How much of your taxes go to waste on welfare cheats ?

Anyone who uses the term "fag agenda" is not worth the time and is indicative of how ignorant, immature, wrong and reprehensible they are. On ignore. Congrats, you're the first.

 

And that totally ignores things like facts and knowledge and reasonable analysis and replaces it with an blanket statement based on ideological and ignorant blindness.

 

MYTH: Women on welfare have large families
FACT: The typical welfare family is comprised of a mother and two children, slightly less than the size of the average family in the United States. Forty-two percent of AFDC families have only one child, 30 percent have two. AFDC families, like o ther families in the United States are getting smaller.
-- 2 --

MYTH: Welfare mothers live "high on the hog."
FACT: The average combined state AFDC and food stamp benefit in 1993 was only 65 percent of the poverty level, or less than $7600 for a family of three. In no state in the union do food stamps and welfare benefits together lift a family of three o ut of poverty, and most AFDC families are worse off today than their counterparts were in the 1970s: the real after-inflation value of the AFDC grant fell 45 percent from 1972 to 1993, 26 percent if food stamps are counted. Meanwhile, during the 1980s, the average pre-tax income of the richest 20 percent of all families rose 77 percent while that of the poorest 20 percent declined by 9 percent.
COMMENT: Instead of helping poor women and children live high on the hog, AFDC keeps mother-only families living in poverty.
-- 3 --

MYTH: Welfare recipients are lazy and do not want to work.
FACT: Of the 14 million AFDC recipients, only 4.5 million are adults, 90 percent of whom are women. In nearly 60 percent of welfare homes, the youngest child is under six years of age; in 30 percent, the youngest is under age two. Many mothers on public assistance combine work with welfare, or receive AFDC benefits in the interim between jobs. Still others want to work and can't find jobs (10 percent of all single mothers are unemployed) or cannot find jobs that pay enough. The $4.25 an h our minimum wage is considerably less than the $6.00 an hour needed to keep a family of three out of poverty. On average, employers pay women 70 cents for every dollar earned by men.
COMMENT: If work was available and paid enough, fewer people would need welfare. If taking care of one's own children was defined as "work," all mothers would be working.
-- 4 --

MYTH: Few women on welfare are white.
FACT: Of all AFDC mothers, 39 percent are African American, 38 percent are white, 17 percent are Latina, 3 percent are Asian, 1 percent are Native American, and 2 percent are of unknown race.
COMMENT: Women of color are over-represented among those on welfare because they are over represented among the poor. The idea that AFDC is a program primarily for women of color is used to mask the fact that so many AFDC mothers are white, to div ide women from each other, and to make welfare a tool in the politics of race.
-- 5 --

MYTH: Once on welfare, always on welfare. Welfare is a trap from which few escape.
FACT: More than 70 percent of women on welfare stay on the rolls for less than two years and only 8 percent stay for more than eight years. While many return to AFDC for a period of time within five years due to a renewed family crisis or job loss , research on intergenerational welfare dependency has not established that daughters of welfare mothers necessarily end up on welfare, too. Some do. Some do not.
COMMENT:It is not welfare that is so hard to escape, it is poverty. Those who follow their parents onto the welfare rolls do so because it is very difficult for children of poor women to work their way out of poverty, especially in the current eco nomy. Inadequate education and job skills are significant hurdles for children in poor families. Again, the minimum wage does not suffice.
-- 6 --

MYTH: Women on welfare have kids for money. Eliminating AFDC will put an end to nonmarital birth.
FACT: On average, the states provide about $79 a month per additional child. Yet despite years of research, studies have found no link between AFDC grant levels and births outside of marriage. Indeed, nonmarital births are no more frequent in hig h-benefit states and states with rising grant levels than in states with flat or falling AFDC grants.
COMMENT: Like the AFDC mother, the average taxpayer also receives an annual grant for children -- the tax deduction for dependents. Yet no one claims that taxpayers have larger families just to reduce their taxes. Neither AFDC nor the tax deducti on for dependents are rewards for having children. Rather, these income supplements recognize the high cost of raising children and their value to society. Moreover, pregnancies reflect complex human factors, not calculated economic decisions.
-- 7 --

MYTH: The AFDC program is costly and bloated, has enlarged the deficit and threatens the economy.
FACT: The federal and state governments together spent $24.9 billion on welfare in 1992. The federal share amounted to 1 percent of the entire federal budget. The state share equaled 3.4 percent of the average state budget. Ninety percent of the AFDC budget is spent on benefits, 10 percent on administrative costs.
COMMENT: The costs of AFDC can be compared to the roughly $300 billion in tax dollars received annually by the Department of Defense and the billions spent on the savings and loan bailout.

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/pss/welfare.html

 

Very interesting, I would have thought different statistics.


c

 

So from the above :

The federal share (of welfare) amounted to 1 percent of the entire federal budget. The state share equaled 3.4 percent of the average state budget.


So if we guess that 10% of welfare recipients are cheating the system, which is much higher than any the figures previously cited, we can estimate that perhaps at most 0.12 % of our taxes go toward the undeserving welfare cheats. Is that too much ? Yes, but certainly seems tiny, especially compared with the out-sized outrage about it and shows how silly that whole right-wing meme is.


So what other reason is there to support the right-wing agenda? The anti-gay, anti-science, pro-war, anti-progress, pro-rich guy, anti-environment reasons?

 

Owned

Republicans play their base like fools.Get em all pissed off about welfare while giving 700 billion a year to the military industrial complex

Welfare is a problem and needs reform,but military industrial complex spending is a much bigger problem


While Obama is cutting military industrial complex spending...



http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/romney-calls-for-more-defense-spending/



Romney Calls for More Defense Spending
By ASHLEY PARKER

MT. PLEASANT, S.C. — Standing among retired airplanes on the U.S.S. Yorktown, a decommissioned World War II aircraft carrier, Mitt Romney told a small group of veterans on Thursday that given the global threats to America’s interests, the nation’s defense spending should be increased instead of cut.

Acknowledging that waste and excess spending exist within the Defense Department, Mr. Romney still called for increasing the Pentagon’s budget.









http://articles.nydailynews.com/201...uts-spending-reductions-active-duty-personnel




Romney's defense spending addiction
JOSHUA GREENMAN
Friday, February 10, 2012

In a 2007 primary debate, the Republican candidates got around to discussing the detention of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay. In contrast to then-candidate Barack Obama’s vow to close it, most on stage defended the prison.

Mitt Romney took the opportunity to sound especially strong: “My view is we ought to double Guantanamo.”

It was an instant classic of mindless GOP chest-thumping on national security.

Romney is playing the same game on the campaign trail these days, only this time it’s costlier — because what he aims to inflate, along with his tough-guy image, is the entire U.S. military establishment. This at a time when Washington in the midst of a critical conversation about how to smartly spend slightly less on defense.

Romney’s insistence that an ever bigger and more expensive military means a stronger America is logically simplistic, politically cynical and economically unsustainable. Worst of all, it is likely to leave us with a military that’s more poorly prepared for the dangerous world in which we live.

Here’s the line in Romney’s 2012 stump speech: “President Obama believes America’s role as leader in the world is a thing of the past. He is intent on shrinking our military capacity at a time when the world faces rising threats. I will insist on a military so powerful no one would ever think of challenging it.”

This is an argument so wrongheaded, everyone who cares about the future of the country must think of challenging it.

American taxpayers today spend about $700 billion on the military, roughly twice as much in real terms as a decade ago. Military and international security spending makes up 20% of the federal budget. The United States has some 1.4 million active-duty personnel, including 39,000 currently deployed in Japan, 28,000 in South Korea, 53,000 in Germany and 10,000 in Italy.

Yet Romney — a man who also wants to cut taxes, who claims to understand business efficiency, who routinely says “We have a moral responsibility not to spend more than we take in” — would have you believe that modest trims will eviscerate the armed forces.

He says we need to add 100,000 new military personnel. He has gone so far as to vow to build 15 Navy warships a year — a plan estimated to cost $21 billion a year alone; according to U.S. News & World Report, it “would be tough to pay for and require politically difficult cuts from other parts of the military, analysts say.”

At present, U.S. military spending equals roughly the combined budgets of the next 20 biggest military budgets in the world.

 

That fact sheet is old..years old... in fact it's so old a pilgrim fell out when I opened up the link.

 

True.At the time of futurecurrents article we were spending 300 billion a year on the military industrial complex,now we spend 700 billion

 

Yep, fag agenda, like I said.

Liberals = disenfranchised losers, sexual deviants, welfare recipients.

 

The silence from the righties is deafening. And the total lack of any competent analysis from them is telling. Lucrum? I'm assuming you agree with that only a fraction of 1% of our taxes are wasted on welfare cheats?