First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out....

daemon, The success of "Big Food," -- and I assume that means the food industry, although it came across to me as an attempt to create a nebulous class of evil, rich people (nice touch on the caps) -- depends on people eating. ... and consumers choosing certain food products for reasons of price, convenience, taste, etc.

You posted that the food stamp program helps make "big food" successful -- not the fact that people demand food (for obvious reason)? And you suggested that food stamps aren't a redistribution of wealth from one group (that is taxed) to another that collects a subsidy (15 percent of the population currently)? In fact, it redistributes wealth to "big food," according to your post.

Were you really suggesting that without the food stamp program, "big food" would find less demand for food than there would be without food stamps? Do you really think that programs like food stamps create net economic activity (that benefits some amorphous "big food" group of people --presumably a rich, McScrooge group), and it isn't actually a drag on our economy for a host of reasons?

Before some jackass comes in with the dismissive suggestion that I favor starvation (as if a record 15 percent of the population would be starving today without the food stamp program in its current Frankenstein incarnation), I am talking about food stamps because that was daemon's example. Food stamps are not the main culprit in the Bastiat world that leads to head-scratching discussions like this. We have a $3.5 trillion Federal government that shifts most of those trillions of dollars between different groups through a variety of programs, most of which were spawned originally by the kind of "inequality" populism my posts have gotten on this thread. Social programs, including SNAP, constitute what percentage of our GDP? It's a scary number double digit number. I know entitlement programs constitute around 10 to 15 percent of our GDP and are on pace to grow at a precipitous rate (until they inevitably get cut by necessity, and it is coming), because social security and medicare are unsustainable schemes and are spiraling.

For what it is worth, you threw defense spending in there to muddle your post. A national defense is a public good -- presumably a national defense benefits everyone (it doesn't take from me to give to you) so it falls nowhere near a discussion about redistribution of wealth. I suspect you are muddying your notion that we spend too much on defense into the discussion. Which is fine. We can discuss whether our Federal budget wastes money -- on national defense (yes, it does) or anything else. I will have that discussion any time. We certainly overspend -- regardless of how we spend it. That SHOULD be obvious to everyone, because we are running up massive amounts of debt that are unsustainable.

But 1) you overstated the size of our defense spending. At least currently. It is closer to $600 billion than $700 billion (somewhere between $600 and $650). 2) It is less than 20 percent of our budget. Medicare, medicaid and social security (redistribution of wealth schemes, UNLIKE defense spending, which you dragged into a discussion about redistribution of wealth) are close to 50 percent of our Federal spending. And that doesn't get into a whole host of other social programs, including SNAP, that shift money from one constituency to another.

 

I'll start with the simplest attempt to answer your question.

I am not a Wal-Mart worker. ... But I pay FICA tax. I do it every year. That money is taken from me.

You ask how on earth I classify Social Security as a serious redistribution of wealth?

That money is taken from me. Where does it get REDISTRIBUTED to?

 

Social security doesn't work this way: you put your money in. Along the way, go to the website to keep dibs on YOUR money. See what you will get out later. The money will be waiting for you.

That money I paid in. ... it isn't being put aside for me in the future. Entitlement program payouts have skyrocketed just in my lifetime, even as the current group of people being forced to support retirees has shrunk -- and that is with the entitlements ALREADY being restructed to reneg on past promises. Those programs are bleeding money.

It isn't a cash machine with reserve deposits "guaranteeing" anything. It's a complicated scheme that currently has the baby boomer generation bankrupting future generations, as we run up crazy amounts of debt to try to keep the mirage you are being sucked in by alive.

Stan Druckenmiller goes around and talks to college students about how they are being sold out (it isn't semantics, BT) by the mess. I just found this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/stan-druckenmiller-on-generational-theft-2013-9?op=1

 

A public good isn't something you subjectively decide benefits everyone. It is something specific.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

National defense is a public good. By definition. It isn't a social welfare program. It isn't an entitlement program.

As for the SNAP program, it has grown dramatically in recent years, to the point that 15 percent of the population now gets the subsidy. SNAP has been around since the 1960s. It hasn't "fed the poor." It has created a culture of growing dependency, and it has grown to $70 billion a year.

When you are talking about trillions of dollars of out-of-control spending (that has led to spiraling debt), it's easy to get caught in the trap of "what is another $70 billion?" But, as recently as the 1950s, $70 billion was more than the ENTIRE Federal budget. Which in itself explains why we are so indebted today.

As a country, we are bankrupting ourselves and creating a fiscal and monetary mess that we are not going to get out of without pain. SNAP, to the extent it contributes to the mess, doesn't alleviate any social welfare problems. It comes with associated moral hazard (which is why the program just gets bigger and bigger) -- something that happens by definition whenever anyone receives a benefit at someone else's cost.