If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Weekly Standard)   Brace yourself, a new Republican talking point has arrived: welfare spending amounts to $168 per day per household in poverty, greater than the median household income. Quit your job and start living the high life on welfare, folks   (weeklystandard.com) divider line 544
    More: Amusing, Republican, median household income, talking points, welfare, Senate Budget Committee, local taxes, poverty  
•       •       •

3215 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Dec 2012 at 9:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



544 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-10 08:46:44 AM
Courtesy of my freeper coworker, who came in guns blazing with this one this morning. He was steaming about all these poor people making almost as much money as him without working!
 
2012-12-10 08:49:30 AM
Maybe that means that employers should pay their workers more?
 
2012-12-10 08:51:35 AM
Alpha male bovine fecal matter detected
 
2012-12-10 08:52:12 AM
Ok, so what does this mean if we throw away partisan blinders? Are the families in the end getting that whole $168 a day, or does this include overhead like management costs, the efforts to police means testing itself, etc. This is data, not truth, amybe not even data but just information. What does it mean?
 
2012-12-10 08:54:41 AM
That's not even really acknowledging the big picture. The truth that many pro-welfare champions don't like to admit is that many of America's "poor" actually live in extreme luxury. For example, almost 100 percent of "poor" people have refrigerators. Consider that for a moment. A mid-level refrigerator might cost $1000. If you were to convert that refrigerator to cash, it comes out to almost an $85 additional per month. And that's not even *starting* to add in the cash equivalent values of things like sinks and toilets. And some supposedly "poor" families even have cars and televisions!
 
2012-12-10 08:56:29 AM

rwhamann: Ok, so what does this mean if we throw away partisan blinders? Are the families in the end getting that whole $168 a day, or does this include overhead like management costs, the efforts to police means testing itself, etc. This is data, not truth, amybe not even data but just information. What does it mean?


"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,"

I would take that to mean total spending including overhead, the talking point is from the office of Jeff Sessions, which gives a bit of clue to it's misdirection
 
2012-12-10 08:56:49 AM
So does subby dispute that the government take on welfare isn't $168 per day? There are a lot of bureaucrats that have to make a living off welfare, you know.
 
2012-12-10 08:57:28 AM
But they are not cash, they are programs, programs have overhead, and administration, people, ahem, working (and getting paid) to provide these programs. Was this taken into account? The article didn't mention it, I bet the Senate minority report didn't either.
 
2012-12-10 08:59:02 AM

zedster: rwhamann: Ok, so what does this mean if we throw away partisan blinders? Are the families in the end getting that whole $168 a day, or does this include overhead like management costs, the efforts to police means testing itself, etc. This is data, not truth, amybe not even data but just information. What does it mean?

"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,"

I would take that to mean total spending including overhead, the talking point is from the office of Jeff Sessions, which gives a bit of clue to it's misdirection


So, the focus should be on what the actual division is, and how to lower overhead, not on "Republicans bad!!!!!" or "Welfare moms eating bonbons!!!"
 
2012-12-10 08:59:17 AM

sno man: But they are not cash, they are programs, programs have overhead, and administration, people, ahem, working (and getting paid) to provide these programs. Was this taken into account? The article didn't mention it, I bet the Senate minority report didn't either.


Unless their argument is we would be better straight handing out cash instead of having directed welfare programs. Could be a fun experiment
 
2012-12-10 09:02:44 AM
Is that figure pulled out of an ass?
 
2012-12-10 09:03:19 AM
Nearly 95 percent of these costs come from four categories of spending: medical assistance, cash assistance, food assistance, and social / housing assistance.


Are they including medicare? he appears to be using the broadest definition of welfare possible
 
2012-12-10 09:07:22 AM

zedster: sno man: But they are not cash, they are programs, programs have overhead, and administration, people, ahem, working (and getting paid) to provide these programs. Was this taken into account? The article didn't mention it, I bet the Senate minority report didn't either.

Unless their argument is we would be better straight handing out cash instead of having directed welfare programs. Could be a fun experiment


I doubt it would go well. Mandatory money management and basic budgeting courses would help, a lot.
 
2012-12-10 09:09:46 AM

sno man: zedster: sno man: But they are not cash, they are programs, programs have overhead, and administration, people, ahem, working (and getting paid) to provide these programs. Was this taken into account? The article didn't mention it, I bet the Senate minority report didn't either.

Unless their argument is we would be better straight handing out cash instead of having directed welfare programs. Could be a fun experiment

I doubt it would go well. Mandatory money management and basic budgeting courses would help, a lot.


notice I said fun, not sane, reasonable, smart, effective, or wise
 
2012-12-10 09:12:19 AM

zedster: sno man: zedster: sno man: But they are not cash, they are programs, programs have overhead, and administration, people, ahem, working (and getting paid) to provide these programs. Was this taken into account? The article didn't mention it, I bet the Senate minority report didn't either.

Unless their argument is we would be better straight handing out cash instead of having directed welfare programs. Could be a fun experiment

I doubt it would go well. Mandatory money management and basic budgeting courses would help, a lot.

notice I said fun, not sane, reasonable, smart, effective, or wise


Just think of all the refrigerators that would be sold !
 
2012-12-10 09:13:13 AM

sno man: But they are not cash, they are programs, programs have overhead, and administration, people, ahem, working (and getting paid) to provide these programs. Was this taken into account? The article didn't mention it, I bet the Senate minority report didn't either.


Of course operating expenses factor into that. Just remember that when they trot out "welfare recipients need mandatory drug testing"... Imagine all the expenses and operating costs that would create.
 
2012-12-10 09:13:29 AM
Every site reporting this story says the graph and statement come from the office of Sen. Jess Sessions (R-AL), but I can't find an official statement of any kind. Anyone else trying? Every news outlet running this story (which, by the way, range from The Blaze to Townhall to LonelyConservative.com) seems to be quoting the same "official statement", but I can't find the source anywhere.

For example: here and here
 
2012-12-10 09:14:56 AM
It's not just Republican math, it's ALABAMA Republican math.
 
2012-12-10 09:16:23 AM
The leeches are at the top.
 
2012-12-10 09:19:37 AM

Earguy: sno man: But they are not cash, they are programs, programs have overhead, and administration, people, ahem, working (and getting paid) to provide these programs. Was this taken into account? The article didn't mention it, I bet the Senate minority report didn't either.

Of course operating expenses factor into that. Just remember that when they trot out "welfare recipients need mandatory drug testing"... Imagine all the expenses and operating costs that would create.


heh, gotta keep the drug testers employed and off welfare. So they're not a drain on the system.
 
2012-12-10 09:20:39 AM

mahuika: I can't find an official statement of any kind. Anyone else trying?



It should be Here, but it's not.
 
2012-12-10 09:22:42 AM

Vodka Zombie: It's not just Republican math, it's ALABAMA Republican math.


Yeah, I'm calling complete BS on this. The GOP has shown they will blatantly lie about everything, why on earth would anyone believe them on this?
 
2012-12-10 09:22:54 AM

basemetal: Is that figure pulled out of an ass?


If it's from Jeff Sessions then yes, it is.
 
2012-12-10 09:26:27 AM

phaseolus: It should be Here, but it's not.


Well, here's the source of the chart, however, it adds little in the way of context.
 
2012-12-10 09:27:11 AM
They would be much happier if poor people just starved to death. Because that's the sort of people they are.
 
2012-12-10 09:28:07 AM

phaseolus: mahuika: I can't find an official statement of any kind. Anyone else trying?


It should be Here, but it's not.


It's from the US Senate Budget Committee which is here http://budget.senate.gov

I cannot find the text, which was probably just minutes but the graph is here budget.senate.gov
/clickable
 
2012-12-10 09:29:05 AM

zedster: I cannot find the text, which was probably just minutes but the graph is here


Found it
 
2012-12-10 09:30:53 AM
TFH: Brace yourself, a new Republican talking point has arrived:...

I haven't checked my Facebook right-wing news feed yet.

(goes to facebook)

Yep. Literally the 5th entry on my wall (linked the ijReview article).

It's in an article on a "reputable" web site people! It *must* be factual!!
 
2012-12-10 09:31:40 AM
Ahhahahha this is amazing. IF total welfare spending is converted entirely to cash payments. IF my aunt had balls.
 
2012-12-10 09:32:23 AM

zedster: budget.senate.gov
/clickable


The fact that it's sourced as "Staff calculations of data from" XYZ, lends me to believe that the conclusions are suspect. Without the original source data, however, I cannot confirm or deny my suspicions.
 
2012-12-10 09:33:38 AM
This is what we told you would happen four years ago. Why are people shocked when it comes true?
 
2012-12-10 09:35:07 AM

SlothB77: This is what we told you would happen four years ago. Why are people shocked when it comes true?


You told us four years ago that Jeff Sessions would try and pass off some bullshiat in an intentionally misleading manner? Wow, you're a goddamn psychic.
 
2012-12-10 09:36:56 AM

incendi: SlothB77: This is what we told you would happen four years ago. Why are people shocked when it comes true?

You told us four years ago that Jeff Sessions would try and pass off some bullshiat in an intentionally misleading manner? Wow, you're a goddamn psychic.


well Sessions has been doing it for awhile now, not so much a prediction as a noticing of a trend
 
2012-12-10 09:37:14 AM

incendi: phaseolus: It should be Here, but it's not.

Well, here's the source of the chart, however, it adds little in the way of context.


It doesn't matter. The intended audience will never fact check it. This talking point is here to stay. It may be total BS but I must say its well played BS.
 
2012-12-10 09:40:20 AM
Mock all you want but I know of a person here in my little burg who has turned down a job promotion because she would lose some of her benefits. Then you have stories like this where there are business owners who are having trouble finding people who are willing to get off the tit because they might have to work the third shift at a training wage.
 
2012-12-10 09:41:22 AM

zedster: Found it


What a surprise. Mr. Halper cut and pasted the entire thing. Good job, "journalist".
 
2012-12-10 09:42:34 AM
Lucky Ducky!!!!
 
2012-12-10 09:43:14 AM

Pocket Ninja: That's not even really acknowledging the big picture. The truth that many pro-welfare champions don't like to admit is that many of America's "poor" actually live in extreme luxury. For example, almost 100 percent of "poor" people have refrigerators. Consider that for a moment. A mid-level refrigerator might cost $1000. If you were to convert that refrigerator to cash, it comes out to almost an $85 additional per month. And that's not even *starting* to add in the cash equivalent values of things like sinks and toilets. And some supposedly "poor" families even have cars and televisions!


Not to mention the number of poor families with children valued at thousands of dollars apiece, easily converted into cash through rental, leasing or outright sale.
 
2012-12-10 09:44:22 AM
Obama Excuse Force! Launch! The story is how out of control our welfare spending is and how increasingly large numbers of people are using it. Twist it around and make it a story about how Republicans are just making some silly 'talking point'.

Remember, only YOU can protect dear leader from criticism over his failures.
 
2012-12-10 09:45:17 AM
How many Rhode Islands is this?
 
2012-12-10 09:45:28 AM
The proper solution is "pay employees more" not "get rid of welfare", you farksticks.
 
2012-12-10 09:46:00 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Mock all you want but I know of a person here in my little burg who has turned down a job promotion because she would lose some of her benefits.


Hold the phone, everyone. DIA knows a stupid person. This changes EVERYTHING.

Nothing is safe.

Especially not...refrigerators.
 
2012-12-10 09:46:05 AM

Pocket Ninja: That's not even really acknowledging the big picture. The truth that many pro-welfare champions don't like to admit is that many of America's "poor" actually live in extreme luxury. For example, almost 100 percent of "poor" people have refrigerators. Consider that for a moment. A mid-level refrigerator might cost $1000. If you were to convert that refrigerator to cash, it comes out to almost an $85 additional per month. And that's not even *starting* to add in the cash equivalent values of things like sinks and toilets. And some supposedly "poor" families even have cars and televisions!


It may not be scientifically, ethically, or morally feasible due to me being a dude and all, but I want your have your babies.
 
2012-12-10 09:46:23 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Mock all you want but I know of a person here in my little burg who has turned down a job promotion because she would lose some of her benefits. Then you have stories like this where there are business owners who are having trouble finding people who are willing to get off the tit because they might have to work the third shift at a training wage.


A large part of the unemployed are older and thus not in a good position to retrain. Add an option to unemployment were instead of having to apply for 2 jobs a week you can get unemployment and help with retraining and it might help the problem. It use to be for jobs like that the companies had systems to train employees and retain them, I'm going to guess that place doesn't offer things like that. There is always going to be a small pool of skilled labor compared to demand because our service economy pushes people away from those jobs. If you train on one series of machines and then those get replaced you are kind of screwed, the risk on those jobs is pretty high.
 
2012-12-10 09:46:52 AM
That Senate link contains so many weasel words that even real weasels should be descending on DC to protest. I'm most amused how they don't mention any breakup of costs.
 
2012-12-10 09:46:58 AM
Damn, poor people have it good.

You know who is really cleaning up though? Prisoners. Nobody lives a more charmed life than America's prison population.
 
2012-12-10 09:47:09 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Mock all you want but I know of a person here in my little burg who has turned down a job promotion because she would lose some of her benefits. Then you have stories like this where there are business owners who are having trouble finding people who are willing to get off the tit because they might have to work the third shift at a training wage.


So employers are upset that people won't do shiat work for pay that's insufficient to live on? The horror!
 
2012-12-10 09:47:16 AM

SavageWombat: Not to mention the number of poor families with children valued at thousands of dollars apiece, easily converted into cash through rental, leasing or outright sale.


that's a rather modest proposal
 
2012-12-10 09:47:17 AM
umulative spending on means-tested federal welfare programs, if converted into cash, would equal $167.65 per day per household living below the poverty level,

Well, clearly that means that people on welfare receive $167.65 per day in benefits.

Seems legit.
 
2012-12-10 09:47:45 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Mock all you want but I know of a person here in my little burg who has turned down a job promotion because she would lose some of her benefits. Then you have stories like this where there are business owners who are having trouble finding people who are willing to get off the tit because they might have to work the third shift at a training wage.


Perhaps if he paid enough for people to support their families on he would have people willing to take the job.
 
Displayed 50 of 544 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report