Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is nearly as much as mom and me get from all our retirement funds. There is not a chance we could get that money though since both of us is on Social Security. Oh to be a few years younger.
That is nearly as much as mom and me get from all our retirement funds. There is not a chance we could get that money though since both of us is on Social Security. Oh to be a few years younger.
Conservatives are sick in the head to believe this nonsense.
They are counting PELL grants, public works spending, Head Start, child support enforcement, the Child Tax Credit, Foster Care assistance, housing for old people, and Earned Income Tax Credit all as welfare.
It is a distortion of the language. What is wrong with conservatives that are counting the earned income tax credit which is FOR working families as welfare?
They are counting child support enforcement as welfare. The child tax credit as welfare. Foster care as welfare. These are huge lies.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 12-08-2012 at 10:48 PM..
Reason: bypassing the profanity filter
Following the link in the OP's link (to the Weekly Standard), I find a definition:
Quote:
The universe of means-tested welfare spending refers to programs that provide low-income assistance in the form of direct or indirect financial support...For fiscal year 2011, CRS identified roughly 80 overlapping federal means-tested welfare programs...The total amount spent on these federal programs, when taken together with approximately $280 billion in state contributions, amounted to roughly $1 trillion.
So this includes all administrative costs relating to these 80 programs. Obviously, what needs to happen here is to drastically increase the efficiency of these programs to reduce the administrative overhead. That would free up, let's say, $20,000 of the $60,000 per poverty-level family, allowing the government to raise the poverty level proportionately by a third, and include far more people in means-tested programs. This in turn will have a knock-on effect, allowing the expansion of federal domestic spending on families who by current definitions are well above the FPL.
With just a reasonable degree of greater efficiency, the "taker" population could be extended well into what we now consider the middle class, thereby guaranteeing Democratic majorities for ever and ever, amen! Bloody brilliant!! Thanks for the tip, Roy - if you ever feel like being an ambassador, let us know.
Following the link in the OP's link (to the Weekly Standard), I find a definition:
So this includes all administrative costs relating to these 80 programs. Obviously, what needs to happen here is to drastically increase the efficiency of these programs to reduce the administrative overhead. That would free up, let's say, $20,000 of the $60,000 per poverty-level family, allowing the government to raise the poverty level proportionately by a third, and include far more people in means-tested programs. This in turn will have a knock-on effect, allowing the expansion of federal domestic spending on families who by current definitions are well above the FPL.
With just a reasonable degree of greater efficiency, the "taker" population could be extended well into what we now consider the middle class, thereby guaranteeing Democratic majorities for ever and ever, amen! Bloody brilliant!! Thanks for the tip, Roy - if you ever feel like being an ambassador, let us know.
But that's calling for smaller government. Isn't that RWNJ rhetoric ?
That is nearly as much as mom and me get from all our retirement funds. There is not a chance we could get that money though since both of us is on Social Security. Oh to be a few years younger.
You can't possibly be ready to defend the claim the it is impossible to live in NYC on 61k tax free.
That is pretty much the equivalent of about 75k taxable, and I submit there are quite a few families living in NYC on less than that. Might not be in a fancy 3BR in the West Village and eating out at Lugers, but it isn't "impossible" by any means.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
