There are close to 50 million kids in public school. Each one costs about $10,000 a year.
That is just schools alone. Close to $2000 per US citizen just going to public <12 grade education because people cannot pay for it themselves.
FYI only about 100 million Americans pay any significant taxes. That is $5,000 per significant taxpayer when you consider who is really paying.
Your 1% if a contrived fantasy. Just about everything that is not military spending is welfare for folks that cannot take care of stuff on their own. The military has a pretty big budget, but it is not 99% of what we spend via govt. We agree on the military spending (too high). Even military spending is welfare though, it is the defense you could not mount on your own. The more we piss off other countries with our military welfare, the more military welfare we need. (please do not argue that).
We have a spending problem, of all kinds. We spend more than we collectively have, all the time and over and over. Those collecting funds, like SS folks that are not poor and desperate without a family, don't become more moral at 1% vs. 5%. They are still takers, they are pushing us further under.
It is easy to ID stuff that is not welfare....it is the stuff you pay for directly. That is why we have a govt at all, to provide welfare to provide what we cannot on our own, to tell us what we need to provide that we don't on our own. Again contorting the definition for political purposes does not change this. Govt is welfare, welfare via force. Plus your graph is just fed. Just one section (or brand) of our govt. There are other brands and they all demand payments.
on that note wrote: What is the definition of welfare????
We have a spending problem, of all kinds. We spend more than we collectively have, all the time and over and over. Those collecting funds, like SS folks that are not poor and desperate without a family, don't become more moral at 1% vs. 5%. They are still takers, they are pushing us further under.
Huh? SS is a forced government savings retirement program, not welfare. Now we need to be poor and desperate and without a family to collect funds that we paid for? I think you are confused. Social Security would be fine if the Congress would quit stealing from it and leaving worthless IOU's behind.
Wrong, wrong, wrong TM. There is no savings program for retirement called Social Security, never has been since the first piece of legislation creating it was passed. It has always been an annual levying of taxes and an annual appropriation of those taxes. The income tax you pay and the excise tax your employer pays are not saved for you, they are spent on those currently receiving the federal subsidy to provide for their individual welfare. That has always been the case, that is why the Supreme Court ruled it was constitutional back in 1937.
You have no "right" to that money either, the Supreme Court told you that when it ruled in Flemming v Nestor. Nestor was denied his Social Security benefits after being deported for being a member of the Communist Party back in the 1930's even though he paid into the Ponzi for 19 years. Congress, and Congress alone, gets to decide how those taxes will be spent. There is no contractual obligation created between you and the government simply because you paid taxes into the system. That's settled law, and has been for over 50 years now.
Rick wrote: And only the government could get away with that ponzi... everyone else goes to jail.
You're outta your mind. Without it we'd have our elderly sitting and dying in wheelchairs under bridges and in ally ways- What kind of world do you wanna live in Rick?
How many retired Colorado State workers, who have a pension that they have a private property right to, are dying in wheel chairs under bridges and alleyways VL? How many retired union workers with pensions they have a private property right to are in that condition?
Why does it seem that the only two options for liberals are either a federal program that shares its funding model with a Ponzi and nothing at all? Is there nothing in between that would be better for everyone? Wouldn't it be better for those in the lower income brackets if their children had an inheritance from their parents pension that they had a private property right to when their parents died? Wouldn't that help them get a start on not following in their parents' footsteps of struggling day to day simply to survive? Why isn't it a good idea for those income and excise taxes to be used to purchase an individual IRA or 401K, that people would have a contractual private property right to and that was inheritable to their surviving spouse and children, even if each and every worker got exactly the same share of the total taxes that were paid to provide pensions for everyone when they retired?
Why is the system we have the best possible system there is VL? And why is it that one or nothing from your perspective? Is your ability to dream so limited that you are unable to envision anything better than what we have?
Well there's the real world and there's youre fantasy world PS.. 401K's? lol Nobodies saving money in America? Everyone's in debt to the banks and even if they could save 10 million they's lose it all at the end and die debt without medicare..and furthermore
It's funny to watch you loners preach about family taking care you when you get old...I never even hear you mention family of anykind
Rick wrote: And only the government could get away with that ponzi... everyone else goes to jail.
You're outta your mind. Without it we'd have our elderly sitting and dying in wheelchairs under bridges and in ally ways- What kind of world do you wanna live in Rick?
#TotalA-hole
“Republicanism is just a political justification for being greedy, selfish and mean."
And the peanut gallery with its head stuffed with bat guano where their gray matter ought to be chimes in right on cue regurgitating yet another one of her memorized empty slogans rather than joining the dialog. But then, expecting reason from a bigot makes about as much sense as expecting a snake to purr.
