"welfare" accounts for about 3% of the federal budget. Why don't we worry about the other 97% first?

Question

Why is it that angry conservatives get so worked up about "welfare" (even though there is no such government program) when it's such a tiny percentage of the budget?

Interest alone on the conservative debt accounts for 5 times what we spend on programs like Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, yet Cheney says "deficits don't matter." And it is a conservtive debt, more than 90% created by conservative presidents.

So why is it that conservatives hype this non-issue so much?


Budget Figures:
(a little old, but if anything, the % on "welfare" is smaller now): http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2850/information_show.htm?doc_id=73045

History of conservative vs. liberal spending increases since 1965:
http://www.voteliberalvalues.org/deficit_and_debt_1.html

Answer 1

They are playing on the frustrations of hard-working americans. By characterizing the poorest among us as lazy and immoral, and blaming them for the drag on the federal budget and our economy in general, they convince the working poor that the conservatives are really on their side, and that the big, fat, rich corporations really aren't the problem.

Ruthie must be referring to the billions of dollars the government shells out to multi-million dollar corporations in the form of tax breaks and subsidies. That's the welfare you leave out of the equation, all the money we give to rich corporate fat cats.

Answer 2

how are you able to certainly declare that any of the federal budget isn't discretionary? did you be attentive to that the federal government is below no felony accountability to pay any of the "needed" budget products? Yeah, did no longer think of so. and how are you able to certainly declare that 34% of the debt is as a results of the militia, particularly than the different 80% + of the federal budget? i will throw interior the undeniable fact that no longer purely like the "entitlement" classes and a super form of alternative federal outlays, investment the militia and nationwide protection are constitutionally enumerated powers of the government. Social protection, medicare, public housing, training spending, etc, are no longer constitutionally approved factors of federal spending or authority. in keeping with possibility you're able to desire to ask your self why the main important bite of the cost selection is on outlays that are with none constitutional authorization.

Answer 3

Gee,could it be because I dont like my money being spent to support someone that likes to pop out kids every nine months so she doesnt have to work?Just let me open up my bank account for all the needy.Its amazing you libs yell about the homeless right now..,wasnt there homeless during the Clinton Adm and if the homeless problem could have been taken care of,why didnt he solve that easy problem?See most people dont like to help people who DONT WANT TO HELP THEMSELVES.We dont mind helping people get on their feet during struggles but when it becomes a way of life,who is it helping?Yes its a small percentage,but its still being taken advantage of.

If we had this much fraud from Katrina,I can imagine how much we have in each states welfare programs.

http://www.fbi.gov/katrina.htm

Answer 4

Repuglicans always practice supply side economics and that amounts to welfare for the very rich and taking away from the poor. The middle class working people even get left behind. This policy always ends in a recession. Reagan's was a deep recession that cost some people their lives. It is the shame of America when they can not take care of their very poor, the neediest get the worst end of it always and that is really bad.

Answer 5

Your question starts with a fallacious premise. In 1997, welfare went to the states. The 3% the fed kicks in is a drop in the bucket, assuming your numbers are correct in the first place.

And you are only talking about AFDC and Medicaid. There is much other spending that could properly be considered welfare.

Answer 6

I've tried pointing this out to the "right" several times, but they don't respond and just keep blabbering on about it. The real number is less than 2% for federal and state combined budgets.

If medicaid is welfare then I guess medicare is too huh? Lets just keep piling on any program that aids anybody.

Answer 7

... I think it's because that's what Rush, Hannity and Co. keep telling them...

the party of "rational thinking" and "facts" are anything but, when you actually look into it... the more you look, the more you realize that it's all a bunch of talking points and propaganda...

It would also be interesting to see how much money was lost due to corporate tax cuts and what percentage of the federal budget was lost due to corporate tax cuts....

Answer 8

If you reinvested that 3% in education you wouldn't have to worry about the unemployed, there would be only the dregs left.

Answer 9

It should account for more like 8%. There is far too much poverty in this country.

Answer 10

How about not and say we did.