It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Government spends enough on welfare to give every poor household $60,000

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I always wondered how those folks on welfare could afford to drive around in brand new Cadillacs with spinning rims and all that.


Enough Spent on Welfare in 2011 to Give Every Poor Household Nearly $60,000

According to an October 16 memorandum prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) for the Senate Budget Committee, the federal government spent $746 billion on means-tested welfare programs in 2011. As the U.S. Census Bureau notes, there were 16.8 million households living below the poverty level in America in 2011. In other words, if the federal government were to give this money directly to the impoverished households, all 16.8 million households would have received over $44,000. This is double the 2011 federal poverty rate of $22,350 for a family of four, and nearly double the 2012 poverty rate of $23,050 for a family of four.

Furthermore, according to calculations by Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the states contributed roughly an additional $280 billion to federal means-tested welfare programs, bringing total welfare spending to nearly $1 trillion in 2011. This is enough money to send every U.S. household living below the poverty level a check for nearly $60,000. As alarming as this seems, these numbers do not tell the whole story. As noted by CNS News.com,

This federal welfare spending does not include programs such as Medicare and Social Security, because they are not means-tested programs. Means-tested programs are those that only pay out benefits to people whose incomes fall below a certain threshold, such as food stamps, traditional cash welfare, and Medicaid.

In other words, if the government were to discontinue its myriad federal welfare programs, such as housing vouchers, food stamps, and Medicaid, and instead just wrote every poor household a check, it would nearly quadruple their income: increasing it from at most $23,000 per year to nearly $83,000 per year.

The New American

Of course, if this were true of EVERY welfare family out there, then poverty should have been wiped out decades ago. In fact, it would destroy the incentive for ANYONE to go out and find a job. Obviously, a lot of that money gets eaten up in the federal bearueauracuracy and wasted on political patronage jobs within the welfare system.

Just imagine how much of that money is wasted every year. Imagine if that money had gone to a regular charity instead. Sure, most of them have a lot of overhead as well but, there are watchdog groups that would come after them if they wasted that amount of money.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the needy aren't getting anywhere near that amount in benifits. This should be further proof that government management of ANYTHING is a sure recipe for waste and fraud on a massive scale.




posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


While this is an interesting take on all of this, some people are career welfare recipients. If a person with say two children got that check, they might do something worthwhile with it if they wanted to improve their lives.

On the other hand, a person who has say, eight kids, would see that vanish rather quickly.

The problem with all of this, is that the system as it is, encourages career welfare receivers to keep on having children to receive benefits.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Thats why you can tell charities and human services are crooks. you can bet the poor dont get close to half the amount spent on the poor.

The poor get a little and the people running the show leech the rest



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
In a way that is no different to the bail out the UK government gave to the banks. They could have given in excess of 45K per household to every house in the UK with what they bailed the banks out with



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
For every 10$ spent on welfare only 1$ out of that ten gets to the reciepient the other 9$ are sucked up or skimmed off on on the way down.

Bring back poor farms.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem


I always wondered how those folks on welfare could afford to drive around in brand new Cadillacs with spinning rims and all that.


Enough Spent on Welfare in 2011 to Give Every Poor Household Nearly $60,000

According to an October 16 memorandum prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) for the Senate Budget Committee, the federal government spent $746 billion on means-tested welfare programs in 2011.


False numbers...Means Tested Welfare???

$6.594 billion in fiscal year 2011 on cash assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Only off by 740B
mediamatters.org...



The con is pretty easy to see when you read the actual CRS report. Senate Republicans are counting 83 separate (and wildly different) programs as "welfare" in order to make the case

...

But so many other things now also count as welfare, including Pell Grants, public works spending, Head Start, child support enforcement, the Child Tax Credit, Foster Care assistance, housing for old people, and much more. They're also counting the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is, traditionally, the form of "welfare" that conservative Republicans actually support. Basically, all social spending (though specifically not spending on rich old people or on healthcare for veterans with service-related disabilities, which Republicans requested be excluded from the CRS report) now counts as "welfare.

mediamatters.org...

Public works projects? The Child Tax Credit? Headstart? College Pell Grants?? WELFARE in thier math...the kitchen sink and then some.

But hey...in the war on poor people the ends justfies the means...who cares about honesty? Right?

edit on 1-11-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-11-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


You think that is bad just do the math for what the US government spends yearly on defense and the military. Then you would really have something to complain about. Although I agree that the current welfare system needs reform, there are alot of things that tie into the issue such as drug abuse housing and mental illness. These things are not easily fixed and pose a serious roadblock towards any kind of reform.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
You shouldn't get enough money to live on you should get enough to get by. 1 car no cell phones or cable TV unless it comes out of your pocket.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Economics 101 for you. If you wrote a check for $60k to every family making $23k and under, it would take over $85k to meet the purchasing power of $23k.

Meaning anyone making under $85k a year will officially be "under poverty levels" .....

Basic fundamentals of economics.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Economics 102 for you:

The scenario you've provided wouldn't decrease purchasing power unless you were adding that money to the money supply as a whole. Shifting around already existing funds wouldn't do a thing to purchasing power. I believe you need to read a little bit more on economics =)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


I used to work for an agency that would occasionally end up putting money like this in the hands of poor people. You know what happened? A month later they were starving and asking for more money. It doesn't matter if they get $600 or $60,000, it is gone as soon as it arrives, and you are the bad guy for not giving them more.

I'm talking from real-life experience, and it isn't a racial thing. I've personally seen a white family win millions in a state lottery, and within 2 years they were borrowing money from loan sharks, and within 4 years they were bankrupt and homeless. I've also seen black families receive $40k to $60k at a time, and call less than 30 days later asking for more money, and claiming they couldn't feed their kids!

Here is a comedic look from Dave Chappelle.
edit on 1-11-2012 by darkhorserider because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikellmikell
. 1 car


Please explain why a car is needed and not a luxury.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


This information is crap. I am on welfare (social security disability and SSI) I can barely pay my bills, let a lone take care of my fiance the way I was raised to. Welfare for most people is just enough to get by. It's not a life of luxory, tattoes, beer, drugs, and sex. I just do what I can with what I have and am grateful for that!

~Mick



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
And you all were shocked at Romney's "47%" Statement...

I was not,



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by lr7gmx
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


This information is crap. I am on welfare (social security disability and SSI) I can barely pay my bills, let a lone take care of my fiance the way I was raised to. Welfare for most people is just enough to get by. It's not a life of luxory, tattoes, beer, drugs, and sex. I just do what I can with what I have and am grateful for that!

~Mick


The whole point of this is that a whole lot of money gets wasted on the beaureaucrats long before you even see one penny of it. Sure, there are some people who know how to game the system and manage to live quite well off of their benifits but, they are few and far in between.

Probably 90% of the money the gubment spends on welfare is never seen by the people who need it. This just shows how incredibly inefficient the gubment is when you put money into thier hands.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeoStarchild
And you all were shocked at Romney's "47%" Statement...

I was not,


Because it was out of context. They keep playing that clip over and over here in my state, but it is ridiculous. It was a fund-raising statement. Romney is not concerned with raising campaign funds from those 47%, he is concerned with raising campaign funds from his supporters.

Playing that statement on a loop is dishonest. I hate both candidates equally, but that is one of the stupider campaign ads of all time.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
For efs sake people the OPs math includes


Pell Grants,
public works spending,
Head Start,
child support enforcement,
the Child Tax Credit,
Foster Care assistance,
housing for old people,
and much more. They're also counting the Earned Income Tax Credit


I already posted this...the claim of 746 Billion shrinks to 6 Billion when you exclude the BS.

If anyone wants to skip the BS and look at the actual report and run the math...

www.scribd.com...
edit on 1-11-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 

Freebies destroy incentive,yes...

That must be why politicians get little or nothing done,they live off the fat of the land.

I have observed that any institution or organization that collects donations for it's operation,such as non- profits,churches,governments taking of taxes by force or subterfuge.

Is a mediocre,ineffective and inefficient organization,I mean,Why bother trying when it all just falls from the sky?.

As far as poor receiving aid,it isn't that they don't want to work,it's that even if they do work it almost amounts to a waste of time,most still do work and can't get by.

I read so many ignorant comments everywhere I look,aimed at the poor,like people try to blame the poor for getting free money,which they have to work so hard to get......

Whatever!..

Consider this:
What would your economy look like without their economic input?,even if they don't "Work for their money" ?.

It could almost be viewed as a bailout,to keep this economy from imploding the rest of the way.

It isn't the fault of most poor people,they have had opportunity pulled out from under them like a rug.

Open your eyes and go look,I have been watching it get worse for the last 30 years.

Y'all only see what you wanna see.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by lr7gmx
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


This information is crap. I am on welfare (social security disability and SSI) I can barely pay my bills, let a lone take care of my fiance the way I was raised to. Welfare for most people is just enough to get by. It's not a life of luxory, tattoes, beer, drugs, and sex. I just do what I can with what I have and am grateful for that!

~Mick


SSI is not welfare. It's something tax payers are entitled to for paying taxes. Welfare goes to people who are not usually paying taxes, so don't beat yourself up, or demean yourself over it.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Despite the misrepresentation in the numbers, as mentioned above, one thing that seems to get lost in this argument is that people in this level of poverty don't tend to save at all. The totality of their benefits goes straight into the economy and directly into the veins of businesses.

This is why Republican owned grocery store chains happily accept food stamps.

The upper class can play these word games for political ends. But when it's all said and done, they'll never take the butter from off of their own bread. The economy would crash and crash hard if that much money were taken out of circulation - if the conservative rhetoric were ever to actually come true. The rich would suffer the consequences right along with the poor.

~Heff




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join