Who benefits more from government spending the Rich or Poor?

The rich collect the handouts most often.

The poor can't afford to buy the government.

It's the law- money IS political speech and power.

No limit can be imposed on lobbying.

So I guess pointing out unfairness doesn't mean change is coming- It means the system WORKS.

Well until the collapse of the economy 1/3 of govt spending was in defense, which was mostly a jobs program that increased the profits of defense contractors, so both benefit but I would say it benefits the rich stock owners more, on the other hand the poor have a lot less to lose if the country is invaded, nothing to seize from them after all. Then their is things like corporate welfare. To be honest I've always held that the primary purpose of government is to aid the rich in stealing from the poor.

I think both would lose equally. The concerns are not simply economical, but many more problems can come around socially. Take for instance midnight basketball during the Clinton Administration. Conservatives argued that these programs were not beneficial, but looking at each of the programs a great loss of theft occurred when these programs were instated. Also it seems conservatives enjoy throwing money at building prisons without effectively dealing with the future social concerns prisons play. Well, it is known that rehabilitating and educating prisoners and not just throwing them "away" in prisons leads to prisoners leaving prisons with less of a chance of returning to these prisons. In many/most situations what you put into something like social spending you get far more out of it than not spending the money at all. Another example might be our interstate system. We have great roads, interstate travel mostly funded by taxes, well if we were to cut taxes on our roadway expenditures, cut money towards state troopers, cut money on reparations of roadways our pricing for tomatoes could increase because the tomatoes are not making it to the consumer fast enough and they are rotting. That is bad for any business be it tomatoes, or walmarts, or retail. We have already seen it in education we love to say cut taxes towards all this spending, or if this or that school doesnt get great grades then we fire and go away wit the school. Well, that is great we got rid of a crappy school, but where are all those kids going to go and who is going to teach them? In this manner we strain our existing teachers who have to teach more children and these children will undoubtedly suffer in the future because they will be less prepared.

The Royal kinfolk... i'm shocked on the kind of people who proceed to chant the tory mantra of reward as a carreer selection. The Scargill contract (which I certainly have considered BTW) granted him tenancy of the London apartment for existence, the Unions substantial government made the grant and it become ratified by using ability of conference, the Union which known after the NUM group raised an objection, yet have been over ruled by using ability of the delegates themselves... Scargill paid off his Union loan including his own money correct interior the previous he stood down, the contract on the London flat become in no way altered.

well first off the government receives the most from it's spending followed by the rich, we probably spend more in corporate welfare than we do social welfare.

America has turned into 1789 France rich get richer poor get poorer and tempers are on the rise.

I'm sure many people will claim being poor is a product of being lazy but I beg the differ.

The bush tax cuts reduced revenue (increase the deficit) by 2 trillion over the last decade.

They were REGRESSIVE.

The richest got the largest % tax cut, the poorest got the smallest % cut.

That didn't help the poor or the middle class.

The stimulus created 3 million jobs.

So it depends.

Who benefits, in the end nobody, we are just putting the burden of this debt on us, our children, and grandchildren. 0 government spending is a bad thing, less government spending is good, too much is bad.

The poor are helped in vast numbers, but the $ per poor head is small. (welfare check, food stamps, lib programs)

The rich are helped in small numbers, but the $$ per rich head is large. (company that processes welfare check, company that prints food stamps, company that runs and administers lib programs via government contracts)

The government itself.