Obama Will Spend More on Welfare in the Next Year Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War

[NeoV]

welfare spending in 2006 was 600 Billion - who was president then?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The "War on Poverty" is no more worthy a cause then the "War on Drugs". Both are designed to prop up government spending and government's ability to control individuals and garner votes without actually solving a damn thing.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nor is it even remotely sane.

It's Spidey.

If his idols, the capitalist "Job Creators!" stepped up to the plate & hired more people to work, paid decent wages, welfare wouldn't need to be nearly so large. Instead, they're holding the economy hostage, counting their gold like Fagin in Oliver Twist...

That's entirely too simple & straightforward, huh?

 

[First]

Bombing people or feeding people? Lmao.

 

[Lanyap]

A more up to date article.

Expanding the Failed War on Poverty: Obama’s 2011 Budget Increases Welfare Spending to Historic Levels
Published on March 21, 2010 by Katherine Bradley

On March 16, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in the United States. He created large-scale national programs aimed at helping the poor and needy that consumed nearly 1.2 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). The programs were meant to be temporary, short-term investments. Instead they have become permanent fixtures in government programming and spawned the creation of dozens more programs over the years. Today, spending on welfare programs (adjusted for inflation) is 13 times greater than it was in 1964.

It is clear that President Obama is intent on not only continuing the failed war on poverty but expanding and growing the size of the welfare state. President Obama’s 2011 budget will increase spending on welfare programs by 42 percent over President Bush’s last year in office. Total spending on the welfare state (including state spending) will rise to $953 billion in 2011.

Further, the Obama Administration is pursuing a change in the official “poverty measure” that will increase the number of people considered poor in America. If future program eligibility is tied to this measure, the amount of federal tax dollars flowing to programs aimed at helping the poor would dramatically increase.

What Is Means-Tested Spending?

Means-tested welfare spending or aid to the poor consists of government programs that provide assistance deliberately and exclusively to poor and lower-income people—for example, food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. There are currently over 70 different federal means-tested programs on the books.

In fiscal year (FY) 2008, total government spending on means-tested welfare or aid to the poor amounted to $714 billion. Of that, $522 billion (73 percent) was federal expenditures and $192 billion (27 percent) was state government funds.[1] Nearly all state welfare expenditures are matching contributions that the federal government requires of its welfare programs, a “welfare tax” that the federal government imposes on the states. Total means-tested welfare spending in FY 2008 amounted to around $16,800 for each poor person in the U.S.

What Is the Poverty Rate?

Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau calculates what the national poverty rate is and how many people are living in poverty. For 2008, the poverty rate was about $22,000 for a family of four. There were approximately 39 million people considered living at or below the poverty rate.[2]

Means-tested programs are limited to those at or below the poverty line. However, many welfare benefits go beyond this threshold to include persons who have incomes below 200 percent the poverty level, or about $44,000 per year for a family of four. Close to one-third of the U.S. population falls within this income range. A family of four at this income level would be eligible for approximately $28,000 worth of federal and state welfare benefits per year.

The Obama Blueprint to Spend More and Expand the Welfare State

Of the 70 different means-tested programs run by the federal government, almost all of them have received generous increases in their funding since President Obama took office. Some have also been expanded to include more people who would be eligible for the benefits. A good example of this is food stamps, officially known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance.

The President’s 2011 budget requests that food stamps spending rise from $39 billion (already a record level) to $75 billion.[3] Obama’s 2011 budget also requests these expansions be made permanent. In addition, eligibility for this program was expanded in the infamous “stimulus” package. Within President Obama’s first year in office, food stamp rolls grew by over 5 million people—the single largest increase in a one-year period in over three decades.

Obama’s New and Expansive Poverty Measure

The Obama Administration announced that it is creating a new poverty measure to be unveiled in the fall of 2011 that would redefine who is considered “poor” in America. This new measure will dramatically increase the number of people considered to be living in poverty in the U.S.[4]

New York City recently adopted a similar poverty measure to the one being developed by the Obama Administration. Under the current federal measure of poverty, the city’s poverty rate fell from 19.1 percent in 2005 to 17.76 percent in 2008. However, under the new poverty measure the 2008 rate rose to 22 percent.[5] The translation of these numbers into federal dollars for benefits would be significant and very costly.

Continuing the Failed War on Poverty

Unfortunately, only one of the 70 federal welfare programs, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, has work requirements for its recipients. The 69 others merely provide a basic need and allow families to stay on the welfare rolls indefinitely.

Congress should ask pointed questions about why the war on poverty continues to escalate more than four decades after it began. The Obama Administration’s expansion of the welfare state, in combination with its effort to define poverty up, does not bode well for economic freedom in the United States.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ses-welfare-spending-to-historic-levels#_ftn3

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. Meanwhile, Heritage pushes the same trickledown/ cut taxes at the top/ cut wages/ destroy unions/ offshore investment/ self regulated banking in the global economy agenda that put us into this mess.

With Bonus Austerity, too... None of that for the financial elite, though, the only segment of the population who'll have come out ahead when the smoke clears... way ahead, if we continue to allow descent into a third world income distribution scenario...

 

[Zebo]

If the above is correct we're spending more in ONE YEAR on welfare than Iraq from 2003-2008.

Fern

Total BS. You're an accountant & should know better than only including supplementals when talking about cost of iraq. That's like saying meals & ent are my only business deductions.

defense costs 1 trillion a year. 150 billion in federal military retirement, 660 billion in DOD, 75 billion VA, etc etc etc.

To just take out supplementals is kind of stuff an idiot would do.

 

[Zebo]

A more up to date article.



http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ses-welfare-spending-to-historic-levels#_ftn3

War on poverty is about people eating not failing/succeeding. I've explained 100x what it would take to get full employment but y'all don't want restrictions on your free trade billionaires.

3 choices
work like slaves like rest of world subject to global labor arbitrage
or implement tariffs high enough where hiring Americans at living wage is done.
or pay disenfranchised just enough so they don't riot while some people get rich beyond belief.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

War on poverty is about people eating not failing/succeeding. I've explained 100x what it would take to get full employment but y'all don't want restrictions on your free trade billionaires.

No the "War on poverty" is actually about expanding and continuing a generational underclass in order to horde political support, expanded governmental powers, and facilitating the sending of more tax payer money to D.C.

2 choices
work like slaves like rest of world
or implement tariffs high enough where hiring Americans at living wage is done.

Funny Clinton and democrats were/are the biggest supporters of "Free Trade" when GATT was passed, along with extending to China the "Most Favor Nation" trading status.

 

[Zebo]

Clinton was a fool too so? Perot/buffet/buchanan etc was right... What's your point? Other than they're all sleazeballs hooking up who put them in there?

I don't care about welfare and I bet I pay more in taxes than most of you make. Why? because it's civil.

 

[CLite]

*yawn* look at the fiscal year expenditure of "welfare" during Bush, adjust for its yearly growth during the Bush years, extrapolate to Obama and you will see only a minor deviation which will be less than the cost of the Iraq war. Assuming you fairly compare all the same categories.

I won't bother researching because I know the obvious truth of the matter, and sensationalist new articles don't deserve a comprehensive rebuttal.

 

[Carmen813]

A more up to date article.



http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ses-welfare-spending-to-historic-levels#_ftn3

This article is over a year old. Am I in some time warp?

Anyway, the main point of this article seems to be that since Obama is going to call poor people poor instead of pretending that they aren't. This will result in welfare spending increases. Color me surprised.

I bet you we'd have less welfare spending if the Republicans and Democrats would actually focus on the economy.

 

[Slew Foot]

Id rather not blow people up or hand them out checks, but rather let people keep the money they make and fend for themselves.

 

[Jhhnn]

Funny Clinton and democrats were/are the biggest supporters of "Free Trade" when GATT was passed, along with extending to China the "Most Favor Nation" trading status.

That's incorrect. Senatorial Dems & Repubs voted along the same general split wrt GATT & NAFTA, while HOR Dems showed the strongest voting against NAFTA-

http://www.piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/92/iie2679.pdf

HOR Dems killed Fast Track for precisely the reasons we're dealing with today- unfair foreign labor advantages built into the whole deal. Later, of course, the Bushistas pooh-poohed the idea that offshoring was responsible for any domestic job problems-

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/31/business/31trade.html

 

[MovingTarget]

Guns vs. Butter.

(again)

Guns when you need them, butter the other 98% of the time. People need to get their priorities straight. Besides, that article is about as one sided as a two-headed nickle.

 

[LumbergTech]

Clinton was a fool too so? Perot/buffet/buchanan etc was right... What's your point? Other than they're all sleazeballs hooking up who put them in there?

I don't care about welfare and I bet I pay more in taxes than most of you make. Why? because it's civil.

they never have reasonable proposals for welfare reform...just pure hatred because they arent happy with life even when they do get money..still miserable shitwads just like they always will be

 

[Sinsear]

Make baby daddy join army in order for mother to receive welfare = profit. That's what you call killing two problems with one stone.

Baby daddy's tend to lack commitment. Not something i'd want to serve alongside with. But they could put on an orange vest and pick up trash on highways.

 

[IGBT]

that's what poverty pimps do. Kick em down and keep em down with taxpayer handouts.

 

[umbrella39]

But, But, But BOOOOOOSH didn't spend money on Welfare!!!!!

STFU hack and go gamble some more of your wife's money away.

 

[Craig234]

Id rather not blow people up or hand them out checks, but rather let people keep the money they make and fend for themselves.

And when society is turned by your policies into a mass of hungry rats fighting for scraps thrown by the few for their slave labor, you can cheer the improvement you made.

Right-wing idiotology is the biggest danger not only to the US but to freedom and prosperity globally, threatening any middle class and democracy itself.

Ultimately, concentrated wealth and democracy are in conflict and you have to choose one or the other. We are currently choosing without realizing it as things shift.

 

[Siddhartha]

OP,
Great thread! In one post you show how far you will go to smack Mr Obama. Also you manage to show that you value killing Iraqis over feeding and providing health care to US citizens.

Well done.

BTW are you representative of the Republican party?

 

[God Mode]

Making a few already wealthy military corporations richer and richer vs investing in our future workforce/consumers and preventing chaos.

Normal people can't run a business if every other potental employee or customer is a retard or a thief.

 

[Tom]

I'm just thinking out loud here so this could be stupid.

Being entirely objective and analytical, where does the "welfare" money end up ? I assume it's all spent on food, shelter, beer, cigs, so ultimately it all circulates through the economy, supporting private enterprise as any other consumers do.

So what does it actually cost the economy ?

 

[Newbian]

Hmm, a choice of to take care of our country or to spend money on killing people for next to no reason.

A tough choice.