Asking how much Welfare programs cost is the wrong question and a red herring.
The right question is to look at the totality of the situation.
The Right Questions to ask are:
- What is the ramification of Welfare?
- How much does Welfare Cost?
- What does Welfare Prevent?
- The US houses roughly 2 MILLION prisoners
- It costs roughly $40k per year per prisoner
- It costs roughly $40k to have a trial by jury
- Death penalty cases cost an average of $1M per case (including appeals, etc)
- The cost "per crime" to society is hard to calculate: property damage, injury to the citizenry, apprehension, loss of life, opportunity costs
On the flip side, every person growing up "on Welfare" that then goes on to be a productive member of society (i.e. a Tax Paying citizen) is a positive. These numbers would also be hard to correctly figure out...
So the real argument for or against Welfare is simple. Add up all the benefits of Welfare and then subtract from the cost of $152 billion. If the answer is positive then Welfare (as we know it) is of positive benefit to society. If the answer is negative, then you can argue that Welfare (as we know it) is of negative utility to society.
Blindly throwing out the statement "Welfare cost $152B" is a half formed argument at best and disingenuous at worst.
I submit when you look at the entirety of the situation and include actual real world data that Welfare is a net positive to society. Especially when you factor in that we spend nearly $600B a year on our military, more than the next 10 countries combined...
I can't see how anyone with an understanding of basic mathematics, logical deduction, and any sense or morality whatsoever can argue against Welfare.
now, perhaps you can argue to make it better or to tweak it here or there... sure, that is fine. But to argue "getting rid" of Welfare is not a sound argument; it is an emotional argument
