Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

56

Again you seem more interested in scoring some type of point against me personally rather than in honest debate – here is the sequence of replies and answers.

You - why would I even want to address "the critcisms of the viewpoint" when I couldn't give less of a rat's ass about the viewpoint, the criticisms included, or whatever those criticisms were aimed at?

Me - That’s fine you don’t have to address the criticisms – but that doesn’t mean they go away and your inability to address them only makes them seem more valid.

You - It is interesting that you seem to find any assertion "more valid" due simply to lack of refutation.

Me - So to you are claiming anything is valid – if an idea cannot be defended from criticism it is still as valid as an idea that can be defended?

You - Wouldn't you agree that one should always examine the validity of criticism, rather than just accept it as valid?

Me - the thing is that that’s what I’m asking you to do, I’m asking you to examine the criticisms then address them, if they have no validity in your opinion they should be easier to address than if they had validity.

You - LOL Well, at least you didn’t ignore the question, only evaded answering it.

What do you believe I’m evading?

Yes I think the validity of a criticism needs to be looked at and addressed - but that’s not what you seem to want you seem to think that if you “couldn't give less of a rat's ass about the viewpoint, the criticisms included” then you don’t have to look at whether those criticisms are valid or not.

PS : 56 – I don’t want to be going off at these tangents why do you?

 

56

Again can you actually point to where you have addressed them?

*

I think what you are trying to argue is that if you don’t think something is a valid criticism then you don’t have to address it.

In what way do you think I haven’t answered it?

Again this is just silly point scoring – in my view something has to prove its merits - as in, can it be defended from criticism – you seem to be arguing that if you don’t think a criticism is a valid one then you don’t need to show its not valid – to me that just seems like a screen to try and hide the fact you are incapable of addressing the criticism.

I wouldn’t disagree with you that on a clear day or during the day above the clouds the sky is blue and that’s because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light. But if we were standing together and you claimed the day was clear, blue and sunny when the sky was grey, overcast and it was pouring with rain I might disagree with your viewpoint.

 

Welfare doesn't reduce poverty, but it does keep those in poverty from becoming destitute. Destitution creates desperation. Desperate people do desperate things. The homeless without food will commit crimes. Robbery, drug dealing, murder. So they go to prison, where they get three meals and a bed, and free health care. So instead of the tax payer paying $15k to keep a single mother and her two kids on welfare, it costs the tax payer $120k to keep them in prison.

Cutting Social Security and Medicare will create the same problem. Prisons may become the retirement homes of the future.

With unemployment already above 8%, and millions of government jobs being cut to minimum wage, poverty is only going up. And those being cut from welfare will not be finding jobs that aren't there. The Postal service is cutting a hundred thousand jobs by the end of this year. The republican plan is to cut the government in half. That will add another million or two to the unemployment line. If Romney and the republicans win in November, the prison population will triple in four years.

 

Looking at just the poverty rate number doesn't do much if it isn't explored more. Case in point, of 51 million near poor families, i.e. with an income only 50% or less higher than the poverty level, 20% of them, 10 million people, are taken above the poverty level by social service programs or tax credits.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/...verty-but-struggling.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

 

That it's been known and documented since at least the early '80s that for every government dollar allocated to 'welfare' only ten cents ever reaches the client.

There is also an interesting conversation I had with a friend who was a 'food stamp' worker in the '70s during which he explained that really food stamps are a farm subsidy.You'll notice the program is run by the Dept. of Agriculture.

 

Food stamps are only a farm subsidy in the fact if you give people money to buy more food, obviously people who grow and sell food will benefit from it. The original idea(well no one is sure who actually thought of it first, this is more in terms of implementation) as well came from the fact in the 30's farmers had a giant surplus of goods, which were driving down prices to unsustainable levels, yet at the same time you have legions of poor people who wished they could buy more food. It's a marriage made in heaven. Whether or not it's a farm subsidy though I think matters little to the 50 million people who use it.


Also if it's well documented how 90% of money going to social programs doesn't reach people, how come there's no document supporting it. I mean take the Dept of Agricultural, they paid out $76.7 billion in food stamps in 2011 to near 47 million people. For 2011 the DoA had an estimated budget of around $132 billion. That means right there, for the largest welfare program there is, over 57% of the DoA's budget is going to actual recipients. And food stamps usually only make up around 75% of the Farm Bill, among other things that authorizes funds for the DoA. You don't, but you very much can if you want, have to dig deeper to show that right off the bat, over a majority of the DoA's budget is directly going to food stamp recipients. When you add in actual farm subsidies to farmers, be they small farmers or corporations, and the other things the DoA does such as providing school lunches and breakfasts, a significant majority of its budget is going to the people it serves. Also we should all want the SNAP program greatly extended as noted hardcore leftists Moody's and congress note, it's basically the best stimulus there is, it'd probably be on par with social security benefits if they were shown on this. Why? Because much like elderly people with their SS checks, people receiving food stamps tend to go and spend the money RIGHT NOW

 

I see no accounting for the cost of government workers (to use the term loosely) nor the salerys and perks of electees.

 

You could easily find that out by typing a few words into google
http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY12budsum.pdf

Though given your use loosely of government workers I assume you don't really care what they're making whether it's really high or really low, it's just going to be some narrative about the government wasting my taxes.

 

I posted this around the net to see who would give the best discussion regarding this issue Hip Forums by far has the best discussion IMO.

 

And I do hope you’re having some.

Bal, I’ve answered your “disagreements” and “criticisms" more than once – most recently in post #56. You quote a part of it in another post -- you obviously did read it. Perhaps, since I do not generally copy and paste the opinions of others as support for my own, you will deem the answer “irrational” or otherwise unacceptable by your manner of thinking. Rather than merely denigrating my opinion, please kindly tell me or demonstrate why you believe my opinion to be so flawed.

 

Welfare is not to relieve poverty, it's to allow poor people to spend their money in ways that might better benefit them and their children, and be slightly more secure is things like food and medicine that are required for life.

Also, federal welfare money is often simply re-allocated (aka stolen) by the state governments which recieve it. I know some other states have done it, but famously texas spending the children's medicaid money instead on a tax cut for dell and toyota.

 

I'll ask the question again: Do you have real knowledge of the criteria used for determining eligibility under the cited programs or is your statement based on something else? It seems "something else" is the true answer...

Bal, did you notice the article you point to was "last updated" in 2005.

Btw, I read the article and it seems the Dicksons may be victims of their own lifestyle – the article includes statements such as “As a single parent, she relied on state insurance during her second pregnancy and then combined state and employer-provided coverage for years.” A “stepfather” is also mentioned – one (step)child seems to have been denied coverage under his employee insurance plan – but apparently his income is not being considered if the Dicksons meet the Medicaid eligibility requirement of income below $37,700 (again, that was in 2005) since Mrs. D earns $35k. It seems likely that the couple is actually unmarried, but living together (OK, so what -- they're trying to avoid the marriage penalty) and tried to enroll one of the kids in “stepfather’s” employee plan – oops,´got caught. Since Mrs. D works “helping poor families get healthcare”, could it be that she knows all the ways (loopholes) to get herself some, too – and on the cheap at taxpayer’s expense. And still: a $1400 monthly house payment? What in hell were they thinking on 35k – or even 70 – with two kids?

Thanks for making my point.

Also: Take a look at the “estate recovery” policies of the Medicaid program and tell me how that helps a “struggling working family”. It appears that the government provides this program under the premise of assisting the impoverished and those of “low income” but stands ready to penalize them if the program is utilized under certain circumstances. http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/estaterec.htm

The food stamp program is one brimming with fraud and miss-use:

“..Food stamps can be spent on goods ranging from candy to steak and are accepted at retailers from gas stations that primarily sell potato chips to fried-chicken restaurants. And as the amount spent on food stamps has more than doubled in recent years, the amount of food stamps laundered into cash has increased dramatically, government statistics show…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/24/top-secret-what-food-stamps-buy/?page=all#pagebreak

“..Last year, about 850,000 people were investigated for possible food stamp fraud. About 2,000 stores were sanctioned for illegal conduct, and 1,200 stores were permanently removed from the food stamp program…” http://news.yahoo.com/food-stamp-fraud-raising-concerns-govt-offices-181953970--finance.html

“..Currently, we know very little about where more than $70 billion a year in taxpayer money is going. The federal government does not require collection of data on how much SNAP money is spent, for example, on soda versus milk, or cookies versus carrots…” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-simon/protecting-food-stamps-congress_b_1661815.html

“The earned income credit grew out of the welfare reform efforts of the early 1970s (Forman 1988). The credit was originally added to the Internal Revenue Code by the Tax Reduction Act of 1975. Over the years, the credit has been expanded, and it is now one of the principal antipoverty programs in the federal budget for working families.” http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/encyclopedia/EITC.cfm

If memory serves me, one of the arguments in favor of continuing the EITC was that most recipients spend the refunds almost immediately – thereby putting more currency into circulation and, thus, creating jobs. It was subsequently determined that the EITC has no positive impact on employment – in fact, quite the contrary: eligibility criteria for the EITC definitely include disincentives for work and marriage thereby actually encouraging working single parents to stay single and to remain in the welfare system. (Refer to the Dickson case, above.)

And, those eligible for the EITC are now allowed more than $3000 in investment income. Hmmm. One might actually have hundreds of thousands of dollars in investments and yet still not realize “income” from those investments. It looks like the EITC is just another program inherently prone to abuse.

Really, Bal. Both of your quotes (re SNAP and EITC) come directly from the respective websites – and look a lot like mere self-promotion by the respective agencies.

I honestly thought you could do better. There’s really no shame in admitting lack of knowledge in regard to any particular issue – no one knows everything.

Quite honestly aren’t you just splitting hairs: The differences in “poverty” and “low income”, according to government standards, may be defined by $1. My point is that the entire system, which is/was supposedly designed and implemented for the purpose of fighting poverty, has done little or nothing to actually reduce poverty or to provide help to low-income families which will allow or encourage them to be something other than that. What the system has done is made the circumstances more comfortable – perhaps that does have some merit – but the problem of poverty and “struggling working families” has not been solved or even significantly reduced as a result of the overall welfare system.

 

And I’m saying the entire system is flawed.

Look at the “official poverty rate” in the US – sure, it has fluctuated as will anything economy-related (as I have stated before) but has not seen overall significant change since the initiation of the “war on poverty”. If the “war on poverty” and the related programs were effective, wouldn’t the rate be steadily declining?

So the percentage of the population in poverty never changes (?) How is that an improvement or a demonstration that the system is working rather than failing?

Agreed – still, nonetheless problematic.

Yes, there should be a way out. The gist of several comments earlier in this thread was that the system was never intended to help those in need but to make them perpetually dependent on government – in view of the current trend, such certainly appears credible. In the absence of a way out provided by others, recipients should implement their own exit strategy – some do, some obviously don’t.

And, no, removal of all currently available assistance in not necessarily the answer, but there should be more incentive to find a way out – requiring able-bodied recipients to actively seek and accept available employment would be a good start. Many programs seem to offer incentives to remain unemployed. Perhaps changing the benefit schedule to provide greater benefits (for a certain time period) or extending the period of eligibility to those finding and accepting employment should be considered – demonstrating sound financial practices might also be a worthwhile requirement.

What is your idea of helping those in need to better provide for themselves rather than accepting their current circumstances and continuing to look to the government for support?

I have the HHS report in hardcopy only (though it may be buried deep in the bowels of their site) – the data was provided by the Bureau of the Census – easiest to find here >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif

 

Bal, Bal, Bal… you are one tricky rascal, aren’t you. Wait… are you yelling at me with that bold font?

The exchange you post (quoted above – kinda reminds me of the “who’s on first” routine) is from another thread as the result of your saying that I seemed to take an opinion from a published article then proceeding to post another’s criticisms of that article and imploring me to address those criticisms as I tried every method known to man and mother earth to convince you that I did not, in fact, form my opinion based on that article and, hence, didn’t give a rats ass about it nor of the criticisms of it.

This particular tangent is one of cause and effect: the cause is your attempted trickery by posting our previous exchange completely out of context as one of your criticisms… the effect is my addressing that criticism – just as you seem to believe is always required.

Oh, you did finally answer the question, “shouldn’t the validity of criticism be examined?” ´My thanks.

 

Bal, again, the only incapacity here seems to be yours – one of realization or admission of reality.

I addressed your “criticisms”, initially, by stating, in post #36: “Your "disagreements" only support the continuation and/or expansion of programs and practices that have, after many years of implementation, very effectively demonstrated their own failure.”

Post #36 was intended to question the validity of your “disagreements” and to address such validity (or lack thereof) which is something you have agreed should be done.

You apparently deemed that as something less than rational even though the supporting info is not secret (perhaps I wrongly estimated the UK awareness of what is common knowledge in the US) and asked me to post an example of an “answer” that you had ignored so I posted again (#48): “My opinion of the US welfare system and its utter and complete failure is based on having observed the workings and results of the system from, of all places, the United States. I see the second and third generation welfare recipients -- living in government housing, using the "WICS card", presenting the energy assistance vouchers, most every day -- I've also seen a $300 purchase of choice meats using "food stamps" and watched the buyer drive away in a $30,000 pickup. Excuse the hell outta me though -- I almost forgot: in your infinite wisdom, you know better of what's best for "the colonies". LOL... George III lives."

"The truth of the matter is that the system has failed -- it has failed those it was/is supposedly designed and implemented to help and it has failed those (taxpayers) who funded it. It's time to change it and change it drastically!”

You countered (with post #52) by stating that my answer didn’t “really address anything” and seemed to claim some misunderstanding or confusion with what was being discussed.

My post #56 clarifies my previously stated opinion and the rationale of it (and should alleviate any misunderstanding or confusion) without merely mirroring the opinion(s) of others and without relying purely on statistics which we both know can be manipulated to produce most any desired indication.

Bal, how about following through with your viewpoint that “something has to prove its merits” and explain why you continue to hold the opinion that anything that has failed and failed miserably, as has the US welfare system, should be continued (in its current form) or expanded – or, in the least, explain your rationale for believing that the system has not failed. Insofar as the current system “proving its merits”, can you demonstrate the success of any given program (of the US welfare system) without measuring that success by the amount of money that program has paid out, i.e. how has any given program reduced poverty or actually reduced the number of those classified as “low income”?

 

You see, Bal, insults come in many different forms: your use of terms such as "LOL", "more laughter", "you are a hoot", "this is hilarious"... in response to the posts of others seem nothing more than your way of denigrating and belittling a poster for expressing an opinion differing from your own. I, for one, find such tactic very insulting and would certainly be more appreciative of your opinions (as irrational as I may find them) without the feigned perception of humor.

Just as insulting is your implication that I am not "debating honestly" when your general practices include twisting the words of others, implying a meaning clearly different what was intended, altering the context of statements by posting partial quotes, claiming the failure of others to address your "criticisms" when such is obviously not true.

A prime example of twisting the words of other is included in the post to which I now respond:

I said: "Has your enlightenment progressed into ADD."

You state that I am claiming you have a medical condition.

I made no such claim. I asked a question. It was sarcasm.

Bal, review some of your posts, make an objective evaluation – any rational person should be able to see the truth in what I’ve said.

 

56, I think most of your opinions on politics/welfare/etc are total crap.

I do respect you enough to say it.

I agree about bal's "LOL" every other word. It's very hard to take him seriously with how starts EVERY DAMN POST that way. He seems to use it to express frustration, but it actually only makes him more frustrated, because it makes those he's debating with very frustrated, and then nobody's moving the debate forward. It basically contributes to HF filibustering.

 

56

So rather than some silly point scoring why not just produce the answers I’ve supposedly ignored? Can you give an example?

But the thing you were accusing me of was ignoring you answers

But you seem to admit I’m not because I’m replying to you answers and as I’ve said if you think I’ve missed something you only have to point it out and I’ll be happy to reply.

This is the problem you seem more intent on claiming I’m doing something wrong rather than in honest debate.

I mean look at the above your reply to what I said is just misdirection.

You are not ‘proving’ my guilt by giving an example of me wilfully ignoring your answers you are suddenly claiming you’ve answered something - which isn’t the same thing.

 

56

Ok are you claiming that no working people in the US need assistance to get by or are you saying that if they are they must be doing it fraudulently or working the system?

And besides antidotal evidence have you got any evidence for widespread abuse I mean if the abuses are so frequent and open why are they not being tackled?

I’m all in favour of reforming any system to make it better – but often when some claim they want to reform something they seem to be arguing for its removal.

(my bold)
So the removal of all currently available assistance is not necessarily the answer – so are you saying it could be an answer? Are there circumstances where it would it be the answer?

“there should be more incentive to find a way out – requiring able-bodied recipients to actively seek and accept available employment would be a good start”

You seem to be implying that all people on assistance are not trying to find work? That without being incentivised to do so they wouldn’t do that. I’m not sure that is true, I think most people would prefer a job with a living, decent wage to scrapping by on welfare.

Thing is if you force people to take work which doesn’t provide a decent living wage then they may carry on needing assistance and you are then basically subsidizing employers and employers will know they can exploit people. I mean if you force people to work whatever the pay then the logical outcome is that people will be better off on the subsistence of welfare. Wouldn’t it be better to have good jobs and wages that didn’t mean people still need assistance?

This presumes knowledge of what the same system would be like without the assistance that was given. I mean it could be that things have got worse and the assistance has kept things steady. I mean the real term wages of the middle and lower classes has in the main stagnated or fallen over the last 30 odd years and many jobs have been outsourced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare%27s_effect_on_poverty#Table_of_poverty_levels_pre_and_post_welfare

The question I’d ask is American welfare isn’t working as well as say Sweden?

In what way is the system ‘too’ comfortable in your opinion. And do you think that making things less ‘comfortable’ for people on assistance is the way to go? How would you go about making it less comfortable?

By having policies aimed at full employment where there are good jobs paying a decent living wage.

 

56

More evasion the exchange of posts and replies are accurate, the question you asked was from the other thread and was in sequence with what was said before it - no trickery as you claim just a record of the exchange.

So again - What do you believe I’m evading?

As I’ve said the problem is that you seem more intent on claiming I’m doing something wrong rather than in honest debate.

And I’ll point out again – while I do think the validity of a criticism needs to be looked at and addressed - that’s not what you seem to want you seem to think that if you “couldn't give less of a rat's ass about the viewpoint, the criticisms included” then you don’t have to look at whether those criticisms are valid or not.

I’ve read your posts and anyone can go back and look at them and my replies to them – again you seem more intent on trying to score some point against me – I stand by my position which is basically that a statement of belief doesn’t address a criticism of that belief.