Anyone who even now believes you can fight poverty by having the government subsidize it is invited to explain this:
[L]ast year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
Due to Big Government’s inherent inefficiency, most of the money never gets to the intended beneficiaries.
This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year.
Also, many coercively financed welfare benefits go to those with no financial need.
But no matter how much people are paid to be poor, poverty will not be relieved:
A congressional report from CRS recently revealed that the United States now spends more on means-tested welfare than any other item in the federal budget — including Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. Including state contributions to the roughly 80 federal poverty programs, the total amount spent in 2011 was approximately $1 trillion. Federal spending alone on these programs was up 32 percent since 2008.
Although obviously unsustainable, welfare spending does make sense from a certain point of view. The more the government subsidizes something, the more of it we get. The more poverty, the more people reliant on handouts, the more votes for Democrats. Unencumbered by morality or a sense of responsibility, Democrats will naturally spend ever more of other people’s money to increase their voter base. The taxes and/or inflationary spending required to finance the handouts cripple business, further restricting employment opportunities.
This death spiral is literally an existential threat to America.
On tips from Artfldgr and Shawn R.