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: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
How isn't it the job of the government to take care of it's citizens? The government is supposed to be "We The People". And sure, maybe that isn't the case anymore (I'd agree with that) but that's just a reflection of how screwed up this country really is. Run by greedy rich people for the benefit of greedy rich people.

It really seems to me that our society (Aided by Neocons, corrupt politicians, greedy corporations, etc, whatever) is regressing in a lot of areas. I've gotta wonder how much longer this goes on before the dam breaks.




posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by felonius
 





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


Yes I totally agree with your points there, especially this one. city governments are generally more effective than state, and state is normally more effective than federal.

I definitely do not think throwing money at a problem will help, but when we boast about being the most prosperous nation in the world you would imagine that we could spend more on truly helpful programs.

Not an unemployment system but a RE-employment system
An end to the pointless war on drugs
Prison reform
Localized Welfare

I feel like sending that link right to FOX news so all of those extremely right wing over-reactionaries can stop calling the President and this country socialist.

We are much much closer to totalitarianism than socialism, and I have a feeling we're going to get there



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by origamiandurbanism
 




How isn't it the job of the government to take care of it's citizens? The government is supposed to be "We The People". And sure, maybe that isn't the case anymore (I'd agree with that) but that's just a reflection of how screwed up this country really is. Run by greedy rich people for the benefit of greedy rich people.


You misunderstand, I do NOT think the governments main job is to take care of people, although I do think there should be a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens. It is a community's and family's job to take care of the issues that article talked about.


I was really only posting this so that we can see how foolish the Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly, and other right wing extremists are. They will not be happy until the crush the poor and middle class underneath their shoes. They say "too much spending: but then attack social programs for the poor, not military and not Social Security (second and third largest expenditures).

My faith in this country was completely broken when Scott Walker of Minnesota proclaimed this country as broke, and weeks later we unleashed a 600 million dollar attack on Libya.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by origamiandurbanism
 




How isn't it the job of the government to take care of it's citizens? The government is supposed to be "We The People". And sure, maybe that isn't the case anymore (I'd agree with that) but that's just a reflection of how screwed up this country really is. Run by greedy rich people for the benefit of greedy rich people.


You misunderstand, I do NOT think the governments main job is to take care of people, although I do think there should be a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens. It is a community's and family's job to take care of the issues that article talked about.


I was really only posting this so that we can see how foolish the Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly, and other right wing extremists are. They will not be happy until the crush the poor and middle class underneath their shoes. They say "too much spending: but then attack social programs for the poor, not military and not Social Security (second and third largest expenditures).

My faith in this country was completely broken when Scott Walker of Minnesota proclaimed this country as broke, and weeks later we unleashed a 600 million dollar attack on Libya.



I was actually referring to another poster who said it isn't the government's job to take care of it's citizens, which I disagreed with. I think it most definitely is part of the government's job to take care of it's citizens (the government is supposed to be a reflection of the people, it is supposed to be THE people). Sorry if it was confusing.

I agree pretty much with everything you are saying. The real problem to me is it just isn't the rightwing anymore (although there are clearly more extremists on that side these days), it's pretty much both sides catering to the interests of the few while neglecting most of the citizens in this country. A serious problem, obviously.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Emeraldprophet
 




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?


Hello my friend.

If you would take a moment to read the link, these figure encompass all spending not just federal. Next time please read before commenting, it would be much appreciated .


Peace



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skerrako
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.



Hey, you must not read down the thread.... The numbers are bogus and the author from your source is already back-pedaling.

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



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by origamiandurbanism
How isn't it the job of the government to take care of it's citizens? The government is supposed to be "We The People". And sure, maybe that isn't the case anymore (I'd agree with that) but that's just a reflection of how screwed up this country really is. Run by greedy rich people for the benefit of greedy rich people.

It really seems to me that our society (Aided by Neocons, corrupt politicians, greedy corporations, etc, whatever) is regressing in a lot of areas. I've gotta wonder how much longer this goes on before the dam breaks.


Ever heard of the United States Constitution?

If so, have you ever read it?

The federal government has no power to create social programs for the individual. We do not live in a "nanny state" where a function of government is to help people. Income redistribution is an atrocity, and an offense to liberty.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


You do know, that the annual expenditure of the social programs make up over 14% of our GDP. Discretionary spending expanded 79% faster than inflation. Other spending categories that have grown since 2000, anti-poverty programs 89% faster than inflation. Medicare, 81 % faster. K-12, 219% faster than inflation. And the list continues.

In regards to the 14% of social program growth, that is 14% to much growth as to social programs being Unconstitutional.

The other "anti-poverty " programs, thats 79% to much wasted monies. The US is a country of individualism, free enterprise, etc.

Thomas jefferson once wrote:



To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.


Are we not living this debt? Even the founding fathers warned of unneeded debt cause by emotionally backed programs....



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViperChili

Originally posted by origamiandurbanism
How isn't it the job of the government to take care of it's citizens? The government is supposed to be "We The People". And sure, maybe that isn't the case anymore (I'd agree with that) but that's just a reflection of how screwed up this country really is. Run by greedy rich people for the benefit of greedy rich people.

It really seems to me that our society (Aided by Neocons, corrupt politicians, greedy corporations, etc, whatever) is regressing in a lot of areas. I've gotta wonder how much longer this goes on before the dam breaks.


Ever heard of the United States Constitution?

If so, have you ever read it?

The federal government has no power to create social programs for the individual. We do not live in a "nanny state" where a function of government is to help people. Income redistribution is an atrocity, and an offense to liberty.


Here we go, if it's not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution it's not legal!!

Did you know that the Constitution doesn't mention right of privacy? So is that Unconstitutional then?

It also doesn't mention paper money, how elections should actually be held or the system for it, it doesn't even mention that it's a free country!

The federal government can most certainly create social programs for people, ever head or social security?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by origamiandurbanism
 


I will take that as a no, you haven't read the Constitution.

You should try it some time. Income redistribution under the guide of "social programs" is an affront to the ideals this nation was founded upon.



"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson




If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison



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



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViperChili
reply to post by origamiandurbanism
 


I will take that as a no, you haven't read the Constitution.

You should try it some time. Income redistribution under the guide of "social programs" is an affront to the ideals this nation was founded upon.



"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson




If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison



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


I've read some of it. I'm also aware that many of the things that actually makes this country great aren't even in the Constitution. It begans "We The People", ie, the government is the people, or it should be (even though it is not at this point). In the same opening sentence it mentions promoting the general welfare. As far as I'm concerned that includes looking out the citizens of this country. Social security has been one of the most successful government programs in this country's history.

If you want to use the Constitution as a totality of what our country and government is then you'd have to get rid
of right of privacy, paper money, etc.

The Constitution was written over 200 years ago and yes it's part of what has made America what it is but to say it's the sole document to go by as a country is simply ridiculous (which seems to be the case you're making). Not to mention that people interpret much of the Constitution to mean different things.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by origamiandurbanism
 


Try reading all of it, specifically Article 1 Section 8.

I will be waiting for you to come back with the argument that the General Welfare clause applies to social programs.



The Constitution places limits on what government can do, including what they can or can not do with our money. Any expenditure not specifically enumerated is unconstitutional.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 




Are we not living this debt? Even the founding fathers warned of unneeded debt cause by emotionally backed programs....


Believe me, our debt would be minimal if these social programs were the only thing we were paying for.

Subsidies to hundreds of rich companies, Billions in Foreign aid (aka bribes) and Trillions in war far out weight social safety nets like unemployment and disability. Don't fall into that propaganda trap



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


I agree all foreign aid needs to be eliminated on the grounds that there is no Constitutional authorization for it.

Same goes for social programs.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


So what? The article has no substance and has no quantification as to what constitutes as "social spending" nor what a "social contract" is. The entire notion of the social contract is a joke anyway. A contract is an agreement you enter whereby both parties contribute something. What are the able bodied folks who are receiving these social programs giving back to the society to warrant the handout? Breathing? What exactly is a 40 year old with a couple of kids who is getting welfare, free housing, free utilities in some cases including internet and cable tv, free medical care, free schools giving back? Who in their right mind would enter into such a contract with their personal assets.

Money is a poor indicator in any event. It is a simple fact that the amount of money spent on a function or service has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of that service. NYC and D.C. schools have the highest per capita spending per student in the country, yet the poorest performing schools.

We spend too much on social programs. If someone can afford a TV, cell phone, air conditioning and internet, they should not be receiving government handouts. They certainly should not be receiving anything that they don't have to work for. Whether cleaning up parks, painting public buildings, cleaning subways, something. Getting the handout should be far less pleasant than working. Perhaps if it were, folks would look to get a job instead of a handout. These programs were meant to provide for folks tho are unable to provide for themselves and have turned, especially since the "War on Poverty" and the "Great Society" into programs for folks who choose not to provide for themselves.

It is also important to note that many of the enlightened countries high on the list are publically acknowledging that they can no longer continue to toss money in the rubbish bin on these programs. Sweden, The Netherlands, France, Greece, Germany are all looking to scale back their social programs. Why? Because they are unrealistic, economic cancers and create generational dependance on the government.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by origamiandurbanism
 


The government certainly has the responsibility to take care of those who can't take care of themselves and that should be done at the state and local level. The federal government should have absolutely no role in it. To the extent that states or local governments provide good solutions, other states can copy them. To the extent that states don't believe in a robust safety net, those who are able bodied and make the choice to rely on the safety net can move. California is always open for business for folks who want to live on the doll.

How about a novel idea. Rather than placing the responsibility on the government to take care of its citizens, we place the primary responsibility on the citizen to support their government? How is that done? By being self sufficient and not demanding more handouts being paid for by others. There should be a stigma attached to accept a handout if you are able bodied. There should be some requirement to contribute to society should you actually receive one and that handout should be less than minimum wage, thus providing an incentive to actually go and get a job. JFK had it right. It is not what your country can do for you, it is what you can do for your country. Today, he would be a draconian right winger.

As it relates to a percentage of GDP spent on handouts, why is it even a relevant statistic? If 5% of GDP spent on social programs tripled the poverty level and placed those at the poverty level among the richest folks in the world, would the 5% be OK, or is the issue the percentage? For the gent who wrote the piece, it is clearly the percentage, not the outcome. It is all about how much wealth can be redistributed, at least be honest.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
JFK would certainly not be considered a right winger today!


When Obama is portrayed today as some sort of left wing radical socialist, no way would JFK be even considered a centrist, he would probably be labeled an "extremist".

The political paradigm has definitely shifted towards the right over the last 30 years, so a centrist like Obama is considered a left wing radical, a real liberal is considered an "extremist" or "nut" while a Neocon is considered a normal conservative, when that is anything but the case, etc.

As far as the role of the federal government aiding citizens, we'll just have to agree to disagree.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by origamiandurbanism
How isn't it the job of the government to take care of it's citizens? The government is supposed to be "We The People". And sure, maybe that isn't the case anymore (I'd agree with that) but that's just a reflection of how screwed up this country really is. Run by greedy rich people for the benefit of greedy rich people.

It really seems to me that our society (Aided by Neocons, corrupt politicians, greedy corporations, etc, whatever) is regressing in a lot of areas. I've gotta wonder how much longer this goes on before the dam breaks.


The job of the government is to protect from internal and external harm to the citizens. Establish and maintain laws that keep persons from unjust civil liberties violations and allow the people "the pursuit of happiness" it does not guarantee happiness.

It is not the job of the government to support people, but allow a system where each person can succeed or fail on their own merits.

The government can not do social policies without screwing up.
The government needs to back off, and let people be charitable.
There was a news story, I can't remember the complete details, but a group of people got together to try and feed the homeless back east and were fined.
Private citizens can not cook or dispense food free of charge without paying the government first.
How is that right? It's not.

All the government should do is protect us from outside harm and internal chaos, they can't even do that.
In most states judges have ruled that cops only have to enforce laws after violations, they are in no way required to protect or prevent crime.
So if the cops don't even have to stop crimes in progress any more how could such a government be expected to or trusted to administer social measures.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Oh, and I may have missed it if so my bad.
I haven't seen where the OP or others said the last time they saw their neighbors or themselves volunteered to help people.

Passing the buck to a government that should not be taking care of people isn't good.

More change can be done by actually helping than passing the buck.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


Weird how we can have similiar views and be in two totally different camps.

You (guessing) socially liberal and my being an independent conservative.


I must confess that I have ZERO love for obama. I do believe he is a socialist...i also saw things bush did that leaned that way.

this last election was a choice of two speeds on the same transmission.
McCain
was slow, Obama
is fast.

As are as "re-employment", thats really not a govt job (no pun intended). The govt can set the stage for a better economy (less taxes on companies) to make job creation easier, stifle foreign competition that domestic cant touch (slave labor), and put tarriffs back on foreign produced materials (steel).

The bottom line is, the situation we are in has been calculated exactly. Due to slack morals, some have fallen into spending more than they can afford (credit cards). You cant have a good economy with that. When clinton
talked up his economy, it was false. it was based on credit. This being done on a government level has bankrupted us. Morally and spiritually.

Remember, with government numbers.....
Lies
Damn lies
and statistics.

All the same. All designed to obfuscate.

Fighting a bad war (NOT a bash on our troops!), is a waste as well. They should be here either:
A. Defending the border against the invasion of drugs and illegals.
B. (If we are REALLY about "helping" the down trodden ( egypt/libya
), we should be in Mexico kicking ass on the Zeta's.
but we're not. too much money in OUR slave labour and drug money.

We got problems bubba. Big ones.

Maybe when the hell is over and the dust has settled, folks like us can meet in the middle and fix this crap.

Current state of affairs? its toast. On one side we have saul alinsky/ leninist/ marxists on the other side we have corrupt business and predatory capitalism.

Not sure a revolution would end well. Its what "they" want. The people would do well in the beginning I think but I feel it could get "french" pretty quick.

We may all find out soon. We'll have to sit tight and watch.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join