It's not fair.

[Oh Shoot]

Part of the late great USA are the many policies that have penalized success and rewarded failure for so long now that we're not pulling things out without beau coup national pain.

- OS

How much do we actually spend on welfare? ...

My comment wasn't solely regarding the "welfare state", was only inclusive of it.

Punishing success and rewarding failure can be found in everything from tax codes, where half the population has little to no financial stake in the country's direction, to our "race to the bottom" educational system.

We used to be a country that allowed the cream to rise to the top and the devil take the hindmost. Now we have become homogenized so that the common denominator is lowered overall.

Success, innovation, and excellence is of course still possible in the USA, both on personal and corporate levels, but it's in spite of US policies and conventions, not because of them, and ever increasingly rare.

- OS

[Guest nozzle13]

I love the idea of success being tied into your welfare payment. Maybe the Memphis City Schools wouldn't be trying to come join the county if this were in place. Keep the lil' bastards in school doing well and off the streets, or momma don't get no mo money. I got an email the other day about Sheriff Joe, that had a lot of good points to:

Oh, there's MUCH more to know about Sheriff Joe!

Maricopa County was spending approx. $18 million dollars a year on stray animals, like cats and dogs. Sheriff Joe offered to take the department over, and the County Supervisors said okay.

The animal shelters are now all staffed and operated by prisoners. They feed and care for the strays. Every animal in his care is taken out and walked twice daily. He now has prisoners who are experts in animal nutrition and behavior. They give great classes for anyone who'd like to adopt an animal. He has literally taken stray dogs off the street, given them to the care of prisoners, and had them place in dog shows.

The best part? His budget for the entire department is now under $3 million. Teresa and I adopted a Weimaraner from a Maricopa County shelter two years ago. He was neutered, and current on all shots, in great health, and even had a microchip inserted the day we got him. Cost us $78.

The prisoners get the benefit of about $0..28 an hour for working, but most would work for free, just to be out of their cells for the day. Most of his budget is for utilities, building maintenance, etc. He pays the prisoners out of the fees collected for adopted animals..

I have long wondered when the rest of the country would take a look at the way he runs the jail system, and copy some of his ideas. He has a huge farm, donated to the county years ago, where inmates can work, and they grow most of their own fresh vegetables and food, doing all the work and harvesting by hand.

He has a pretty good sized hog farm, which provides meat, and fertilizer. It fertilizes the Christmas tree nursery, where prisoners work, and you can buy a living Christmas tree for $6 - $8 for the Holidays, and plant it later... We have six trees in our yard from the Prison.

Yup, he was reelected last year with 83% of the vote.

Now he's in trouble with the ACLU again. He painted all his buses and vehicles with a mural, that has a special hotline phone number painted on it, where you can call and report suspected illegal aliens. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement wasn't doing enough in his eyes, so he had 40 deputies trained specifically for enforcing immigration laws, started up his hotline, and bought 4 new buses just for hauling folks back to the border. He's kind of a 'Git-R Dun' kind of Sheriff.

[enfield]

You are my Hero!

I know.

[StPatrick]

Yep. He also said if you get a tax return, you are doing your taxes poorly. Don't loan money to the government for a year. If you got a tax return last year, this year you should be paying more each month.

I keep mine under $1k every year for that reason - while the .gov will spend it, I will (nowadays) save it. The $1k threshold leaves some wiggle room in case of unforeseen issues (which I'm unlikely to encounter, since I only have 1 source of income), but keeps as much of my income as I've deemed prudent out of the hands of Uncle Sugar.

Those who argue that they need the big return for savings (and I know more than a few) don't need a big return - they need discipline. I speak as a formerly broke person, who has since reformed his ways.

[Rightwinger]

He's kind of a 'Git-R Dun' kind of Sheriff.

I like Joe. He's good people.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

How much do we actually spend on welfare? Not much (maybe 1% of the tax dollars). Where does the money really go? Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and the Department of Defense.

But I get the idea that welfare pisses people off. It pisses me off. I go into target and damned if there aren't "we're hiring" signs. Why am I paying for people when he fricking target is hiring?

Shortsighted position. Ideally what we'd want is to break the cycle of dependancy. The fix for that is easy. You stop paying for BS and you start paying for progress. Your kids are in school? You get some dough. You're kids are running free, sorry, no welfare for you. You give it to the moms cause the dads won't spend it on the family.

Your kid makes it through college? Bonus!

Sure, it costs more right now but you break the cycle. The people who have always been a burden on the system are producing people who won't be a burden.

Well, I have no idea if that will actually work but it has to better than what is going on now.

Hi Mosinon

The question on "what do we pay on welfare" can be answered various ways depending on who is trying to make a point, and what point they are trying to make.

Pro-socialist academics will supply statistics showing a very low percentage of federal expenditures spent on "Aid to Families with Dependent Children". This is to shame selfish middle class people for being so stingy reluctant to spend only a few percent of the budget on po folks.

Last year I tried to look up the numbers and perhaps the name of that budget item has changed, because I didn't see AFDC flagged on Federal budget sheets, but it is still in there somewhere.

However, most people consider welfare to be the "package", not just AFDC. And in reality it is a "package". So you have to consider many more related budget items to arrive at the full cost of the "package". I did a rough accounting about a year ago, but dunno if I could easily find it for a re-post.

You can web-search and find both text and graphical federal budget breakdowns. One of the nicest graphical breakdown I found was a big rectangular graphic filled with many tiles of various sizes. Tile size proportional to percent of the represented budget item, of course. For tiles too small to read, you could mouse over the tiles to get pop-up information.

I worked in the field many years ago. It is different now, but not drastically different.

If a person has low enough income to receive AFDC, then that is component 1 of the "package". AFDC does not pay very much money. If a person is qualified for AFDC, then the person will almost certainly be qualified for Food Stamps or Food Assistance. Similarly, will almost certainly qualify for Housing Assistance. And also Medicaid. And very likely job training / educational assistance. Along with the job training / education, very possibly free or subsidized day care if needed.

It is all priced on a cunning sliding scale designed to take nearly all a poor person's money, regardless of their level of income. For instance if a person receives $99 in AFDC, then the price of the food stamps, housing, and all the other items in the package will conveniently end up costing the client about $98, and they will have $1 left over to buy soap and toilet paper.

If the client receives some AFDC and has a little part time job and maybe makes $400 a month, then all the scales slide and she gets about the same package, except now it costs nearly all her $400, leaving her about $1 left over to buy soap, toilet paper, and toothpaste. Obviously this isn't much incentive to go out and make some baby steps and try to make a little money, if you can't keep any of it.

However, if you want the true price tag, you have to add all the things in that package to the AFDC. I don't know if they shuffle the items by accident or on purpose, but you don't see all the budget items in the same departments or under the same headings. They are scattered all across the govt.

So you have to look around to find the cost of all the items and add them up. A billion here and a billion there and after awhile yer talkin about real money. The college social policy perfessors know all that, but they don't volunteer the info. They just quote the "tiny" cost of AFDC to try to shame the middle class into feeling guilty about not wanting to pay high taxes.

[Guest mosinon]

Thanks Lester,

You have a good point. I looked at the data I could find and it still wasn't much. The big things were defense, social security and medicare. It was more than a percent however. Here's some oddness, in my cursory search it was hard to separate medicare from medicaid. They just kind of lump that stuff together.

I still don't imagine it is much of your tax dollar. Maybe 5%, certainly less than we spend on the defense department and much, much less than social security. Even less than the interest on the debt.

That said, it is probably something that should be even less. For sure AFDC is a tiny cost but for sure Medicaid isn't. here is the reality? Cash payments directly to the poor probably aren't a big part of the budget, food stamps aren't a big deal, but medicaid is probably a fairly large deal. Not a huge deal, but probably something that needs to be looked at.

I don't see welfare as the budget buster some people think it is. On the other hand, screw that crap, wasteful spending is still wasteful spending. Plus, if you calculate the productivity lost by welfare recipients then you are talking big numbers.

I realize that the average welfare recipient is probably not the one I have in my mind (inner city welfare Mama) but more likely some white girl in a trailer in rural America so my statement that the target is hiring is probably not a solution. IT is, for me, an intractable problem. For the inner city folks I think there is a method that would work, for the rural welfare folks, that is a much tougher nut to crack.

[Guest Red5]

Well, I have no idea if that will actually work but it has to better than what is going on now.

IMHO, the vast majority of deadbeats will always be. Trying to legislate them into behaving otherwise works about as well as trying to legislate crazy gunmen into not shooting people.

[Guest Keinengel]

The thing that aggravates me about the welfare system is the fact that its handed out like candy to a certain select profile of people (I'm not pointing any fingers or claiming a certain ethnic group so don't get that idea) where as people who actually need the benefits can't get it. The wait times on section 8 housing assistance are along the lines of 14 months to a year. Having just moved out of an apartment complex where they house a great deal of section 8 recipients, I can honestly tell you that the vast majority of them sat around like bums all day.

Now around here in the not so quiet town of Manchester finding employment isn't so easy. I work part time in Murfreesboro and bring in less than 300 a week. As great as it is to actually have a job, anyone who has tried to juggle rent, two sets of car-payments/insurances, bills, gas and school expenses knows that 7.25 an hour won't make ends meet.

[Spook]

We are now paying for decades of "social change" started when LBJ's "Great Society" tried to lift people up with government assistance but it has grew into welfare. (As Ronald Reagan said, "Pay people to be poor and they'll be poor", or something like that.) We've spent well over a trillion dollars on welfare and the poverty level has not receded. Medicare/Medicaid suffer from the high costs of health care. Social Security has morphed into a full-blown retirement system for many when it was meant only to be a supplemental retirement source. Our tax laws are ridiculously complex (I'd like to see a flat tax for about 3-5 years just so see how it would work, can't be worse than we already have, imo). Our educational system is greatly flawed. God forbid we should hold teachers accountable for their work. And by the way, no one comes in second place, much less third or, horror, last. ("I'm unique, just like eveyone else!") All this has taken decades and will not be corrected quickly. Anyone receiving public assistance should be made to work at something useful and productive to earn that money. No sitting at home on one's a$$, that only begets laziness. Our country suffers from tremendous deficits and now I read where Obama wants to spend even more government money (which it doesn't have) to right the economy. Hasn't that tact not worked for the past two and a half years? I truly fear for our country.

Sorry for the ramble and to be so negative because there are still many great things about the U.S. and most of its people. But we have serious problems that I don't see our politicians willing to tackle less they risk losing their own job. Time for a cup of joe....

[Guest Guy N. Cognito]

I keep mine under $1k every year for that reason - while the .gov will spend it, I will (nowadays) save it. The $1k threshold leaves some wiggle room in case of unforeseen issues (which I'm unlikely to encounter, since I only have 1 source of income), but keeps as much of my income as I've deemed prudent out of the hands of Uncle Sugar.

Those who argue that they need the big return for savings (and I know more than a few) don't need a big return - they need discipline. I speak as a formerly broke person, who has since reformed his ways.

Big +1. Personally, I've set up my tax payments so that I OWE about $1,000 every year.

[Guest JRS]

Having just moved out of an apartment complex where they house a great deal of section 8 recipients, I can honestly tell you that the vast majority of them sat around like bums all day.

I can vouche for this statement as I helped a friend move from a Section 8 complex & EVERYONE just sat around drinking beer all day collecting a check. It was whites,blacks & the illegal border hoppers too. Really pisses me off since I have to wrestle sheetrock all day to pay my bills & my wife works full time too. I say if you don't work, you don't eat...Period. Just as the good book says.

[Dolomite_supafly]

There are those that actually need the system to survive then there are others who are using it as a means to defer living expenses while earn money in other ways, mostly under the table. We have all seen them, people in a nice car, wearing nice clothes and jewelery pull out their "card" to pay for food. Then they will use cash to pay for the items that can't be put on the card like alcohol and cigarettes. I have even been told of a lady who buys her cats tuna on her card. When asked she said she would continue until she could put cat food on the card. I guess because those are her kids it must be OK in her mind.

Then there are those people who are content with nothing as long as they do not have to work for it. I see their living conditions and for most it would be untenable but they don't mind. There is nothing that you are going to say or probably do that is going to change their way of thinking and they will continue to do the bare minimum to keep from feeling hungry.

For those on any type of government funded assistance there should be some very basic rules they must follow. If I were in charge, which isn't going to happen, these are the changes I would make.

First and foremost, you must do something to help the community rather than sit on your butt all day watching the mailbox. Just because you are on welfare doesn't mean you can't pick up trash 5 days a week for a few hours each day. If you are disabled and unable to leave the house then you can do other things like stuffing envelopes or answering the phone for a government office.

Second, you must submit to an annual drug test. If you are using government money to live on then you obviously shouldn't be able to afford illegal drugs. If you test positive then you lose you benefits for one month. Second offense then you lose benefits for 6 months and finally on the third offense benefits are gone for one calendar year.

Third, you must not get caught breaking the law while on assitance. I don't care if you were in trouble before you received it or after you are off of assitance, just while you are currently receiving it. It isn't that hard to stay out of trouble, millions of people do it every day. We will use the same loss of priviledges as above. First offense, one month after getting out of jail. Second, six months a finally a year on the third arrest.

Fourth, any money received through lottery, income tax or any other unexpected source must be used to pay back into the system you receive benefits from. Not all of it but say 50% of the amount received.

Finally, if you are on assitance because you can't afford the kids you have then you should be put on birth control. Nothing permanent but as long as you are unable to support the kids you currently have on your own then I shouldn't have to pay for you to squirt a few more out. It also applies if the person has had their kids taken by the state, birth control until you are deemed to be a fit parent. And until it is determined who the father is through DNA testing the mother should not be able to receive any benefits for the child. And once the father is determined half of his assistance will go towards the child if he receives assitance.

Of course this is all contingent on the fact you are a legal resident of the US. If you are not then you should receive nothing but a ride to your country of origin. Then we, the US, deduct the transportaion and housing costs from the foreign aid we send to their country of origin. No more anchor babies, child assume the parent(s) nationality if the parents are here illegally.

Dolomite

[duckhunteresq]

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Thomas Jefferson

[Guest 6.8 AR]

When you have to get part of the "welfare" dollars from the Depts of: Agriculture, HHS, State, Housing,

Defense(guarantee there is some hiding there, also),and every other part of the government, I bet you

any amount of money you're willing to wager that it's more than 1 % of tax receipts. Like Lester said, it's

more than just one thing and as a package and that doesn't count any so-called corporate welfare.

The way I see any reasonable "welfare" system is that it is totally temporary, less than 90 days.

The government should have never gotten into the business of raising families or being some kind of

"safety net". That's what private interests always do better.