Something worth bearing in mind during debates about how much should be spent on this or that - is that most of us don't really know the facts on the ground.

Unemployment figures for example. If lots of people grossly over estimate the numbers of people unemployed and claiming benefits, then that can have a profound effect on whether or not there will be support for a welfare safety net.

It is interesting, that many of the countries which least overestimate the rates of unemployment, are also the ones that probably have the least anti-welfare rhetoric in the public sphere.

The elite have done a serious number on us (Brit and US). The economic elite wrecked the economy through shady dealings, and their friends, the political elite secured them a raft of assistance, low taxes and greater freedom to make profit without having to consider petty little things like a decent wage and working conditions for the workforce, whilst convincing us all that we went broke paying for welfare and the country simply cannot afford to keep throwing money at the massed ranks of the poor and indigent - they convince us every year that there are hordes of workshy chancers and we go with that.

Meanwhile social mobility has never been lower.

When there was a bigge safety net in place - when there was greater levels of assistance available to various people in need, from low income families to the unemployed - there was greater social mobility. All this talk I hear about not wanting people to become reliant on welfare - its bollox. The percentage of claimants, certainly in the UK, who claim as unemployed for longer than one year is minimal and has been for a long time. There's always been a small core of people who stay on for years and years - but the overwhelming majority of people who claim unemployment benefits do so temporarily. And the vast majority of people who claim benefits at all are either old age pensioners or working people on low wages or low hours. And the rates for fraud are very, very low - and have been for as long as they've been recording estimates.

But we get sold the picture of generational dependency for unemployment, with kids whose parents never worked, and now they don't work - and it's a lie. It accounts for such a small fraction of the whole - but the entire lower income bracket gets shat on in the name of that lie. And stopping benefits doesnt inspire people to climb higher - it makes them double down on what they already have - it makes people scared of leaving the shitty low pay job because at least it's a job.

Better safety nets for the whole people and fewer perks for the ones who actually broke the bank.

The guy dressed in leather, with a tattooed face, and twenty piercings, who says people don't understand his art, is alien and likely offensive to a lot of people. That's probably why the press loves to find these stories, and of course they always add he's on the dole/collecting welfare.

These examples stick in peoples minds and quickly surface when the subject comes up, rather than the kindly widow with four kids, down the street.

Plus everyone has a friend/neighbor, who knows someone, who knows somebody, who's gaming the system.

Interesting read

Just How Wrong Is Conventional Wisdom About Government Fraud?

Interesting article.

I had to stop reading halfway through because I was just getting angrier and angrier :P

Take a breath, count to ten, tell your toes to relax, then your ankles....:)

hehehe


....Pretty sure an old boyfriend once said something like that to me....

I can't verify this is accurate as it was a stand alone with no reference.
Undoubtedly there's an encyclopedia's worth of explanation, details, and justification, if it is accurate.
But the basic numbers shown, make me say, holy shit.

One more idea to add to that list--some items just quit costing money when you get them or use them, like the boots, etc. But there are some, (planes and helicopters, I'm looking at you) that have a very long support chain, every link of which costs money, maybe a lot of money. That helicopter gunship out in remote area X is of no use unless it's there, so it has to be transported there, plus fuel, plus ammo, plus maintenance, plus personnel, etc. And all that takes effort and money to get there too. Like you said, it's not possible to fact check these numbers from this graphic alone, but we do know that this stuff has hidden expenses.

Come to think of it, healthcare is conspicuously absent from this list...

I read the C-17 takes 20 hours of maintenance per hour of flight time. I've also seen numbers for the cost per hour of air time, in fuel and routine maintenance, for different aircraft. The numbers at mind boggling, and don't even include major overhauls after so many hours of flight time.

OK, here's some from the Air Force at TIME...
I'd guess that's fuel, parts , and the people who do the work, plus maybe their bosses.