ScipioCowboy
Practice Squad
- Messages
- 487
- Reaction score
- 0
For the most part they don't. Unfortunately, sometimes they must.
Yup. Reforming healthcare in general in this country is the root of the problem, however. We're well on our way.
You never want to subsidize poverty. Subsidizing anything leads to more of it. This is why the government subsidizes green energy or drilling for oil and gas.
The difference between disaster relief and many social welfare programs is that the former is a one time expenditure. As a general rule, relief spending ends when the damage has been repaired and basic infrastructure has been rebuilt. Social welfare spending never ends because the programs are often designed to be permanent, and even when they aren't, they often become permanent and grow to encompass activities that were not included in the original mandate.
Consider the cell phone program. It was originally started in the 1980s as a means of providing phone service to poor people living in rural areas and it's grown far beyond that.
As far as determining a "cut off" point for government aid, you want to determine its sustainability. If you know government revenue generally falls between 17 and 19 percent of GDP and seldom exceeds 20 percent of GDP regardless of how much you raise taxes, you can safely assume that entitlement spending that exceeds 20 percent of GDP isn't going to be sustainable. That's just math.
Funny thing about numbers. They don't care about the perceived superiority of your intellect or the complexity of your thinking. Numbers simply are.