Welfare Spending Quotes

Between 1965 (the beginning of LBJ's "Great Society") and 1994, welfare spending has cost the taxpayers $5.4 trillion in constant 1993 dollars. The War on Poverty has cost us 70 % more than the total price tag for defeating both Germany and Japan in World War II, after adjusting for inflation. Many believe that Welfare has destroyed millions of families and cost a huge portion of our national wealth in the process.

We spend billions of pounds on welfare, yet millions are trapped on welfare. It's not worth their while going into work.

It would take little more than $50 billion to raise every poor person above the official poverty line, yet the percentage of the population classified as poor hardly budges, while annual welfare spending amounts to four times that much. Where's the money going?

The Republicans can't say no to military spending, and the Democrats can't say no to social spending.

Liberals cling to the idea that critics of welfare are motivated by greed or callous disregard for the less fortunate. In fact, during the twenty-five years that followed Lyndon Johnson's declaration of war on poverty, U.S. tax payers spent $3 trillion providing every conceivable support for the poor, the elderly, and the infirm. Private foundations spent scores of billions more, and private and religious charities even more. Nevertheless, as Ronald Raegan later quipped, 'in the war on poverty, poverty won.'

World War II revealed two of the enduring features of the Keynesian Revolution. One was the moral difference between spending for welfare and spending for war. During the Depression very modest outlays for the unemployed seemed socially debilitating, economically unsound. Now expenditures many times greater for weapons and soldiers were perfectly safe. It's a difference that still persists.

The Democrats want to save more on defense so they can spend more money to buy votes through the welfare state.

The only way governments or would-be governments respond to ills these days is by seeking to lower the temperature... and that tends to mean public spending.

An indictment of entitlements has to focus on the huge 'social wealth' that the welfare state creates at the stroke of the pen. Yet statistical tests of the effects of welfare spending on employment yield erratic results.

A hundred welfare programs, spending more and more billions, lead to chronic budget deficits, which lead to increased paper-money issues, which lead to higher prices.

I do find it funny, actually, why I'm not more of a Corbyn fan. I am a classic Corbyn fan, really. Not so much on the foreign policy, but I'm leftwing, pro-immigration, pro-welfare spending, there's very little that we wouldn't agree on.

The tendency of welfare spending in the United States has been to increase at an exponential rate.

The E.U.'s tax and regulatory policies, climate-change and welfare spending, and free immigration even in wartime are gradually ruining Europe. That's why I believe Brexit is good for British freedom, political autonomy, and the survival of democratic capitalism.

As more and more money is coming into the formal economy, one can look at more attractive tax rates and lower tax slabs. Even if half the people who were in the informal sector move in to the formal economy and more taxes get collected, more money can be spent on the welfare.

The Center for Immigration Studies found that illegal immigrants cost the United States taxpayer about $10.4 billion a year. A large part of that expense stems from the babies born each year to illegal immigrants.

When the greatest part of the [U.S.] budget pays for our defense and the livelihood of retirees, it is pointless to pretend that public spending is an embarrassment consisting only of welfare and waste.

Labour voted to increase welfare spending again and again, without considering the effect that the spending was having, either on the people it was designed to help or those working to support the system.