welfare where does it really go

[grayghost668]

I found this little piece on welfare,,and after reading it the beliefs some of you have in welfare has huge holes in it,,,,,,the poor get damned little of it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

read it yourself...the feds dole out the money and the states piss it away on things other than putting food on the table,,,kind of pisses me off


https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...-things-besides-welfare/ar-AACP9Dn?li=BBnb7Kz

 

[tmttactical]

Why should the government dole out any money to the poor? Where in the constitution does it say the federal government is obligated to had out any free money to the poor?

 

[grayghost668]

Why should the government dole out any money to the poor? Where in the constitution does it say the federal government is obligated to had out any free money to the poor?

it is not the point ,the point is the states are using the funds in ways not intended,,,,,from what I read the feds could slash the budget by 90% ,,,,,I can live with people getting some help but not with the states pissing money away just because they have it

 

[grayghost668]

both the feds and state government have a tendency to waste money,,,spending in ways never intended,,

each state gets money for highways each year....what if it came to light that the 90% of the money intended for road repair was shifted to something else how would that sit with you

 

[grayghost668]

the hell with it,,,,,,,,,,,,,, this is just another way money intended for one thing is pissed away of crap not needed,,,,,Government at the Federal level and State level are real good at spending what does not belong to them

 

[tmttactical]

the hell with it,,,,,,,,,,,,,, this is just another way money intended for one thing is pissed away of crap not needed,,,,,Government at the Federal level and State level are real good at spending what does not belong to them

AND that was the whole point of my post. The government spends on items it was never intended to pay for. Then you add in the waste, mis-direction of funds, the piss poor management and no repercussions. The taxes continue to climb and nothing improves but the balance sheets of each politician.

 

[DrHenley]

In the crazy topsy turvy world of government, the more money you spend, the more have to spend in the future. Until it all comes crashing down.

You get penalized for not spending enough money.

 

[TexasFreedom]

GG, I think you are making a great point that gov't is horribly inefficient and shouldn't be involved in things like welfare. Massive waste and misdirecting of tax money. "Caring for the needy" was far more efficient when it was done outside gov't. You will not find a single shred of evidence to support that gov't is a better way to do this overall.

 

[grayghost668]

GG, I think you are making a great point that gov't is horribly inefficient and shouldn't be involved in things like welfare. Massive waste and misdirecting of tax money. "Caring for the needy" was far more efficient when it was done outside gov't. You will not find a single shred of evidence to support that gov't is a better way to do this overall.

that is not what I said,,,,,don't twist my post to suit your needs,,,

there are far to many that believe that the poor can sink or swim on their own

with that said just how would it be better in public hands

 

[TexasFreedom]

GG,

A few notes. I think we do agree that gov't programs are run very inefficiently and often are ineffective. Overhead costs, scams, nobody taking care of business... I'd wager only 1/3rd of taxes, at most 1/2 of taxes set aside for welfare end up helping people who really need it. You can adjust that number up or down, but I think that's the real range.

Yes, there are plenty of people who donate nothing to help the needy. That's ok, we do not need 100% participation. We didn't have it 100 years ago, we don't need it now. When you said 'public hands', I assume you mean non-gov't operation of charity?

If so, there are lots of ways. First, charities have very little overhead compared to gov't programs. People who work/volunteer with charities really care, and will mind the store. That will maximize the benefit to people who really need it and block out many who are just scamming. Not perfect, but far better than gov't programs. Charities rarely give out cash, and instead provide food and clothing and shelter to those in need. Again, this filters out huge deficiencies in gov't programs where people 'buy' (with taxpayer money) all kinds of things. Or how many people sell their food stamp money (yes, this is a $1billion scam if not more annually).

Look back. There was almost zero welfare during the great depression, yet hardly anybody starved. Hungry? Yup, and lots. But people helped one another and as a nation we got through it. An example, after church we had lunch with a couple that regularly donate to help the elderly/needy with their utility bill. They don't advertise it, they know someone at the utility company and that person pings them when there is a charity case where someone is about to get their utilities turned off due to non-payment. They give the money to bring that person up-to-date. No fan-fare, no scams, no gov't involvement. Simply good people blessing others at the local level.

 

[grayghost668]

GG,

A few notes. I think we do agree that gov't programs are run very inefficiently and often are ineffective. Overhead costs, scams, nobody taking care of business... I'd wager only 1/3rd of taxes, at most 1/2 of taxes set aside for welfare end up helping people who really need it. You can adjust that number up or down, but I think that's the real range.

Yes, there are plenty of people who donate nothing to help the needy. That's ok, we do not need 100% participation. We didn't have it 100 years ago, we don't need it now. When you said 'public hands', I assume you mean non-gov't operation of charity?

If so, there are lots of ways. First, charities have very little overhead compared to gov't programs. People who work/volunteer with charities really care, and will mind the store. That will maximize the benefit to people who really need it and block out many who are just scamming. Not perfect, but far better than gov't programs. Charities rarely give out cash, and instead provide food and clothing and shelter to those in need. Again, this filters out huge deficiencies in gov't programs where people 'buy' (with taxpayer money) all kinds of things. Or how many people sell their food stamp money (yes, this is a $1billion scam if not more annually).

Look back. There was almost zero welfare during the great depression, yet hardly anybody starved. Hungry? Yup, and lots. But people helped one another and as a nation we got through it. An example, after church we had lunch with a couple that regularly donate to help the elderly/needy with their utility bill. They don't advertise it, they know someone at the utility company and that person pings them when there is a charity case where someone is about to get their utilities turned off due to non-payment. They give the money to bring that person up-to-date. No fan-fare, no scams, no gov't involvement. Simply good people blessing others at the local level.

it was a different world then,,,,to many people now care only about their own self,,,they are worried someone might spend a dollar that belongs to them,,,,,,,

damned few would come off a dollar no matter what it was for ,,,from road repair to defending the USA,,,,,let someone else do it

you need look no further than this forum


prove me wrong

 

[TexasFreedom]

damned few would come off a dollar no matter what it was for...prove me wrong

GG,

I thought I just did. Isn't that the motto of the marines, 'the few, the proud, the marines'? It doesn't take the majority, but enough.

And I think you have a great idea, let's look at this forum. For our fellows, what percentage of your income do you give away? Whether church, charities, direct-to-the-individual?

I'll start off. 10-15%. I don't tally it (and the gov't has no business knowing). But this is the right range.

 

[tmttactical]

GG, what amount have YOU donated to charity? I have donated both time and money to feed a hungry person. I have paid the grocery bill for a broke mother trying to buying baby supplies. That does not make me a martyr or a great guy, but it did allow ME to decide how and to whom my money went. That is the real difference. The 'Free Lunch" crowd demand that everybody pay for their "Free Lunch", except of course themselves. NEWS FLASH --- the world does not owe anybody a 'Free Lunch".

 

[grayghost668]

I have never added it up but around 10%,,,,,,, and I have had one who I have cost me 40k while trying to get him back on his feet that one was about 13 tears ago,,he was more interested in being high than getting his life back on track,,I am not as generous as I once was

 

[tmttactical]

GG, But that is the whole point, it was YOUR choice to help that person out and your choice when to stop helping out. That is why we need the government to get out of the Charity business. The government is only interested in buying votes and maintaining their jobs. So the waste never stops and the expenses will continue to grow. Welfare is silk wrapped chains designed to imprison entire generations.

 

[grayghost668]

no point to this I am wasting my time,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[JackDW]

A girl I once worked with started working with the local Social Services after being laid off. (Textile jobs were sent offshored). She didn't last long in the Social Services jobs. She could only take so much of the "Welfare Queens (or Kings)" coming in and DEMANDING "where is my money". They didn't take too kindly when she pointed out, it was the taxpayers money. Personally, I don't think I would have lasted as long as she did.

 

[grayghost668]

the whole point of this thread was to point out how much is wasted by the states,and it looks to me like 90% or more is being pissed away,,,,I don't know how much is in the Federal Budget for welfare but when less that $.10 cents out of every dollar is all that reaches the people something needs to be done about it,,,,,,ending the program is not the answer

 

[tmttactical]

Ending the program is th only answer when the government is involved.

 

[TexasFreedom]

GG, I agree that 'ending' the program isn't the right choice. But what UP & I are saying is that we need to change WHO manages the program. We're saying to fire the gov't, and let the individual/charities take over.

Otherwise, you're agreeing that gov't is incompetently running this yet you want them to keep running it? At what point do you realize that's insanity?

UP said it really well here:

GG, But that is the whole point, it was YOUR choice to help that person out and your choice when to stop helping out. That is why we need the government to get out of the Charity business. The government is only interested in buying votes and maintaining their jobs. So the waste never stops and the expenses will continue to grow. Welfare is silk wrapped chains designed to imprison entire generations.