Welfare reform

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
No question that someone is getting the money, but just like many charitable organizations and donations for disasters, a great deal of it isn't going where it's intended.
And most are like the assistance offered for "idle reduction technology" [usually an APU]. When you look into the programs, the restrictions and red tape involved make it more hassle than it's worth. [I remember when John O got real excited over one program in NJ, only to find he'd have to run 75% of his miles in NJ to qualify, lol] Like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Some people are so easy to work. Sort of takes some of the fun out of it.
And then there are those that suffer illusions of grandeur ... (mebbe delusions would be more accurate)

Often a rather smarmy type ...
 

danthewolf00

Veteran Expediter
$500 x 7 kids a month
that's $3500.00 for just welfare now add in food stamps I think is something like $120 or more per kid.......and I now know where my taxes went.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
e3134839ef30f527cce0568c17fcd7a2.jpg


Just thought I'd toss that out there.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
$500 x 7 kids a month
that's $3500.00 for just welfare now add in food stamps I think is something like $120 or more per kid.......and I now know where my taxes went.

I think your numbers are waaay off. Food stamps [Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP], do NOT pay $120 per month per kid. According to the government charts I saw, it's around $30 per person, per month. Where you get a benefit of $3500 a month is beyond me - near as I can tell, it doesn't exist anywhere, even in Hawaii, where benefits run high because the cost of living is sky high.
The "average" welfare family has no more kids than the "average" working family. In fact, they are often the same family. Taxpayers are feeding them because employers aren't.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver

Precisely. "Per participant" means per family, as the applicant is the sole participant. It does no mean each member of the family gets that amount.
Food stamps are well and widely known to be insufficient for feeding people. Not even a college degree in nutrition with a minor in economics can stretch the benefit to last all month, it just isn't possible. [And the time someone with that background tried was decades before the cost cutting began - imagine how much worse it is now!]
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Even if each person gets that much, how many of you can feed someone for $1.00 per meal? Consistently, for weeks, and months on end? I couldn't do it, but it would be a full time job trying.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I think your numbers are waaay off. Food stamps [Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP], do NOT pay $120 per month per kid. According to the government charts I saw, it's around $30 per person, per month.
SNAP varies by state, from a low of $115.76 in New Hampshire to a high of $217.49 in Hawaii. The Average for the US is $133.07. Those are fiscal year 2013 numbers, and are slightly higher across the board currently.

Where you get a benefit of $3500 a month is beyond me - near as I can tell, it doesn't exist anywhere, even in Hawaii, where benefits run high because the cost of living is sky high.
He just used simple math. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. But, in Rhode Island, which is more or less typical, a single parent of two children starts off with $6,648 in unrestricted cash welfare benefits. Then you start adding it up, with an average of $6,249 per year in food stamps, $12,702 in housing subsidies, $11,302 in health insurance coverage, $275 in heating assistance, $300 a year under the Emergency Food Assistance program, and if you're pregnant, a new mother and/or the children are up to 5 years old, you qualify for another $1,156 in food under the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program.

That's $38,632 a year, or $3219 a month. Yeah, nowhere near $3500. But that's for a parent and two kids. If you add another kid, you get an additional $325 in unrestricted welfare cash, another $138 in food stamps, the housing subsidy and heating assistance would stay the same, but health insurance benefit would go up slightly. All told, it's about another $500 in benefits for the third kid. So now we're at $3700 a month. Have a 4th kid and keep on adding it up.

These are real numbers. But what's even scarier (and more deplorable) is even looking at that $38,632 per year of actual average benefits, the government (that's us) spends an average of $60,000 per year in order to hand out that $38,632. That's $21,368 per year in wasted overhead (which doesn't even include the salaries of the administrators and pencil pushers handling the programs). It's out of control.

The "average" welfare family has no more kids than the "average" working family. In fact, they are often the same family. Taxpayers are feeding them because employers aren't.
The "average" welfare family has 1.9 children. The "average" working family has 1.86.

I realize .04 of a kid isn't much, it's like a couple of fingers or something, maybe a thigh bone, but it works out to a whole kid every 25 families, or, for ever 100 "working" families, there are an extra 4 "welfare" kids.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
A single mom with 2 kids gets about $400 month food stamps, and $500/month cash for everything else [food stamps don't pay for toiletries, cleaning products, toilet paper, aspirin, etc]. Or clothes, shoes, school supplies...
Housing subsidies? There are waiting lists years long for housing benefits, if you need more than 1 bedroom, and even then, unless you're a senior citizen, forget it. No heating assistance, if you live in someone else's place. Medical? Like the "housing assistance", just try using it: there's few places that accept it, and the waiting lists are formidable. [That's why poor people use the Emergency Dept, it's all that's available when they need it]
The numbers prove women are NOT having more kids to collect more welfare, but some people will swear they are, nonetheless.
I forget which country I read about recently, that just provides a home and income to every person, and it turns out to be far less expensive than all those "programs" that work on paper, but not in reality.
The US spends the money on war toys, instead. And legislators' travel inclinations. And rewards to business for doing what they were gonna do anyway. And stadiums for rich owners & players - that, too. :rolleyes:
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
Spending on war toys? You mean national defense spending which allows us to sleep peacefully at night. A national defense which spares us from fear of attack on the homeland. A national defense so strong that our enemies cannot harm us while we have the luxury of debating the opulent American welfare state. Cut welfare and pass the savings to the military in the form of a much deserved pay raise.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
So basically your position is there are zero, as in one less than one, women in the entire nation who have babies to increase their benefits. Your position is that your facts, figures and knowledge are true and accurate while anyone else's facts, figures and/or direct knowledge are inaccurate and/or outright lies. You know absolutely of what you speak and anyone else doesn't know squat and is just flappin.
 
Top