The US Welfare Program

[Dirk]

Around the world, even within America, people think that the US has a minimal welfare program. Indeed, the workfare program is harsh and inefficient. Many of the poor are uninsured in matters of health and are subsequently treated as second class citizens when ill.

In fact, the US has quite a considerable welfare program. It's not, however, the poor or working class that beneft. So-called "corporate welfare" has consistently funded "big business" with billions and billions of the taxpayers' dollars.

The Cato Institute estimates that the US Federal Government spent in the region of $92 billion in 2006 on corporate welfare. Note that this is an extremely conservative estimate, comparatively speaking.

 

[deanhills]

Around the world, even within America, people think that the US has a minimal welfare program. Indeed, the workfare program is harsh and inefficient. Many of the poor are uninsured in matters of health and are subsequently treated as second class citizens when ill.

In fact, the US has quite a considerable welfare program. It's not, however, the poor or working class that beneft. So-called "corporate welfare" has consistently funded "big business" with billions and billions of the taxpayers' dollars.

The Cato Institute estimates that the US Federal Government spent in the region of $92 billion in 2006 on corporate welfare. Note that this is an extremely conservative estimate, comparatively speaking.

Well they did bail out the BIG banks, so that has to be a welfare programme of a kind ..... ?

 

[Dirk]

Well they did bail out the BIG banks, so that has to be a welfare programme of a kind ..... ?

If you count that as welfare, i wonder how much that amounts to for 2008 and 2009?

An interesting point is that every single corporate welfare program since the 90s (when they really got going), is still going on.

 

[deanhills]

If you count that as welfare, i wonder how much that amounts to for 2008 and 2009?

An interesting point is that every single corporate welfare program since the 90s (when they really got going), is still going on.

Looks as though it is about to be expanded under Obama, viz health insurance for all?

 

[Dirk]

Looks as though it is about to be expanded under Obama, viz health insurance for all?

It wouldn't if it were a nationalised healthcare system. The US has a huge healthcare expenditure - twice that of most Industrial nations, per capita - and some of the poorest outcomes in the Western world.

Obama's healthcare reform will cost more because it will live alongside the current inefficient, ineffective private system. Plus public expenditure for those without insurance. It's flawed because it operates within the constraints of the current system.

A National Healthcare system would replace the current one in that state funding would ONLY be used for the national system. A nationalised system would be A LOT cheaper. Also, the private sector would sill operate - just not with taxpayers footing the bill - so if people REALLY want, they could get health insurance.

 

[deanhills]

Obama's healthcare reform will cost more because it will live alongside the current inefficient, ineffective private system. Plus public expenditure for those without insurance. It's flawed because it operates within the constraints of the current system.

Well said. It is almost like the Federal Government, both healthcare and the Federal Government system need to be completely overhauled, preferably the Federal Government first. It has become too heavy with regulation, clumsy with too many fatcat politicians patting one another's backs. Wonder whether it would be possible to do a real fundamental reform like reformatting the hard disk of a computer?

 

[DodgeFB]

I think we have to wait for them to just die off. And hope the next generation of leaders have not been corrupted so bad they can't do any better.

 

[deanhills]

I think we have to wait for them to just die off. And hope the next generation of leaders have not been corrupted so bad they can't do any better.

With the rate that the growth of population is going and the larger percentage of people over 50, I wonder whether that would be possible. Could be that Mexico with its younger population takes over one day, or China (they already have a large stake in the country)?

 

[Dirk]

hope the next generation of leaders have not been corrupted so bad they can't do any better

Probably wishful thinking. Power corrupts.

 

[DodgeFB]

Probably wishful thinking. Power corrupts.

Very true. But if anything really changes it will have to be the young ones do it. You know you can't count on anyone over 40 to change much of anything. But I may be wrong. I have been wrong at least 6 times in the last 40 years. When I was 20 I had all the answers. Now I don't even know all the questions.

 

[Dirk]

Very true. But if anything really changes it will have to be the young ones do it. You know you can't count on anyone over 40 to change much of anything. But I may be wrong. I have been wrong at least 6 times in the last 40 years. When I was 20 I had all the answers. Now I don't even know all the questions.

Oh, i have to say, i know what you mean. I used to be convinced "my" way was the best possible way to organise society. I could describe in excruciating detail a solution to every single issue.

Now when people ask me how it will/should be after the revolution, i point out that it would just be sketching utopia. I know now that i'm not smart enough to do that. Neither is it practical. There are always constantly changing circumstances at all levels. I have general ideas of my own but i don't pretend my ideas are perfect or the answer.

A great get-out clause of mine is to quote Bakunin.

Anyone who makes plans for after the revolution is reactionary.

I do like how you phrased your post. It's so true.

 

[DodgeFB]

Oh, i have to say, i know what you mean. I used to be convinced "my" way was the best possible way to organise society. I could describe in excruciating detail a solution to every single issue.

Now when people ask me how it will/should be after the revolution, i point out that it would just be sketching utopia. I know now that i'm not smart enough to do that. Neither is it practical. There are always constantly changing circumstances at all levels. I have general ideas of my own but i don't pretend my ideas are perfect or the answer.

A great get-out clause of mine is to quote Bakunin.



I do like how you phrased your post. It's so true.

I am giving serious thought to "Don't re-elect anyone".

I know people always want to kick out someone else's person not their own. I saw a guy on TV last night saying we should even kick our own favorite out. Just a thought.

 

[Dirk]

I am giving serious thought to "Don't re-elect anyone".

I know people always want to kick out someone else's person not their own. I saw a guy on TV last night saying we should even kick our own favorite out. Just a thought.

I often rage that "we could do a better job without them". I don't know if that's true or not, but we couldn't do much worse.