It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Social spending programs rank last in developed nations

page: 1
21
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
U.S. GDP is #1

but U.S. spending on social programs to help its own citizens? #32

www.politicususa.com...

This article is a real eye opener for us here in America. We spend equal to the entire world in military spending, but last in helpful programs to our citizens

To me this really shows how vile and evil some "conservatives" are. And I use quotations because I am a conservative, but I am referring to the neo-conservatives.

The over the top talk about falling into socialism and needing to cut social programs is all a bunch of bull. It's clearly about starving the poor and middle class to feed the super rich, until there is a response.

Out of everything I have seen in the past few years, this makes me the most upset. Our 'great country' is starting to abandon our most fragile citizens, and that spells disaster in any country.




posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Wow , really wow. I thought we were at least top 10 (well the way the media make it sound anyways). U.S. politics no matter which way one is swinging is really out of whack.


Thanks OP for putting things in perspective.

Things that make you go hmm ...
edit on 17-4-2011 by anon102 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


Have to say, I'm not even remotely surprised.
edit on 17-4-2011 by Chindogu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


There was a time when there was NO "social" spending. It was handled by the local folk and family.


This crap all happened under roosevelt.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by felonius
 




There was a time when there was NO "social" spending. It was handled by the local folk and family.


.....Which is social spending right? Just because it's local doesn't omit it from being categorized as spending



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Chindogu
 





Have to say, I'm not even remotely surprised


I know.......it's really a sign of the times when you just come to expect the very worse from your government.

The old soviets had a joke "you can find truth anywhere except in Pravda and the news" (Russian state news)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


If we give Obama and his minions time, they will knock us back to the point of wiping out the middle class that economic and social freedom created, and increasing our welfare rolls/spending.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
This is just really really surprising to me. I mentioned this while I was at work today and most if not all were kinda looking at me like I was crazy!

Some of my co-workers thought the US lead the world in social spending hence why MSM keeps mentioning it so much.

Seriously, a damn shocker! Again, thanks for the post OP, really!



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by felonius
 




There was a time when there was NO "social" spending. It was handled by the local folk and family.


.....Which is social spending right? Just because it's local doesn't omit it from being categorized as spending


Social spending was never intended for lazy s.o.b.'s and illegals. It was for those who "couldnt".

Also, it wasnt "social spending". It was called "charity" and it was VOLUNTARILY given....not coerced via taxation.

IMHO, "social spending" is the name of the chain that was put on the necks of ill educated blacks (welfare). When you have MULTIPLE generations that have no desire to make it out (some have), that is slavery....after another fashion.

Social spending is control. When you depend on the federal government for EVERYTHING, you will be screwed eventually.

A good analogy would be the "Devil" tarot card with the two people having a loose chain about their necks and the devil holding the other end. They can remove it at any time but are unaware or are too frightened.

ANYTHING the feds can do, local control can do better and more efficiently. That was never the purpose of federal government.

They had two real jobs.

Provide for common defense.

Adhere to the ORIGINAL constitution (which was a restraint of governmental power).



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


It seems you are talking about the spending habits of our federal government. I think the big difference between the U.S. and other countries is our confederation of smaller states. Could you make your case to me why you believe that I, a person who lives in Atlanta, should have a federal gun put to my head and be robbed to pay for the retirement, or food stamps, medicine, or health insurance of someone living in Seattle?



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Read the last line of the article in small print the author now admits he was mistaken the US spends 16.2 percent on social programs.

I don't really care what the percentage is, we are spending 100 percent of our actual income on social programs, and the costs are skyrocketing every year. We cannot afford to increase taxes with the economy in it's current state, so this spending must be cut.

Another thing to keep in mind is the reported GDP is overstated as all the debt we take on and spend is counted as GDP. When we can no longer borrow this comes out of GDP and it accounts for over 10 percent.
edit on 17-4-2011 by proximo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
That's great news. What's the problem here?



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Thank God we're so low. I wish we were even lower. The system is already exploited way too much. I mean, latest studies have shown that approx. 52% of welfare recipients are either not really needy or are completely exploiting the system.

Almost every person I've met who is in a financial quagmire is there because they won't make lifestyle changes. They might not get to eat tomorrow, but God forbid they give up their phone.

And way too much money goes to illegal immigrants. Government social programs are too sloppy and easy to exploit.

If people need help, let them seek it out from local charities, from families and companies who give them money and help out of free will and common human decency. This way, the system works itself out.

Our social programs have already created such a whiny, self-entitled bunch of helpless people.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by felonius
 


Lol. Nice diatribe against the worst-case examples of welfare. You DO understand that 'social spending' is far, far more than section 8 housing and welfare, right? It's the medicare your grandma needs to afford medication. It's schools. Its hospitals.


Originally posted by felonius
reply to post by Skerrako
 


There was a time when there was NO "social" spending. It was handled by the local folk and family.


This crap all happened under roosevelt.


Yes, and lots of people starved and died. Maybe you forgot that part of that glorious time before all these pesky 'social programs'?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Good Evening.

A bit of spin on this. Look at the source, Then look at the sources source.

Your Source: www.politicususa.com...

Politicus USA - Real Liberal Politics~~ No Corporate Money, No Masters

Were #10 on the chart on the sources source. (scroll down half a page for the chart)

www.oecd.org...

The spin comes in the tabulation methods which are broken down by "Public an Private" and the way they do it is quite complicated with the definitions. That PDF with the calculations for each country is here:

www.oecd-ilibrary.org...

Launch PDF link:

www.oecd-ilibrary.org... 75E91F

Anyway, I do not know how to copy the chart in this post. If someone knows how, please do, We are #10 on the list because of "Employer Health Insurance" which is considered "private" on the Chart and that is why the US has such a large private tabulation on the "All Inclusive" Chart.

Again see this link, scroll down half a page and see that US is at 10 because of private healthcare where other countries only have government healthcare..... So it is a bit of a spin ranking the US that low.

www.oecd.org...
(scroll down half a page for the chart)

Now see the PDF I listed above, Page 27-28


Private social health spending is a major spending item in the United States and increasing health
care costs since the 1980s contribute to the trend increase in private social spending.



Private social expenditure: trends and composition - There are considerable differences across countries in the extent to which social protection
systems rely on private provision. In 2005, gross private social spending was highest at just over 10% of
GDP in the United States. By contrast, private social spending as recorded in SOCX amounted to less than
1% of GDP in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, Mexico, Poland, New Zealand, Spain and
Turkey. In some OECD countries, the role of private social benefits has increased in recent years,
especially in Canada, the Netherlands and the United States


So, since employers are labeled as "private" on the data bars which you can clearly see, were at 10.

Page 29


In the absence of a public health insurance system with universal coverage for workers, private
health spending is most important in the US: employer-provided health benefits to their workers,
dependents and retirees were estimated to be USD 685 billion in 2005 or 5.6% of GDP (these expenditures
do not include payments by individuals for health services). In 2005, total health expenditure was highest
in the US at 15.7% of GDP and Switzerland (11.2%) and France (11.1%), compared to 8.9% of GDP on
average across the OECD (OECD, 2008a). Relatively high health expenditure in the US leads to total
social spending in the US being close to the OECD average (Table 4.2).
56. Non-health private social cash transfers to the working age population include mandatory
employer-provided incapacity-related cash transfers – sickness, disability and occupational injury
benefits – as, recorded for Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Korea,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the US (in some
states). Other examples of private social benefits include: supplementary unemployment compensation in
the US, employer-provided childcare support in the Netherlands and employer payments during parental
leave periods in many countries.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
From the chart, I clicked on it and saved it to excel so it shows the whole thing. Reverse order, best at the bottom. Notice, France is #1 at 31.3% of GDP, The US is at 26.7%. (Less than 4% GDP difference from the #1 Welfare Crazy France) As I stated, the story is big time spin.

In % of GDP Private Public Total (%GDP↗)
Mexico 0.2 7.2 7.4
Korea 2.6 7.5 10.2
Turkey 0.0 10.5 10.5
Chile 1.2 10.6 11.8
Estonia 0.0 13.0 13.0
Israel I 0.5 15.5 15.9
Slovak Republic 1.0 15.7 16.7
Ireland 1.5 16.3 17.8
New Zealand 0.4 18.4 18.8
Czech Republic 0.4 18.8 19.2
Iceland 5.1 14.6 19.7
Australia 3.8 16.0 19.8
Poland 0.0 20.0 20.0
Slovenia 1.0 20.3 21.3
Luxembourg 0.9 20.6 21.6
Spain 0.5 21.6 22.1
Canada 5.3 16.9 22.2
OECD 3.0 19.3 22.3
Japan 3.6 18.7 22.3
Norway 2.0 20.8 22.8
Greece 1.5 21.3 22.9
Hungary 0.2 23.1 23.3
Portugal 1.9 22.5 24.4
Finland 1.1 24.9 26.0
United Kingdom 5.8 20.5 26.3
United States 10.5 16.2 26.7
Switzerland 8.3 18.5 26.8
Italy 2.1 24.9 27.0
Netherlands 6.9 20.1 27.0
Germany 2.9 25.2 28.0
Austria 1.8 26.4 28.2
Denmark 2.6 26.1 28.7
Sweden 2.9 27.3 30.2
Belgium 4.7 26.3 31.1
France 2.9 28.4 31.3


edit on 18-4-2011 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 


wow ... face palm for me. Most epically.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


It get's better, So I go to the website that is listed as the source: www.politicususa.com...-84526

Now he has updated his story:


Update: I used some information that has since been corrected on the original site, Business Insider. It turns out that the United States spends 16.2% of our GDP on social programs, NOT 7.2%


AND


Ray Medeiros on April 17, 2011 at 9:44 pm

I apologize for the original post everyone. The numbers referenced on Business Insider were skewed at first. After publishing this article, I did a little more research into how OECD came up with their numbers, which is when I found how skewed the numbers were on the BI site.

I contacted the BI author and he, along with myself made the proper corrections. My deepest apologies again. It will not happen in the future. Thank you for understanding!



So I try and leave a comment because he has the same chart as I listed above that now shows the partial 16.2% number and guess what.... Moderator will not let the post go through... go figure, don't let the facts screw up a good political story. Anyway, below was the post that they would not let through.

Seems like these lefty sites never let you post anything that interferes with their agenda. Same thing always happens on Huffington Post, moderators never let you counter their message.



Another Update is needed,

Here is the Chart:
www.oecd.org...

Scroll down half the page for the chart, launch the PDF for details

France is #1 in GDP spending at 31.3%
The U.S. is #10 in GDP spending at 26.7%

Less than 4% difference and boy did you spin this by purposefully omitting private social expenditure from the US.

From the report: Private social health spending is a major spending item in the United States.

In the absence of a public health insurance system with universal coverage for workers, private
health spending is most important in the US: employer-provided health benefits to their workers,
dependents and retirees were estimated to be USD 685 billion in 2005 or 5.6% of GDP (these expenditures
do not include payments by individuals for health services). In 2005, total health expenditure was highest
in the US at 15.7% of GDP and Switzerland (11.2%) and France (11.1%), compared to 8.9% of GDP on
average across the OECD (OECD, 2008a). Relatively high health expenditure in the US leads to total
social spending in the US being close to the OECD average (Table 4.2).
56. Non-health private social cash transfers to the working age population include mandatory
employer-provided incapacity-related cash transfers – sickness, disability and occupational injury
benefits – as, recorded for Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Korea,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the US (in some
states). Other examples of private social benefits include: supplementary unemployment compensation in
the US, employer-provided childcare support in the Netherlands and employer payments during parental
leave periods in many countries.
edit on 18-4-2011 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skerrako

Out of everything I have seen in the past few years, this makes me the most upset. Our 'great country' is starting to abandon our most fragile citizens, and that spells disaster in any country.


Honestly, it really isn't the job of the government to take care of people.
Family, communities and charities(sp) should be doing that but no one gives a damn.

Everyone in the country is too busy looking to get "theirs" to help the people around them.
No one takes care of their sick parents or extended family any more.
It's the people around us tearing down this country.

The government never fixes anything on a social level they just make it worse and cause people to stop helping other people.

America ranks really high in charitable contributions here and around the world, but that isn't even right.
Writing a check doesn't do as much help as actually going down and volunteering somewhere.
Somewhere that helps people in this country, not some weird turtle 3 states away.
When is the last time anyone here saw their neighbors or family go to volunteer?
When is the last time anyone reading this volunteered?

I am glad America is low on the social spending list, but very sad and annoyed that I can't remember the last time anyone else on my block or in my family volunteered for something that really helped people and really did some good.

Less Government screw ups because they can't get it right, and more people helping each other.




top topics



 
21
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join