Nationwide, less than 30% of the money spent on welfare actually winds up as cash in the hands of the needy it's supposedly benefiting. Most of it is spent on other things (some of which are no doubt good, others of which may not be so good). Surely one can suggest taking a hard look at these other expenditures without being accused of taking bread out of the mouths of children?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-welfare-dollars-do...
In California (one of the better states) only about 45% of the money supposedly spent to help poor people actually winds up in their hands. Some states are much, much worse.
The guy who got flagged suggested (in a rather combative manner, true) that too much of the welfare budget is spent on the salaries of bureaucrats. I don't know about you, but > 50% overhead seems like too much to me.
I feel like societal investments in combatting poverty are so low that the inefficiencies we see are because we’re paying just enough to keep the lights on.
Flipping things around, imagine a startup that was only making < 50% more in profit than its total costs. We wouldn’t be so critical. We’d say, “Wow, you’re profitable? Congratulations!”
Flipping things a little further, imagine how much more quickly a startup could become profitable if employees were paid the same as social workers. I'd argue that the delta in pay is at least partly attributable to the delta in how much each class of worker truly believes in the mission of the organization. That’s a sobering thought.
And all of this needs a solid, informed and rational discussion about how best to help people in need, which we cannot have because the narrative of this country seems to be locked in this mindset that the poor are the people who failed, the people who made dumb choices which apparently warrants a lifetime of check-to-check starvation, or in the most extreme cases people who have offended God or whatever and had their wealth taken from them. And that's not even going into the issues around everyone here being "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" and not wanting to tax the rich, because when they get rich, they don't want to be taxed.
The whole thing is screwed, not even just in the Government but in the culture.
My impression was that it showed up dead. I vouched for it, to no avail.
Assuming you mean this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15848548
Thanks.
not sure i agree one way or another, but penny for your thoughts.
I look at how much of my paycheck goes to taxes and it seems like there should be enough to ensure that kids don't go hungry but apparently not.
But the solution remains the same as always. The bureaucrats bleat "we need more money" - I don't think I've ever heard one say "we need to do a better job with the budget".
The fact is though we spent something on the order of 13 trillion dollars on a plane for the USAF that's not yet flown a single mission since it was purchased in what, 2008? Until that type of stuff starts getting cut, I refuse to buy the argument that "we can't afford it." BS we can't. Right now we won't afford it but that's not the same thing.
https://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/31/how-dods-15-trillion-f-35-br...
We've spent less than a trillion on it so far. I don't know where you got your 13 trillion dollar expense, but I'd like to know more about the claim.
I don't argue that we don't have the money to take better care of the poor. I'm just reluctant to advocate for more money until our welfare system demonstrates its efficiency. If it kicked butt, I'd want much more money going into the welfare system. But it's awful that so many good intentioned people run a system so poorly and the most vulnerable take the hit.
You might get angry realizing everyone has it better than you; but perhaps debt, lost love, resentment and bitterness is funding those extravagant purchases.