Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Game of Telephone  (Read 567 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 31176
  • Reputation: +27093/-494
  • Gender: Male
Game of Telephone
« on: October 12, 2013, 08:13:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The quote in the e-mail (below) is drawing an erroneous conclusion.

    Yes, the government inefficiency is spending the equivalent of $168 per day -- but don't fool yourself into thinking most, or even a large number, of welfare recipients get that kind of money! The government simply does everything with tons of bureaucracy, waste, and inefficiency. That's the proper conclusion to reach.

    Here is where that figure was taken from. If you read the article, nowhere does it say that the average (or even a few!) welfare recipients draw that level of benefits.

    Long story short: the e-mail forward assumes that the government manages to pass on 100% of its funding to  end recipients. Yeah right! I don't think government employees work as volunteers...

    Oh, another thing -- if a poor, old man is taken care of in a hospital, it might cost thousands of dollars because of our bloated health care system, which is expensive because of Malpractice Insurance that all doctors must pay  -- due to all the lawyers leeching off the system and giving back nothing useful to society.

    At any rate, a poor man seeing a doctor or even (gasp!) a specialist for 1 hour isn't living "high on the hog", even if that visit DID cost $2,000 -- which cost the gov't $5,000 to administer...

    The poor man simply didn't want to die, that's all. He didn't come up with the US Health Care system (done for-profit), Big Pharma, Agri-Business/GMO crops, BPA and other chemicals in our food, all the evils done by vaccines, the US Legal system, etc.  Do you see why I don't believe the poor man is to blame?


    http://www.budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/budget-background?ID=f1f23669-79fb-4a25-bafc-6a28f82f9c75

    Quote from: budget.senate.gov
    Based on data from the Congressional Research Service, cuмulative spending on means-tested federal welfare programs, if converted into cash, would equal $167.65 per day per household living below the poverty level. By comparison, the median household income in 2011 of $50,054 equals $137.13 per day. Additionally, spending on federal welfare benefits, if converted into cash payments, equals enough to provide $30.60 per hour, 40 hours per week, to each household living below poverty. The median household hourly wage is $25.03. After accounting for federal taxes, the median hourly wage drops to between $21.50 and $23.45, depending on a household’s deductions and filing status. State and local taxes further reduce the median household’s hourly earnings. By contrast, welfare benefits are not taxed.

    The universe of means-tested welfare spending refers to programs that provide low-income assistance in the form of direct or indirect financial support—such as food stamps, free housing, child care, etc.—and which the recipient does not pay into (in contrast to Medicare or Social Security). For fiscal year 2011, CRS identified roughly 80 overlapping federal means-tested welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these federal programs, when taken together with approximately $280 billion in state contributions, amounted to roughly $1 trillion. Nearly 95 percent of these costs come from four categories of spending: medical assistance, cash assistance, food assistance, and social / housing assistance. Under the President’s FY13 budget proposal, means-tested spending would increase an additional 30 percent over the next four years.

    The diffuse and overlapping nature of federal welfare spending has led to some confusion regarding the scope and nature of benefits. For instance, Newark Mayor Cory Booker has recently received a great deal of attention for adopting the “food stamp challenge” in which he spends only $30 a week on food (the average individual benefit).  The situation Booker presents, however, is not accurate: a low-income individual on food stamps may qualify for $25,000 in various forms of welfare support from the federal government on top of his or her existing income and resources—including access to 15 different food assistance programs. Further, even if one unrealistically assumes that no other welfare benefits are available, the size of the food stamp benefit increases as one’s income decreases, as the benefit is designed as a supplement to existing resources; it is explicitly not intended to be the sole source of funds for purchasing food.



    On 10/12/2013 04:52 AM, E-mail Forward wrote:
    Quote
    These 11 States now have More People on Welfare than they do Employed!
    Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reports that in fiscal year 2012, between food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average U.S. Household below the poverty line received $168.00 a day in government support. What's the problem with that much support? Well, the median household income in America is just over $50,000,which averages out to $137.13 a day. To put it another way, being on welfare now pays the equivalent of $30.00 an hour for a 40-hour week, while the average job pays $20.00 an hour.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31176
    • Reputation: +27093/-494
    • Gender: Male
    Game of Telephone
    « Reply #1 on: October 12, 2013, 08:37:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Rumors and distorted facts like this really bother me, for two reasons:

    1. I detest error in all forms, and
    2. It hits close to home for me.

    I lived in Illinois for the first 2/3 of my life -- a democratic stronghold. I still have friends and relatives there, and I am still in touch with them. Illinois isn't one of those (great, in my opinion) flyover states where self-sufficiency is in the (clean, unpolluted) air you breathe. No, Illinois takes the phrase "welfare state" literally. Illinois gave us Obama, for crying out loud.

    I know of several cases, but let's just take two: a widow with no income, and an unemployed single mother with 2 children.

    The widow went downtown to apply for benefits. What did she end up with?

    Food Stamps: Yes
    Health care: No
    Cash Assistance: No
    Housing assistance: No
    Utility Assitance: No
    Anything else: No

    And Food Stamps was "the usual", or 3/4 the amount needed to eat for a month. No lobster and steak for this particular recipient...

    The single mother got a similar amount of food stamps, but not much else, either. I don't know exactly the details of that situation, but I do know that she was living in a cheap motel for years, eating really cheap food. High on the hog? Again, I think not.


    I just get upset at these kind of chain e-mails, which come from "Fox News" neo-con Republican/conservative rhetoric, placing the blame of society's ills (government debt, for example) at the feet of the poor people.

    No, I assure you those poor people are not primarily to blame. If anything, they're the victims. If you want blame, look to the lawyers! Look how much THEY earn, look how many there are, and look at how they suck money from literally ALL SECTORS of society. There isn't a business in existence, or a person breathing, that isn't paying something to the leeches (lawyers), whether directly or indirectly. And what real service do the lawyers provide? Zero. If they all disappeared tomorrow, the world would be a better place. No more lawsuits! No more ridiculous statements on packaging (Peanut M&Ms: "Warning: Containts Nuts"), and health care would get a LOT cheaper real fast.

    I think the people who spend all day bitter about how "their money" is being given to "those bums" (usually Baby Boomers and older people) need to get out and meet some of them. They might be enlightened. I have actually met several -- the truth might surprise you.

    Anyone upset about welfare expenditures should be more upset about the American Imperialist presence around the world. How many military bases do we have around the world? Notice how Defense spending is seldom even placed next to other budget items. It's always exempt, always special. No "shutdown" affects it.

    But really, the true solution doesn't come from the Republicans OR the Democrats. Ideally the poor (who will "always be with you" to quote Our Lord) would be taken care of by the CHURCH (The Catholic Church, that is) and administered much more efficiently, being done by volunteers. It's harder to BS your local priest -- who might actually know you and your situation -- than it is to BS the local welfare office. And so on.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31176
    • Reputation: +27093/-494
    • Gender: Male
    Game of Telephone
    « Reply #2 on: October 12, 2013, 08:39:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But I dare you to read the chain e-mail quote at the bottom, then read the link to the actual Report.

    Do you see the distortion that took place? Maybe it was innocent, but it's the Game of Telephone at best, and malicious lies at worst.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com