Well, in principle bureaucracy costs can be reduced through streamlining. I want to know what the minimum possible cost of our welfare system is, in addition to what it actually is because of inefficient overhead.
Hmmm, streamlining. Elaborate on that if you would. I suppose it could be argued that the minimum possible cost of our welfare system is what we already spend, since lots of people say we don't spend enough. After all, didn't that mayor of whatever city do that publicity stunt of only spending $4 a day on food like welfare recipients (supposedly) get?
You saw this part of my post?-
patches wrote:Here you see that TANF and AFDC has around 4.6 million total recipients. That's about a third of the Federal welfare spending right there. TANF and AFDC are income security programs ($200billion spent in 2010 of a total of $700billion in federal spending on welfare in 2010).
That's hard numbers there, $200 billion spent on 4.6 million people. That's about $43,000 a person. You think each of those 4.6 million people got that much money each? LOL So, fair warning, you'll get sick to your stomach when you find out how much spent and compared to how much gets to the people who actually need it is.
That is the nature of government.
I'm curious to hear what you say about streamlining. To me, that means eliminating jobs, government jobs. Combining federal welfare programs (which means eliminating jobs, government jobs), eliminating regulations (which leads to abuse and fraud) or tightening regulations (which means hiring more people, more government jobs). Getting better equipment (capital expenditure, for government, very costly).
Tell me, a politician who is telling people he's going to cut their jobs, how does that voting go for him?
The real reason we have to spend more and more and more money, government and individuals alike, is because our money is worth less and less.
Don't you see, we spend so much more money and still get pretty much the same things we did in 1970. A house, food, transportation, clothes, education, healthcare, entertainment. But back in 1970 and before, that could be done by most American families one a single paycheck. And back in the 1970's and before we had our currency pegged, at least partially, by gold. That ended when Nixon (to pay for wars and social programs) slammed the gold window shut and effectively defaulted on our currency (but the world just looked the other way back then).
Now a days, American families are getting the exact same stuff but it takes two incomes just to scrape by (and ain't saving a damn thing).
It's the money. Its the currency being less and less valuable.
Streamline all you want, it won't matter because the currency just keeps getting less and less valuable. That's why before we ever have any chance at all of fixing any of this other stuff, we have to get into sound money. Get out of this debt based system.
At this point, considering how uneducated and how distracted the American public is on this issue (considering the obfuscation ITT at the very least), the only way that's going to happen is after a complete meltdown of the economic system. Total collapse. At which point, if we haven't learned our lesson, it will be replaced with some equal scam as the Federal Reserve Note.
Everything else is just an effect from this single cause. IMO.