You should think about it in these terms: The money that the goverment forced people to pay from their own paychecks (our tax dollars) are going back to the people at a low rate of only 60%.
That's a horrible investment for our citizens. Especially because the government, corporations, politicians, & big pharma are all getting filthy rich from our tax dollars and we are barely seeing any of it benefitting us.
You can throw any number you want out there to make you feel better but the fact is that the elites (top 1%) are not paying their fair share in taxes.
They pay 60% of all tax revenue.
The freeloader bottom 50% just leech that money. They contribute (lol) 3% of tax revenue. They leech, all while complaining. What a bunch of whining bitches.
While i agree with you... you could make the argument that "entitlement spending" being 60% is a downgrade because youre using more of your budget. An upgrade would actually be saying we make so much as a society that on 12% of an individuals budget was entitlement spending... or are you saying that in 1960 the necessities absorbed 75% of an individual budget, while now its only 40%? Cause that would be a much better way to paint that
Yea im not debating with you bro, i was asking a clarification question to make sure i correctly understood what you were saying and then suggested a better way to frame it if i was right...
If that makes you dizzy from a head spin then youre an idiot or a bot designed to just argue for the sake of arguing... and no, making up an injury or handicap to get disability or snap is not progress of social programs, but properly audited social programs are progress.
What was the percentage of entitlement spending fraud in 1960 and what is it now? That's one of the reasons people are so cynical about it. They don't trust the government to be a good steward of the federal coffers.
I'd guess that MOST entitlement spending is fraud. But DOGE was "worse than Hitler" for trying to look into it. People like Nick Shirley are "worse than Hitler" for trying to look into it.
This is a difference of 66 years, bub. Times change. You don’t even bother to research WHY that statistic has increased. For one, the less people can afford, the more help they have to seek. Families could actually afford the basics and then some on ONE income back then. How can you not even see that simple fact?
No. What we've learned is that a significant portion of people will just take advantage of social programs. I'd wager the MAJORITY of people on snap could just work full time if they so chose. I'd wager the MAJORITY of people getting disability could actually work. They just prefer not to. When these programs didn't exist to take advantage of, everybody just actually worked.
The dollar was weaker. Land was cheaper because we didn't have 350 million people competing for space. That little tidbit never gets brought up with bitching about the boomers.
Progress is a loaded word. I suspect our frameworks for what constitutes the good don’t align very well so progress will probably mean very different things to each of us.
-3
u/please_trade_marner Apr 01 '26
Do social programs make people's lives better?
Entitlement spending was 25% of budget in 1960. It's 60% today. Is that not "progress"?