If there wasn't billions of dollars spent on interest from accumulated debt, there were few tax loopholes, the government didn't bail-out or subsidize corporations, social spending was kept to a minimum (mostly focused on low-cost high results services), the military budget was kept to a reasonable size, taxes were low, regulations were focused and streamlined, and corruption was (practically) eliminated how many of these people would need a handout from the government?

As the government grows it needs dramatically higher taxes to support itself ...

At 10% of GDP the tax rate needs to be 11.1%
At 20% of GDP the tax rate needs to be 25%
At 30% of GDP the tax rate needs to be 42.9%
At 40% of GDP the tax rate needs to be 66.6%
At 50% of GDP the tax rate needs to be 100%

The difference between the GDP represented by government and the tax rate you need to charge to sustain it reflects the net drag on the economy.

The upside down welfare state. 

When there's safety net for the poorest and most vulnerable, it's called "hand outs" and the people are called "lazy" and "freeloaders".

When welfare goes to the richest folks, it's called "tax breaks" and they're said to be "investing in the economy" and "enabling job votes" amongst all the "trickle down" rhetoric.

Just looked it up to see if I had the wrong impression of what welfare was. To me someone "on welfare" was someone who didn't work and received financial aid.

The definition I found for "on welfare" was "Receiving regular assistance from the government or private agencies because of need." so I don't think all Canadians would fall under this since healthy people don't receive regular assistance for the universal healthcare system.

They should definitely cut the military.  And definitely not cut social security and medicare - in fact, expand those!

This did crack me up. What's next in this campaign?

Does anyone know who has the most campaign contributions so far? Cause that's the one who normally wins. They get to out spend the other guy in marketing themselves. Back in 2008 the Obama campaign team won the Marketer of the Year Award being way out in the lead ahead of Apple even.

http://www.adsavvy.org/obama-wins-ad-ages-marketer-of-the-year/

To me from the other side of the pond it looks like Obama is once winning in the 'sales and marketing department' and I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the 'big' business community still favour him. Corporations need a nanny state to look after them, give them money when they fail, give them money for taking part in risky R&D ventures and hope the local and federal Government spends loads of money on infrastructure projects that they can tender for.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-17/wall-street-walks-as-defense-tech-back-obama-s-campaign.html

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/welfare

I would say you're taking in welfare if you get financial aid.

Please ignore this...

he just cares about his rich elitist freinds. Can't stand monopoly man, and hope he loses the election.