A new study is seeking to demonstrate the dependent environment that Obama has promoted the growth of countless freeloaders. In the study, it clearly demonstrates that in 35 states, Welfare pays more than minimum wage.
You read that right.
(See also: Welfare Abuser Brags About “Stealing” Your Money)
After the CATO Institute completed their study, the released their finding in a 52 page document titled, “The Work Versus Welfare Trade Off.” As it turns out, the government will pay you more if you just sit at home than if you were to go to work—in some instances 2-3 times as much.
The study goes to prove that Obama’s handouts are generating a society that—out of common sense—would rather sit at home and wait for their check than actually go and work for less.
This all comes at the times where U.S. citizens and politicians are continually arguing in effort to raise the minimum wage. Claiming that they don’t get paid enough for the work they do let alone live, several workers have taken to going on strike.
Of course, they’re claiming they would need $15 an hour to flip burgers, but you can understand their frustration. When you don’t get paid enough to live off of and would, in fact get paid more to stay home since Obama has done away with Welfare reform, who wouldn’t be frustrated?
The study used, out of the 126 available temporary assistance programs, only 7 for a hypothetical family of four. In its findings, they discovered that in 13 of the states, welfare paid an average of $15 an hour compared to the federally mandated $7.25.
There are other things to take into consideration as The Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities are actually deceptive in nature. It claims that the study, lumps together a bunch of different programs in order to get their numbers.
But here’s the fact—the numbers are accurate, and in a 4 person family where no one works, this is usually what happens. It doesn’t matter if the numbers are lumped together or not, people not working are still receiving the assistance and mooching of other hard working tax payer dollars.
During an interview on Fox News a few people got together to talk about just that. Amongst the discussion they explained that assistance should not be thought of as a lifetime income—it is only there to be used in times of need.
Cato senior fellow Michael Tanner echoed the point by saying, “We need to get people to think long term.”
At least with healthcare reform it encouraged a predominately working America. Since Obama has come into power, the scale between those on welfare and the working class of American has scarily become more balanced.
Of course Obama continues to push his nonsense urging Congress to raise minimum wage to $9 an hour saying, “No one who works full-time in America should have to live in poverty.” Trying to figure out a way in which everyone makes similar amounts—sounds familiar doesn’t it?
Too bad Obama’s idea would potentially do more harm than good when it bankrupts companies that can no longer afford to pay its employees and leave even more Americans unemployed and on assistance.
Maybe the answer would be to lower Welfare payouts and encourage more people to go to work, but what do I know.
What do you think—is this study accurate or are there other things to keep in mind? Let us know in a comment below!