Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
Might look at your own responses before you throw out the childish charge. There are more people today, so it is irrelevant to the discussion to point out that there are more people on government assistance. Also, ther people did not make your point for you. I asked you directly and you have not given one shred of evidence to back up your point. Here is another inflation adjusted graphic that covers social insurances and public assistance. Do you have anything to back up your statement or are you only going to give circumstantial evidence of what you "see at work"?
|
I never claimed that I'm not childish. There are a lot of people on this site that would verify that I'm about as childish as it gets.
As for your statistics, you post these graphs that back up your position, which is all well and good. What you don't post is a graph showing a state by state breakdown of state assistance to families. In 1996, Clinton signed a bill taking much of the federal assistance money and allocating it to the states for state run assistance programs. There's a huge amount of state $'s going to families on these programs. Why don't you look it up.
Also, you need to look at the size of families when you compare numbers from the 70's to present. Benefits are paid out based on the number of people in the family receiving them, and the average family size has decreased since the 70's. That would also help to explain the decrease in dollars per family being paid out.
Threaded Mode