60 months is 5 years. then you have another kid and start the process over. We have generations who have spent their entire lives on welfare. Do you live on the moon?
No.
Do you understand what lifetime limit means? The sixty month limit was passed in 1996 with the Democrat sponsored welfare reform.
Its not enforced. Do you comprehend that? Generational welfare is real.
Really?
You need to post that up.
Really? you must be a moonbat.
Hmm...so you're simply talking out of your ass then. Nothing new.
Dumb thread. Especially when the largest recipients of federal assistance are the red states.
"Dumb thread. Especially when the largest recipients of federal assistance are the red states."
"Oh geez, more of the same from the desperate and confused Liberals.
California - 12% of the nations population, 33% of the nations welfare recipients - FACT
By the way Hawaii and New York are fighting CA for that number one spot....are they blue or red states? hahaha
Here you go:
It Looks Like Red States Take Most in Federal 'Welfare' from this Map. But Looks Can Be Deceiving.
California’s Welfare Benefits: Boom or Bust?
"There has been much discussion about immigrants in the United States from everywhere around the world. Yet, why is it that California seems to attract the most immigrants of any state? Indeed, while the state is only
12% of the nation’s population, it is home to 33% of welfare residents.
According to a report published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) on January 26, 2015, there is a correlation between generous welfare benefits and an increase in immigration.
In total, California outspends every other state in public welfare spending – in 2014, it spent $22.4 billion. In contrast, the next closest state, New York, spent $11.9 billion. That being said, does this make California a magnet for immigrants? Not necessarily. It is more of an anchor – a reason why residents stay for long periods of time in the state. However, to deny that there is no magnet would be incorrect. According to George J. Borjas, the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of the aforementioned report, the reason as to why people decide to relocate is due to “
income-maximizing behavior.” Immigrants have already accepted that there are certain fixed costs that are inevitable because of migration, so it is natural that they will flock towards the places with the highest benefits. Empirical evidence suggests that it is because of these differences that there are an increasingly disproportionate number of immigrants among states. While there is the possibility of alternative explanations for this phenomenon, the conclusion that Borjas draws using the wealth-maximization hypothesis is one such testable method.
However, upon closer examination, on a per-capita basis, California’s
seemingly generous benefits pale in data comparison to other states. For example, it spends approximately $179 for every resident, behind $233 in Hawaii and $256 in New York. Furthermore, approximately 8.9% of California residents live in poverty, the highest of any state. Despite this, the number of people immigrating to California increases exponentially each year."