+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 50

Thread: Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty

  1. Default Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty

    Just amazing, and that would mostly be tax free so a family EARNING that net income would have to earning about $75,000.

    "New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
    "According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."


    This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.


    To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year. After all, many above the poverty line also receive benefits from social welfare programs (e.g. pell grants).
    But if welfare is meant to help bring those below the poverty line to a better place, it helps demonstrate that numbers do not add up.
    As for the welfare programs, the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note:

    A congressional report from CRS recently revealed that the United States now spends more on means-tested welfare than any other item in the federal budget—including Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. Including state contributions to the roughly 80 federal poverty programs, the total amount spent in 2011 was approximately $1 trillion. Federal spending alone on these programs was up 32 percent since 2008.
    The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011. These figures exclude entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to which people contribute, and they refer exclusively to low-income direct and indirect financial support—such as food stamps, public housing, child care, energy assistance, direct cash aid, etc. For instance, 47 million Americans currently receive food stamps, and USDA has engaged in an aggressive outreach campaign to boost enrollment even further, arguing that “every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy… It’s the most direct stimulus you can get.” (Economic growth, however, is weaker this year than the two years prior, even as food stamp “stimulus” has reached an all-time high.)
    "
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ty_657889.html

    Since 2008 the Democrats have controlled spending and what have they done, increased such spending 32% and what do we have to show for it, more people in poverty, over 40% more people on food stamps, more people giving up looking for work, four years of TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICITS. This is moving "forward"?
    ""What kind of society isn't structured on greed? The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm; capitalism is that kind of a system"
    Milton Friedman
    ."

  2. Likes SpaceCricket79 liked this post
  3. #2

    Default

    This is the worst graph I've ever seen. It convinced me that a second Obama term was all I needed to SHRUG.



    It shows the futility of the Welfare Queen's effort to seek employment.

    Read it and weep.
    Tired of endless AGENDA EDITING?
    COMPLAIN. OFTEN. What do you risk if you can't speak your truth?

  4. Likes DonGlock26 liked this post
  5. Default

    60k per household ain't too bad, especially for doing nothing. I know couples who have both people working full time jobs and they barely pull in 60k before taxes.
    Last edited by Brewskier; Oct 26 2012 at 08:59 PM.
    "The progressive is a self-appointed social redeemer, leading a movement to destroy his own society and liberate the masses. This political mission provides him with immense moral indignation and, therefore, moral superiority, dispositions from which, in turn, he derives tremendous emotional gratification. His whole belief system provides him with a sense of belonging, since he has joined other social redeemers, as well as victims, real or imagined, who wait for him to break their chains."

  6. Likes SpaceCricket79 liked this post
  7. Default

    I will bet all the wealthy Right Wingers I know who have impoverished Grandma and Grandpa of all their wealth in order to get them into medicaid assisted living homes don't like to count themselves as welfare frauds.

    But they ARE!

    Further, this phony chart, with NO sourcing of figures or explanations of what "state contributions to federal welfare" are and where the number came from, this looks like basic and utter BS. As usual.
    -----------------------

  8. Default

    Liberals only care about buying a permanent voting block in this country and they are doing it with welfare spending. One more Obama term and you will never see anyone but a democrat in the White House for a very very long time.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kenrichaed View Post
    Liberals only care about buying a permanent voting block in this country and they are doing it with welfare spending. One more Obama term and you will never see anyone but a democrat in the White House for a very very long time.
    The 12 million illegals he grants amnesty to will make sure of that.
    "The progressive is a self-appointed social redeemer, leading a movement to destroy his own society and liberate the masses. This political mission provides him with immense moral indignation and, therefore, moral superiority, dispositions from which, in turn, he derives tremendous emotional gratification. His whole belief system provides him with a sense of belonging, since he has joined other social redeemers, as well as victims, real or imagined, who wait for him to break their chains."

  10. Likes AP_RESURRECTION liked this post
  11. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brewskier View Post
    60k per household ain't too bad, especially for doing nothing. I know couples who have both people working full time jobs and they barely pull in 60k before taxes.
    Dems have created a system where in some cases it is actually more profitable to just stay unemployed and live off of taxpayer money rather than go out and look for a job. I think they almost like this, because they know that people Dependant on welfare are more likely to vote Democrat - it's about selling out their country for votes at the expense of responsible people.

  12. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpaceCricket79 View Post
    Dems have created a system where in some cases it is actually more profitable to just stay unemployed and live off of taxpayer money rather than go out and look for a job. I think they almost like this, because they know that people Dependant on welfare are more likely to vote Democrat - it's about selling out their country for votes at the expense of responsible people.
    What BS.

    $200/mo food stamps. A maximum of $225 per month for a maximum of three months welfare for an able bodied adult. For both those benefits you have to work at community service.

    Exactly how is it "more profitable" to stay unemployed?
    Last edited by fiddlerdave; Oct 26 2012 at 11:13 PM.
    -----------------------

  13. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kenrichaed View Post
    Liberals only care about buying a permanent voting block in this country and they are doing it with welfare spending. One more Obama term and you will never see anyone but a democrat in the White House for a very very long time.
    So WHY didn't Obama DO that BEFORE this election where he could USE these "12 million votes".

    Win or lose, Obama doesn't NEED illegal votes after Nov.
    -----------------------

  14. #10

    Default

    If the tax and spenders actually wanted to have a positive effect on poverty, they'd support giving everyone a sum of money, then only taxing income above that amount.

    This way there's be no disincentive to find work, as that initial amount of money won't disappear once you get a good job.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Michelle's African vacation cost taxpayers over $424,000
    By Rapunzel in forum Current Events
    Replies: 312
    Last Post: Oct 08 2011, 07:15 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks