What do you suppose was the biggest US expenditure in 2011
October 18, 2012 10:27am CST
Welfare. Something that the Federal Government should not even be a part of and it consumes more tax money than defense, social security, infrastructure. This should pi55 you off too. This is my hard earned money as much as it is yours. $1.028 TRILLION wow The data excludes spending on Social Security, Medicare, means-tested health care for veterans without service-connected disabilities, and the means-tested veterans pension program. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/report-welfare-governments-single-largest-budget-item-in-fy-2011-at-approx-1-03-trillion/#ixzz29fGxvwdX The majority is food stamps. Now take into account the amount that states are also paying out. wow that is a lot of money.
3 people like this
• United States
18 Oct 12
Yes there is a lot of tax dollars being spent on welfare.. There are many that are abusing the system.. I am against this completely! I do not agree that cutting the welfare system would solve this problem though.. Instead of the cost of feeding and giving medical care to children, elderly, and the poor.. We would have millions going hungry... We can go to other countries and help the poor but when it comes to our own we do not want to deal with the issue.. So in a way we are no different then other countries that allow or dont help its citzens.. Before the government started to dip their hands in to church funding and taking over soical programs.. Churches would take care of these problems.. Help and support the needy.. I think the biggest thing that was expose in 2011 is the attitude of the US.. That we are untouchable.. Before 2011 US soil hasnt seen battle on its own truff since the civil war... There were many ways other countries could invade our country and it would not take a lot of effort.. Protecting our borders and our citizens should be number one.. Not someone elses country... A person that can not help themselves can not help anyone else.. God only helps those that help themselves.. Meaning its great that you want to help other people but taking care of your own problems should be more of a priority then helping others.. If our citizens are without medical care completely and access for food is cut.. we as a nation will be weakened within.. Making it easier for our enemies to just walkin and take over.. just something to think about.. There is always two sides to every story.. You may be able to solve one half but create a whole new set of problems for the future...
• United States
20 Oct 12
I agree with a lot of what you say. I understand we can't just let people starve. But I think if the government got out of the way, we could/would take care of each other. This would allow the government to focus on what their job actually is.
• United States
21 Oct 12
I agree with that.. There are way too many things the government has either stuck their nose in where it didnt belong or just the opposite they wont take another glance at the issues.. The government as a whole not just one side or the other has taken on so many different issues that they are swamp, overwhelm.. Therefore what ever doesnt get solved they can just throw there hands up and say that hey at least such and such got completed. When it was something that really could of waited.. And what is wrong with compromise; if nothing is worked out, the problem stays the same and usually gets worse..
• United States
18 Oct 12
I'll say point blank that if welfare actually pulled people out of poverty, I would drop my independent streak and exorcise the libertarian spirit from my soul in favor of higher taxes and more government spending. Why? Because once people are out of poverty, you can shut that system down and let the market charge things back up -- like putting jumper cables on a battery. But it's the fact that welfare doesn't seem to be working that makes cynical individuals like myself insist that it's just another form of slavery; a way for politicians to keep voting blocs loyal. Welfare might help a person make their house payment or to get some groceries or to care for their baby. It might keep people's bellies full and the roofs temporarily over their head. But the way our system works, it's a handout, not a helping hand. Food stamps are bunk anyway. You can't buy dish-washing or clothes-washing stuff or soap or toothpaste or toilet paper or paper towels or dog food. But you can buy lobster and porterhouse steaks and foie gras. I've said this in a hundred discussions here, but we're working BACKWARDS! What are ANY politicians doing to bring the cost of living down? I understand that the progressives believe that the way to combat this is to bring wages and welfare payments UP. L-M-M-F-A-O! This is what happens when you take social science courses instead of math or business. It's like saying "Okay, we don't have to bring our business expenses down; we just need to charge customers more." But that's another topic. Increased welfare (aka government charity) does not work. Don't believe my stupid right-leaning a$$? Fine. Ask those swole-belly babies in Africa and India and Haiti how much charitable handouts actually work. Sure, you're fed today, but you're hungry again tomorrow. If only half the energy and money were spent to create a sustainable watering system for agriculture....but NO! Let's drop some rice and have a celebrity kidnap a dark infant, and we can all pretend we're doing a great job at reversing poverty. Government's ineptitude makes me sick, and what makes me even sicker are the moron minions having conniptions about politicians who want to create more independence rather than dependency. If you ask me, people are on board with more government welfare spending because it's convenient for them. Just take more money from rich people, give it to poor people, and maybe I can watch TV and work and live my life without having to hear about suffering.