He wasn't talking about the sum of money, just that it had gone up -- and he wasn't talking about how to finance it, just that it had caused more people to become dependent on assistance _even as more people are getting a job_. Meaning that it is not because there is no jobs.
>He wasn't talking about the sum of money, just that it had gone up -- and he wasn't talking about how to finance it, just that it had caused more people to become dependent on assistance
Yes, we was talking BS.
It makes one feel very superior and active, to believe that poor people, black, hispanic, etc choose to live on food stamps (as "dependents") ignoring all those fabulous job opportunities available to them.
That self-worth-boost is one of the main reasons people perpetuate this crap. Go talk to actual persons living on food stamps to get a real idea of what it's like and what chances the have to escape it.
Over half of the discretionary budget, which is the pot of money that things like food stamps come out of (way less than 1%, if anyone's counting).
The entitlement programs are run off of their own separate taxes and are legally "off-budget" compared to discretionary spending. Their budget isn't voted on, it's basically "automatic", coming from the legislation that created them. Same with debt repayment (which, coincidentally, represents defense spending in previous years, neat that it doesn't count that way on your pie chart though).
So that's where he's getting his ideas from. The federal budget that gets voted on by congress every year (in a good year) is over 50% defense, and more like 65% defense if you include Homeland Security, Dept of State, Veteran Affairs, etc in the defense column instead of domestic.
It's telling of what exactly? That I didn't connect defense spending and dependence on handouts? You are reading more into what I'm saying than is there. Check your pre-conceived notions.
And, AGAIN, where do I blame the people on food stamps? The system is the problem, not the people who take advantage of it.
Food stamps are a drop in the bucket compared to defense spending. If you're just a nonpartisan who's concerned about the budget, rather than a limbaughbeckbot, one would expect you'd be approximately 1,000x as outraged about defense (in numerical terms) as you are about food stamps.
It's telling that you choose to focus on moral issues, such as what you interpret as dependence, rather than the hard-numbers "this is what consumes the most tax dollars for the least benefit" of defense spending.
Of course, "least benefit" is a value judgement, but the system, as you describe it, is actually concerned with maintaining the military and the financial industries much more than any idea of the country having its legs knocked out from under it by poor people. This is a fact, and is supportable by actual numbers, unlike your kicking of people while they're down.
He wasn't talking about the sum of money, just that it had gone up -- and he wasn't talking about how to finance it, just that it had caused more people to become dependent on assistance _even as more people are getting a job_. Meaning that it is not because there is no jobs.