11 States now have more on Welfare than working

[dmcowen674]

1-2-2013

http://michaelsnyder.mensnewsdaily....-the-number-of-people-with-jobs-in-11-states/

The Number Of People On Welfare Exceeds The Number Of People With Jobs In 11 States



America is rapidly becoming a nation of takers. An increasing number of Americans expect the government to take care of them from the cradle to the grave, and they expect the government to dig into the pockets of others in order to pay for it all.


In 11 different U.S. states today, the number of people on welfare exceeds the number of people with jobs. This list of states includes some of the biggest states in the country: California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Maine, Kentucky, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, New Mexico and Hawaii.


In order to support this exploding entitlement system, we need a lot more Americans to be working good paying jobs.


Unfortunately, millions of good paying jobs continue to be shipped overseas and they aren't coming back.

We are even losing good jobs to our own prisoners. The United States has the largest prison population in the world by far, and the exploitation of that low wage labor pool has become a boom industry in America. Even Microsoft and Boeing are using prison labor now.

According to Chris Cox and Bill Archer, two men who served on Bill Clinton's Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, there is no way in the world that we could raise taxes high enough to pay for all of the obligations that we are currently taking on. They say that even if we taxed all corporations and all individuals at a 100% tax rate on all income over $66,193, "it wouldn't be nearly enough to fund the over $8 trillion per year in the growth of U.S. liabilities."

 

[dmcowen674]

The south has a very large hand in this too.

Kentucky, South Carolina, Mississippi and Alabama are staunch Republican States yet they are just as guilty.

 

[michal1980]

The south has a very large hand in this too.

Kentucky, South Carolina, Mississippi and Alabama are staunch Republican States yet they are just as guilty.

a good chunk of those are big dem states.

You should be happy about this. Its exactly what the left wants, everyone completely dependent on government.

 

[diesbudt]

The south has a very large hand in this too.

doesn't surprise me

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

The south has a very large hand in this too.

Kentucky, South Carolina, Mississippi and Alabama are staunch Republican States yet they are just as guilty.

Yet the north is much more populated and probably outnumbers these south states 2 to 1 in welfare recipients.

 

[Engineer]

Not surprising at all. When counties in KY (and West Virginia) have 60+ % of the people on some sort of government assistance, you know things are really shitty. Need to put a stop to this shit.

Wait: That includes STATE workers in the equation. Am I reading that right? Also, does dependent on government mean those that receive SS, etc? If so, that's an entitlement (not SSI), not welfare.

If so, completely misleading but probably not far off anyway, at least here in KY.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Well, the writer already starts with manipulated numbers.

Today, there are 56.76 million Americans on Social Security.

To support all of those Americans on Social Security, there are only about 94.75 million full-time private sector workers.

There is actually 112.556 million full-time workers in the US. Not to mention parttime workers, self employed and so on.

Only 8.83 million are disabled workers. Meaning 47.93 million must be considered directly unemployed. I assume the able workforce in the US is around 200 million. So the problem is that the real unemployment rate is around 25%. The last 100 million is considered children and retirees.

 

[Wyndru]

The category includes 11 states where private sector workers are outnumbered by people who are dependent on the government. That number would include state workers, and people who are receiving welfare or pension.

I find it odd that state workers (and pension receivers) are also on this list. How is someone providing services for a paycheck (or retired and collecting a pension) in the same category as someone on welfare? Wouldn't that skew the results by quite a bit?

I'm not surprised that there is a large percentage of people on welfare in these states, but the way it is worded is misleading to me.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

doesn't surprise me

Me neither. The north has an insane number of welfare recipients. Crazy times.

 

[blackangst1]

Obama is realizing his dream-a dependent people.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Obama is realizing his dream-a dependent people.

That happend long before Obama.

Around 40% of all workable women in the US are housewifes.

 

[Baptismbyfire]

a good chunk of those are big dem states.

You should be happy about this. Its exactly what the left wants, everyone completely dependent on government.

If you must insist on a dichotomous view of left vs right, the "left" as you put it is no longer a substantial force to be reckoned with. If the "left" could mount any opposition to the corrupt politicians and the whole slew of lobbyists, the US will not be in the state it is in right now. Any democratic government in order to be healthy requires that its elected representatives take into account views from the whole political spectrum, rather than just the views of those rich enough to fill their political coffers. The "left" as you put it, has long been silenced through intimidation or bribery during the Cold War Era.

It is truly quite pointless to frame the issue as a battle between the left vs right, for anyone who has been paying even the slightest attention during the last two administrations knows that both the Republican and the Democrat Party are driven by greed and lust for power than any sort of political philosophy, whether conservative or liberal. Even the right-wing party whom some on this forum want to portray as champions of citizen rights, cannot stay the course in their crusade against government intervention, when it is their CEOs and investments on the line.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I find it odd that state workers (and pension receivers) are also on this list. How is someone providing services for a paycheck (or retired and collecting a pension) in the same category as someone on welfare? Wouldn't that skew the results by quite a bit?

I'm not surprised that there is a large percentage of people on welfare in these states, but the way it is worded is misleading to me.

Local, state, and federal workers get their paychecks off of the backs of the private sector. Yes, they provide a service, but nonetheless they are dependent on private sector funds.

We've reached the point where we have a virtual majority of people dependent on .gov support, whether it be a job, welfare, SS, etc. For all practical purposes, the private sector is becoming enslaved to the public sector.

 

[Jaskalas]

11 States now have more on Welfare than working

That is why Congress is at an impasse, and the country is ungovernable.

People are trying to fight back against the eventual collapse of the system. They will continue to increase their resistance to our problem until civil unrest becomes the new norm and we achieve revolution. It's up to the Democrats and Republicans to allow secession BEFORE this becomes a violent revolution.

They need to act before we collapse. They almost certainly will not.

I can only pray that a State takes the lead in charting a new course for the nation.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Well, the writer already starts with manipulated numbers.

Yes, he starts with a number that is very close to those who are retired and on Social Security, essentially saying if you are retired and on Social Security you are on welfare.

Article is a sham

 

[Texashiker]

How do I sign up for some of those benefits?

 

[Wyndru]

Local, state, and federal workers get their paychecks off of the backs of the private sector. Yes, they provide a service, but nonetheless they are dependent on private sector funds.

We've reached the point where we have a virtual majority of people dependent on .gov support, whether it be a job, welfare, SS, etc. For all practical purposes, the private sector is becoming enslaved to the public sector.

That makes more sense to me. The title just gives me the impression that they are referring to people collecting welfare and not working, which kind of makes it a troll article

 

[fskimospy]

Local, state, and federal workers get their paychecks off of the backs of the private sector. Yes, they provide a service, but nonetheless they are dependent on private sector funds.

We've reached the point where we have a virtual majority of people dependent on .gov support, whether it be a job, welfare, SS, etc. For all practical purposes, the private sector is becoming enslaved to the public sector.

This is simply untrue. Government jobs are not dependent on the private sector for support, they are just financed in a different way. Think about two examples (and remember they are EXAMPLES not policy prescriptions):

If we lived in a communist society where everyone was employed by the government there would be no private sector to 'support' the public, yet the public sector is still there. Second, the public sector provides absolutely vital services; does the private sector enable the fire department to exist or does the fire department enable the business to exist because the town didn't burn down? Public workers provide goods for money. Saying they are on welfare is dumb.

 

[DrPizza]

I'm going to have to call bullshit on the OP's thread title.

New York: in November, there were 8,786,152 employed out of a workforce of 9,580,338. Eliminate retirees & children of those who are employed, and you're FAR FAR beyond half of the state's population. If you call someone who is 70 who is receiving social security payments, after paying into the system for more than half their life, then there's something pretty dishonest about your motivations for the claim in the OP.

http://www.labor.ny.gov/stats/laus_sa.xls

 

[dmcowen674]

The majority of the largest private employer in the U.S. has it's employees on Welfare because it pays so little: Wal-Mart

 

[FerrelGeek]

Yes, he starts with a number that is very close to those who are retired and on Social Security, essentially saying if you are retired and on Social Security you are on welfare.

Article is a sham

Individual and corporate contributions to SS only cover, iirc, about 5 years or so of retirement benefits. After that point it's welfare for all intents and purposes. When SS was conceived, the average person died within 5 years or so after retiring; that's not the case anymore. Couple that with many public sector employees being able to retire after 30 years, you have an ever increasing tax burden on the private sector.

 

[Nemesis 1]

1-2-2013

http://michaelsnyder.mensnewsdaily....-the-number-of-people-with-jobs-in-11-states/

The Number Of People On Welfare Exceeds The Number Of People With Jobs In 11 States



America is rapidly becoming a nation of takers. An increasing number of Americans expect the government to take care of them from the cradle to the grave, and they expect the government to dig into the pockets of others in order to pay for it all.


In 11 different U.S. states today, the number of people on welfare exceeds the number of people with jobs. This list of states includes some of the biggest states in the country: California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Maine, Kentucky, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, New Mexico and Hawaii.


In order to support this exploding entitlement system, we need a lot more Americans to be working good paying jobs.


Unfortunately, millions of good paying jobs continue to be shipped overseas and they aren't coming back.

We are even losing good jobs to our own prisoners. The United States has the largest prison population in the world by far, and the exploitation of that low wage labor pool has become a boom industry in America. Even Microsoft and Boeing are using prison labor now.

According to Chris Cox and Bill Archer, two men who served on Bill Clinton's Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, there is no way in the world that we could raise taxes high enough to pay for all of the obligations that we are currently taking on. They say that even if we taxed all corporations and all individuals at a 100% tax rate on all income over $66,193, "it wouldn't be nearly enough to fund the over $8 trillion per year in the growth of U.S. liabilities."

Ironic post here is one of the caretakers of the party that jjust keep on giving . Your on the wrong side of the fence feela this is mostly a Demonic created problem

 

[FerrelGeek]

I never said that public sector workers were on welfare. And I DID say that they provide a service. Yes, public sector workers are needed, police, fire, teachers, etc. They are still FUNDED through the private sector. We don't live in the glorious days of the USSR so there IS a distinction in our country between public and private sectors.

The fact remains that we have a virtual majority of people in this country that get their FUNDING from the private sector.

This is simply untrue. Government jobs are not dependent on the private sector for support, they are just financed in a different way. Think about two examples (and remember they are EXAMPLES not policy prescriptions):

If we lived in a communist society where everyone was employed by the government there would be no private sector to 'support' the public, yet the public sector is still there. Second, the public sector provides absolutely vital services; does the private sector enable the fire department to exist or does the fire department enable the business to exist because the town didn't burn down? Public workers provide goods for money. Saying they are on welfare is dumb.

 

[fskimospy]

Individual and corporate contributions to SS only cover, iirc, about 5 years or so of retirement benefits. After that point it's welfare for all intents and purposes. When SS was conceived, the average person died within 5 years or so after retiring; that's not the case anymore. Couple that with many public sector employees being able to retire after 30 years, you have an ever increasing tax burden on the private sector.

Life expectancy for those born in 1947 is less than 70. Note that this is biased by higher infant mortality at the time, but people are not greatly outliving their social security contributions on average if they pay for 5 years worth.

 

[Nemesis 1]

If you must insist on a dichotomous view of left vs right, the "left" as you put it is no longer a substantial force to be reckoned with. If the "left" could mount any opposition to the corrupt politicians and the whole slew of lobbyists, the US will not be in the state it is in right now. Any democratic government in order to be healthy requires that its elected representatives take into account views from the whole political spectrum, rather than just the views of those rich enough to fill their political coffers. The "left" as you put it, has long been silenced through intimidation or bribery during the Cold War Era.

It is truly quite pointless to frame the issue as a battle between the left vs right, for anyone who has been paying even the slightest attention during the last two administrations knows that both the Republican and the Democrat Party are driven by greed and lust for power than any sort of political philosophy, whether conservative or liberal. Even the right-wing party whom some on this forum want to portray as champions of citizen rights, cannot stay the course in their crusade against government intervention, when it is their CEOs and investments on the line.

Hows that its the bleeding heart liberials how pushed forward laws that made sure the lazy stayed lazy. Things like OBAMACARE . I didn't need it why is that?