Rampant fraud and increased poverty:
'Welfare Spending Equates to $168 Per Day for Every Household in Poverty'
The amount of money spent on welfare programs equals, when converted to cash payments, about "$168 per day for every household in poverty"...
...welfare spending per day per household in poverty is $168, which is higher than the $137 median income per day. When broken down per hour, welfare spending per hour per household in poverty is $30.60, which is higher than the $25.03 median income per hour.
History teaches us -- or at least, the intelligent among us, which rules out Democrats -- that collectivism spreads misery.
We are headed for fiscal collapse -- and the welfare state keeps growing like a cancer, incentivizing sloth, formalizing a culture of dependency, and killing self-sufficiency.
Liberty, I am sad to say, is on the wane.
9 comments:
Milestone equals a Millstone
The road to serfdom for the middle class.
What a load of bogus crap this graph is.
This isn't comparing apples to oranges; it's comparing apples to ipads.
When alleged "conservatives" start believing and promoting b.s., made-up, meaningless statistics just because it (falsely) reinforces what they WANT to be true, rather than what is true; then, I have to reconsider my definition of "conservative" or my definition of myself as one.
Let the logically fallacious attacks begin.
@BllyB -
Does the graph represent the average amount of money spent on each household on welfare vs the amount the average American receives in salary from private employment?
Why, yes, it does.
You see, to be a conservative, you have to have an IQ over 95, which excludes you.
So, I say that the graph compares apples to oranges (another way of saying that it shows a meaningless comparison); and your response is to ask me if it compares apples to oranges?
O.k. then, what important lesson are we to infer from the graph?
That welfare pays more than employment, on average?
Or, that welfare costs more than employment, on average?
Do you see the difference in those two questions?
If I made a bar graph which compared the COST of producing an item (shown in one bar) with the market PRICE of that same item (shown in a second bar); then the comparison would make sense, and the difference between bars would be profit.
If, on the other hand, I made a bar graph comparing the cost of producing one item to the price of a completely different item made by some other company; then there would be no point to the comparison.
Just because the COST of welfare, and private INCOME can both be stated in dollars does not mean that they are the same measure.
A graph comparing the height of the average American to the height of the average Chinese person makes sense. A graph comparing the height of the average American to the weight of the average Chinaman does not.
Should I type more slowly?
Billy B.
You might try maing some sense. The chart compares total household income of a working person to the total household income of a welfare recipiant.
That is comparing apple to apples.
BTW, your comments show you to not be a conlservative, but they do show you to be a liberal troll.
"The chart compares total household income of a working person to the total household income of a welfare recipiant."
No. No, it doesn't.
BillyB is right about what the graph represents. It doesn't show how much welfare recipients are getting, it shows what welfare is costing. The difference, I assume, is government overhead. To me, that is the outrageous part of it. I wish there were a breakdown of the overhead... how can it be so much?
Post a Comment