I'm surprised nobody posted this. It is hard to believe the number could be that high, must be some double counting or something. I can't believe anyone could think that is a good trend. Safety nets and charity are fine, but this sounds a bit too much. Are people really that dependent on government for their everyday basic needs, and is this a good thing? WTF?
According to the Survey of Income and Program Participation conducted by the U.S. Census, well over 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government. Many are enrolled in more than one. That is about a third of the entire population of the country.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
Not a single doubt in my mind that they would be better cared for by their neighbors than they are by the federal government. Churches and private charities, in cooperation with local and State government would be much preferable to a distant and unresponsive government's feeble and ineffective attempts at the same. Certainly our public employees are better off in their retirement than the private sector workers who rely on Social Security are. Why is it such a stretch to think that private sector workers in Colorado having a similar set-up for their pension fund wouldn't produce the same results for them that it does for the public sector workers who pay nothing in to the Ponzi based federal program?
Edited to add:
And who do you think is in a better position to determine what it is the poor in Denver need? Mayor Hancock, the Denver City Council and Governor Hickenlooper and the Colorado State Legislature or the 535 Congress critters in Washington DC and President Obama? There is little doubt as to the answer to that question, is there?
archer wrote: No problem, shut it all down, according to PrintSmith churches and private charity can take care of those 100 million.
Maybe a lot of those don't really need welfare? For example, work under the table jobs. Or don't declare income so that their children receive free school meals. I think there was posted a story about school principals who were getting free lunches.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus
Its the 100 million or 1/3 of the population number that is troublesome. Either our economic model is failing badly, or our means testing is not well calibrated. The bottom 33% makes up to about $30K, not rich, but certainly not poverty either.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
LOL wrote: Its the 100 million or 1/3 of the population number that is troublesome. Either our economic model is failing badly, or our means testing is not well calibrated. The bottom 33% makes up to about $30K, not rich, but certainly not poverty either.
If the feds cant root out those who don't qualify for assistance, I doubt a church or private charity could do any better.
Maybe a lot of those don't really need welfare? For example, work under the table jobs. Or don't declare income so that their children receive free school meals. I think there was posted a story about school principals who were getting free lunches.
