Welfare payouts top $20 per hour in eight states
http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/welfare-payouts-top-20-per-hour-in-eight-states
This is misleading. Your average welfare recipient isn't sniffing these numbers.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...blow-via-cato-institute-study/2/#271bc45d68c8
For the record the guy who wrote the above is is a lefty, so here is one written by a non-lefty.
http://www.businessinsider.com/does-welfare-really-pay-better-than-work-2013-8
This guy did end up leaving the Republican party 3 years later. Ironically, his reasons are the same reasons I don't get along with many of the righties here despite the fact that I'm a big fan of liberty and limited government.
Barro cited as reasons for his decision the Republican party's "fact-free environment so many of its voters live in, and because of the anti-Democrat hysteria that had been willfully whipped up by so many of its politicians," which created a "vulnerability in our democracy."
If we stuck to the tenth amendment like our forefathers originally intended, I wouldn't give a shit about any of this. If individual states want to saddle themselves with those kinds of obligations, that's their burden.
Problem is, a decent amount of 'welfare' that goes well beyond simple UE insurance comes from D.C. Food stamps, housing support, etc. And where does D.C. get their money from...? Hmm...let me chew on that one for a while..
Which facts are bullshit? I'll take the Cato Institute over some sloppy hack establishment paper like your Washington Compost - absolutely disgraceful and irresponsible election coverage.
As for your fence sitting label, look Mantis, it's one of the VERY few things both right and left here (posters who otherwise absolutely despise each other) agree on. It's just a fact - nobody has a clue where you stand on anything. If someone gave me random list of issues, I wouldn't know what to tell them. All you ever provide is sarcastic quips "vilifying both sides"...then voting for Gary Johnson or some other unvetted loser nobody in the country has ever heard of.
So give yourself a cookie for being "above it all" way up high perched on your fence, Mommy must be so proud of her Mantis.
He's just pissed because he hasn't received his participation trophy yet.Which facts are bullshit? I'll take the Cato Institute over some sloppy hack establishment paper like your Washington Compost - absolutely disgraceful and irresponsible election coverage.
As for your fence sitting label, look Mantis, it's one of the VERY few things both right and left here (posters who otherwise absolutely despise each other) agree on. It's just a fact - nobody has a clue where you stand on anything. If someone gave me random list of issues, I wouldn't know what to tell them. All you ever provide is sarcastic quips "vilifying both sides"...then voting for Gary Johnson or some other unvetted loser nobody in the country has ever heard of.
So give yourself a cookie for being "above it all" way up high perched on your fence, Mommy must be so proud of her Mantis.
Mantis is the barking dog chasing the car. If he actually caught the car (meaning if he actually had to take a position) he wouldn't know what to say or do.
I have a cousin like that - he's witty I'll give him that, but it's always some sarcastic quip to everything. And course he's a hardcore lib who considers himself a "centrist."
Which facts are bullshit? I'll take the Cato Institute over some sloppy hack establishment paper like your Washington Compost - absolutely disgraceful and irresponsible election coverage.
As for your fence sitting label, look Mantis, it's one of the VERY few things both right and left here (posters who otherwise absolutely despise each other) agree on. It's just a fact - nobody has a clue where you stand on anything. If someone gave me random list of issues, I wouldn't know what to tell them. All you ever provide is sarcastic quips "vilifying both sides"...then voting for Gary Johnson or some other unvetted loser nobody in the country has ever heard of.
So give yourself a cookie for being "above it all" way up high perched on your fence, Mommy must be so proud of her Mantis.
Ya know what Joe, this is actually a pretty decent response (except for the idea that I'm a fence sitter because you, Dave and Guesser were able to come together on the issue. If anything, you three coming together on something almost assures it is incorrect) and I'm willing to have this conversation with you.
The issue with your Cato Institute post is that it's misleading. Your average individual can't just quit their job and pick up $20 an hour in welfare. These numbers are based on someone who qualifies for every single program Cato looks at. That's not your average welfare recipient.
Look at Rhode Island for example.
The Rhode Island total comes from starting with the $6,648 a year in cash welfare that a single parent with two children could receive, which is the only unrestricted cash that recipients would see. (It's also 34 percent less than what recipients got in 1995, adjusted for inflation, according to Cato.)
Then you add in $6,249 per year in food stamps (now called the SNAP program), $12,702 in housing subsidies, $11,302 as the cost of buying health care coverage comparable to Medicaid, $275 in heating assistance, $300 a year under the Emergency Food Assistance program (TEFAP), and $1,156 in food under the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program for pregnant women, new mothers and children up to age 5.
The total -- $38,632 -- is equivalent to what a single parent with two children would get to keep after taxes if the parent earned $43,330 a year, or $20.83 an hour for a 40-hour work week, Cato said.
"Many welfare recipients, even those receiving the highest level of benefits, are doing everything they can to find employment and leave the welfare system," the Cato report concludes. "Still, it is undeniable that for many recipients -- especially long-term dependents -- welfare pays more than the type of entry-level job that a typical welfare recipient can expect to find. As long as this is true, many recipients are likely to choose welfare over work."
But there's a problem: There's nothing typical about this amount because very few poor people are eligible for -- or take advantage of -- all these programs.
The Cato report acknowledges that most people won't be getting close to the $38,632. For example, welfare recipients aren't eligible for WIC benefits unless they have children under age 5. Another example: Many poor people can't get a housing subsidy -- only 1 in 4 Rhode Islanders receiving cash welfare are also receiving housing assistance.
Anticipating such criticism, Cato did another calculation, looking only at the welfare, food stamp and Medicaid programs that, they said, nearly all poor people would be eligible for. Cato found that the value of just those benefits was equivalent to being paid $17,347 a year, or $8.34 an hour.
That's a far cry from $20.83 an hour.
Mantis, those numbers represent the maximum value of the benefits, not actual cash income. Is this misleading? Not really, given that the bill is the same for taxpayers regardless how the government decides to redistribute private property.
If the government subsidizes your rent and most of your bills, the remaining $9hr is gravy.
Which brings us to the liberal bullshit part of this discussion, aka spin:
"But there's a problem: There's nothing typical about this amount because very few poor people are eligible for -- or take advantage of -- all these programs.
Oh really. And they know this how?
Understandably, The Cato study is going to rattle all the "poverty activists" and "experts" - their bleeding heart ideology doesn't reflect reality. Which is...
With these bloated welfare programs/benefits in place, why work for a living if you can simply vote for a living?
And yes, of course you're witty, smart-asses usually are.
If the government subsidizes your rent and most of your bills, the remaining $9hr is gravy.
Which brings us to the liberal bullshit part of this discussion, aka spin:
"But there's a problem: There's nothing typical about this amount because very few poor people are eligible for -- or take advantage of -- all these programs.
Oh really. And they know this how?
Understandably, The Cato study is going to rattle all the "poverty activists" and "experts" - their bleeding heart ideology doesn't reflect reality. Which is...
With these bloated welfare programs/benefits in place, why work for a living if you can simply vote for a living?
And yes, of course you're witty, smart-asses usually are.
Notice how liberals aren't refuting the Cato study, they're just making very lame excuses for the leeches.
"Hey, these numbers aren't what they appear to be, ya know, because poor people are too stupid to take advantage of all these great welfare programs!"
It's the same familiar liberal mindset which argues that we can't have sensible voter ID laws because some people (aka Democrat voters) are too dumb to obtain valid government ID. Oh yeah, and any argument(s) to the contrary is... racism
uke1:
Why so many suckers continue to fall these bleeding heart con games is beyond reason.
"Hey, these numbers aren't what they appear to be, ya know, because poor people are too stupid to take advantage of all these great welfare programs!"
It's the same familiar liberal mindset which argues that we can't have sensible voter ID laws because some people (aka Democrat voters) are too dumb to obtain valid government ID. Oh yeah, and any argument(s) to the contrary is... racism
uke1:Why so many suckers continue to fall these bleeding heart con games is beyond reason.
