Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is an excellent breakdown. Check out the embedded scribd powerpoint slides. Graphs galore!
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/when-work-punished-tragedy-americas-welfare-state
Some snippet:

the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045.

For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance

For every 1.25 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance or works for the government.

The punchline: 110 million privately employed workers; 88 million welfare recipients and government workers and rising rapidly.

Check out the section "State Based Solutions: Lessons from Rhode Island" of the scribd slide.

Forbes posted their list of "Death Spiral States", and I found their description of California's current fiscal and economic situation to be particularly apt.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2012/11/25/do-you-live-in-a-death-spiral-state/

Man, I wish I was a fat-cat welfare queen. I'd be so much better off than I am now. With all that free time they have from not working, and all the free money the government throws at them it's no wonder women working for minimum wage are basically running this country!!!


EDIT: Whoops! I almost forgot: OBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 Chongara wrote:
Man, I wish I was a fat-cat welfare queen. I'd be so much better off than I am now. With all that free time they have from not working, and all the free money the government throws at them it's no wonder women working for minimum wage are basically running this country!!!


EDIT: Whoops! I almost forgot: OBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Uh... do you have anything else to add??

This isn't about Obama.

Man, I wish I was a fat-cat welfare queen. I'd be so much better off than I am now. With all that free time they have from not working, and all the free money the government throws at them it's no wonder women working for minimum wage are basically running this country!!!


EDIT: Whoops! I almost forgot: OBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have no clue about what you actually meant with this.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Man, I wish I was a fat-cat welfare queen. I'd be so much better off than I am now. With all that free time they have from not working, and all the free money the government throws at them it's no wonder women working for minimum wage are basically running this country!!!


EDIT: Whoops! I almost forgot: OBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have no clue about what you actually meant with this.

I see you've never met Chongara.

That arguments which purport to demonstrate that a person is better off not working and being on welfare generally vastly exaggerate its appeal, usually by not mentioning all the difficult and unpleasant aspects of it.

IT's amazing that as a nation we are dumb enough to even have a single person work for less than $60,000 a year. Why are we so dumb that we would lift a finger if we could just rake in the government dough. Working people are sheeple!

Powerball is the ultimate welfare.

 AustonT wrote:
Powerball is the ultimate welfare.

w00t!

Got five numbers!

Did you hear about the guy that bought 5 tickets at five places with the same numbers and hit 5?
I feel like he may have had some sort of OCD.

 AustonT wrote:
Did you hear about the guy that bought 5 tickets at five places with the same numbers and hit 5?
I feel like he may have had some sort of OCD.

O.o

No... people do strange things...

I think it's on the wiki for powerball.

 whembly wrote:
This is an excellent breakdown. Check out the embedded scribd powerpoint slides. Graphs galore!
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/when-work-punished-tragedy-americas-welfare-state
Some snippet:

the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045.

For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance

For every 1.25 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance or works for the government.

The punchline: 110 million privately employed workers; 88 million welfare recipients and government workers and rising rapidly.

Check out the section "State Based Solutions: Lessons from Rhode Island" of the scribd slide.

This is why I feel that able-bodied welfare recipients should receive a more negative attitude from the public. I work for a living, I net about 22k every year. I pay for my own car, living space, and groceries. When I see people that are my age (early 20's) purchasing unnecessary foodstuffs on foodstamps and cigarettes on welfare I get a little irked.

Washington state actually passed a law stating people couldn't use their welfare cards to withdraw money from casino ATM's. I'd rather the state tracked down anybody who did that and revoke their benefits.

I think one issue with welfare states is the fact that if a person works full time for min wage will where I live (Oregon) will only make $358 per week before taxes come out* I have no idea how much people on welfare make but I am pretty sure that it is higher than that. Fact is many people are simply playing the system where if you don't work you make more than if you worked some craptastic min wage job. There are many more factors but that is a big one that I have seen

*Minimum wage will be going up to 8.95 per hour according to this story http://www.oregonlive.com/money/index.ssf/2012/09/oregons_minimum_wage_climbs_in.html

Pro Tip #1: Be wary of any article that "solves" a complex issues with a handful of charts or grapsh.

Pro Tip #2: Be wary of any analysis that is inconsistent about it's target. Is the problem that the working poor get too many benefits, or is it the people that refuse to work getting too many benefits?

 whembly wrote:
This is an excellent breakdown. Check out the embedded scribd powerpoint slides. Graphs galore!

First up, it's rare that you find meaningful, quality analysis from a character from Fight Club, and even less so when the blog's tagline is from the same movie. I mean, Fight Club was great and all, but it's impact on analsyis of economic and social policy has been fairly minimal.

Anyhow, the quickest look at their figures shows some real dodginess. CHIP doesn't cut off at $30,000, the cut off depends on the state in question. Simply putting it up there at $30,000 is wildly misleading.

For a single mum SNAP eligibility cuts off at an annual income of $19,680, while the graph, again, puts it at $30,000.

It's no wonder they show such an amazing cliff, when they dodge up the figures like that.

Now, don't get me wrong, the US has an troubling tendency to put hard lines in place on many of its programs - earn $x and you qualify for a few hundred dollars of stuff, earn $x+1 and you get nothing, and when that happens you'll get screwy, but you can't just fudge a load of figures like this and pretend you have proof of anything.

the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045.

For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance

Of course, the trick they're playing here is to have people assume 'receives welfare assistance' means someone who gets all their money from government. An individual can receive rental assistance, or childcare or whatever else, and be an employed, tax paying individual. They're not purely a drain on the system, in fact they're likely paying in more than they pay out.

Meanwhile it includes rental assistance, but not the deduction people receive for interest on their mortgage, which is total bs.



And it keeps using terms like 'unsustainable welfare burden'. Which is simply and utterly total bs. Outside of the impact of the GFC, US federal spending is basically on par with how it's been through history - about 21% of GDP. What's changed is that you used to bring in revenues at about 20% of GDP, and now that's down to 18%.


Seriously dude, look for policy analysis from people who aren't characters from Fight Club.

Though its true Tyler Durden wouldn't support welfare, its not for economic reasons. Its because he's an anarchist. Tyler Durden's philosophy is that society is too restrictive and emasculating, and that the only solution is to get rid of it. Yes, some people will die, but the people that live will be a great deal happier. At least, according to him. Humans aren't intended to live in apartments and sit at a desk all day. They're intended to hunt and gak. They'll be living the simple and dangerous hunting and gathering life nature intended for them.

Furthermore, you aren't supposed to side with Tyler Durden. The reader (or viewer, if you're watching the movie) is meant to sympathize with his qualms regarding society, but they should also be intelligent enough to understand that anarchy isn't the answer.

Also Sebster, your signature is offensive. You Australians are just jealous of 'Murika! Because, you know, we chose to live in a pleasant place rather than being a bunch of convicts who were forced to live on deathtrap island.

Not sure what the OP's point is. You can't measure economic freedoms purely by a sliding scale of private:public GDP ratio. Many European nations have a very high percentage of GDP in the hands of the state but still have a vibrant, highly productive private sector.

If sebster's figure is correct, American public spending is about a half to a third of what it is in Europe. Which is amazing considering how much of it is spent in defence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LoneLictor wrote:
Though its true Tyler Durden wouldn't support welfare, its not for economic reasons. Its because he's an anarchist. Tyler Durden's philosophy is that society is too restrictive and emasculating, and that the only solution is to get rid of it. Yes, some people will die, but the people that live will be a great deal happier. At least, according to him. Humans aren't intended to live in apartments and sit at a desk all day. They're intended to hunt and gak. They'll be living the simple and dangerous hunting and gathering life nature intended for them.

The language in that paragraph suggests you don't understand the anti post-modern themes of the book/film.

 LoneLictor wrote:
Also Sebster, your signature is offensive. You Australians are just jealous of 'Murika! Because, you know, we chose to live in a pleasant place rather than being a bunch of convicts who were forced to live on deathtrap island.

Seriously?

 sebster wrote:

 LoneLictor wrote:
Also Sebster, your signature is offensive. You Australians are just jealous of 'Murika! Because, you know, we chose to live in a pleasant place rather than being a bunch of convicts who were forced to live on deathtrap island.

Seriously?

I think he's kidding around.

_Tim?

I'm just upset that this thread promised an interesting analysis, when really it's just a bunch of bs.

Seriously, anyone that talks about the welfare state but then forgets to acknowledge that all of these welfare programs subsidize Walmart and the like is just being awful. Without such programs a person would not be able to survive being paid what Walmart and others pay, and this fosters less dependence on entitlements for the villainous poor people than it does to the Walton family.

Forgot this thread...

 Polonius wrote:
Pro Tip #1: Be wary of any article that "solves" a complex issues with a handful of charts or graph.

True... I don't think any graphs could be used to "solve" it.

Pro Tip #2: Be wary of any analysis that is inconsistent about it's target. Is the problem that the working poor get too many benefits, or is it the people that refuse to work getting too many benefits?

Yeah, I noticed that too... hence I used "interesting" rather than "OMG, WHY AREN'T WE DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THIS!"

I'm okay with the welfare state that we have... if we have any issues, it's the fact that I don't believe enough is done to help those on the dole pull themselves out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
This is an excellent breakdown. Check out the embedded scribd powerpoint slides. Graphs galore!

First up, it's rare that you find meaningful, quality analysis from a character from Fight Club, and even less so when the blog's tagline is from the same movie. I mean, Fight Club was great and all, but it's impact on analsyis of economic and social policy has been fairly minimal.

C'mon... its cool to inject Fight Club mantras into these discussion! /sarcasm

Anyhow, the quickest look at their figures shows some real dodginess. CHIP doesn't cut off at $30,000, the cut off depends on the state in question. Simply putting it up there at $30,000 is wildly misleading.

For a single mum SNAP eligibility cuts off at an annual income of $19,680, while the graph, again, puts it at $30,000.

It's no wonder they show such an amazing cliff, when they dodge up the figures like that.

sebster wrote:

 LoneLictor wrote:
Also Sebster, your signature is offensive. You Australians are just jealous of 'Murika! Because, you know, we chose to live in a pleasant place rather than being a bunch of convicts who were forced to live on deathtrap island.

Seriously?

Come on Seb, lets be honest. "Tough" Aussies? That is offensive to all of us tough guys everywhere!

Testify wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LoneLictor wrote:
Though its true Tyler Durden wouldn't support welfare, its not for economic reasons. Its because he's an anarchist. Tyler Durden's philosophy is that society is too restrictive and emasculating, and that the only solution is to get rid of it. Yes, some people will die, but the people that live will be a great deal happier. At least, according to him. Humans aren't intended to live in apartments and sit at a desk all day. They're intended to hunt and gak. They'll be living the simple and dangerous hunting and gathering life nature intended for them.

The language in that paragraph suggests you don't understand the anti post-modern themes of the book/film.

Explain.

 sebster wrote:

 LoneLictor wrote:
Also Sebster, your signature is offensive. You Australians are just jealous of 'Murika! Because, you know, we chose to live in a pleasant place rather than being a bunch of convicts who were forced to live on deathtrap island.

Seriously?

I was joking. You supposedly tough Aussies ought to be more thick-skinned.

No, thank you. -Mannahnin

The thing I find ridiculous is the fact that the OP highlighted "Works for the government" as if working for the government is somehow equivalent to being on welfare.
A firefighter that risks his life to save people counts as working for the government.
Soldiers count as working for the government, would you tell them that they're no better than those on welfare?

 whembly wrote:

TheHammer wrote:
I'm just upset that this thread promised an interesting analysis, when really it's just a bunch of bs.

Seriously, anyone that talks about the welfare state but then forgets to acknowledge that all of these welfare programs subsidize Walmart and the like is just being awful. Without such programs a person would not be able to survive being paid what Walmart and others pay, and this fosters less dependence on entitlements for the villainous poor people than it does to the Walton family.

Wait... what?

So, people are poor because of Walmat?

American debt boils down to a simple thing. 70% (Data from Syracuse University) of Americans do not follow a very simple rule:

Don't spend more than you make! (A major part of this is credit).

This was followed by the Federal Government until the Great Depression, when welfare programs were established. These were only meant to be "band-aids" to fix the problems of the depression, not programs still in effect as of 2012.

Didn't they recently do some simple math that shows what the Federal Government spends on welfare programs, and divided it between the number of people receiving welfare benefits?

I recall the number being something like $60,000 a year.

But of course the Government does not just write checks out to the recipients, they have a ton of Government workers with pensions and benefits, which eats up a lot of the funds on all levels.

I think the average welfare recipient gets around 10,000 a year. I know that a disabled person in Oregon gets something just shy of $9,000 in SSI or whatever, plus foodstamps I would guess for about another 1.000 a year?

What irks me the most is that everyday I hear adds on the radio telling people they might qualify for some kind of welfare and they should come down and apply, or look at a website to find out what they could receive.

I do not think the average welfare recipient is making more than working a low level job, but they are certainly doing less work for it. I suppose a free uncomfortable ride is more appealing to some people than working their way. It is a mindset problem, and as stated before, the system is not helping the situation any by advertising to everyone "hey come on down and maybe you can get on the dole too".

 whembly wrote:

The point is this...

We are literally BORROWING money to fund our liabilities and other government expedentures...

THAT is unsustainable.

The largest costs are the collective welfare state.

If it were me, let the sequestration occurs, let the Bush tax cuts expire and hold firm on the debt limit. If we reach the debt limit, cut programs rather than raising the limit.

You're borrowing money because you're still dealing with a recession. How do you think your economy would do if the US government scrapped say, $100bn in welfare. That's $100bn less demand in the economy. It'd be devestating.