Posted on 08/20/2014 7:09:30 AM PDT by xzins
109,631,000 Americans lived in households that received benefits from one or more federally funded "means-tested programs" — also known as welfare — as of the fourth quarter of 2012, according to data released Tuesday by the Census Bureau.
The Census Bureau has not yet reported how many were on welfare in 2013 or the first two quarters of 2014.
But the 109,631,000 living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all 309,467,000 people living in the United States at that time.
When those receiving benefits from non-means-tested federal programs — such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and veterans benefits — were added to those taking welfare benefits, it turned out that 153,323,000 people were getting federal benefits of some type at the end of 2012.
Subtract the 3,297,000 who were receiving veterans' benefits from the total, and that leaves 150,026,000 people receiving non-veterans' benefits.
The 153,323,000 total benefit-takers at the end of 2012, said the Census Bureau, equaled 49.5 percent of the population. The 150,026,000 taking benefits other than veterans' benefits equaled about 48.5 percent of the population.
When America re-elected President Barack Obama in 2012, we had not quite reached the point where more than half the country was taking benefits from the federal government.
It is a reasonable bet, however, that with the implementation of Obamacare — with its provisions expanding Medicaid and providing health-insurance subsidies to people earning up to 400 percent of poverty — that if we have not already surpassed that point (not counting those getting veterans benefits) we soon will.
What did taxpayers give to the 109,631,000 — the 35.4 percent of the nation — getting welfare benefits at the end of 2012?
82,679,000 of the welfare-takers lived in households where people were on Medicaid, said the Census Bureau. 51,471,000 were in households on food stamps. 22,526,000 were in the Women, Infants and Children program. 20,355,000 were in household on Supplemental Security Income. 13,267,000 lived in public housing or got housing subsidies. 5,442,000 got Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. 4,517,000 received other forms of federal cash assistance.
How do you put in perspective the 109,631,000 people taking welfare, or the 150,026,000 getting some type of federal benefit other than veterans' benefits?
Well, the CIA World Factbook says there are 142,470,272 people in Russia. So, the 150,026,000 people getting non-veterans federal benefits in the United States at the end of 2012 outnumbered all the people in Russia.
63,742,977 people live in the United Kingdom and 44,291,413 live in the Ukraine, says the CIA. So, the combined 108,034,390 people in these two nations was about 1,596,610 less than 109,631,000 collecting welfare in the United States.
It may be more telling, however, to compare the 109,631,000 Americans taking federal welfare benefits at the end of 2012 to Americans categorized by other characteristics.
In 2012, according to the Census Bureau, there were 103,087,000 full-time year-round workers in the United States (including 16,606,000 full-time year-round government workers). Thus, the welfare-takers outnumbered full-time year-round workers by 6,544,000.
California, the nation's most-populated state, contained an estimated 38,332,521 people in 2013, says the Census Bureau. Texas had 26,448,193 people, New York had 19,651,127, and Florida had 19,552,860. But the combined 103,984,701 people in these four massive states still fell about 5,646,299 short of the 109,631,000 people on welfare.
In the fourth quarter of 2008, when President Obama was elected, there were 96,197,000 people living in households taking benefits from one or more federal welfare programs. After four years, by the fourth quarter of 2012, that had grown by 13,434,000.
Those 13,434,000 additional people on welfare outnumbered the 12,882,135 people the Census Bureau estimated lived in Obama's home state of Illinois in 2013.
I’m going to join those roles in 11 months. My wife will turn 62 and we’re taking her Social Security as soon as possible.
Check out the dude in the top hat.
Death and destruction all around. And all he can look at is the tits......Men haven’t changed a whole lot over the years have they?
LOL! “Plus ça change...” indeed.
I know one who did it at 62 and got a letter saying they’ll keep it if he makes more than 17 or 18 thousand a year. I don’t know if that was just him, or if they counted his still-working wife’s income
I guess you’re doomed to let them keep it until nobody in your household is working? But maybe I don’t understand the rules.
I don’t believe the “elite” will be exempt. What will make them elite? Money that will be worthless? Alliegences when there will be no alliegences? I think they will be the least prepared and the hardest hit.
They do in this world but not in the collapsed world.
We’re both early retired. There is a dollar value that your income has to be under, or they start reducing the social security benefit. But I’m told that “hurdle” does not apply to investment income. Capital Gains.
Land of the free(bie), Home of the Wards-of-the-State.
There are plenty of people who will make it their mission in life, after such a collapse, to hunt down and 'bring justice' to the social engineers and life-long politicians responsible. They will NOT spend a day of their lives without fear of what is coming.
I'm planning on doing the same thing when I turn 62. With my other pension and early SS, I'll be able to pay the bills. I'm planning on doing other things with my life, such as herding my youngest son and grandson. I'm considering a number of options, and I'm looking forward to having the freedom to pursue those options.
I also plan to become more involved with a Tea Party group in my area. I plan on mostly full, busy days.
That’s what bartending, table waiting, and other under-the-counter occupations are for.
>>We pay nearly 300 a week for food etc,<<
300/7=$43.10 per day
How many people are you feeding?
Other income that does not reduce Social Security benefits is rental income, and income from owner financing of real estate.
Probably feeding 2 and stocking the bug out shelter with the rest :)
Shhh! I joke about working part-time at Luby's or another cafeteria as a major part of my retirement plan. Flexible hours, discounted/free meals, what could be wrong with that?
I'd also be open to working on a "consultant" basis with a local CPA firm, where I'm paid a monthly "retainer" while doing most of the work during tax season.
My wife is retired at age 63. She can earn up to 15,480 per year without her benefits being reduced. After that amount her benefit is reduced by 1 dollar for every 2 dollars over that amount. I still work and will as long as my back allows me to get out of bed which has no effect on her retirement at all. SS follows the individual.
I know this because she quickly tired of being unemployed. So she got herself a job at the local casino doing retail which she enjoys immensely. The pay isn’t much compared to her income as an accountant but she loves it.
I just heard yesterday that Englands housing numbers look the worst they have looked since 2007. That is another shoe soon to drop. (real estate)
Only as long as we producers continue to bend over and fund it.
The distinction that needs to always be made is between “reducing benefits” and “causing SS to be taxable”. Causing it to be taxable at some level is pretty much a given. Married filing jointly and household income over 32k begins to cause SS benefits to be taxable. There is a complicated calculation to determine what percentage of the benefit is taxable. The benefit isn’t reduced, but obammy gets to tax part of it.
It is the .001% that are untouchable and the people who forment and orchestrate these disasters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.