Of course, Obama’s budget is going absolutely nowhere. The GOP isn’t even going to bother sending it to committee. Why would they? Everytime it has been given a vote it goes down in flames, with even the vast majority of Democrats voting against his budgets. In fact, when the GOP forces a vote on Obama’s budgets, Dems complain that it is a stunt. Harry Reid wouldn’t even allow a vote on some Obama budgets. I wonder why? (via The Lonely Conservative)
(Investors) Budget: What is the federal government’s most important function these days? Based on the Obama budget released today, it’s not defense, or roads, or education, or the environment. It’s cutting checks.
Buried deep in the president’s annual budget are a series of tables that few ever notice, but that are incredibly illuminating when it comes to understanding the size and scope of today’s federal government.
The table shows how much money the federal government spends on what budget officials describe as “payments to individuals.†Obama’s budget puts the figure for next year at a mind-boggling $2.9 trillion out of a $4.1 trillion budget.
In other words, more than 70% of federal spending amounts to taking money from one set of pockets, and depositing it in another.
This is a figure that has been going up up up. It was 50% in 1991, and 60% in 2008. Where’s it going?
Surprisingly little of this money, however, helps the poor. Housing assistance, food stamps, welfare programs, and Medicaid comprise just 25% of all the payments to individuals.
The rest goes to middle class programs like Social Security, student aid, Medicare benefits, federal employee pensions and the like.
Among the fastest growing spending categories under Obama are Medicaid, which climbed 91% since he took office, food stamps and other nutrition programs (up 78%), Social Security (up 61%), and student aid, which shot up 55%.
And, of course, Obamacare, which grew from $39 billion to $112 billion. Remember when it was going to pay for itself? As The Lonely Conservative notes, “This is how politicians get elected, by bankrupting future generations.” Nor can this be blamed solely on Democrats, as Republicans are more than willing to play the “give other people’s money away” game.
So 25% goes to those social parasites the poor
More than half of whom have never worked a day in their life because they are
Children
Social security and Medicare for the olds?
Should we take an axe to that?
Student loans? If they aren’t rich enough to have their parents pay maybe then being a college grad would mean more
Maybe it’s time for Teach Tough Love!!
Make our country great again by killing off the weak
Social Security and Medicare are programs into which every working American had to pay; they aren’t welfare, but a promise made to tax us now, in exchange for a benefit when we are older. If I had a billion dollars in the bank, I would still take every last penny of my Social Security and Medicare, because I was taxed explicitly for them.
But Food Stamps? Read 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
In the meantime, the Democrats have just given 100% of their votes for presidential candidates who not only support taking money from those who earn it to give to those who do not, but want to take even more money from those who earn it. After all, socialism has worked so well in Venezuela!
At least Bernie Sanders is honest about it.
As a Nobel laureate economist once said, the US is a giant insurance company with an Army.
50% of the budget outlays, two trillion dollars, goes to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid recipients, a trillion to Medicare and Medicaid together.
IBD, non-partisan moderates and conservatives all want to balance the budget by cutting SS, Medicare and Medicaid payouts. How would you do that?
Dana,
You mentioned earlier that you built roads. Care to clarify?
Most SNAP (food stamp) benefits go to the working poor, children or the elderly. Is it your position that the working poor need to get better jobs, that children need to get jobs and that retired folks should get back to work?
As a Nobel laureate once said, the Arctic ocean will be ice free by 2015…
I looked up entitlement payments, it is interesting. About 30% or more of the budget is given over to paying the pensions of the congressmen and staffers. They get 100% of their salary for life. Why don’t we eliminate those pensions and we could save a bunch. Then, lets restructure the government and eliminate most of the regulatory agencies. For instance, one that could go would be payments to the groups that are getting money to provide women’s health services. Why do we fund that, especially with the ACA and the fact that these women can all go to a private physician. And, before the trolls jump on that statement, almost all doctors accept Medicare and Medicaid.
And Jeff, I paid into SS and Medicare so I get my money back, whether I need it or not. Tough.
No they do not. That’s an old wives tale.
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270E%2C*PLC8%22%40%20%20
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm
dave typed:
No, that’s not true. 30% would be about $1.2 trillion a year for congressional pensions.
from factcheck.org:
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, as of October 1, 2006, there were 290 former members of Congress who had retired under the Civil Service Retirement System, the old system which had drawn much criticism for being too generous. They were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. (That’s about $18 million a year).
The pensions of the 143 former members who retired under the newer Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) average even less. Their pensions averaged $35,952, according to the CRS. (That’s about $5 million a year).
That totals about 0.0006% of the budget, not 30%. If I underestimated by a thousand fold it still comes out to under 1% of the federal budget.
And dave, no libs are trying to take your Social Security even if you make well over $1 million a year off of Medicare and Medicaid patients. It’s the Republicans and “moderate” Dems who claim the only way out is to cut entitlements.
Jeff
Did you read the comment or do you need reading lessons. I said the amount set aside for entitlements. Look it up.
They would my congress friends say otherwise.
david,
You may have wanted to say that 30% of the budget went to entitlements, but that’s not what you said.
Here is your quote again:
It appears you had a “john moment.”
2017 Budget Summary
(category….. % of total)
____________________________
Social Security……….23%
Defense………………15%
Medicare……………..14%
Medicaid……………..10%
Interest………………7%
Other discretionary……15% (VA,Homeland Security,State,FBI,EPA,Education,Transport,NASA etc
Other non-discretionary..16% (SNAP,unemployment,EITC,welfare etc)
____________________________
GC.
30% of entitlements go to pensions for federal workers. Period. My reference is to the entitlement budget, I read my comment and it makes sense to me.
david,
Yet that is not what you said initially. What you said initially was:
While “congressmen and staffers” are Federal employees, they are but a small portion of all “federal workers.”
You also wrote:
The pronoun “they” is either for “congressmen” or “congressman and staffers.”
And as shown in my citations above, that is just not true.
I read my comment and it makes sense to me.
There are two options here david:
1) While your comment makes sense to you, it didn’t make sense to the reader. Furthermore, you have shifted your position enough that I believe you might see that your initial comment makes no sense now at all.
or
2) You believe what you wrote, even though it is factually incorrect and easily proven as such.
Like I said, I think you had a “john moment.”
dava typed:
Can you support your new claim with evidence, e.g., the website where you read it?
Even this revised claim seems out of step with reality. But I could be wrong.