can't provide for themselves....so they don't have to take them from YOU!!

and last but not least...if provides able bodied employees, who are willing and able to work 8 or more hours for less than half of what it takes to provide for their family, for your business.....

now, please....tell me just what great national service is bought with the million or so dollars that is given to the grammy's or whatever it was each year.....I'm dying to know!!

what about that great bridge to nowhere....how will I benefit from that??



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   
www.ctj.org...

A startling surge in corporate tax welfare is expected to drive corporate income taxes over the next two years down to only 1.3 percent of the gross domestic product. That will be the lowest level since the early 1980s—and the second lowest level in at least six decades.


www.eriposte.com...

For a couple of reasons we should also examine how America's corporations are faring tax-wise. Firstly, one of the things we hear is how it would help the economy and help businesses if we reduce their tax burden. Second, since complaints from some Conservatives seem to be are that the poor in America "live on welfare" and represent a drain on society, it is instructive to examine how much welfare America's big corporations get. Our findings are that:
a. Corporate taxes in the United States are essentially near multi-decade lows.
b. Corporate welfare is astonishing high and represents ~3 times the welfare for poor individuals.

and:
Fact I : Spending for corporate welfare programs outweighs
spending for low-income programs by more than
three to one: $167 billion to $51.7 billion
(source: Aid for Dependent Corporations, from the
Corporate Welfare Project and How Much Do We Spend
on Welfare?, from the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, FY 95 figures).

(Ref. 3: This year's corporate welfare figures are ~
$170 Billion)

Fact II: Total federal spending on a safety net for
the poor costs the average taxpayer about
$400 a year, while spending on corporate welfare
programs costs the same taxpayer about
$1400 a year. (source: CBO figures)

*****************
Actually corporate welfare is about 3 times more than individual welfare. (See statistics and sources above).
What most people don't think about is that most of the welfare recipients are children. I don't know about you, but I have no problem contributing some of my taxes to feed, clothe, house, educate and shelter poor children, they are after all, our nation's greatest resource and the future of our nation. I'd much rather do that than send these same children off to war 10 years after they're grown, to be blown up, maimed or killed.
The vast majority of people on welfare have been helped by it. They get an education, work hard and are able to raise their children decently.

The welfare budget has historically been between 1% and 5% of the federal budget. Compare that to the over 50% spent on the military and the approximately 12% spent on corporate welfare, from the federal budget.

I think you need to do some research first before automatically blaming the poor children of our country for our financial problems. This viewpoint was first espoused by Ronald Reagan, when he became gov. of California back in the early '60's. A study was done on welfare fraud. Only ONE person was found to be on welfare, driving around in a Cadillac. ONE person. Yet, the story soon became known as "The Welfare Queens" story.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
Here's an idea to pay off the debt, take the $600+ Billion USD going to Entitlements and Welfare (non-constitutional expenditures) and then stop paying for those bloated ineffecient programs that are collapsing our economy and find a BETTER way to support the common man.


While I agree that some of these programs are no working right and they are most of the time corrupted . . . you have to understand that these programs exist for a purpose. . .

If people are left with not means of social dependency on the government . . . needy people will turn against the government . . .

Will you prefer to see people marching down the streets in masses looting because they stop getting their monthly well fare checks? or their food stamps?

What do you thing needy people will do if they get desperate?


Immigrations is a problem . . . but no all the problem.

We pay taxes at least hard working people that are not under the poverty level, these group is the least one to be getting anything from the government or from government programs . . .

I feel that this group of citizens are the ones that should be asking for accountability of the federal government spending.

I have no problem with financing our defense, but I have a hard time trying to understand why many companies in corporate America have to receive incentives and brakes from tax payer money while they make record profits.

I have a hard time understanding why money is awarded to corporations and profiteers of war with not accountability also.

That bothers me a hell of a lot as a tax payer.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Bush's budget proposal...

apnews.myway.com...

here's a suggestion, cut the funding for homeland defense....what the heck they can't be too serious about that when they keep locking up the border patrol agents when they try to do there job, or protect themselves while doing it can they??

and let's see...a $78 billion savings from medicaid and medicare....

but then it's lost with his his tax cuts anyways......tax cuts that mostly favor the more well to do by the way.

$624.6 billion for the pentagon.....more than on fifth of the entire budget....ummm......guess we know what makes the world go round in bush's eyes....war, or at least those who profit by it.

I hope everyone realizes that the last time they sliced into mediare and medicaid and the other social programs....their states were left to pick up the slack. so, they incurred higher taxes on the local level....remember that one?



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Can't say it loud enough, the US DOD is the world's single largest entity per dollar (maybe the Vatican comes close). GE, Boeing, Lockheed, Sverdrup, Raytheon, Halliburton, DuPont, etc. I read somewhere that the Fortune 500 companies employ over 1/3 of all engineers in this country. Most do direct business and extensive amounts of business with the DOD. Think about that.

Ford, Exxon, Chevron, Conoco, Cheverolet, you cant have these without DOD. Repeat, you cannot have heavy industry or industry at all without the DOD.





top topics
 
0

log in

join