http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

I'm not interested in the racial breakdown, so much as the total spending as well as what they say you can get on welfare in terms of an hourly wage..

I was pretty blown away by all of this, and don't see how the US can continue to have this as an expense.

One of these days someone will wonder in here and post defense contractor numbers and ask if those are sustainable, at least that's my dream.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milit..._United_States

Hi guys, I'm well aware the military is out of control. I kind of wish I left my last statement off of the post, cause I'm more interested in someone debunking these stats as I really wish they weren't true.

** let me reiterate, I'm not really interested in the politics of it, just whether or not the numbers are accurate, or if it's some sort of BS that someone came up with. It seems from a legit source.

$131 billion, which is the figure cited as the annual cost of welfare, is less than 1% of U.S. GDP. (I assume this number doesn't include EITC, because tax breaks are TOTALLY NOT LIKE WELFARE, so it may not be accurate.) It hardly seems unreasonable that we would spend less than 1% of GDP on helping the poor. Indeed, I can imagine spending 2 or 3% of GDP on helping the poor.

SS disability is well over $100 billion. lets add em all up and see if we can hit that 3%.

I'll have to do some digging but I know the 1+ year on welfare largely goes to mentally challenged and other wise incapacitated individuals.

I apologize for my snark.

Yea, because federal disability is totally worthless.

Those people can work, they're just mentally lazy!

Well, I wasn't taking a stand against it, leftist, just pointing out that there are other types of welfare than just welfare.

Then again 60 minutes, the dirty right wing shills, did a nice little piece on SS disability fraud just one week ago. Shockingly enough poor rural areas are suing for benefits (and paying judges to get them) at a record pace, but heh, they aren't going on welfare.

The numbers look both too low and too high. Top of the page says "Aid could include general Welfare payments, health care through Medicaid, food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers, and federal and state housing benefits. " But Medicaid alone is 430 (? ballpark) billion.

Under welfare statistics "Number of US States where Welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job: 6"

Under top 10 hourly wage equivalent welfare states in US, starting with Rhode Island, 8 states are listed with higher than 12.

They are probably drawing the numbers from somewhere. I would however take these numbers, as I would take any number without clear definition, with a salt lick.

The are real economic benefits to giving people money so they can get back on their feet and back into the workforce after a layoff rather than throwing them out on the street. Of course there's fraud, but it's well worth the cost.

We should defund the whole damn thing because a minute percentage may possibly be gaming the system.

WELFARE!!!11

Not only that but the huge amount we spend on veteran affairs is conveniently included in general "entitlement spending". So when conservative rage on "entitlement spending" growth, they conveniently ignore, one of the biggest entitlement growth areas in the last decade is veteran affairs spending, and we have them to thank for it.

The annual budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs has more than doubled since 2003 to a requested $132.2 billion for fiscal 2012. That amount is expected to rise sharply over the next four decades as lingering health problems for veterans become more serious as they grow older.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ira...iou-2011-12-15

I should have a better understanding of this, but why would SS disability be thought of as "welfare". Part of the taxes pays the premiums of this "insurance". No?

I highly doubt making more money on welfare than the average teacher is accurate.

Looks like those numbers are similar to what Cato did. They include Medicaid and housing so the "wages" are not what people are taking home.

Depends on how they are counting. With enough children, working teachers would qualify for welfare programs too.

I am not trying to blow a racist dog whistle here. The system, justifiably, try to ensure food, education, and healthcare are provided for.

I see the US budget is 3.5 Trillion.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...._-_FY_2011.png

I had no idea it was that much..I remembered when it was like 750 Billion I think, so at first glance, the 100+ Billion figure seemed huge. Quick calculation shows that it's a little less than 3%.

Yeah the other thing most people forget is that "welfare" is not a blanket benefit that's dispersed to just anyone who wants it. So someone on "welfare" might be receiving like $50/month in SNAP assistance, or it might be a family of 5 pulling in a much larger haul via AFDC or disability. A good number of people on these programs are employed or working toward a college degree (a good number of my students would not be able to attend classes without federal and state benefits that allow them to get food, subsidized education, and childcare), so when people deride those on welfare as uniformly lazy, shiftless, and hauling in boatloads of cash, it's a safe bet they haven't got the slightest ****ing clue what they're talking about.

People who don't believe in government welfare help these people out just as much by dropping change in their cups.

Interesting. So you'd rather people accept a handout, charity even, rather than work for their living.

Quite an incentive structure you've set up there.

Don't know if we should have more welfare spending or not, but disability rolls have been rising even as our environment/work places are getting safer. States have an incentive to push people on to federal disability and off state funded plans as well. Everybody wins.

60 minutes says there are no jobs in those poor rural areas. Most are barely getting a little over $1,000 a month. The lawyers are the ones getting fat on this 'fraud'.

These numbers are through FY2011 and accounted for 4.2 percent of GDP in FY2011 (obviously a much broader definition of "welfare" than OP)...of all the things that the federal gov't does it always is a little surprising that ppl harp so much on "welfare" but rarely mention VA spending...Also the sequester is bound to lower the outlays on these programs so the percentage of GDP is bound to be lower this year.