Help The Poor By Ending State Welfare

1. 2005 Welfare Budget - http://tinyurl.com/mpfnmb
2. 2 Million on Welfare - http://tinyurl.com/mkzdlo
3. Charity 85% Efficient - http://tinyurl.com/dokab

It was, and remains to be, very difficult for me to find any actual figures from the government itself on exactly how many families were on some kind of welfare for 2005. To give an idea of what the maximum number would likely be, we can look at the poverty rate, which is roughly 13% of the population. That would be 39 million people (3M*0.13). Considering that families on average consist of 4 people, that would mean 9.75 million families are below the poverty line (39M/4). Assuming all families under the poverty level are receiving welfare, they should each have received $41,435.90 for that year alone (404B/9.75M). Assuming the average amount of money made every year from welfare (which again is a tedious figure to find hidden in government psuedostatistics) is $11,000 a year, the government would only have been 27% efficient (11,000/41,435.90). The very fact that the government refuses to post what their actual efficiency ratings are and force us to estimate instead causes me to think that they know exactly how horrible they are at spending money and are embarrassed to make that figure public.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• jacobspinney
• jacob
• spinney
• end
• welfare
• debate
• private
• charity
• capitalism
• socialism
• statism
• anarchism
• libertarianism

[AndroidPolitician]

@JacobSpinney

Not all of welfare spending is on cash assistance, parts of it go to work and child care programs, the actual percent spent on administration is 7.4%.

That aside, private charities don't have the resources to replace welfare programs. It's why the poverty rate has never been as high as it was in the 1950s or the 1800s for that matter.

If charities were so successful we wouldn't of had 30-50% of Americans in poverty in the 1800s.

[juanlmesl]

/watch?v=dCc_dSgbZq8&feature=a­utoplay&list=FLolIgWY3MbF6-gP3­c05TUow&lf=plcp&playnext=1

[kal9990]

@Riellysdad

you are incorrect, there are not always more jobs than people to fill them

[hello12363062]

@TheAlfonz69 The 19th century england, as you said, had a high poverty rate and the rich nearly didn't donate anything cause they wanted more and more. But today with the welfare system I must say that I see much more improvement! So well anyways my point is that I feel that welfare is far nearer the goal we're trying to reach then charity.

[TheAlfonz69]

@Riellysdad

1. Are you saying education and healthcare have no positive externalities? If you think that, you're unbelievably stupid.

2. What history books? Name a single society where charity adequately tackled the problem of poverty.

3. So what you're essentially saying is the market creates a load of hypothetical jobs that no-one wants and which don't pay and are never offered to anyone? And you call these imaginary vacancies jobs?

Have a good hard think about that one.

[Riellysdad]

@TheAlfonz69 .. The market creates all the jobs that are required... there are always far more jobs than people to fill them...its just a matter of whether they are worth paying to have done.

[Riellysdad]

@TheAlfonz69 ...pick up a history book and then come back with your tail between your legs....And don't waste any time on that externalities illiterate bs....Geez.

[Riellysdad]

@mecher3k ...Any difference is cosmetic...both are collectivist fallacy's and lead to tyranny.

Try again douchebag.

[mecher3k]

@Riellysdad

So not only are you clueless about Marxism, but also clueless about fascism.

Good job retard.