Can I see a citation for that 80 percent figure?

Oops, yeah my mistake, i meant 20% - got my wires crossed. Was thinking the inverse for some reason. That's still way too much. Theres something like 130 federal welfare programs though. Some have lower administrative costs than others but some do eclipse 20%. Its really structurally irrelevant however. Welfare does not decrease poverty PERIOD. Poverty was decreasing dramatically in the US preceding the welfare state. Ive seen some figures say a 90% reduction in like the 100 years prior. This was thanks to the wealth and abundance created by capitalism - the only proven way to lift the most out of poverty that has ever existed. Its hard to find graphs that go back that far though. Ive seen them before but as I am looking for one now, i cant find one that goes back further than like the 40s and 50s. But even in these graphs the data is very clear. Poverty was sharply decreasing before the welfare state and has since remained stagnant, essentially locking ppl into a lower standard of living.

Wealth is not just something that exists. A pertinent question you should be asking is how wealth even created in the first place? How do standards of living improve for people in the first place? Pro-Tip: not by government redistributionism.

How can you judge between the two? People will have different perceptions on who deserves aid and who doesn't.

Exactly, this is why private charity is superior to gun to the head govt theft and redistribution. See, theres something called "reputation." Yes, many people are poor b/c they have made bad decisions. They are unable to defer gratification. They are unable to postpone consumption. They dont save their money and create wealth. They are more prone to spend money on vices. They make poor choices surrounding things like sex and marriage. They have illegitimate children with different partners. In a society without the welfare state, these people are unlikely to be helped by private charities in their communities b/c of the negative stigma associated with their choices. This is one of the worst things welfare has does to the poor. It subsidizes their bad choices and removes reputational social enforcement. This has a horribly dysgenic effect as a whole. but who do you really think will be more efficient in making the choice between the "deserving" and "undeserving?" Those that are actually spending their own money (private charities/churches/mutual aid societies in local communities) or all-knowing bureaucrats thousands of miles away in Washington? Obviously the former.

Most people will agree that a person with Locked In Syndrome deserves aid, but a lot of people would be against giving aid to people with autism for example because "they could be Bill Gates."

Yeah I cant imagine this scenario ever being utilized with any regularity. Who would think that... I mean really? lol Reputation is a two way street. This is how the market brings accountability into the fold. Private for-profit charities would only exists as long as people are willing to voluntarily fund them. If a charity is inefficient, or develops a reputation of refusing to help people that really need it, they wont be in business for long as funders withdraw their support for a more benevolent competitor.

That's because they're eating low quality, non-nutritious food with lots of added sugar and fat. Not only that but poor neighborhoods tend to have worse choices in the supermarkets. Healthy, nutritious food is the new luxury. America's poor might not be starving due to lack of energy but there's no doubt their inferior diet is shortening their lives and adversely affecting their mental and physical health.

Yes this is true to an extent - America has an overall obesity problem but your statement leaves out choice. Literally every time i go to the gorcery store i see some huge welfare queen with 4 or 5 overweight kids hanging of her who buys three shopping carts full of processed junk food. That is her choice. She certainly could afford to buy healthier food for her children. Welfare recipients make more sitting on the dole than working ppl do in many cases. According to this study, welfare pays more than $15 a hr to "typical welfare families" (single mother with two kids) in 13 states and pays up to $50,000 in the top ranked state for benefits, Hawaii. This is as much as my family makes. I can afford to eat healthy. Why cant they? Again, however this is structurally irrelevant to the point i was making. "The poor" have a greater standard on living in the west than kings and aristocrats did just 150 years ago....