The US: From warfare state to welfare state


The Philly Fed:

While about 50 percent of expenditures were devoted to national defense in the 1960s, most spending was devoted to welfare programs in 2010. Unemployment, Social Security, health, and education were just 28.9 percent of expenditures in the 1960s, but their size had increased to 61 percent by 2010. The composition of spending shifted from temporary to structural expenditures.

6 thoughts on “The US: From warfare state to welfare state

  1. Ummm. Medicare began 1-1-66, so you’re going to have to tell us if this report simply divided decade expenditures by 10 or started the clock when there actually were Medicare expenditures.

    Also, real returns on SS vary dramatically, but it’s a stretch to call it welfare. My return will be around 1 percent if my wife and I have normal life expectancies. I have paid for a lot of golden years through my career. You can sneer and call it an entitlement. I say I’ve earned some golden years of my own.

      • SS is a Ponzi scheme for you, Trouble is, the “fiscal conservatives” here want to the spend the money they want cut in Afghanistan or on a new round of tax cuts for themselves. Funny how they can ignore a genuinely abusive tax situation.

        • Not so surprising when you think about it. The Tea Party is populated by small business types who hate FICA and Medicare taxes because payroll taxes limit how little they can pay minimum wage workers. That they have little interest in SS for themselves or their own suggests that their own take is substantial or they expect a big number when they sell.

  2. spend for National Defense is about trillion a year.

    but the thing not mentioned is our available revenues – for “defense” entitlements and the rest of government –

    about 1.3T total in individual and corporate income taxes:

    not hard number to verify: page 56

    so the real question is – what percent of available revenues would we devote to “defense”?

    If you only cut entitlements and the rest of govt – and not defense – you’d end up with about 80% going for “defense”.

    • What a stupid analysis.

      Both should be cut.

      However, national defense is a constitutionally prescribed function, idiot. Welfare, as constructed here, is not.

      Now that Socialist Insecurity is bankrupt, we are facing the choice of less defense, and much, much less welfare.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>