what is the benefit of government expenditure on social programmes?
105735
The benefits are things like, highways, national defense, education, healthcare, and jobs.  There will always be people who need help and in the long run having people who are educated and healthy will benefit the country more than cutting social programs.  The more educated people in the country the better advances in technology and healthcare which in turn will help people.  It is all a big cycle of people helping people.
67136
Social welfare may refer to:\n\nThe overall welfare or well-being of a society. \nIn economics, the utility of people considered in aggregate. (See Welfare economics and social welfare function.) \nThe provision of a wide range of social services, for the benefit of individual citizens. This usage is closely related to the idea of the welfare state. \nIn the United States, "welfare" is sometimes a synonym for the provision of financial aid through Social Security. Social welfare may be associated with social work services.
383935
Because we need it to fund all our new social programs that started since the Civil War.  The New Deal programs during the depression, medicare, medicaid, and a host of other programs.  However, our government is full of crooks and a lot of our money goes to corporate bailouts, tobacco subsidies and other such nonsense. Vote Libertarian!  No income tax.
1002208
Yes.  More Government Food Stamps.  :)
257586
Assuming you mean public social insurance such as Social Security, check out the website below.
777714
Try this website for information on the National Budget for 2000:\n\nhttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/guide02.html\n\nSpending\nThe Federal Government will spend nearly $1.8 trillion1, and have a surplus of over $117 billion in 2000, which we divided into nine large categories.\n\nThe largest Federal program is Social Security, which will provide monthly benefits to nearly 45 million retired and disabled workers, their dependents, and survivors. It accounts for 22 percent of your Federal dollar (or 23 percent of all Federal spending). \n\nMedicare, which will provide health care coverage for over almost 40 million elderly Americans and people with disabilities, consists of Part A (hospital insurance) and Part B (insurance for physician costs and other services). Since its birth in 1965, Medicare has accounted for an ever-growing share of spending. In 2000 it will comprise 11 percent of your Federal dollar (or 12 percent of all Federal spending). \n\nMedicaid, in 2000, will provide health care services to almost 34 million Americans, including the poor, people with disabilities, and senior citizens in nursing homes. Unlike Medicare, the Federal Government shares the costs of Medicaid with the States, paying between 50 and 83 percent of the total (depending on each State's requirements). Federal and State costs are growing rapidly. Medicaid accounts for six percent of your Federal dollar (also six percent of the budget). \nOther means-tested entitlements provide benefits to people and families with incomes below certain minimum levels that vary from program to program. The major means-tested entitlements are Food Stamps and food aid to Puerto Rico, Supplemental Security Income, Child Nutrition, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and veterans' pensions. This category will account for an estimated six percent of your Federal dollar (also six percent of the budget). \n\nThe remaining mandatory spending, which mainly consists of Federal retirement and insurance programs, unemployment insurance, and payments to farmers, comprises six percent of your Federal dollar (also six percent of the budget). \nNational defense discretionary spending will total an estimated $275 billion in 2000, comprising nearly 15 percent of your Federal dollar (and 16 percent of the budget). \n\nNon-defense discretionary spending-a wide array of programs that include education, training, science, technology, housing, transportation, and foreign aid-has shrunk as a share of the budget from 23 percent in 1966 to an estimated 18 percent in 2000 (or 17 percent of your Federal dollar). \n\nInterest payments, primarily the result of previous budget deficits, averaged seven percent of Federal spending in the 1960s and 1970s. But, due to the large budget deficits that began in the 1980s that share quickly doubled to 15 percent. Since the budget is now in surplus, interest payments are estimated to drop to 12 percent of the budget in 2000 (11 percent of your Federal dollar). \n\nSix percent of your Federal dollar (the budget surplus) will not be spent. The President has proposed that any surplus be reserved until a plan to save Social Security has been enacted. \n\nNational defense \nGeneral science, space, and technology  \nEnergy \nNatural resources and environment  \nAgriculture \nCommerce and housing credit  \nTransportation \nCommunity and regional development  \nEducation, training, employment, and social services   \nHealth \nMedicare \nIncome security  \nSocial security  \nVeterans benefits and services  \nAdministration of justice  \nGeneral government  \nNet interest  \nAllowances \nUndistributed offsetting receipts
209845
Money recieved by the Federal government through taxation.
1168976
A.\n\nThe national government does most of that with the taxes and then redistributes with things like Social Security and welfare.
113688
The bill is a comprehensive piece of legislation with far-reaching implications in a number of programs. The bill eliminates the open-ended federal entitlement program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and creates a block grant for states to provide time-limited cash assistance for needy families. The comprehensive legislation also makes far-reaching changes to child care, the Food Stamp Program, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for children, benefits for legal immigrants and the Child Support Enforcement program. Modifications to the child nutrition programs and a reduction in the Social Services Block Grant are also included. Unlike previous versions, however, current law is retained for child welfare and child protection programs. The legislation will save an estimated $54.5 billion over six years with the majority of savings due to changes in the Food Stamp Program and reduction in benefits for legal immigrants.
314452
The more populated states (NSW and Victoria) have historically always helped fund the less populated states (WA, SA, Qld, Tas) and now that GST revenue pays for state expenses that's where the money comes from. It's not excactly fair but it has certainly helped the 'smaller' states in the past - now that Queensland is the biggest growth state in the country though it does seem ridiculous to penalise NSW so much while the banana-benders swim in a GST surplus. We urgently need more spending on health and public transport in NSW!!
366354
You would be well advised to reconsider comparing any specific US social policy program to anything of Denmark or other North-European countries. Denmark and most of Europe don't have particular 'programs', they have so-called universal social security policies in which a high tax rate finance social policies open to all (hence 'universal'). \n\nPoverty is not a big problem in these countries, but in so far as there are poverty stricken areas or families (or children), these would normally receive substantial social security benefits from the government, such as unemployment pay, tax reduction, housing benefits and so on.
179813
Redistribution of wealth and provide services (food stamps, government assistance, school grants, building highways, schools, government buildings, veteran's benefits, military defense, police, courts and everything you can imagine that government takes care of).
321667
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/planners/calculators.htm\n\nis their benefits calculator.
338537
Economically efficient basically explains itself.\nA country is this when they don't have to depend on other countries to support them 100%. They have back up plans for their economy and have a variety of ways to provide themselves with money. The political and social standpoint of it all is just saying that the government isn't sitting down in meetings everyday worrying about how they are going to give the wellfare population money when they don't have it in the first place. Hope you kinda see where I'm coming from and that this helps.
775445
The growth of an economy can come from two sources.  Government investment or entrepreneur investment.  Although government investment can facilitate economic growth as in building new roads and water supply systems many times government development money is not put to the best economic use because that development money is dictated not by best use but by political and self interest considerations. \n\nEntrepreneur investment on the other hand tends to be much more efficient in promoting economic development because the main consideration in that investment is only return on investment.  The investment tends to gravitate toward where it can make the highest return and thus generate the highest economic benefit to the economy.  \n\nThat is why free market economies tend to outperform planned economies in general, because the free market tends to know better where the highest economic returns are located whereas the planners tend to funnel investments for their own personal interests.
198955
The social conservative is reluctant to spend public money on social issues.  The fiscal liberal is ready to spend public money on nearly anything, including social issues.  The two stances are mutually exclusive.\n\nAnd then there are the social liberals/fiscal conservatives that want social issues addressed but just don't want to pay for it.  After all, the public purse is everybody's pocket.
124194
Better distribution of wealth through foreign aid, openness in government, and health care and education for all people.