That's like paying the head of the household more than $30 per hour for a 40 hour work week. Why should those people even look for work? There is no incentive to look for work. Pennsylvania also did a study that showed a single monther with 2 children making $29K per year had more income after adding in welfare than she could make even with a $69K job. So, why should they bother trying to better themselves? According to the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee, welfare spending per day per household in poverty is $168, which is higher than the $137 median income per day. When broken down per hour, welfare spending per hour per household in poverty is $30.60, which is higher than the $25.03 median income per hour. "Based on data from the Congressional Research Service, cumulative spending on means-tested federal welfare programs, if converted into cash, would equal $167.65 per day per household living below the poverty level," writes the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee. "By comparison, the median household income in 2011 of $50,054 equals $137.13 per day. Additionally, spending on federal welfare benefits, if converted into cash payments, equals enough to provide $30.60 per hour, 40 hours per week, to each household living below poverty. The median household hourly wage is $25.03. After accounting for federal taxes, the median hourly wage drops to between $21.50 and $23.45, depending on a householdâs deductions and filing status. State and local taxes further reduce the median householdâs hourly earnings. By contrast, welfare benefits are not taxed." http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...s-168-day-every-household-poverty_665160.html http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/ju...ff-on-welfare-than-taking-a-69000-a-year-job/
That's the whole idea, all under the false premise of helping the poor. And the bleeding hearts have swallowed it hook line and sinker. In exchange for not working they simply have to cast their undeserving vote for the democrats. Which the few liberals smart enough to realize what's really going on have no problem with. Since it helps keep their "team" in power.
On the one hand you can twist the numbers to show anything you like, but the premise is correct. We have reached the point where it can be a better decision to work at a low end job, or have no job at all. This of course assumes you're willing to live in Section 8 housing and deal with all the B.S. of living on the dole. Anyone with some ambition doesn't want that, but ambition is being bred right out of our society. We need a safety net for those that find themselves fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, but when it becomes a career/lifestyle choice... Houston, we have a problem. To think that a political party would facilitate this behavior just to remain in power is unconscionable. It pains me to say that the democratic party, hi-jacked by the radical left, has become said political party.
and how much of the budget goes to welfare? I just want to get some perspective before I start freaking out.
Probably pennies... You know yourself it's not about the money. As Co pointed out, we bred out ambition. No motivation, no expectations. just keeping it real. Be a rap star.
Depending on what numbers to choose to use it ranges between 6-12%, but you knew that. The 12% would include Federal employee retirement and disabilility and Unemployment compensation which I would exclude because those programs are not welfare by my definition, so I'd lean towards the 6%. But all that misses the point. It's doesn't matter how much. Waste is waste, and much of it is waste. What matters is it seems the left doesn't think any number, however high, matters at all. They don't seem to think that the fact the number is growing alarmingly fast matters either. It's this dismissive attitude which is at the root of the spending problem.
If welfare reciepients aren't collecting the money, they still are on the recieving end of gov't costs. Prison, gun shot wounds, untreated mental illness, substance abuse. Many hidden costs to society.
I don't think prison, etc. are considered welfare but you are right, there are additional costs associated with the poor.
another perspective: welfare versus war costs. at least the cash given to welfare recipients are spent here. Groceries, medical services, booze, rent, drugs etc. money spent bombing iraq, afghan etc is money paid to corps or benefits given to non citizens. there is a direct boost to thewar sector companies and there employees and local economy but not to same effect. maybe 3 cents on the dollar gets injected into the economy for war expenditures versus 97 cents on welfare aid.
I would like to see your source for your 3% figure. I would think the vast majority of money spent on war goes to the weapons and munitions manufacturers, contractors and to the soldiers and their families. All of that comes back to the U.S. And, we also know that as the government goes farther into debt the spending by the government has a lesser effect on stimulating the economy. Obama's Mega Stimulus showed us that is true.