We have reached a tipping point, welfare spending now more than medium income … what has happened to our country? America, do you still remember what the word pride means?
As reported at the Weekly Standard, 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, as opposed to the median income per day is only $137. Can you say unsustainable? People are going to begin to say, why work? And that is exactly how you crate a socialist society. At some point this has got to stop. For all the welfare spending, it has accomplished nothing except to create a dependent welfare class of people whose vote can be bought and the loss of liberty and self-respect.
According to the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee, 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.
“Based on data from the Congressional Research Service, cumulative spending on means-tested federal welfare programs, if converted into cash, would equal $167.65 per day per household living below the poverty level,” writes the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee. “By comparison, the median household income in 2011 of $50,054 equals $137.13 per day. Additionally, spending on federal welfare benefits, if converted into cash payments, equals enough to provide $30.60 per hour, 40 hours per week, to each household living below poverty. The median household hourly wage is $25.03. After accounting for federal taxes, the median hourly wage drops to between $21.50 and $23.45, depending on a household’s deductions and filing status. State and local taxes further reduce the median household’s hourly earnings. By contrast, welfare benefits are not taxed.”
Sadly, Doug Ross may have best summed up this disastrous overspending on the welfare state, “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.”
Just curious America, do you even care anyone about your country, why it was founded for Liberty?
$16,000,000,000,000 and counting …
As the Democrat National Convention started their this afternoon, the US federal debt went over $16 trillion. Metaphor? In less than four years in office Barack Obama has already eclipsed President George W. Bush’s eight years. The increase in debt was bad enough under GWB; however, during the Obama presidency it has been unreal.
The Treasury Department said Tuesday that the federal government has now officially topped $16 trillion in debt.
The announcement, which came just an hour before Democrats gaveled in their convention in Charlotte, N.C., to renominate President Obama for another four-year term, immediately boosted the government’s grim fiscal picture back to the fore of the national debate.
Debt has risen at a meteoric pace under Mr. Obama — in less than four years in office he has already eclipsed President George W. Bush’s eight years. His advisors say he has a “plausible” plan to stabilize the debt, but defend his spending plans, saying to withdraw government stimulus now would hurt the economic recovery.
This has got to come to an end. The increasing federal debt has got to be stopped. This has become criminal. Any one who defends the record debt that Obama ran up knows nothing about economics and what is devastating the United States. However, if you think Obama has done damage during his first term , imagine, just imagine another one. Ramesh Ponnuru warns, “If You Think Obama’s First Term Was Bad, Imagine a Second.”
In another recent interview, Obama likened the Republican opposition to him to a “blister” that will be “popped” by the election (an image for which I will not soon forgive him).
If the president believes anything like this would happen in his second term, he is kidding himself. If Obama wins re-election, the Republican Party will react by moving right, not left. It will become less likely to compromise with Obama, not more.
If Obama wins, he will almost certainly win with a smaller majority of the vote than he got in 2008, in defiance of the usual trend: Incumbents who win re-election usually do better the second time around. Republicans will almost certainly add to their ranks in the Senate, and may take a majority. No way would they see this set of election results as a “decisive” statement of support for Obama’s views.