Underserved actually means overserved by government

What Democrats and their bureaucracy call "underserved" means under the heavy thumb of government programs. They are so "overserved" by the various 120+ wealth transfer programs, they can't afford to work, buy or rent in a better neighborhood, or take a promotion at work in fear of losing their "benefits." That word "underserved" may be one of the most deceptive in government-speak.

Here are the "underserved" amounts: Federal spending programs that are "designed to transfer income ... to individuals or families" are set to hit a record $3,223,943,000,000 in fiscal 2020, according to projections published by the Office of Management and Budget.

These so-called "payments for individuals" (as the OMB calls them) are projected to account for 67.9% of all federal spending  [fiscal year 2020] and consume 14.4% of the nation's gross domestic product.

$3.22 Trillion: Federal Programs That 'Transfer Income' Projected to Hit Record in FY20 | CNSNews

"More government benefits result in less private wealth, especially for the non‐​rich. It is not just Social Security and Medicare that displaces private saving, but also unemployment insurance, welfare, and other social spending. Some social programs have “asset tests” that deliberately discourage saving.

Total federal and state social spending as a share of gross domestic product soared from 6.8 percent in 1970 to 14.3 percent in 2018. That increase in handouts occurred over the same period that wealth inequality appears to have increased. Generations of Americans have grown up assuming that the government will take care of them when they are sick, unemployed, and retired, so they put too little money aside for future expenses." How the Government Creates Wealth Inequality | Cato Institute

Guns and Butter

This chart always amazes me--particularly reflecting on the outrage during the Bush years about the paltry spending on social programs. One of the reasons Bush had so much tax money to direct to two wars and all sorts of little social wars at home was his tax cuts. It's unfortunate that he didn't decrease government spending, but like the rest of us, it's easy to spend when the wallet is fat. Obama is doing just the opposite, and business investment has been dropping and unemployment rising since the summer of 2008 when he became the heir and parent. Capitalists aren't stupid--they can go elsewhere to invest. He's raising taxes and creating more social wars at home as well as increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan. But instead of corraling terrorists, he plans to loose and lose them in Europe and America--and why not--they certainly aren't wanted back home where they are tainted!

4609

Defense spending

A chart in the WSJ today showed that defense spending is at 4% of the GDP. It was above 5% in 1990 according to OMB, then went down to 3% 1999-2001, then rose to 4% 2004-2007 (I'm reading the chart; didn't see the numbers in the article). In Bush's budget predictions it should go up--I'm not sure if that is in spending, or because revenues will be down when the Democrats increase taxes. During the Korean War defense spending was 14% of GDP, and 9.5% during the VietNam War, and 6% during the Reagan years as noted in Bret Stephens article on Declinism. He notes that within a few years of the Reagan military build-up the Soviet Union collapsed. Europe and Japan with virtually no military costs during the same time period entered a period of economic stagnation.

Hand wringing over how Europeans and Asians see us is a politicians' hunt for fools gold, he says. Watch for a new book by Fred Kaplan, another author getting paid for predicting America's decline. They've been quite popular during the Bush administration and will probably drop off if a Democrat is elected, even if nothing changes globally. These declinism books are a bit like the anti-war movies these days. Do they sell--I mean to anyone but public libraries, who love this stuff.