3.7 Trillion over the last 5 years in Welfare

[gwb72tii]

Who did I call names?

And little kids and old people are supposed to bust their ass to survive? huh?

maybe the problem is the huge imbalance between the working class and the top income brackets. Your assumption is that anyone who requires assistance is a lazy slob, but you have zero proof of that.

it's not like these people are living high off the hog. as an example most people who survive on disability (generally older people and people with er, disabilities) are well below the poverty line and have little hope of escaping. the GOP answer is to call them lazy..

Capital beats labor 1000:1

they're all going to die!

this is the same old argument the left always uses to promote more spending.

you may recall in the early 90's that gingrich and clinton agreed to reform welfare, to eliminate unending government assistance, and it worked!

[Vedubin01]

Your assumption is that anyone who requires assistance is a lazy slob, but you have zero proof of that.

lets see Zero proof? Well this one made the news yesterday and seems like an ongoing problem. To the tune of 100's of Millions of Dollars each year.

Google Food Stamps for sale Craigslist, seems like some of those that are asking for assistance "are" lazy slobs. Im sure the list can go on and on....

[BraveUlysses]

lets see Zero proof? Well this one made the news yesterday and seems like an ongoing problem. To the tune of 100's of Millions of Dollars each year.

Google Food Stamps for sale Craigslist, seems like some of those that are asking for assistance "are" lazy slobs. Im sure the list can go on and on....

Depends on how you define an "ongoing problem." I do find it troubling that we have systemic problems that prevent people from finding work, but that doesn't mean that the existence of welfare is a problem.

hmm no food stamps here:

http://seattle.craigslist.org/search/sss?query=food+stamps&zoomToPosting=&minAsk=&maxAsk=

Hmm none in your area either:

http://miami.craigslist.org/search/sss?query=%22food+stamps%22&zoomToPosting=&minAsk=&maxAsk=&srchType=T

Might just be another case where you're full of shit and making assumptions about others.

[Vedubin01]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora...Needy_Families

Thank you, learned something new today...

But what about those that are not on Temp assistance?

[Vedubin01]

Might just be another case where you're full of shit and making assumptions about others.

this is about two years ago and another story broke just yesterday. Im sure Craigslist is on top of removing them as soon as possible...

http://www.krqe.com/news/politics/woman-sells-food-stamps-on-craigslist

Story that broke yesterday... Craigslist makes turning food stamps into cash a SNAP

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/22...nto-cash-snap/

Millions commit food stamp fraud every year

http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/loc...aud-every-year


$7000 balance on EBT? Sounds like someone is really in need...




And Im sure buying lobster and steaks on EBT is really what it was meant for...

http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/receipt.asp


Here ya go... I guess you can trade EBT for Bud in Washington St. "your area"

http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/hab/4146176470.html

But again you resort to name calling...

[BraveUlysses]

Nobody claimed that welfare fraud doesn't exist. That wasn't your premise of your post and you never mentioned it until you moved the goalposts.

Based on the links you're posting I see the system working: people being busted for food stamp abuse. Fraud exists in almost every single human institution and we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because fraud exists; taking reasonable steps to fight it wherever it's found.

Here ya go... I guess you can trade EBT for Bud in Washington St. "your area"

http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/hab/4146176470.html

I like how you ignored the fact he has guns for keywords and instead pretend that EBT or food stamps is one of the keywords. Desperation is a stinky cologne.

But again you resort to name calling...

I took the gloves off a while ago with you

Im amazed at just how much dick you suck in one day!

[Vedubin01]

you said "ZERO" proof, I provided several links with proof of not just one case but "Millions" according to the reports. And arresting or removing a 1000 vendors from the EBT system over the last year or so is not "solving the problem" Not when the numbers are in the billions.


And if you read the thread that you quoted, it says Trade interests: camry, corolla, tahoe, suburban, bang, ak, sks, glock, sig, mmj, bicycles, motorcycles, dual sport, gold, ammo. Brass, 26in wheels for chevy, telescope, gun, jordans, gift cards, ebt.

Things he would trade for... one of them being EBT cards Not key words... for search purposes.


But the news stories have no basis on EBTs being sold on Craigslist... Got ya!

Your elitist attitude and arrogance has always been the issue on this board. Over the last several months I have not posted so much to allow things to calm down, but you continue your daily assault on those that you don't see eye to eye on. I guess I was trying to be the bigger man. Continue your ways as it only reveals your true character.

[rwh11385]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...s_764582.html#

For starters... that is not a very informative source. It doesn't mention all of the programs being included, nor does it put into context with past spending or % of GDP. It just aims to shock readers with a big number and provides no references... not the good start to having an intellectual conservation, but rather yet another post from you attacking the poor by characterizing them as people who live off fraud.

I am just posting this to see what the responses are from others of this board. Those that know more please chime in, but $3.7 Trillion over the last 5 years is an astronomical number. Mind blowing!

Why is it mind blowing? Because of the value is big (compared to what?) or that it has increased lagging the recession? Let's start with the latter:

For the rise of the years in reference, it ought to be abundantly clear as to why (as nando mentioned):

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/09/understanding-poverty-and-economic-inequality-in-the-united-states

Heritage did an analysis of how poverty increases lagging a recession during the Bush years, yet haven't done one in a similar fashion for current administration. However, it should be easily understood that this phenomenon isn't still important, especially since the financial crisis was the biggest downturn since the Great Depression.

Poverty is a lagging economic indicator. Formal recessions (periods in which the whole economy is shrinking) usually last less than one year. However, the poverty rate almost always continues to rise for several years after a recession ends. The last recession officially ended--and overall economic growth resumed--in November 2001, but the poverty rate continued to rise in the two subsequent years: 2003 and 2004. This cycle follows the normal economic pattern that has occurred in most prior recessions.
The recent recession was comparatively mild and had a limited impact on poverty, especially child poverty. (See Charts 1 and 2.) Overall, the increase in poverty resulting from the recent economic downturn has been half the increase that occurred in the last two recessions (1980 and 1990).
In the recession that began in 1980, the poverty rate of all persons rose by 3.3 percentage points over three years. In the recession that began in 1990, the poverty rate rose by 2.0 percentage points. By contrast, in the most recent recession, poverty among all persons rose by only 1.2 percentage points over three years.

It is understandable then why the 'welfare' costs have increased following the financial crisis.

Even the most simple among us should be capable of understanding the trend demonstrated in this chart:

Increases in poverty follow recessions with several years being taken until the rate falls again.

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/12/161024133/a-snapshot-of-poverty-in-the-u-s?live=1

Now, George could attack me for being progressive for making mention of this like he did when I argued the same thing as CATO, but the fact that Heritage is conservative and the truth doesn't care which party is in the White House should hopefully prevent such a petty and weak response like that.

Regardless of facts, people like to attribute the welfare spending as mentioned in the "article" to Obama but correlation in time is not causation, especially if something is known to be lagging. And how it is suppose to handle, that safety net keeps people from starving and under a roof following a downturn.

the system worked exactly like it was supposed to, and now you're complaining..

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124562449457235503

Numbers On Welfare See Sharp Increase [2009]

"To me it's good news," says Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution, who helped draft the 1996 welfare-overhaul law as a Republican congressional staff member. "This is exactly what should happen."

[einhander]

I am just posting this to see what the responses are from others of this board. Those that know more please chime in, but $3.7 Trillion over the last 5 years is an astronomical number. Mind blowing!




"We have just concluded the 5th fiscal year since President Obama took office. During those five years, the federal government has spent a total $3.7 trillion on approximately 80 different means-tested poverty and welfare programs. The common feature of means-tested assistance programs is that they are graduated based on a person’s income and, in contrast to programs like Social Security or Medicare, they are a free benefit and not paid into by the recipient," says the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee.
"The enormous sum spent on means-tested assistance is nearly five times greater than the combined amount spent on NASA, education, and all federal transportation projects over that time. ($3.7 trillion is not even the entire amount spent on federal poverty support, as states contribute more than $200 billion each year to this federal nexus—primarily in the form of free low-income health care.)


More...



http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...s_764582.html#

Better than spending it on fruitless foreign adventures in deserts.

$4t and counting....

[rwh11385]

Let's try to shine more light on the source data that went into the OP's included link, from Jeff Sessions (where the link's chart came from):

http://www.budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=34919307-6286-47ab-b114-2fd5bcedfeb5

Includes what I wanted to know immediately and the 'article' didn't provide nor any link I found within it.

A list of all 83 federal welfare programs examined by CRS follows:

Medicaid, SSI, EITC, School breakfast/lunch, Federal Work-Study, Pell Grants, "Supportive Housing for the Elderly", "Older Americans Act" programs, child support enforcement, Job Corps, etc.


Here are some of the largest programs:

Medicaid
• Mandatory spending, open-ended.
• Serves elderly, disabled, and families with children.
• Uses federal poverty guidelines to determine eligibility, automatic eligibility for certain groups.
• Formula grant to states; cost-sharing formula determines federal share.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
• Mandatory spending, open-ended.
• Limits participation of able-bodied adults without dependents.
• Uses federal poverty guidelines to determine eligibility, automatic eligibility for certain groups.
• Direct benefits to individuals; matching grants to states for administrative costs.

Supplemental Security Income
• Mandatory spending, open-ended.
• Serves elderly and disabled.
• Sets specific dollar thresholds for eligibility.
• Direct benefits to individuals; states may supplement federal payment

Earned Income Tax Credit
• Mandatory spending, open-ended.
• Serves workers with earnings; largest benefits for families with children.
• Phases out benefits at specific dollar thresholds.
• Direct benefits to individuals.

A lot of information [179 page PDF] that he pulled [out of context] is available here: http://greenbook.waysandmeans.house....RL41625_gb.pdf

And here: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/c...edPrograms.pdf

More information about his charts being fact checked:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/does-the-federal-government-spend-more-on-welfare-than-anything-else/2013/02/19/fa0042a2-7b0c-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_blog.html

But the broad-brush approach also obscures differences, which is why CRS offered so many caveats. Health spending, such as Medicaid, accounts for nearly half of the total, but Medicaid increasingly is aimed at the elderly (people in nursing homes) or the disabled. “Medicaid spending per participant is much higher for people who are elderly, disabled, or pregnant than it is for nondisabled children or for working-age adults who are not disabled or pregnant,” the Congressional Budget Office said in a report this month.

Medicaid spending has increased in large part because health costs have soared — and spending will jump even more under the Obama health care law as even more people above the poverty threshold are added to its rolls. Indeed, many budget analysts believe that health-care spending is the most important issue facing the federal budget, so it might be a mistake to separate Medicaid and Medicare.

The refundable portion of Earned Income Tax Credit is also counted, but those monies only go to people who earn money through employment — hardly the image of the welfare queen. Indeed, President Reagan was a huge fan of the EITC, calling it in 1986 the “best anti-poverty, best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”

The Bottom Line
Sessions’ use of the phrase “welfare” is intended to shock.

Maybe that is why it is "mindblowing" as that is what it was intended to be, not informative.

And more:

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2013/04/01/about_that_1_trillion_in_welfare_spending_472.html

At The New Republic, Timothy Noah scores some points on Jeff Sessions, the Alabaman ranking Republican member of the Senate Budget Committee. Sessions’ crime? Pushing the claim that the federal government spends more on welfare -- $746 billion -- than on any other budget item, and that total federal and state spending on welfare programs is more than $1 trillion.

Noah writes that Sessions’ definition of welfare is an “unrecognizably maximalist” one (Sessions simply asked the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to add up every means-tested item in the budget), and suggests that the term welfare is “understood” to mean the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and sometimes food stamps. Those two programs together account for only $96 billion of the budget. The reason Sessions subscribes to such a wildly inflated measure of welfare spending, Noah concludes, is because he wants to scapegoat welfare recipients in order to build political support for cutting government spending.

Certainly it serves whatever motives Sessions might have to stick the category of “welfare spending” with a trillion-dollar-plus price tag.

how about holding a intellectual conversation with out name calling or throwing dirt. You of all people should be promoting this and leading by example.

My original post was not baited or put up to start slinging dirt. It was a number that is mind blowing, to think that this country spends so much on those that don't work, or under work. There are several on here that have a wealth of knowledge, and maybe could shine some light on the situation. Lets try to keep things clean!

Having an intellectual conservation ought not to generalize that because some people commit fraud that all people using the social safety net are worthless crooks or lazy people who refuse to work.

What is the amount of money being spent on? Oh yeah, a lot goes to the elderly, who refuse to work! [As nando mentioned] Or less fortunate kids whose only crime may be being born to poor parents in the supposed land of opportunity! Maybe you prefer if they starve and politicians can continue to use them as a scapegoat and ignore SS/Medicare reforms?

Programs like this that promote people not working: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/fws/index.html

The FWS Program provides funds for part-time employment to help needy students to finance the costs of postsecondary education.

Or EITC, which requires people to work to benefit...
Or programs to get people trained so they can get a job and not be on assistance (or less of it)

But let's get back to making the numbers relevant:

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/the-myth-of-the-exploding-safety-net/

The Myth of the Exploding Safety Net

A new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report shows that federal spending on low-income programs has risen significantly in recent years. Does this mean that safety net programs are growing out of control and are a major cause of the nation’s long-term budget problems, as some have suggested? No.

As we explained in May, virtually all of the recent growth in spending for means-tested programs is due to the recession and rising costs throughout the U.S. health care system, which affect costs for private-sector care at least as much as for Medicaid and other government health programs.

Since these programs aren’t rising as a percent of GDP, they do not contribute to our long-term fiscal problems.

To be sure, Medicaid is projected to rise significantly as a share of GDP, largely because of the growing cost of health care throughout society. Medicaid, however, isn’t the cause of this systemwide cost growth.

Per-beneficiary costs have risen more slowly in Medicaid than under private insurance over the past decade and are expected to continue doing so. Moreover, it costs Medicaid much less than private insurance to cover people with similar health status because Medicaid pays providers lower rates and has lower administrative costs. And the health reform law is testing new methods of delivering health care, which hold the promise of cutting costs and improving the quality of care throughout the U.S. health care system.

As mentioned before, health care is a HUGE driving cost for the US government, so simply ignoring the problem won't do the country's budget any good. (Unless the politicians are getting a lot of lobbyist money from HC companies, then I guess ignoring the problem does THEM good... just not us)

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3772

Are Low-Income Programs Enlarging the Nation’s Long-Term Fiscal Problem?
Programs Outside Health Care Projected to Decline As Share of Economy

A recent report the Congressional Research Service prepared for Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) provides one such set of figures.[1] These figures can create the mistaken impression that growth in low-income programs is a major contributor to the nation’s long-term fiscal problems.

A second reason that Medicaid costs will rise faster than GDP is the aging of the population. Older people have much higher average health care costs than younger people. Today, elderly and disabled beneficiaries account for 25 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries but 66 percent of program costs. As the population ages, the number and share of Medicaid beneficiaries who are elderly will increase, raising program costs.

The story for SNAP thus resembles the story for overall low-income program spending outside of health care. Costs have grown substantially in recent years as a percent of GDP — an appropriate response to the worst economic slump since the Great Depression. But as the economy recovers, costs will return to, or even edge below, prior levels as a percent of GDP.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=2505

Policy Basics: The Earned Income Tax Credit

Research indicates that families mostly use the EITC to pay for necessities, repair homes, maintain vehicles that are needed to commute to work, and in some cases, obtain additional education or training to boost their employability and earning power.

The EITC is designed to encourage and reward work. As noted, a worker’s EITC grows with each additional dollar of earnings until reaching the maximum value. This creates an incentive for people to leave welfare for work and for low-wage workers to increase their work hours.

This incentive feature has made the EITC highly successful. Studies show that the EITC encourages large numbers of single parents to leave welfare for work, especially when the labor market is strong.

Specifically, EITC expansions are the most important reason why employment rose among single mothers with children during the 1990s — the EITC was more effective in encouraging work than either welfare reform or the strong economy. The Committee for Economic Development, an organization of 250 corporate executives and university presidents, concluded in 2000 that “The EITC has become a powerful force in dramatically raising the employment of low-income women in recent years.”

Not exactly your theory about the programs rewarding people for not working or working less...

[BraveUlysses]

you said "ZERO" proof, I provided several links with proof of not just one case but "Millions" according to the reports. And arresting or removing a 1000 vendors from the EBT system over the last year or so is not "solving the problem" Not when the numbers are in the billions.


And if you read the thread that you quoted, it says Trade interests: camry, corolla, tahoe, suburban, bang, ak, sks, glock, sig, mmj, bicycles, motorcycles, dual sport, gold, ammo. Brass, 26in wheels for chevy, telescope, gun, jordans, gift cards, ebt.

Things he would trade for... one of them being EBT cards Not key words... for search purposes.


But the news stories have no basis on EBTs being sold on Craigslist... Got ya!

Your elitist attitude and arrogance has always been the issue on this board. Over the last several months I have not posted so much to allow things to calm down, but you continue your daily assault on those that you don't see eye to eye on. I guess I was trying to be the bigger man. Continue your ways as it only reveals your true character.

I never said the word zero, that was nando.

Congratulations on moving the goalposts yet again and pussing out when I pointed out that you're plenty apt to use personal attacks when it suits you.

[Vedubin01]

Damn either you eat super fast or that was a really small pizza! :)

[Vedubin01]

I never said the word zero, that was nando.

You are absolutely right, I apologize! Sometimes when I am working on multiple screens I am going between work and social media, things got tied up.

again I apologize

[rwh11385]

Damn either you eat super fast or that was a really small pizza! :)

I replied while letting it cool from 400F. I found it typically more pleasurable to not burn my mouth with scalding cheese... after numerous instances of not being patient enough.

Speaking of food... As Brave mentioned, even your sources showed that the EBT fraud case was handled with punishment.

And you might want to check the statistics of SNAP errors before assuming a few instances is telling at all about the system as a whole... (Because those stories are very much not an accurate portrayal of the system as a whole!)

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3239

SNAP Payment Error Rates at All-Time Lows
SNAP has one of the most rigorous payment error measurement systems of any public benefit program. Each year states pull a representative sample (totaling about 50,000 cases nationally) and thoroughly review the accuracy of their eligibility and benefit decisions. Federal officials re-review a subsample of the cases to ensure accuracy in the error rates. States are subject to fiscal penalties if their error rates are persistently higher than the national average.

Despite the recent rapid caseload growth, USDA reports that states achieved a record-low SNAP error rate in fiscal year 2011. (See Figure 4.) Only 3 percent of all SNAP benefits represented overpayments, meaning they either went to ineligible households or went to eligible households but in excessive amounts, and more than 98 percent of SNAP benefits were issued to eligible households.

In comparison, the Internal Revenue Service estimates a tax noncompliance rate of 16.9 percent in 2006 (the most recently studied year). This represents a $450 billion loss to the federal government in one year. Underreporting of business income alone cost the federal government $122 billion in 2006, and small businesses report less than half of their income.[10]

And especially important to note / be informed about before generalizing based on Craigslist:

Efforts to Curb Other SNAP Abuses Are Extensive and Effective
USDA has cut “trafficking” — the sale of SNAP benefits for cash, which violates federal law — by three-quarters over the past 15 years. Only 1 percent, or $1 in every $100 of SNAP benefits, is trafficked. USDA has also permanently disqualified thousands of retail stores from the program for not following federal requirements. In fiscal year 2012, USDA’s retailer fraud investigations resulted in 342 convictions and $57.7 million in recoveries. When cases of SNAP fraud are reported in the news, it is because the offenders have been caught, evidence that states and USDA are aggressively combating fraud.

In addition, SNAP now comes in the form of an electronic debit card –– like the ATM cards that most Americans carry in their wallets — which recipients can use in the supermarket checkout line only to purchase food. This has been a key tool to reduce trafficking. Sophisticated computer programs monitor SNAP transactions for patterns that may suggest abuse. Federal and state law enforcement agencies are then alerted and investigate. Retailers or SNAP recipients who defraud SNAP by trading their benefit cards for money or misrepresenting their circumstances face tough criminal penalties.

So you are focusing on the 1% of benefits being trafficked that are reported about because USDA is aggressively fighting fraud and making generalizations about the 99% based on the very slim minority?

Does that make ANY sense? [Unless your bias and assumption is that everyone with an EBT card is a crook / fraud / scumbag and that's what you look for in the news to confirm this belief of yours?]

http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight-hunger/programs-and-services/public-assistance-programs/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program/snap-myths-realities.aspx

SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities - more info

you said "ZERO" proof, I provided several links with proof of not just one case but "Millions" according to the reports. And arresting or removing a 1000 vendors from the EBT system over the last year or so is not "solving the problem" Not when the numbers are in the billions.


And if you read the thread that you quoted, it says Trade interests: camry, corolla, tahoe, suburban, bang, ak, sks, glock, sig, mmj, bicycles, motorcycles, dual sport, gold, ammo. Brass, 26in wheels for chevy, telescope, gun, jordans, gift cards, ebt.

Things he would trade for... one of them being EBT cards Not key words... for search purposes.


But the news stories have no basis on EBTs being sold on Craigslist... Got ya!

Your elitist attitude and arrogance has always been the issue on this board. Over the last several months I have not posted so much to allow things to calm down, but you continue your daily assault on those that you don't see eye to eye on. I guess I was trying to be the bigger man. Continue your ways as it only reveals your true character.

It may be more than one case, but trafficking remains just 1% of benefits and not telling of SNAP as a whole.

And seems like they've taken the problem rather seriously and are working hard, cutting it by 75% in 15 years. And not stopping either:

Further Improvements Underway
There nonetheless is room for improvement, both in reaching eligible households and in combating illegal activities on the part of retailers and households. States and USDA are working together to develop policies and procedures that will strengthen program integrity without making it more difficult for eligible households to participate. In recent months USDA has announced new anti-fraud initiatives and the farm bills under consideration in the House and Senate include numerous provisions designed to enhance SNAP program integrity.

There's biased assumptions and then there are facts, only one of those items belong in a proper intellectual conservation.

[Vedubin01]

how do they come to that 1%?