The United States (The Gaslamp Post) – Every day we’re hearing about this fiscal cliff nonsense; this guy wants to cut this, that guy wants to tax that. Cut the defense! Tax the rich! Don’t raise taxes on the middle class! Leave our mortgage interest deduction alone!
Here a cliff, there a cliff, everywhere a cliff, cliff…
The bottom line is that this whole fiscal cliff label was intended to paint this dire picture of us turning into Greece at the stroke of midnight on December 31st, 2012, so that they would get you to buy the whole schpeel that you need to fork over more of your hard earned money.
At the stroke of midnight, *poof* everything turns back into pumpkins and we’re back in the dirt – so just hand over your wallet and trust those guys in Washington. They’ll fix it if you just give them the time and money.
Here’s something that no one seems to be talking about, but I’m sure has crossed all of your minds… With Americans on food stamps and government (tax-payer) assistance, why aren’t we talking about how much that is costing?
Cutting the defense, while China and Russia are now pals is a dumb move. Raising anyone’s taxes or taking away a deduction while trying to get us out of a recession will also be pointless; a tax on one is a tax on us all.
Now that I think about it, why are they even talking about taxation? Well the obvious answer is because we haven’t put our foot down with those clowns.
Why are we talking about taking from those who produce instead of talking about cutting off those who produce nothing? Below is a chart from the United States Budget Committee’s website, headed by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Al). What it’s basically illustrating is how much those on government (tax-payer) handouts are actually raking in, in relation to what those who work to pay for it are.
From the official website of the United States Senate Minority Committee on the Budget, according to the Blaze, Sen. Sessions writes:
… 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.
The universe of means-tested welfare spending refers to programs that provide low-income assistance in the form of direct or indirect financial support—such as food stamps, free housing, child care, etc.—and which the recipient does not pay into (in contrast to Medicare or Social Security).
For fiscal year 2011, CRS identified roughly 80 overlapping federal means-tested welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these federal programs, when taken together with approximately $280 billion in state contributions, amounted to roughly $1 trillion.
Nearly 95 percent of these costs come from four categories of spending: medical assistance, cash assistance, food assistance, and social/housing assistance. Under the President’s FY13 budget proposal, means-tested spending would increase an additional 30 percent over the next four years.
The diffuse and overlapping nature of federal welfare spending has led to some confusion regarding the scope and nature of benefits. For instance, Newark Mayor Cory Booker has recently received a great deal of attention for adopting the “food stamp diet” in which he spends only $4 a day on food (the average individual benefit in his state) to apparently illustrate the insufficiency of food stamp spending ($80 billion a year) or the impossibility of reductions.
The situation Booker presents, however, is not accurate: a low-income individual on food stamps may qualify for $25,000 in various forms of welfare support from the federal government on top of his or her existing income and resources—including access to 15 different food assistance programs.
Further, even if one unrealistically assumes that no other welfare benefits are available, the size of the food stamp benefit increases as one’s income decreases, as the benefit is designed as a supplement to existing resources; it is explicitly not intended to be the sole source of funds for purchasing food.
Why on earth are we spending the money we’re spending on giving those who don’t do anything a better life than most Americans who are working and getting less in return? What’s the point of working?
Furthermore, how is continuing on with the plan of the last four years going to better our economy or ensure that we as a nation do not go over said fiscal cliff? If your basement is under water, you don’t hook up the garden hose to the spigot and run it down the stairs to stop it, do you?
No, you shut off the water.
If you lose your job, you don’t go out and buy a car. If dad loses his job, you don’t ask him for a puppy.
WARNING: Explicit language.
Now is the time for America to say, “sorry folks, we’ve got a situation on our hands and we can barely afford to feed ourselves, let alone all of you.”
As my buddy Gary would say, “when you’re naked, you’ll move pretty quick in 5 below.” It’s time to grow up America, sink or swim.
(h/t: The Blaze)