?
Lv 5
? asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 1 decade ago

Federal Spending On Social Programs at an all time Low!?

I wanted to address these working Class bigheaded stereotypes who think that they are working to fund the so called "Social Programs" for underprivledged segments of Society-- the poor! According to an article from the Boston Globe Bush's 2.6 trillion federal budget boosted National Defense while making the deepest cuts to social to social programs since the Reagan Administration. I am sooo tired of hearing the same old rederic from the upper and middle class-- My tax dollars pay for your health care, your foodstamps, your house, etc etc. A very knowledgable Sociologist once stated that Federal Budget makes up like 1% of all programs in the way of Financial and he also went on to say that that would be like us paying a penny a year / person for Social Programs. Poor people work harder than the rich-- Hell , we engineer jobs to keep you rich "busy" watching us. This ones for you fatcatkeeper.

8 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Our Children's Homeland Insecurity

    Michael Petit

    February 06, 2007

    Michael Petit is president of the Every Child Matters Education Fund. He served as commissioner of Maine's Human Services Department and was deputy director of the Child Welfare League of America.

    Steady progress was made for decades during the 20th century in health, education and social indicators for children thanks to long-term voter support for federal spending on maternal and child health services, hospitals, medical research, higher education for doctors and nurses and other public health measures. Many of these social gains are now stalled or at risk of being reversed thanks to two myths underpinning the conservative political ideology dominant since the early 1980's: first, that the federal government can't do anything right, and second, that taxes are akin to outright thievery.

    This ill-conceived ideology accounts for the indifference and near-total silence from conservatives in the administration and Congress about the plight of millions of American children who are without health insurance, are abused and neglected, are left unsupervised every day after school or whose parents are caught in a criminal justice system that is crushing families.

    Proven programs and policies that could actually reduce these social ills have come under repeated attack by conservatives ever since the Reagan administration. Reagan's even more conservative successors, after taking virtual control of the entire federal government in 2001, expanded these attacks directly and indirectly on programs benefiting children. Cuts in federal taxes and reduced state revenues forced many states to cut child care programs, child support enforcement, health care assistance, Head Start and more, ignoring decades of documentation showing that more, not less, federal spending on children was needed. There is now a huge investment gap, producing much worse outcomes for U.S. children and families than found in other rich democracies.

    The children harmed most live primarily in the South, where the anti-tax/anti-government ideology has been embraced most enthusiastically.

    Nowhere is this more evident than in Texas, a classic low-tax, low-service state and home to such conservative ideologues as President and former governor George W. Bush and ex-congressmen Tom DeLay and Dick Armey. Arguably the epicenter of compassionate conservatism, how effective has conservative ideology been in Texas? Nationally, Texas ranks:

    * 1st in the percentage of uninsured children

    * 1st in food insecurity

    * 1st in child abuse deaths

    * 1st in the number of incarcerated adults

    * 2nd in the percentage of the population that goes hungry

    * 2nd in teen pregnancy

    * 5th in the overall poverty rate

    * 6th in crime

    * 47th in income and food stamps benefits for the neediest

    * 50th in the percentage of fully-immunized two-year-olds

    These poor outcomes in Texas are the direct result of conservative principles. Yet the politicians whose harsh policies produce these outcomes stubbornly insist that more tax breaks and more cuts in programs are good for America's children.

    In a counterpoint to the hollow offerings of compassionate conservatism, a new report by Every Child Matters Education Fund, "Homeland Insecurity ... American Children at Risk," drawing from official data, presents 17 charts related to the well-being of children in the states. They show that nine of the 10 top-ranked states in terms of the best outcomes for children, based on 11 child-related statistical measures, are "blue"—they voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004. These states generally tax themselves at higher rates and make more investments in programs serving children. In these states, more children are insured, more are enrolled in after-school programs and are more likely to be aided if abused. All 10 of the bottom-ranked states in outcomes for children are "red"—they voted for the Republican presidential nominee in 2004. They generally keep taxes lower, but at the expense of children and other vulnerable groups who would benefit from publicly financed health and social programs

    Do we know how to reduce child poverty and the other social ills afflicting millions of children and families? We do. The Great Society initiatives of the mid-1960's, for example, helped knock back child poverty to a record-low 14 percent by 1969.

    Conservatives have taken pains to misrepresent the effectiveness of government poverty programs, loudly proclaiming that only the private sector could help the poor while ignoring evidence that the much lower child poverty rates in other countries are the direct result of public, not private, policies. Most telling, government data show that since the latest round of conservative tax and budget dogma was imposed in 2001 household income has dropped, poverty has increased and health coverage has declined even while the administration makes discredited claims that their policies revived the economy.

    If we are going to invest in children's programs, we have to pay for them. Earlier generations of Americans understood that progressive taxes are essential to democracy and its commitment to equal opportunity for all children. The current generation of anti-government, anti-tax conservatives seems determined to prove our ancestors wrong.

    Our children deserve much better..

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    first of all, I doubt very seriously you work harder than me. i work 14 hour days seven days a week.

    I also know by overtaxing, over-regulating my employer will leave me without a job. I like it when my employer makes money. the better he does, the better my life is.

    Welfare keeps people poor. I've been on it I know. In 1995, My family, was on welfare. I married a woman who had kids that i wasn't able to support on my salary, so we lived in public housing. there was no way out of this situation. crack dealers in my front yard, the whole nine yards. Then welfare reform kicked in. That evil Newt Gingrich and his welfare reform was coming through our neighborhood and kicking people off. At the time I was driving a taxi cab, making $200-300 a week tops, I knew I wanted something better. I heard about all these new job training programs down at the welfare office. I wanted to learn how to drive a truck. I went down to my wife's case worker with my wife, not sure what they would do, but I made my offer: "the community college has a truck driving course that costs $1700. If i can get help with that, I can get my family off of your computer screen and you will never see us again." The lady took me to another office to another lady with a computer screen and I repeated my offer. They told me to go ahead and enroll, bring them the bill, and they would pay it. they paid it. Twelve months later, I was purchasing a house!

    My point is is that sometimes these social programs are pitfalls, traps that keep poor people poor. up until 1995, the system was rigged to keep you on the system. there were no job training optiions. just cash your check and shut up. The republican congress of the 1990's, the contract for america and yes, bill clinton who signed welfare reform changed my life for the better.

  • 1 decade ago

    http://nationalpriorities.org/auxiliary/interactiv...

    Go to this website to see that you're full of sh*t. Of course we spend the most on defense, thats the only legitimate function of a government! Look at how much is spent on health, housing, and "All other", which are unconstitutional socialist schemes, such as welfare and social security.

    Add it up. Over two-thirds of our income tax is spent on things that the constitution doesn't even give the government the power to do. So how am I an asshole for wanting to aboilish income tax and all the socialist schemes its wasted on? If I plow the field, grow the corn, and use it to feed my family, why should the lazy neighbor who sat on his butt all spring be allowed to walk into my house and take 2 of the three bushels of corn I harvested? Because YOU think he needs it more? Bullshit. You're a thief and an a traitor to our root beliefs.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Why should my taxes go to a fat assed b*tch on welfare to shuck out kids for ADC, WIC or other government giveaway??

    The only way to fix this is the fair tax, Eliminate the Marxist tax code that exists and put everyone on the same playing field. You should taxed on what you spend not what you earn. Maybe this would keep me from having to pay for some fat b&tch gambling at the casinos, or maybe it'd get a scum sucker from taking up space in the Walmart aisle with a scooter and making sure everyone knows her disability is because she was too stupid to finish school and learn how to eat healthy.

    I am done paying for lazy asses.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Agreed.

    If I am subject to drug test, which is no problem and I work hard for my money that the government takes from me, shouldn't the person on the other end of my hard earned money at least be subjected to random drug screenings?

  • 1 decade ago

    this is a hard one to answer but would you rather feel safe or know that the poor can afored a big house and meal. and it would be no good if we were over run terrorits.

  • Josh
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    We can't be bothered with helping our fellow Americans when there's all this killing that needs to be done!

    (sarcasm)

  • 1 decade ago

    Hallelujah!

    Someone with a brain. And he USES it.

    Good points.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.