$168 Per Day

[Metsfanmax]

What you seem to be disregarding is that it's not just the money the recipient gets, it's the administrative costs and other costs associated with getting that payment to the person in the first place.

Does anyone have data on what percentage of welfare costs actually gets dispersed to welfare recipients, as opposed to being spent on bureaucracy?

Why would you separate the two?
(Just curious as to exactly why you think this is relevant. Why wouldn't one consider the total cost?)

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.

[patches70]

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?-

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.

[Metsfanmax]

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?

I have nothing to elaborate. I wasn't offering a plan, I was just curious exactly how much money is spent on overhead.

[patches70]

I have nothing to elaborate. I wasn't offering a plan, I was just curious exactly how much money is spent on overhead.

Very likely, a sickening amount......

[Timminz]

I'd be interested to see the calculations involved here. Unfortunately, your source contains exactly what you've posted above, and not a single thing more. What does the supposed conversion to cash actually entail?

It shows that it's better for households to live on the government dole than to earn for themselves.

What is the incentive to get off welfare if you'll end up earning less than when you are collecting?

Why would you quote me, when you weren't going to address my question?

[AAFitz]

I'd be interested to see the calculations involved here. Unfortunately, your source contains exactly what you've posted above, and not a single thing more. What does the supposed conversion to cash actually entail?

It shows that it's better for households to live on the government dole than to earn for themselves.

What is the incentive to get off welfare if you'll end up earning less than when you are collecting?

No, it does not say that. As Timminz says, it only shows a graph that suggests it, and does not show where the numbers came from or how they were calculated.

[AAFitz]

I'd be interested to see the calculations involved here. Unfortunately, your source contains exactly what you've posted above, and not a single thing more. What does the supposed conversion to cash actually entail?

It shows that it's better for households to live on the government dole than to earn for themselves.

What is the incentive to get off welfare if you'll end up earning less than when you are collecting?

Why would you quote me, when you weren't going to address my question?

Given his response, I dont think he read the quote. There are other assumptions one could make on why such a ridiculous statement would be made after too.

I know, Ill make a graph with the possibilities. Then he'll get it.

[PLAYER57832]

The amount of money spent on welfare programs equals, when converted to cash payments, about "$168 per day for every household in poverty," the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee finds. Here's a chart detailing the committee's findings:

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 household’s deductions and filing status. State and local taxes further reduce the median household’s hourly earnings. By contrast, welfare benefits are not taxed."

The universe of means-tested welfare spending refers to programs that provide low-income assistance in the form of direct or indirect financial support—such as food stamps, free housing, child care, etc.—and which the recipient does not pay into (in contrast to Medicare or Social Security). For fiscal year 2011, CRS identified roughly 80 overlapping federal means-tested welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these federal programs, when taken together with approximately $280 billion in state contributions, amounted to roughly $1 trillion. Nearly 95 percent of these costs come from four categories of spending: medical assistance, cash assistance, food assistance, and social / housing assistance. Under the President’s FY13 budget proposal, means-tested spending would increase an additional 30 percent over the next four years.

The diffuse and overlapping nature of federal welfare spending has led to some confusion regarding the scope and nature of benefits. For instance, Newark Mayor Cory Booker has recently received a great deal of attention for adopting the “food stamp diet” in which he spends only $4 a day on food (the median individual benefit) to apparently illustrate the insufficiency of food stamp spending ($80 billion a year) or the impossibility of reductions. The situation Booker presents, however, is not accurate: a low-income individual on food stamps may qualify for $25,000 in various forms of welfare support from the federal government on top of his or her existing income and resources—including access to 15 different food assistance programs. Further, even if one unrealistically assumes that no other welfare benefits are available, the size of the food stamp benefit increases as one’s income decreases, as the benefit is designed as a supplement to existing resources; it is explicitly not intended to be the sole source of funds for purchasing food.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/welfare-spending-equates-168-day-every-household-poverty_665160.html

Funny how so much of the "information" you post refers to sources that seem very reliable, but somehow lack any trace of the data used.


I went through some calculations, all referenced, and came up with figures between $50 and $90 a day, depending upon rental costs.
(note, I copied the websites twice and then hit the wrong key twice..)

A few issues... first, childcare costs are very tricky. For one thing, they are only provided to people who WORK FULLTIME, which means they are really just a means of allowing employers to justify paying adults less than it really takes for them to live (after all, people take these jobs, so the wage "must be OK"). It really is a back-handed business benefit, allowing them to get more responsible workers for much lower cost than otherwise. Further, those working part-time usually don't qualify,even though most part-time people using a professional childcare provider will have to pay full time rates because they often don't have steady schedules. This is a BIG reason why people with more than one child often find its CHEAPER not to work.

Second, medical care costs truly skew the above. A lot of adults who don't work have disabilities that prevent them working and also have very high medical costs. Many families with a disabled child are also not able to fully work, and wind up relying upon those subsidies to help. NONE of that is detailed out.. its all just grouped as "welfare". Further, if you want to get down to it, medical care is available to everyone.. the most expensive care, anyway. Anyone can go to the emergency room and get treated for serious conditions. They will loose what assets they have, but that is irrelevant to this. Ironically, those on Medicaid are very, very cost effective. Keeping a child healthy costs far, far less and results in huge payoffs when that child reaches adulthood.


This brings up another point. Nothing at all is mentioned about the overall real cost of these programs, just the payout. As noted in the Wikki site about WIC, WIC actually saves taxpayers 3 times what it pays out overall. (You can read the details on the Wikki site yourself)

[john9blue]

hey

hey guys

you can be opposed to our current welfare SYSTEM without being opposed to the IDEA of welfare

stop towing the fucking party line

[Dukasaur]

you can be opposed to our current welfare SYSTEM without being opposed to the IDEA of welfare

Yes.

[Timminz]

hey

hey guys

you can be opposed to our current welfare SYSTEM without being opposed to the IDEA of welfare

stop towing the fucking party line

Also, asking for details or sources is pretty much nothing but slander, so just accept everything you're told, at face value.

[AAFitz]

hey

hey guys

you can be opposed to our current welfare SYSTEM without being opposed to the IDEA of welfare

stop towing the fucking party line

Lol, this is a graph posted by Nightstrike, with no description of where the numbers came from. Id say you're the one doing the towing johnny.

[patches70]

hey

hey guys

you can be opposed to our current welfare SYSTEM without being opposed to the IDEA of welfare

stop towing the fucking party line

Lol, this is a graph posted by Nightstrike, with no description of where the numbers came from. Id say you're the one doing the towing johnny.

It's right there at the bottom of the graph.

The Central government spent $1.03 trillion on 80 welfare programs in 2011. Divide that number by 46 million, the number of people in poverty levels (according to the census) and multiply by 365. That comes to $168 a day.

You can look up the numbers yourself.

Welfare is for people in poverty and near poverty levels. We spend $1.03 trillion to help roughly 46 million Americans.

I figure there are probably more than that receiving welfare of some sort, but the report only looks at 80 programs, the top 80 programs in accordance to costs. The programs looked at are all means tested programs, not a single entitlement program that requires people to contribute to (SS, medicare, etc).
Since the programs are means tested, one can only figure out how many fall into the income level to qualify for said programs. Said data available from the census. Thus, is how they came up with the 46 million people.

You can easily look it all up yourself.

[john9blue]

Also, asking for details or sources is pretty much nothing but slander, so just accept everything you're told, at face value.

Lol, this is a graph posted by Nightstrike, with no description of where the numbers came from. Id say you're the one doing the towing johnny.

first, the source is listed on the graph. second, the topic isn't just about the graph. third, where are your sources? you criticize evidence that contradicts your beliefs but offer no alternative evidence. or is this like atheism, where the burden of proof is only on the people you disagree with?

although judging by timmy's signature, i may be wasting my time trying to get him to see reason.

[trevor33]

I see your graph, and raise you:




--Andy