Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

$60,000 Bwahahahaha

sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 4:17:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"The United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.

"According to the Census"s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."

This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation"s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350"
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 4:20:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So most of the money goes to money shuffling, administration costs, and welfare workers. This isn't really anything new.

Also is this $60,000 per year. It didn't specify what the time frame was.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 4:32:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There's no way that can be right either. That's $1 trillion on welfare spending. I know that welfare spending isn't that high, only in the billions range. Unless its including other things usually not considered welfare, like medicaid.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 9:50:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 4:22:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Also amount of people recieving food stamps is 46.2 million, not 16 million.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

It's a false calculation. It is based on the number of people below poverty, not the people on assistance.

Also,

"The study factored in Medicaid, the federal health care aid program for low-income families. But it also covered 82 other federal programs that Sessions classified as "welfare" -- from food stamps to public housing to various tax credits for low-income families."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 10:21:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 9:50:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/30/2012 4:22:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Also amount of people recieving food stamps is 46.2 million, not 16 million.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

It's a false calculation. It is based on the number of people below poverty, not the people on assistance.

Also,

"The study factored in Medicaid, the federal health care aid program for low-income families. But it also covered 82 other federal programs that Sessions classified as "welfare" -- from food stamps to public housing to various tax credits for low-income families."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com...

Yea, I suppose if you factor in the tax credit, you get a higher number. It all depends on how you define "welfare".
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 10:32:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 4:32:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:
There's no way that can be right either. That's $1 trillion on welfare spending. I know that welfare spending isn't that high, only in the billions range. Unless its including other things usually not considered welfare, like medicaid.

This figure is including total spending, both from the federal and state governments. Though $60,000 simply isn't true.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 1:22:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 1:20:08 AM, FREEDO wrote:
"If you divide total federal and state spending"

Uh. Not all spending is on welfare.

It's not actually taking the total government spending, just the spending it lists as welfare. We can see this by running the math backwards, the 16.8 million people times $60k per person yields $1.01 trillion, which is not the entire government spending.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 11:53:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 4:32:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:
There's no way that can be right either. That's $1 trillion on welfare spending. I know that welfare spending isn't that high, only in the billions range. Unless its including other things usually not considered welfare, like medicaid.

Welfare spending, including not just obviously Medicaid but Medicare and Social Security, is way higher. But of course the elderly are the class it is forbidden to speak ill of.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
slo1
Posts: 4,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 2:45:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 9:50:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/30/2012 4:22:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Also amount of people recieving food stamps is 46.2 million, not 16 million.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

It's a false calculation. It is based on the number of people below poverty, not the people on assistance.

Also,

"The study factored in Medicaid, the federal health care aid program for low-income families. But it also covered 82 other federal programs that Sessions classified as "welfare" -- from food stamps to public housing to various tax credits for low-income families."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com...

Aww.... you totally ruined our idea to shut down the programs, give $60k to each household in poverty, and screw the 30 million people working who are near poor.
http://money.cnn.com...
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 6:12:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 4:22:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Also amount of people recieving food stamps is 46.2 million, not 16 million.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

I was watching Judge Alex the other day and the plaintiff was a single woman with 3 kids living in a 5-bedroom house, and she was on food stamps. She was very nice-looking, hair done, nice clothes. The clothes and hair I can explain away as maybe she didn't spend that much money on, but a 5-bedroom house? Is that typical?
yang.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 6:40:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 6:12:55 PM, tulle wrote:
At 10/30/2012 4:22:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Also amount of people recieving food stamps is 46.2 million, not 16 million.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

I was watching Judge Alex the other day and the plaintiff was a single woman with 3 kids living in a 5-bedroom house, and she was on food stamps. She was very nice-looking, hair done, nice clothes. The clothes and hair I can explain away as maybe she didn't spend that much money on, but a 5-bedroom house? Is that typical?

I hope not. I don't know how you qualify for food stamps. Apparently there was a lady that won the lottery, meaning a $million+ and still could collected food stamps. The women ended up dying of a drug overdose at 25. Can't really say I feel sorry for her.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 4:49:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 6:40:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/1/2012 6:12:55 PM, tulle wrote:
At 10/30/2012 4:22:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Also amount of people recieving food stamps is 46.2 million, not 16 million.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

I was watching Judge Alex the other day and the plaintiff was a single woman with 3 kids living in a 5-bedroom house, and she was on food stamps. She was very nice-looking, hair done, nice clothes. The clothes and hair I can explain away as maybe she didn't spend that much money on, but a 5-bedroom house? Is that typical?
The house could have been an inheritence or bought foreclosed.

I hope not. I don't know how you qualify for food stamps. Apparently there was a lady that won the lottery, meaning a $million+ and still could collected food stamps. The women ended up dying of a drug overdose at 25. Can't really say I feel sorry for her.

In MN (and I assume everywhere), food stamps and the like are dolled out on a need basis and income is a factor as to how much is given; this is not the same as simply being poor.
If I have $5,000/mo in expenses or $500, I may qualify, depending partly on my income. Because it is based on expenses, this is why nice cars are leased in some welfare queen's driveway, because it is not owned; therefore, it is an expense (not a debt).

The lottery is not an income, as it is a one-time deal. Should a welfare receipient be kicked off because one month they received a $50,000 inheritence? What about $500? What if the inheritence is property and not cash?

The real question is: why was this person playing the lottery, how much did she spend (how often did she play), and where did she get this money?
My work here is, finally, done.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 10:33:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 4:49:42 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
The house could have been an inheritence or bought foreclosed.

Let's say you win a house in the lottery. The home is worth $2 million and you can't afford the taxes on it. What do you do? You have to sell it. Period. You're not entitled to anything. If you inherit something or win something you didn't earn it. It still counts as an asset and therefore should be sold to pay off your expenses.


In MN (and I assume everywhere), food stamps and the like are dolled out on a need basis and income is a factor as to how much is given; this is not the same as simply being poor.

I see. I am an adult and pay a measley income---I also live at home with my parents who actually have money. I shouldn't qualify for aid simply based on my income.

If I have $5,000/mo in expenses or $500, I may qualify, depending partly on my income. Because it is based on expenses, this is why nice cars are leased in some welfare queen's driveway, because it is not owned; therefore, it is an expense (not a debt).


A car is an expense that you choose to have. Why should the rest of us pay for someone's poor financial decisions?

The lottery is not an income, as it is a one-time deal. Should a welfare receipient be kicked off because one month they received a $50,000 inheritence?

Absolutely. It should count as income for that year and they should have to reapply for welfare when they no longer have it as income.

What about $500?

It would factor into their income and whatever limit meets the requirement to qualify for welfare.

What if the inheritence is property and not cash?


As per my lottery example, you should sell the property and use the cash as income.

The real question is: why was this person playing the lottery, how much did she spend (how often did she play), and where did she get this money?

A lottery ticket is $2, I'm more concerned with the car leases.
yang.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 10:34:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 10:33:11 PM, tulle wrote:

I see. I am an adult and make a measley income---I also live at home with my parents who actually have money. I shouldn't qualify for aid simply based on my income.


Fixed.
yang.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 10:44:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 4:49:42 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/1/2012 6:40:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/1/2012 6:12:55 PM, tulle wrote:
At 10/30/2012 4:22:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Also amount of people recieving food stamps is 46.2 million, not 16 million.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

I was watching Judge Alex the other day and the plaintiff was a single woman with 3 kids living in a 5-bedroom house, and she was on food stamps. She was very nice-looking, hair done, nice clothes. The clothes and hair I can explain away as maybe she didn't spend that much money on, but a 5-bedroom house? Is that typical?
The house could have been an inheritence or bought foreclosed.

I hope not. I don't know how you qualify for food stamps. Apparently there was a lady that won the lottery, meaning a $million+ and still could collected food stamps. The women ended up dying of a drug overdose at 25. Can't really say I feel sorry for her.

In MN (and I assume everywhere), food stamps and the like are dolled out on a need basis and income is a factor as to how much is given; this is not the same as simply being poor.
If I have $5,000/mo in expenses or $500, I may qualify, depending partly on my income. Because it is based on expenses, this is why nice cars are leased in some welfare queen's driveway, because it is not owned; therefore, it is an expense (not a debt).

The lottery is not an income, as it is a one-time deal. Should a welfare receipient be kicked off because one month they received a $50,000 inheritence? What about $500? What if the inheritence is property and not cash?

The real question is: why was this person playing the lottery, how much did she spend (how often did she play), and where did she get this money?

Why should it be based on expenses instead of income? I can see some justification of it If you live in an area that requires expensive rent conditions, however then it should be indexed based on location and not expenses. If you choose to lease an expensive car or rent an expensive place, then I don't see why that should be subsidized.

Also @ tulle, not every place has public transportation.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 4:19:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
For the record, I only stated what was, not what I condone.

For the most part, Tulle, I agree with you. However, I don't think inheritence should be taxed, nor treated as income, for any purpose. But, yes, someone who has wealth shouldn't be living off of others.

DK, I believe your justification is correct, only the "area" is statewide, by equality under the law. The idea is that welfare will kick in and help pay the bills, whatever they are. I have tried to get straight answers from welfare offices, but I believe if one is purposefully taking on debt to reap welfare, this is fraud. However, if I have much debt, and lose my job, should it be held against them?

This is the argument, and keep in mind, generally welfare is not cash, it is food stamps, money for rent (vouchers), and limited cash to be used for taxable items like cleaning products and paper goods. Any bills the recipient has, like cable or lease, still has to be paid through income. So, to my understanding, having lots of bills and limited income (as I believe there is a threshhold) might get you free meals. Hardly worth the drama, effort, and limited lifestyle IMO, unless, of course, I cheat and have a cash business no one knows about...
My work here is, finally, done.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 1:50:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"unless, of course, I cheat and have a cash business no one knows about..."

e-gads he's getting it!!!
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 3:34:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 1:50:01 PM, sadolite wrote:
"unless, of course, I cheat and have a cash business no one knows about..."

e-gads he's getting it!!!

This sounds condesending, so tell me, when was I not getting it?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 3:50:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 4:17:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
"The United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.

"According to the Census"s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."

This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation"s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350"

Total spending =/= total benefits, . there are employee wages and benefits that needs to be factored in before stating such figures. Furthermore, not all welfare receipients are below poverty.

For example, my manager receives state medical assistence (for kids only) and $7/month in food stamps. He and his girlfriend make about $47K and have four kids. This household is not part of these calculations why?

Perhaps you are the one who is not getting it, blinded by emotion or zeal. These figures are skewed, as it should take the total benefits and divide it by total number of households receiving benefits.

Now feel free to tell me how I'm not getting it even though there is nothing for me to get, except the truth that these numbers are, at best, misleading.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 4:05:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 10:34:08 PM, tulle wrote:
At 11/3/2012 10:33:11 PM, tulle wrote:

I see. I am an adult and make a measley income---I also live at home with my parents who actually have money. I shouldn't qualify for aid simply based on my income.


Fixed.

You also have no expenses, either. If you are truly living at home with an income, you have no shelter or food expense.

In MN, if you have zero income, you get $200/month in aid, this was the only solid figure I could get. Obviously, you must be getting shelter from someone, and an able working adult who is lazy is abusing the system; however, are the elderly? Keep in mind that $200 is not much (not even enough to pay rent, so they're mooching off others, too), and if I were making $400/mo in income, I doubt I would receive welfare, either.

Income qualifies you, expenses define amount.

Think of it this way, do you think if you have more kids to feed you should get more money? Or at least the income to qualify would go down? $20K = no welfare, but $20K with two kids = welfare.

Why? Because kids = expenses.

Keep in mind this doesn't mean I condone the status quo.
My work here is, finally, done.