Meaning you could make them all comfortably middle class by just handing over a check and cutting out all the money-grubbing gubbermint hangers-on middle men.
If rich folks could give just a little more...
To a large extent “welfare programs” are really jobs programs for those who in Gov’t who had administer them. And these gov’t workers skew heavily female, gay and minority. This applies to the state, country, Federal level. The federal Dept of Education and the EEOC and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development are all huge jobs program for female, gay and minority.
Even the drop-out welfare class ought to figure out that someone is getting a lot more money out of welfare than they are. This information should be spread far and wide, perhaps with the caption: Who’s getting your share?
The same type math applies to the jobs OBlame-a claims to have “created.” Dividing the $800,000,000,000 “Stimulus” by their claim of 5,000,000 jobs created, it turns out to be $160,000 per job. Same logic. Yet the news media just accepts it, drinks the cool-aid and carries on.
Notice they’ve dropped the term “created OR saved.”
Ronald Reagan did this exact calculation during “the speech” which he titled “A Time For Choosing”.
“Somewhere, it seems, there is some overhead” he quipped to much laughter.
Several decades later it seems the joke is still on us.
With almost no incentive to actually perform eg. Government handouts, jobs, etc. that average minority IQ will remain at 85, one full standard deviation lower than whites (Dept of Education data) and the socialist redistribution of our money will never end until this Country collapses.
From “A Time For Choosing” by Ronald Reagan....
We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they’ve had almost 30 years of it—shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?
But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we’re told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We’re spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you’ll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we’d be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.
The federal bureaucracy took up at least $40,000 per family.
Government employees, mostly college graduates “working hard,” making excellent salaries, are a hugh voting bloc for the Democrats.
The are two classes of people on welfare. There are the recipients and there are the administrators. The recipients barely survive. The administrators thrive, and rejoice in their circumstances.
But, without a doubt, both classes are on welfare.
We need desperately to get back to helping our neighbors locally through churches and other community-based organizations.
Does that figure include the cost of the government workers (fed, state, local) who administer the programs? I’ll bet that adds thousands per family.
So essentially, they wind up with MORE than people trying to support themselves......
and they wonder why Americans are getting ticked off?
Using data from U.S. Dept of Education, if you remove the amount of pell grants awarded to families who make over $20k a year, it would reduce the welfare per family figure by roughly $1.