I saw this on Fark.com
Fun fact of the day: For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person is on welfare
Link to story:
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/11/27/f...is-on-welfare/
Link to the fark comments:
http://www.fark.com/comments/7458975...-is-on-welfare
With comments like:
"Fun Fact: Subby's fun facts are neither facts nor fun"
Also of note from another source;
Fifty-seven percent of Mexican immigrants on welfare
http://www.examiner.com/article/fift...alerts_article
P.A. And of note; The way the corrupt system is set up with the central banks able to counterfeit whatever amount of money they want to loan out for things like this is it any wonder we've lost control of the situation.
Are government employees counted as welfare recipients as they should be?
The figure is misleading. It is actually Households where at least one person receives some sort of assistance.. If Grandma is on Social Security and lives in a house with her child and husband and their three kids they are all counted as being on assistance even though only one actually is -or if one of the kids gets free lunch at school as another example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carson
Link to report they got the info from: http://cis.org/node/3876#poverty
The various sources of aid they counted:
It adds:Quote:
The definition of programs is as follows: cash assistance: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), state administered general assistance, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which is for low-income elderly and disabled persons; food assistance: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), informally known as food stamps, free and subsidized school lunch, and the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program (WIC); housing assistance: subsidized and government-owned housing.
Quote:
While immigrants’ use of some welfare programs is higher than that of natives, Table 12 shows that most households, immigrant or native, do not use the welfare system. On the other hand, even though most households (foreign-born or native) in the country do not use the welfare programs, the programs listed in Table 12 cost the government well over $700 billion annually.
So, I am not following your line of reasoning because the same criteria holds true then for all races (for however they breakdown the welfare roles). Are you suggesting that mexican immigrants are more apt to pile into "one" household thus inflating the %?
I know the school system is overflowing with free lunches for these immigrants .. both breakfast and lunch and many cases, after school programs. So yeah, I can see that inflating. But regardless - its welfare. All free, on someone elses dime. Love it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zippyjuan
All the figure shows is that about half of all households which include at least one immigrant (legal or illegal- most are legal) has at least one person receiving some sort of benefit. It does not say that half of all immigrants are receiving some sort of benefit as the headline claims. If say half of the occupants of a house receive benefits and half don't and half of all households get some sort of benefit then that would actually mean that one quarter of the people are receiving a benefit- not half of them.
How does that compare to US Citizens? The figure is about the same- again roughly half of households have at least one person in it who receives some sort of benefit. It is not really a specifically immigrant problem but it is something we need to try to deal with.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/...ting-benefits/
Quote:
49.1%: Percent of the population that lives in a household where at least one member received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2011.
Cutting government spending is no easy task, and it’s made more complicated by recent Census Bureau data showing that nearly half of the people in the U.S. live in a household that receives at least one government benefit, and many likely received more than one.
The 49.1% of the population in a household that gets benefits is up from 30% in the early 1980s and 44.4% as recently as the third quarter of 2008.
Damn. You beat me to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tod evans
I think so , any Fed govt employee not covered in Article One , Section eight , is most certainly a low value tax tick.Quote:
Originally Posted by tod evans
In other news, 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population...
Saying someone is here to work all the while they are drawing social services is also misleading.
Like I said though, it does work out for the ones lending the money.
It also seems to work out for those that are in position in the government that see to it the scam is perpetuated. They have their positions in offices. Do they not?
Was that part of the criteria in seeing them put in such places? There are those that could print up what ever amount of money it took to see that they are.