[knarf]

[rockinqsranch]

THAT much money seems to me indicates THAT many people on the welfare rolls Mr. Tanner would be advising Mr. Romney to “adjust”. I’m all for saving the money if it wouldn’t drive THAT many people to Obama’s camp to save their gravy train.

Am I missing here?

[blueyon]

‘Tanner calculates that the federal government lays out $44,544 for a “poor” family of three, and that state and local governments throw in another $20,610 (some of which, I assume, comes from federal block grants). This means that a family of three can, in theory, get $67,154 from the government in housing, health care, food, and cash assistance. So here’s the big question: why bother working?

Then there’s the other big question: with all these handouts, why hasn’t poverty been eliminated? ‘

Exactly!

[camle]

if it’s so easy, then PROVE IT!!

[KarlInOhio]

Are payments from the government counted in calculating whether someone is in poverty? If you earn $20,000 and get an additional $25,000 in food stamps, free school lunches, medicaid, section 8 housing, WIC, and everything else, which number is used to calculate whether you are still in poverty? $20,000 or $45,000? If only the original $20,000 is used then welfare programs will never reduce poverty. In fact they will likely increase poverty as calculated because people will work less to get more money from the government. If the $45,000 figure would be used I think that it would show that poverty has been largely eliminated, but that would eliminate calls for new government programs and the welfare bureaucrats can't allow that.

[csmusaret]

Very informative article, but I have to ask. Who writes these headlines?