Quantcast
View Post
eva01beserk said:
the-pi-guy said:

I've literally said this exact thing in the past 2 or 3 posts towards you...  

And again:

>Social programs don't tend to spend very much on housing.  A lot of it goes towards things like food. 

>California isn't leading in social programs per capita.  They are getting more than any other state, but they also have 40 million people to share it with.  They are not even in the top 10 for most spent per capita.  

Yea I noticed late that you did multiple responses. 

Thats still not a good thing considering that they have 1/9 of the US population but have 1/3 the poor of the entire country. Thats still insanely dis proportionally.  They just cant be the ones who spend the most per capita, the funds are just not there. 

Try 1/8th the population of the US, and slightly higher than 1/8th (13.6%) of the poor.  Not insanely disproportionate. 

Poverty measures vary immensely, and don't tend to include things like food stamps and housing assistance.  

Some poverty measures look worse because they'll take into account housing costs.  Which again, has a whole host of problems that have nothing to do with California's social programs.  

> They just cant be the ones who spend the most per capita, the funds are just not there. 


California is one of the states that pays more in taxes, than they get in benefits.