# What would be the $$ impact of stopping welfare? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 6, 2013, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968 "2013-04-06T01:06:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/21 "2013-04-10T19:51:39Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > According to [USGovernmentSpending.com](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_detail_fy12bs12012n_401020#usgs302). For 2012 Welfare cost 752 billion dollars out of a 3.7 trillion dollar budget. Medicare and Social Security are not classified as welfare but Medicaid is. Defined this way Welfare is 20% of the federal budget. Without it the budget would almost be in balance. So if welfare was eliminated taxes could not go down, but they would not have to rise so much in the future. Except you see, Medicare has paid for itself until recently, with even a surplus some years. You’d have to take that out since the collection of Medicare tax would stop. Social Security has MORE than paid for itself. You pay 12.4% Soc sec and 2.9% Med, or just under 16%. So, if you take that income OUT, the reduction would be small, as we have said. And, this is America, we’re not going to stop payments of Soc Sec to seniors who paid in for forty years and who’d starve without it. In fact, it’d be immoral and likely illegal to just stop payments to those who have contributed for decades. Soc Sec and Medicare are supposed to pay for themselves, and more or less you’re supposed to get out of them like you would with other pensions and insurances. They are not “welfare’ in any way shape or form. True, due to a deadlocked Congress, Medicare has fallen into a deficit and SocSec will also do so in a few years. But this can easily be fixed. What would be considered 'true" welfare accounts for around 2% of the budget. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/22 "2013-04-10T20:13:53Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Except you see, Medicare has paid for itself until recently, with even a surplus some years. You’d have to take that out since the collection of Medicare tax would stop. Social Security has MORE than paid for itself. You pay 12.4% Soc sec and 2.9% Med, or just under 16%. So, if you take that income OUT, the reduction would be small, as we have said. > > And, this is America, we’re not going to stop payments of Soc Sec to seniors who paid in for forty years and who’d starve without it. In fact, it’d be immoral and likely illegal to just stop payments to those who have contributed for decades. > > Soc Sec and Medicare are supposed to pay for themselves, and more or less you’re supposed to get out of them like you would with other pensions and insurances. They are not “welfare’ in any way shape or form. True, due to a deadlocked Congress, Medicare has fallen into a deficit and SocSec will also do so in a few years. But this can easily be fixed. > > What would be considered 'true" welfare accounts for around 2% of the budget. Medicare and Social Security are not figured into the 20% figure. Medicare and Social Security are 36% of the Federal Budget. According to those numbers at the site. However since if Social Security and Medicare ended tomorrow then those taxes could be cut and tax rates then reduced by 16%. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/23 "2013-04-10T22:00:55Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Medicare and Social Security are not figured into the 20% figure. Medicare and Social Security are 36% of the Federal Budget. According to those numbers at the site. > However since if Social Security and Medicare ended tomorrow then those taxes could be cut and tax rates then reduced by 16%. Your cite is bogus to start with, which is why I wasn’t replaying to the cite specifically: [http://kugelmass.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/wait-a-second-thats-not-the-federal-budget/](http://kugelmass.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/wait-a-second-thats-not-the-federal-budget/) _As for the expenses listed under the loaded term “welfare”…where to even begin? For example, the biggest line item in the category “Social exclusion n.e.c.” (meaning Not Elsewhere Considered) is the Earned Income Tax Credit. How, exactly, is offering a tax deduction to people who find and maintain employment welfare? It shouldn’t be a line item anywhere unless you are going to get into every deduction and tax credit on the books, the majority of which benefit wealthy taxpayers and corporations. That’s why they’ve hidden it under the boring-looking “miscellaneous” category of Not Elsewhere Considered.”_ Another example this author didn’t give is Unemployment, which is funded by a special tax and is not “welfare” ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/24 "2013-04-11T11:11:18Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Your cite is bogus to start with, which is why I wasn’t replaying to the cite specifically: > [http://kugelmass.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/wait-a-second-thats-not-the-federal-budget/](http://kugelmass.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/wait-a-second-thats-not-the-federal-budget/) > > _As for the expenses listed under the loaded term “welfare”…where to even begin? For example, the biggest line item in the category “Social exclusion n.e.c.” (meaning Not Elsewhere Considered) is the Earned Income Tax Credit. How, exactly, is offering a tax deduction to people who find and maintain employment welfare? It shouldn’t be a line item anywhere unless you are going to get into every deduction and tax credit on the books, the majority of which benefit wealthy taxpayers and corporations. That’s why they’ve hidden it under the boring-looking “miscellaneous” category of Not Elsewhere Considered.”_ > > Another example this author didn’t give is Unemployment, which is funded by a special tax and is not “welfare” I can’t tell which side you are arguing. The EIC is not a deduction, it’s a credit and it’s bigger if you have kids. Therefore the key isn’t income it’s welfare for kids. That unemployment has some linked funding to it doesn’t make it not “welfare”. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/25 "2013-04-11T14:06:50Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Your cite is bogus to start with, which is why I wasn’t replaying to the cite specifically: > [http://kugelmass.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/wait-a-second-thats-not-the-federal-budget/](http://kugelmass.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/wait-a-second-thats-not-the-federal-budget/) > > _As for the expenses listed under the loaded term “welfare”…where to even begin? For example, the biggest line item in the category “Social exclusion n.e.c.” (meaning Not Elsewhere Considered) is the Earned Income Tax Credit. How, exactly, is offering a tax deduction to people who find and maintain employment welfare? It shouldn’t be a line item anywhere unless you are going to get into every deduction and tax credit on the books, the majority of which benefit wealthy taxpayers and corporations. That’s why they’ve hidden it under the boring-looking “miscellaneous” category of Not Elsewhere Considered.”_ > > Another example this author didn’t give is Unemployment, which is funded by a special tax and is not “welfare” If you don’t like that cite here is [another](http://www.scribd.com/doc/110366590/Spending-for-Federal-Benefits-and-Services-for-People-With-Low-Income-FY08-FY11) from the Congressional Research Service. It says spending on welfare in 2011 was 746 billion dollars. As the name implies the Earned Income Tax Credit is a credit not a deduction. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/26 "2013-04-11T15:35:08Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > That unemployment has some linked funding to it doesn’t make it not “welfare”. Unemployment Insurance isn’t “welfare’ it’s _Insurance_. You pay a premium, you get benefit if you then qualify ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/27 "2013-04-11T15:36:10Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > If you don’t like that cite here is [another](http://www.scribd.com/doc/110366590/Spending-for-Federal-Benefits-and-Services-for-People-With-Low-Income-FY08-FY11) from the Congressional Research Service. It says spending on welfare in 2011 was 746 billion dollars. > . No, that cite is not from Congressional Research Service. It’s another bogus Teaparty cite ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/28 "2013-04-11T19:51:06Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No, that cite is not from Congressional Research Service. It’s another bogus Teaparty cite [Here is a cite](http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258) from the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. It shows that 13% of the budget is spent on what it calls safety net programs and 7% is spent on Medicaid and SCHIP. This equals 20% of total federal budget, and is exactly what I said it was before. ---
**Author:** ![sidhechaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sidhechaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sidhechaos)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/29 "2013-04-11T21:56:46Z")
> [@moriah](#): > > According to the Congressional Budget Office, “Obamacare” has enough savings and new revenue provisions that is _saves_ the government money. It is, after all, the free-market solution attempting to achieve universal health care by making everyone buy into _private health insurance_. If you are one of those rich people being soaked by ‘welfare’, then you must already have private health care which means repealing Obamacare would have no effect on your health care costs, but it will increase the Federal budget, and thus, your share of it. > > Eradication of other anti-poverty programs (and remember, Social Security is an anti-poverty program keeping millions of elderly from living in poverty) would mean the state or local governments would have to step in, thus raising your state and local taxes. Or, you could just let the millions in poverty roam the streets begging from you everywhere you turn and forming gangs leading to armed rebellion. That’s bound to increase your taxes for all that extra policing and jails. lets not forget the outbreaks of disease and us looking WORSE than the black hole of calcutta because of the sudden influx of elderly and disabled people without food, shelter or meds needed to maintain lives. We’d probably spend more because of having to form a service that gathers up the dead in the streets and disposes of the bodies before disease takes a foothold, not to mention all the piss and shit people would leave everywhere because they didn’t have bathrooms. We already have this problem on a moderate scale with homeless in this country, suddenly we are going to increase it by a huge chunk of our population, not to mention the rest of the world would hopefully turn their backs on us in complete disgust. I will admit it disgusts and enrages me that medicaid in my state is pretty goes to people who dropped out of school, got knocked up several times and have never held a job. People like me who endured school and graduated and busted our asses in shitty jobs and didn’t have kids we couldn’t afford to take care off and **paid into the system** then became disabled don’t get medicaid, don’t get utility assistance, and I qualify for a whole 13$ in foodstamps. The bitch across the road who dropped out gets her utilities paid, full medical care and 400 in food stamps because of the 6 six kids who live with her on paper but who are really kept by relatives or in the case of her fifteen year old is shacked up with a drug dealer elsewhere. she also gets something like 500 in cash to put gas in her car and pay for what foodstamps doesn’t cover. the problem with the system is the money doesn’t go to those who need and merit it. It would probably cost half what it does if they revised the crazy fucked up method in which it is administered. ---
**Author:** ![stui\_magpie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stui_magpie/32/11010_2.png) [@stui\_magpie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stui_magpie)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2013, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/30 "2013-04-12T01:37:16Z")
> [@AdamF](#): > > The largest programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) together cost about 1,500 billion dollars a year. > [ul] > [li]Social security pays retirement benefits to about 50 million people and disability benefits to about 10 million people.[/li][li]Medicare pays for about 50 million retired and disabled people.[/li][li]Medicaid pays for further 50 million people, mostly low-income children.[/li][/ul] > > Therefore, getting rid of all social programs would **seriously piss of at least 100 million people.** Ahhhh, doesn’t matter. It’s not like they’d have guns or anything. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/31 "2013-04-13T15:42:42Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Unemployment Insurance isn’t “welfare’ it’s _Insurance_. You pay a premium, you get benefit if you then qualify Wrong. Employers contribute to a fund and governments dole it out based on whatever politicians decide is in their best interest. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/32 "2013-04-13T17:47:50Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > Wrong. Employers contribute to a fund and governments dole it out based on whatever politicians decide is in their best interest. Incorrect. Please take erroneous statements in support of a political agenda to Great Debates. (Not intended as junior modding, just expressing annoyance at abuse of GQ.) Employers pay into an Unemployment Insurance Fund for each eomployee; I believe in some states there is also a payroll deduction from the employee. Persons who have worked a specified minimum of weeks within the previous two years are entitled to a percentage of their average regular-time wages per week, contingent on a showing of actively seeking work and being available for work, when they lose their jobs by act of the employer without cause (“are laid off”), for a term not to exceed a set number of weeks (usualy 26 to start). Rules vary as to whether and when persons who lost their jobs for cause (“were fired”) or by their own act (“quit”) may be eligible. AFAIK, the only involvement the politicians have are (1) when the standards for eligibility are set in statute rather than regulation, and (2) when extensions of the eligibility term beyond 26 (or whatever) weeks are given owing to high unemployment. ---
**Author:** ![drew870mitchell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drew870mitchell/32/3946_2.png) [@drew870mitchell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drew870mitchell)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/33 "2013-04-13T18:46:19Z")
> [@HubZilla](#): > > I like those little tables that show the nation’s finances in household terms. “If your family has an income of $50,000, your debt is $100,000. Taking out all welfare would only be saving \_\_\_\_.” (trying to stay inside GQ) The federal budget _doesn’t_ operate like a family budget. While chopping off the ending zeroes in “the budget this year was $3,700,000,000,000” does make it easier to understand (our brains have _no idea_ what a trillion of something even means), calling it a household generates harmful misunderstandings. Households can’t print their own money, levy taxes, or wage war. If a household doesn’t pay its bills, larger institutions exist that can forcibly repossess property or wages. Households are grains of sand compared to the size of the economy they live in (often even just on a city level) and compared to the institutions they owe money to. Households are only able to borrow money either with collateral or at punitive interest rates. Households don’t attract outside investors. &c. All of these things mean a national budget operates under entirely different pressures than a household budget. For starters let’s do interest rates - during the depths of the recession, the interest rate less inflation for short term loans to the US government was a fraction under zero. Going back to the household comparison, borrowing money the way a single household can, by either putting up the house and getting say 3% interest, or on a credit card at 20%, is something any rational person should avoid as much as possible. But suppose you could borrow at -1%? That is, borrow $100 from the bank and the banker tells you “I only need $99 of that back next year”? The banker’s effectively paying _you_ $1 to safeguard $99 of their money. That’s what investors were doing for the government for a short while. Obviously this was a short term event, but it gets lost in the picture whenever people make the comparison to households. I’ll quote this from some tea party website: > [@](#): > > ``` > Why S&P Downgraded the US: > U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000 > Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000 > New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000 > National debt: $14,271,000,000,000 > Recent [April] budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 > > Let’s remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget: > Annual family income: $21,700 > Money the family spent: $38,200 > New debt on the credit card: $16,500 > Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710 > Budget cuts: $385 > > ``` The intended response from anyone who sees this is to think “well let’s just cut $16500 more from the family budget already, that’s what I’d have to do!!!” That would represent an overnight 10% slash to the GDP. GDP drops 1-4% in an ordinary recession. You can imagine the chaos that would result. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/34 "2013-04-14T05:54:50Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No, that cite is not from Congressional Research Service. It’s another bogus Teaparty cite Are you sure? It’s got the CRS header and footer, and looks like a Congressional Research Service report. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/35 "2013-04-14T10:15:23Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Incorrect. Please take erroneous statements in support of a political agenda to Great Debates. (Not intended as junior modding, just expressing annoyance at abuse of GQ.) > > Employers pay into an Unemployment Insurance Fund for each eomployee; I believe in some states there is also a payroll deduction from the employee. > AFAIK, the only involvement the politicians have are (1) when the standards for eligibility are set in statute rather than regulation, and (2) when extensions of the eligibility term beyond 26 (or whatever) weeks are given owing to high unemployment. Don’t you hate it when the wrong opinion slips into GQ?! Of course, your opinion that it is _insurance_ is the right one!! 😛 If it’s insurance how do you explain politician’s ability to change the rules whenever they want to in order to give as much as possible to as many as possible for as long as possible? I’ll agree that I hate erroneous info in GQ. Perhaps you’d like to explain what you meant by “Employers pay into an Unemployment Insurance Fund for each eomployee” … we’d hate to have people think that each employee has his own little lock-box. … and maybe you’d like to take a stab at correcting\*\* Dr Deth’s \*\*erroneous statement in post #26. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/36 "2013-04-15T05:31:43Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > Don’t you hate it when the wrong opinion slips into GQ?! Of course, your opinion that it is _insurance_ is the right one!! 😛 > > If it’s insurance how do you explain politician’s ability to change the rules whenever they want to in order to give as much as possible to as many as possible for as long as possible? > > I’ll agree that I hate erroneous info in GQ. Perhaps you’d like to explain what you meant by “Employers pay into an Unemployment Insurance Fund for each eomployee” … we’d hate to have people think that each employee has his own little lock-box. > > … and maybe you’d like to take a stab at correcting\*\* Dr Deth’s \*\*erroneous statement in post #26. It is insurance. Forced insurance yes, but insurance none-the-less. True, Congress can give dues a free extension, and that does get into welfare a little. Not entirely as you have to have worked to qualify. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/37 "2013-04-15T15:34:44Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > It is insurance. Forced insurance yes, but insurance none-the-less. True, Congress can give dues a free extension, and that does get into welfare a little. Not entirely as you have to have worked to qualify. Debateable … but my focus was on your statement “You pay a premium, you get benefit if you then qualify” and mixing up you to mean both you and your employer. Only three states require the employee to pay any part of the money that goes to the government to help fund unemployment benefits. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/38 "2013-04-15T17:14:30Z")
It’s still inaccurate to call it welfare, however, since (mostly) it doesn’t come from general tax receipts. It _does_ operate like an insurance fund (though it’s equally inaccurate to say the beneficiary is the one paying the premium). ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/39 "2013-04-15T17:51:02Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > Debateable … but my focus was on your statement “You pay a premium, you get benefit if you then qualify” and mixing up you to mean both you and your employer. > > Only three states require the employee to pay any part of the money that goes to the government to help fund unemployment benefits. Any thing your employer has to pay for your payroll, the employee ends up paying. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968/40 "2013-04-15T17:59:29Z")
Not necessarily. That’s the same logic that people on the right use to argue against a minimum wage (“employers are going to spend X on payroll, so if they are paying people an extra fifty cents an hour they can’t employ so many”) but it’s not really true. If the mandatory unemployment contribution ended tomorrow, your employer wouldn’t give you an extra dime. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-impact-of-stopping-welfare/654968.md?page=3)