Posted on 08/02/2025 8:49:33 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
These are results for how much is spent on government social programs a year
Search instead for how much is sprnt on government social programs a year
AI Overview
In 2024, the US federal government spent approximately $1.5 trillion on Social Security alone. Total federal spending, including all programs, reached $6.8 trillion. A significant portion of this, around $1.1 trillion, is allocated to various welfare programs, according to EPIC for America.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
Social Security: This one program consumed $1.5 trillion in fiscal year 2024.
**Welfare Spending: Federal, state, and local governments combined spent roughly $5.543 trillion on social programs in 2023, according to Just Facts. This includes programs like SNAP, housing assistance, and Medicaid.
Total Federal Spending: The total federal budget for 2024 was $6.8 trillion.
Welfare as a Percentage of Spending: Welfare programs represent a substantial portion of the federal budget, with some estimates placing it at around 20%.
State and Local Contributions: State and local governments also contribute significantly to social welfare programs, with some estimates suggesting they add about $744 billion annually.
Historical Context: Over the past few decades, spending on welfare programs has significantly increased as a percentage of the federal budget.**
Libertarians are terrible economists.
No talk about revenue. Spending is half the problem.
Let me share a story. There was a man standing in Congress warning everyone about the bubble getting ready to pop soon in 2008. I listened to that man and sold out all my property investments for cash. I tripled on my investments. Two weeks after I collected my escrows the bubble popped and everyone lost their butts. That man was Ron Paul.
Libertarians are free traitors that I have no use for.
How so?
This came up during municipal failures to pay pensions or even to fund streetlight maintenance, vs make the interest payments on their municipal bond issuance.
It is a matter of priority in law, not in preference. People are always going to want to say those rich people holding $5 million in bonds should not be getting their interest payments before we pay for streetlights. But that is what the law says.
Understand what “default” means. If you fail to make an interest payment on even a small bond, the law says that is default and ALL debt instruments become due and payable immediately. You don’t get to pick and choose what debt you pay when in default. It is ALL due and payable.
So these unfunded liabilities are there and failure to pay them will go to court, but they are not, in law, an equivalent in priority liability to explicit bonds. Note btw that the foreign holdings of the $37T are 23% of the total at latest measure, which is not all that recent and countries have been divesting. The vast majority of US debt is held domestically.
To be fair, during the GM bailout process of 2009, GM’s unions went to court and got all the bondholders screwed so they could have higher pay. It’s been a while but my vague recall is the judge declared the bailout was going to avoid default and since there was no default, the bonds could be reduce in priority (by him). I know this was appealed but those were Obama years and the bondholders were declared evil by the media.
The article was about the size of US debt, not about the definition of default.
I must not have been clear.
If failure to pay a bill does not trigger default, then it is not debt.
So you’re saying that only if there is or can be failure to pay consequences is money owed, is that right?
The article was about U.S OBLIGATIONS.
So you’re saying that only if there is or can be failure to pay consequences is money owed, is that right?
The article was about U.S OBLIGATIONS.
Nope it used the word debt. Debt has a specific meaning.
Nope it used the word debt. Debt has a specific meaning. Can’t have the word debt anywhere in the article unless there is an equating, which there cannot be.
Nope.
Look at the title,
Look at the first paragraph..
It is about what the UnitedStates OWES.
Any further deflection reveals intellectual dishonesty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.