Enough Spent on Welfare in 2011 to Give Every Poor Household Nearly $60,000
According to an October 16 memorandum prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) for the Senate Budget Committee, the federal government spent $746 billion on means-tested welfare programs in 2011. As the U.S. Census Bureau notes, there were 16.8 million households living below the poverty level in America. In other words, if the federal government were to give this money directly to the impoverished households, all 16.8 million households would have had a 2011 income of over $44,000. This is double the 2011 federal poverty rate of $22,350 for a family of four, and nearly double the 2012 poverty rate of $23,050 for a family of four.
Furthermore, according to calculations by Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the states contributed roughly an additional $280 billion to federal means-tested welfare programs, bringing total welfare spending to nearly $1 trillion...
Please note that most of the money spent on "welfare" (really if they were fairing well why would they need financial assistance?) goes to pay the union salaries of the bureaucrats who administer it. That is why the president wants big increases in welfare, not to help the poor but to create more government union workers.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Neil, you seem to have forgotten Leviticus 19 9 'Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 'Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God ---
Hey Jim didn't you notice? Nothing in the verses say the harvesters should reap the corners and gleanings, and send them to Washington, mostly to be kept there except for a dribble back to the needy. Looks like Leviticus leaves government out entirely, knowing how greedy and innefficient it is. Terribly tea party of the Bible.
Leviticus 19 9 'Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 'Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God.---NASB
I would say some sort of welfare system needs to be in place.
No, the youngin's I was talking about who wanted to be farmers have the ability and training to farm, but not the money, with irrigated land going for $10,000 acre, and it is hard to support a family on what was given away in the Homestead Act, 160 acres, you can see the difficulty.
Perhaps like MacArthur did it Japan he smashed the large land holdings and parcelled the land out to the peasants, etc. .
jpw tomatoes are a lot more healthy then lettuce and you can buy pots to grow them upside down on your porch!
Actually what the rich are robbing the country in not paying there taxes (go back to the '50's and have a 91% top tier rate, The $60,000 is a mere pittance.
jpw wrote: aw Neil, its about thanking your heavenly Father for His provision. God's provision is the truth if we embrace it or reject it. will you search for darkness in such things?
1) That is dishonest, for you didn't say anything about provision before; 2) 3 John was not in context discussing God's provision; 3) Only logical propositions (declarative statements) can be true, but physical things like lettuce aren't propositions; therefore, they aren't truth; 4) Why can't God's provision include even food you consider unhealthy, which still keeps one alive? After all, He created everything, including glutamic acid.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I would suppose even Negative Income Tax idea could be less than ideal. Our welfare rancher, Deb Fischer, the GOP candidate for Senator, gets over $3,000,000 in benefits by the free use of Fed. Govt. land. She is definitely not on the --official-- welfare rolls.
So the solution is obvious: let's reduce said welfare & sell off all that Fed. Gov't land to private buyers, & eliminate farm subsidies (too bad for corporate agribiz such as jpw hates) along the way. Any resulting bankruptcies means forfeited land being sold at a bargain price to all those wannabe peasants you & jpw believe exist.
Less government is a good thing. But it does mean that people have to work. But work is a good thing since that's what men are supposed to do, 1 Thess. 4:11. Not sit around complaining about handouts they don't deserve. If your neighbor is in need, then take care of him yourself instead of demanding aid from total strangers by way of taxation.
Our welfare rancher, Deb Fischer, the GOP candidate for Senator, gets over $3,000,000 in benefits by the free use of Fed. Govt. land. She is definitely not on the --official-- welfare rolls. Also many young who want to go into farming can't get land (and, yes, they complain about it, Neil, because of land prices.)
But, jpw, as in the Dust Bowl years what are people going to do during the years of drought? They will depend on government aid, or pack up and head out to California a la "Grapes of Wraith," or got Arizona to live with Neil.
Wharton wrote: "To the detriment of the poor, the "welfare" money confiscated from those above the poverty level is mostly consumed by the burgeoning federal bureaucracy that facilitates the programs." Ha! Don't ya just love bureaucracy? And good ole socialist Barack Obama wants to build the bureraucracy up. And he is about to get four more years to do just that. Jim Lincoln will just love these stats.
Jim doesn't seem to mind thievery, covetousness ,and extortion as long as it's Democrats doing it. That's why he applies 1 Cor 6:10 only to Republicans.