The Welfare Spending Chart You Won’t Want to See

[Locutus]

Today’s depressing chart is brought to you by the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff under Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).


Yep. As the chart clearly illustrates, total welfare spending in the U.S. (if converted into cash payments) equals approximately “$168 per day for every household in poverty,” higher than the $137 median income per-day.

From the senator’s office:


read 'em and weep

The Welfare Spending Chart You Won’t Want to See | TheBlaze.com

 

[tay]

Corporate welfare takes a big bite out of our country's finances each year. In fact, it's estimated by the CATO Institute, that $100 billion per year is spent on corporate welfare in America. Yes, that's billion. It's a big problem that the country faces, and yet it's one you barely ever hear about.
Why does corporate welfare pose such a problem? There are a lot of reasons, including:

• Corporate welfare goes to businesses that are usually failing or being mismanaged somewhere along the pipeline. Just because money is being thrown at a business to help it stay afloat does not mean that those issues are going to be addressed so that the problem doesn't happen again. Case in point - Enron. They received billions in corporate welfare, and we all know how that story ended.
• We as a people usually have no say over which companies deserve the corporate welfare. How many people were excited to bail out the banks when the mortgage crisis hit? The banks were bailed out with billions in corporate welfare. Meanwhile, millions of homeowners got foreclosure notices. Nobody came along to bail all those people out of the same mess.
  
• When it comes to what businesses will get corporate welfare, there may also be some race issues. There are questions of whether or not the corporate welfare being given out is race-neutral or if particular races and ethnic groups are being overlooked for the funding.
  
• When people talk about making cuts in welfare, especially during an election year, they are usually talking about social programs. Those social programs are in place to help the people, just like you and I, who are trying to make their way in America and need a little extra help. Rarely do you hear someone suggest that corporate welfare allocations should be cut, or even examined. It's as if it is a given that businesses deserve a financial crutch to stay afloat. Seems to me like this may be in direct conflict with the free enterprise business system that our country is known for.

Can the country afford to keep spending $100 billion per year to keep certain businesses afloat? No, not when we have the financial issues we do and need to make cuts to the budget wherever we can. Rather than focusing on making cuts to social programs, which actually help the people, politicians need to start taking a look at the cuts they can make in corporate welfare. Many of the businesses they are giving it to are making poor choices to begin with, have CEO's making millions per year, and are wasting the funds left and right.


Matthew Lynch, Ed.D.: Welfare: The Dirty Side of Corporate America

 

[CDNBear]

lol.

 

[captain morgan]

Corporate welfare takes a big bite out of our country's finances each year.

Still leaning on the ole bait and switch on this issue, eh?

 

[china]

I wonder what a 'Canadian Chart' would look like .

 

[SLM]

Still leaning on the ole bait and switch on this issue, eh?

You know, I don't often comment in these threads and that's the reason why.

 

[captain morgan]

You know, I don't often comment in these threads and that's the reason why.

You have far more self control and discipline than most

 

[SLM]

You have far more self control and discipline than most

Oh I don't know about that, lol.

There are a lot of aspects to the political discussion that I would love to explore further. I'd love to hear what differing views there are and I have thoughts and ideas that I'd love to contribute.

What I have absolutely no patience for is the "my political God can beat up your political God" B.S.

 

[Tonington]

It would be nice to know how much of that figure is actually benefits, and how much is administration of the benefits. Kinda like charities.

 

[SLM]

It would be nice to know how much of that figure is actually benefits, and how much is administration of the benefits. Kinda like charities.

Given the fact that welfare is administered by the government and they are not known for their efficiency, I think we can reasonably guess that it's fairly significant.

 

[CDNBear]

It would be nice to know how much of that figure is actually benefits, and how much is administration of the benefits. Kinda like charities.

That's a great question.

But ultimate the buck still stops at the gov't.

 

[captain morgan]

Oh I don't know about that, lol.

There are a lot of aspects to the political discussion that I would love to explore further. I'd love to hear what differing views there are and I have thoughts and ideas that I'd love to contribute.

What I have absolutely no patience for is the "my political God can beat up your political God" B.S.

You should explore those issues; there are many here that will engage a reasonable and thoughtful exchange with a minimum of selectivity...

I'd be interested in hearing your opinions

 

[SLM]

You should explore those issues; there are many here that will engage a reasonable and thoughtful exchange with a minimum of selectivity...

I'd be interested in hearing your opinions

Thank you.

And I have on some occasions had some great conversations on political topics with many, but overall I'd say a lot of the political threads tend to get obscured to a point that I just can't be bothered wading through it all. I can understand any thread veering off after a while, I think it's probably inevitable, but when it's right out of the gate like that it's rather irksome.

 

[captain morgan]

Thank you.

And I have on some occasions had some great conversations on political topics with many, but overall I'd say a lot of the political threads tend to get obscured to a point that I just can't be bothered wading through it all. I can understand any thread veering off after a while, I think it's probably inevitable, but when it's right out of the gate like that it's rather irksome.

That's a big problem when anyone defines a political position based on an individual (candidate) as opposed to the individual policies that the candidate supports... Include the relative discord that different people place on different areas of the political sphere (social, fiscal, public safety, etc)... It's a recipe for disaster in the end, but prior to hitting that wall, some interesting exchanges can happen

 

[SLM]

That's a big problem when anyone defines a political position based on an individual (candidate) as opposed to the individual policies that the candidate supports... Include the relative discord that different people place on different areas of the political sphere (social, fiscal, public safety, etc)... It's a recipe for disaster in the end, but prior to hitting that wall, some interesting exchanges can happen

When people wear blinders I just don't see the point in trying to engage with them myself. (Mind you, I do read a lot of the threads) I do understand it for those who love a good political argument, I understand that completely. But for me, no interest. I'm interested in reality, not ideology. Idealism is great and is something that we should strive for but to bury yourself in it when the rest of the world does not is, to my way of thinking, rather delusional. Keep in mind that I'm not talking about those who simply lean one way or the other on the political spectrum. I know full well on this forum who I can actually have a conversation with and who I cannot. Agreement, by the way, is not a requirement for conversation. Listening and trying to understand someone else's point of view is however.

As to the OP, there is no doubt in my mind that administrative costs take up a fair chunk of that figure. Which is not to say that everything is rosy with the state of welfare, either in this country or in the U.S. But inefficient administration is a common factor in both I have no doubt. And if we are to honestly look at an issue like welfare we need to look honestly at all the components of it, from policy to admin to end use (and often time abuse).

 

[JLM]

Today’s depressing chart is brought to you by the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff under Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).


Yep. As the chart clearly illustrates, total welfare spending in the U.S. (if converted into cash payments) equals approximately “$168 per day for every household in poverty,” higher than the $137 median income per-day.

From the senator’s office:


read 'em and weep

The Welfare Spending Chart You Won’t Want to See | TheBlaze.com

Actually sad in a lot of ways. I've always regarded welfare as a last resort after people have tried every other means to get by, but having said that the ones who genuinely need should receive enough to live with a semblance of decency. Perhaps the people in charge of distributing welfare payments in Canada can learn something from the U.S. I doubt if our costs are more than 1/3 of what their's are!

 

[captain morgan]

Idealism is great and is something that we should strive for but to bury yourself in it when the rest of the world does not is, to my way of thinking, rather delusional. Keep in mind that I'm not talking about those who simply lean one way or the other on the political spectrum. I know full well on this forum who I can actually have a conversation with and who I cannot. Agreement, by the way, is not a requirement for conversation. Listening and trying to understand someone else's point of view is however.

Unfortunately, idealism is the very foundation upon which any democracy is based - and it's one of the biggest problems ingrained in the system today... In my opinion, a political position is founded on an 'ideal', but due to the complexity and society as a whole. the 'ideal' must fit into the entire dynamic on a functional basis before it can have any of the (naively described) benefits purported by the group/party that supports it... Without any dynamic functionality, the ideal is nothing more than spoken words..... And this is what I see as the root of the problem... People vote/support the idea but don't take the time to understand if it is practical.

As to the OP, there is no doubt in my mind that administrative costs take up a fair chunk of that figure. Which is not to say that everything is rosy with the state of welfare, either in this country or in the U.S. But inefficient administration is a common factor in both I have no doubt. And if we are to honestly look at an issue like welfare we need to look honestly at all the components of it, from policy to admin to end use (and often time abuse).

Gvt operated entities are never as efficient as private sector for a reason... They represent multi-benefit opportunities for gvt... They are employment centers for gvt, the marketing/optics opportunity is great (look what we are doing in the community! Re-elect us!) and maybe (if we're lucky) a few bucks actually goes 'the cause'

Indian Affairs is a great example.. Billions of $$ into the system to assist FN's, yet only a few dollars actually trickles down to the individuals in need. The rest goes to admin to support the non-existing initiatives, but keeps people on the payroll and the optics of the department working feverishly (for decades now apparently) to ease the raft of crises that need attention.

It's a mugs game in the end

 

[taxslave]

That's a great question.

But ultimate the buck still stops at the gov't.

Where it is promptly squandered. Only a few pennies ever get to the cause at hand. And now the government wants to do away with pennies which probably means that NO program spending will get to the intended recipients.

 

[JLM]

Given the fact that welfare is administered by the government and they are not known for their efficiency, I think we can reasonably guess that it's fairly significant.

Good reason right there for slashing bureaucracy. When I first read the article I was under the (obviously wrong) impression that the recipients were getting most of the money. Criminal!!

 

[SLM]

Unfortunately, idealism is the very foundation upon which any democracy is based - and it's one of the biggest problems ingrained in the system today... In my opinion, a political position is founded on an 'ideal', but due to the complexity and society as a whole. the 'ideal' must fit into the entire dynamic on a functional basis before it can have any of the (naively described) benefits purported by the group/party that supports it... Without any dynamic functionality, the ideal is nothing more than spoken words..... And this is what I see as the root of the problem... People vote/support the idea but don't take the time to understand if it is practical.

Absolutely! And if I could have underlined the word practical three times I would have, lol.

Part of my personal nature is to play 'devil's advocate' so to speak (can drive my friends who are looking for sympathy a bit nuts because I'm always trying to explain/understand the pov of whomever they're ticked off at sometimes) but when it comes to political issues I feel it is very important to truly understand both sides of an issue. Essentially we are all working towards the same goal in the end (the betterment and prosperity of our society), it is how we approach it that differs.

The often times rabid steadfast idealism of the minority (and while very, very vocal I do believe they are a minority) completely disregards the complexities within society. I often liken our society to vast tapestry, you pull on one thread and you never really know what you will end up unraveling. Which is why thought needs to placed behind political ideas like "cut taxes/cut spending" or vice versa. But as you've said, they voters don't seem to take the time to understand and as such buy into the hype of the candidates marketing ploy.

Gvt operated entities are never as efficient as private sector for a reason... They represent multi-benefit opportunities for gvt... They are employment centers for gvt, the marketing/optics opportunity is great (look what we are doing in the community! Re-elect us!) and maybe (if we're lucky) a few bucks actually goes 'the cause'

Indian Affairs is a great example.. Billions of $$ into the system to assist FN's, yet only a few dollars actually trickles down to the individuals in need. The rest goes to admin to support the non-existing initiatives, but keeps people on the payroll and the optics of the department working feverishly (for decades now apparently) to ease the raft of crises that need attention.

It's a mugs game in the end

I would wholly support more privatization of 'government' services because government shouldn't be running anything. People have a really irrational fear of the word 'privatization' though, it's a really hard sell.