The FY2008 budget is $2.9 trillion. That means that at most $319 billion per year is going to those folks who “don’t take personal responsibility for their lives”.
$319 billion pales in comparison to the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich. $11 trillion is 34 years of welfare spending.
Then there is the boondoggle of the Iraq War which could end up costing $3 trillion:
The Iraq War is costing us 10x as much as a year of welfare. Adding the $11 trillion bailout of the super-rich and the Iraq War brings the total to 44 years of welfare spending.
So what we are really paying for is a misguided war and a massive bailout for the super-rich. Welfare for poor people is teeny-tiny in comparison.
This is what annoys me about faux conservatives/capitalists like you. You constantly bemoan the cost of welfare when what is really dragging our economy down are the crooks on Wall Street and the Iraq War.
If you are truly concerned about welfare spending, then you should be 44 times as concerned about the bailout and the Iraq War. And yet, faux conservatives/capitalists like you never bring those expenses up. I find that to be incredibly hypocritical and will vote to raise your taxes at every chance I get.
[/quote]
You miss the issue.
The issue isn’t where we are spending the most money. I don’t disagree with you, we spend quite a bit on defense. Whether or not that is being spent wisely (I’m sure it all isn’t) is a matter of what policies you believe we should be pursuing.
The point stands, though, that all tax payers contribute to socialist programs in the US. Whether you pay $1 or $1 million dollars in taxes you are subsidizing socialism. The only items that take up more of our budget than defense are: Social Security and Health and Human Services.
As far as Iraq goes. it appears that we have already turned the corner there and it will soon be in our past. In fact, there is almost no talk of Iraq like there was even a year ago.
For all those who likened Iraq to VN, I would like them to consider what both candidates plan to do in Afghanistan. Both want to drastically escalate operations there. I expect that from McCain but BO talked of ending the war. It is very curious how one ends a war by pulling out and losing on one front while he is escalating involvement on another front.
Afghanistan is a place almost no one has been able to control. That is your quagmire. that is your new VN. Why continue to try to do something almost no one has been success doing.
Anyway back to the point.
What super rich are being bailed out?
Shareholders have been wiped out or close to it and if they are lucky their company will stay in business while they are only severely diluted.
The financial institutions are being stabilized for the good of the average citizen. The little guy who has saved his whole life doesn’t deserve to see the whole system collapse on him. The average person is paying their mortgage which they got honestly and saving their money or investing as they have been taught. Why would you want the financial system to collapse on them?
If the Fed let chaos rein those are the folks who would hurt the most. They are least likely to be able to withstand a severe shock or downturn. And letting confidence erode to the point of chaos still leaves the Fed or tax payers holding the bag so what is saved by not funding some kind of stabilization act?
You speak of the crooks on Wall Street. I am well aware of them. I had to deal daily with them for years. I know they exist and I have been hurt by them many times. I have no sympathy for them at all.
However, the real origin for this crisis arises not from the cesspool that is Wall Street but from the cesspool that is Congress and the policy of forcing large institutions to make loans to folks who normally wouldn’t have qualified for loans. It arises not from too little regulation but from to much regulation.
The Carter administration is the root of the problem. He administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)in 1977. The Clinton administration did the worst damage though. Not only did he fan the flames of the dot.com boom he screwed things up by requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing. Clinton thus forced big institutions to give loans they didn’t want to give to suspect buyers. He also repealed restrictions on interstate banking, listed the CRA ratings received by the out-of-state bank as a consideration when determining whether to allow interstate branches.
If that wasn’t bad enough in 1999 Clinton signed into law an act that repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act prohibiting a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.
Then in November 2000 Dem run and controlled Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families.”
These supposedly “smart” folks (Carter and Clinton) didn’t deregulate us into this problem they regulated us into this problem. They required big institutions to loan to folks that no one trusted would ever pay their mortgages in order to do business.
And now they and their cronys get off scott free.
Two of Bo’s crony’s most prominently Franklin Raines and Finance Chairman Barney Frank’s “boyfriend” are reeling in cash from their associations with Fannie. Dodd and BO are the two guys Fannie most targeted with donations. I learned long ago to follow the money and you’ll find the rat. The rats here are all Democrats.
Lastly, I’m concerned with what is best for this country. Giving handouts and creating dependencies isn’t helping anyone but the folks who profits off these dependencies. That would be the Dems. If they really wanted folks to prosper they would be advocating personal responsibility and not victimization.
