|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797 |
Well, I don't know how they do it ..... but I know people who have been on welfare for more than 5 years.
I had a girl working for me who had a 5 year old child, and was off having her 2nd out of wedlock child. She was on welfare all through. She also got education (college) adssistance. She got housing assistance. She got food stamps. She got utility assistance. She got daycare assistance. She got transportation assistance ..... and so on.
The 60 month thing is a joke .... just like most reforms.
Maybe "welfare" might have changed .... but ADC and other programs that are, in reality, welfare, have not.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
I see my mistake. That article I cited was specifically for the TANF program. It didn't cover all those other things. My mistake. Maybe not all of those things fall under the reform rules.
Edit:
Apparently there is also some discretion on a case by case basis. The vast majority of families are limited to 60 months. Just b/c some people get extensions doesn't mean the system is entirely composed of people on welfare for life (actually under the law benefits can go past 60 months, but only for no more than 20% of all cases).
Also, does she have to work to maintain those benefits? If so, then the reform is working to a degree. At least she can't collect without contributing anything, like she would have been able to do before the reform.
Last edited by tjs7; 10/11/10 06:16 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797 |
She was working about 15 hours per week when she returned from having her 2nd out of wedlock baby.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,925
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,925 |
I don't know all the details of the public assistance stuff. But I do have a friend who's 15 yr. old daughter got pregnant. Had the kid at 16.......Let's jump ahead here, okay? Before she graduated high school, she had 3 kids. No job.
She is now 2 yrs out of high school. No job. Her words are "Why would I get a job? If I got a job, I'd have to have a car. And I'd have to have a baby sitter. I can make more not working than I can working."
Oh, her boy friend also does not have a job. And his mother hasn't had a job in about 15 years. He is not the father of any of the 3 kids.
I've got $100 that says her kids won't see the need to have a job when they get old enough either.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
To be honest, most of these details I have looked up today just out of interest. I'm not an expert by any means either.
The people you speak of are taking advantage of the system. The real question is are they the rule or are they the exception? I have a particular subset of family members that take advantage of the system. It disgusts me. But I'm not sold that these people are indicative of the whole system. These types of people would still exist in the absence of government welfare. Take my family members as an example; when their federal benefits ran out, they started working private charities. When they used that up, they started hitting up family members. Some stupidly gave them money. The kids are unmotivated brats. I went to one of the kid's graduation party to try to be nice, and he hardly came outside to see his guests; he was too busy playing Xbox or Playstation or something like that.
I've met or know some people who utilized unemployment, food stamps, COBRA insurance, etc. and at least in my very, very limited sample, the number who use the system correctly outnumber the abusers. JMO, but the problem is that it is very hard to forget such egregious abusers b/c they stick in your head, or they make the headline news. The people who use the assistance correctly don't.
To me, equating welfare abusers with all welfare recipients is not much different than equating Bernie Madoff with all investment bankers. Both are unfair comparisons.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797 |
Well .... we're going to spend something close to $1 trillion on welfare this year. (Not SS, just welfare spending)
If that doesn't tell the story, I don't know what does.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
The numbers I saw were around $500 billion. Pre-recession levels were around $300 billion, with extensive unemployment due to the recession accounting for most of the $200 billion dollar increase. The unemployment is definitely not going to last forever, so it will come back down when we recover. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/down...r=c&local=s
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317 |
Stop using facts and logic to argue with YTown, sometimes he does make some good posts and it would be a shame if his head exploded 
"All I know is, as long as I led the Southeastern Conference in scoring, my grades would be fine." - Charles Barkley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797 |
Just a few sources ..... from far right .... to mainstream @ CBS News ....... Using logic ..... and facts ..... and cool stuff like that ....... just for you.  $888 billion is pretty damn close to $1 trillion in my book ..... and 2010 isn't closed yet. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...elfare-spendingBut overturning welfare reform is just the beginning. In his recent press conference, President Obama explained that the stimulus bill would provide "tax relief" and "direct investment" in infrastructure. He neglected to mention that of the $816 billion in new spending and tax cuts in the House stimulus bill--32 percent or $264 billion--is new means-tested welfare spending, providing cash, food, housing, and medical care to poor and low income Americans.[5] (The figure in the Senate bill is about 15 percent lower.) In the first year after enactment of the stimulus bill, federal welfare spending will explode upward by more than 20 percent, rising from $491 billion in FY 2008 to $601 billion in FY 2009. This one-year explosion in welfare spending would be, by far, the largest in U.S. history. But spending will continue to rise even further in future years. The stimulus bill is a welfare spendathon, a massive down payment on Obama's promise to "spread the wealth." http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54400President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year--2010--more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/23/a-return-to-welfare-dependency/
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
In the first year after enactment of the stimulus bill, federal welfare spending will explode upward by more than 20 percent, rising from $491 billion in FY 2008 to $601 billion in FY 2009.
I'll just assume your numbers of $888 billion are right, as my link above seems to be considerably lower (it's probably excluding something it shouldn't). Besides that, the point remains. Picking 2009 and 2010 welfare expenditures out and pointing to them as "the norm" is simply a skewing of the facts. Just like picking the two years of recession out and pointing to lower tax revenues isn't representative. Economic downturns skew numbers far away from what they are in economically good times.
I glanced at the articles you linked to. First off, the articles point out that most of this increased welfare spending is only guaranteed for 2009 and 2010. But then the authors go on to say that they will be made permanent though. How do they know that? Especially since a large portion of that increase from 2008 to 2009 can be attributed to unemployment payments (look at my link from above, 2008 $45 billion on unemployment; 2009 $122 billion; projection for 2010 $194 billion). Unless our workforce remains unemployed for the next 10 years and the stimulus bill provisions are renewed every 2 years, his extrapolation out to "the next decade" is completely inaccurate.
Another argument the Heritage article makes is that they are putting in place (for two years) the old welfare system, where states get more money if they increase caseloads. But this is backwards of what really happened. Welfare caseloads started to rise in early 2008 due to the recession; the stimulus provided extra funds for two years to deal with these increases in the need for welfare.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-05-04-welfare_N.htm
This all goes back to the economic downturn. The stimulus bill temporarily increased expenditures to things like foodstamps and unemployment b/c there is a great demand on these systems. There are large numbers of unemployed and not enough job openings to go around. This is not a permanent attempt to "hook the population on welfare;" it is a logical temporary response to a harsh economic reality.
I would also like to point out that the predictions in the first article for 2009 and 2010 were made in February 2009 (I think before the stimulus bill was even formally signed). And the two other articles quote the Heritage article, meaning that all the numbers are based on the exact same study and are all really from one source.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
But then the authors go on to say that they will be made permanent though. How do they know that?
When in any time have we EVER reduced social spendinmg in this country? When in any time in the history of this country that the government has gotten its hands on something that they freely gave it up???? We MIGHT decrease the amount of increase in the next year.....for example instead of increasing the budget by 10% we will only increase it by 5% and they call it a cut...but I don't ever remember a TRUE "CUT" in spending....
unless you want to talk about the military and the defense of this country....
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
When in any time have we EVER reduced social spendinmg in this country? When in any time in the history of this country that the government has gotten its hands on something that they freely gave it up???? We MIGHT decrease the amount of increase in the next year.....for example instead of increasing the budget by 10% we will only increase it by 5% and they call it a cut...but I don't ever remember a TRUE "CUT" in spending....
How do you make increased unemployment payments due to a recession permanent?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797 |
Not to mention that one of the first things the "Stimulus bill" did was increase food stamp benefits across the board. Try to get that back in the cage again. I really loved that too ..... the country is in recession ... with deflation ...... Social Security recipients, who did, for the most part, pay something into the fund over their lifetime ...... got nothing as a COLA ... but welfare recipients got a raise. 
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
Not to mention that one of the first things the "Stimulus bill" did was increase food stamp benefits across the board. Try to get that back in the cage again.
I really loved that too ..... the country is in recession ... with deflation ...... Social Security recipients, who did, for the most part, pay something into the fund over their lifetime ...... got nothing as a COLA ... but welfare recipients got a raise.
I don't think is will be too hard to get back in the cage. Many of the people who are needing food stamps are new users.
One example from an organization (I think) in DC:
"Most [calls] are from people who have never used food stamps or a pantry before, said Lynn Brantley, the organization's president and chief executive. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/25/AR2008112502553.html
You're assuming that every person who struggles and has to take the help is completely happy with it and would forego any future employment to stay on the foodstamps in perpetuity. That also assumes that all the people who have lost their jobs are pretty scummy people.
As for the COLA adjustments, seniors did receive a bonus payment as part of the stimulus (approx. $250 per senior) b/c due to the recession, the COLA formula does not spit out the automatic increase.
Of note though, in March 2010, when it became clear that the COLA formula wasn't going to lead to an increase again (due to recession/deflation you mentioned), Congress pushed for a stimulus amendment for another bonus payment to seniors . Guess how many Republicans voted yes on it? It died before even coming to the floor.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/files/MCG10106.pdf
Here is the text of the amendment. It is as simple as can be for Congress. It basically renews the 2009 bonus payment for 2010.
Last edited by tjs7; 10/12/10 07:43 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
They will NEVER ATTEMPT to put it back in the cage....
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
You asked for efficiency numbers. The last GAO numbers I saw gave the government an efficiency of 26%. Charitable organizations have to maintain a minimum number of I believe 65%.
Somebody mentioned Administrative Costs and a RED FLAG went up. It does not matter what the category of expense was, and Administrative Expenses are NOT, repeat NOT, ALL EXPENSES. That kind of language is usually an attempt to lie. There is one measure of efficiency, and that is TOTAL COST versus SERVICES DELIVERED. Paying the Electric bill is not an Administrative Expense.
Creative accounting can hide many things, and the Government is a master at this. They also are difficult to fire for incompetence, unlike a private entity. Nobody at the United Way comes up with terms like "Hexaform Rotational Surface Compression Units" as a deliberate way to deceive. Paying $6.00 each for a simple nut might cause an outcry, but just call them hexaform rotational surface compression units and everybody is too confused to notice.
The most important difference is simply that charities to not have the power to reach into my pocket and forcibly remove whatever amount of money they want, to use however they want. Also, dumbasses do not rise to the top.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,925
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,925 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797 |
The only reason that seniors received a $250 adjustment is because they did not receive the "tax cut" of a few dollars per pay that working people got.
As far as your 1st article, man, that was from back before Obama even took office. (November 2008) I doubt that it worked in the adjustments brought about by the changes in the "Stimulus" bill.
From your 2nd article, as far as "COLA" increases dying .... they should die when there is no cost of living increase. However, there should not be increases to those who receive "free" benefits from the taxpayers at the same time. That is an insult to working people everywhere.
I don't have a problem with Social Security not giving COLA ... but what I do have a problem with is welfare giving a bump in benefits when other programs do not. That's my only point there.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
You asked for efficiency numbers. The last GAO numbers I saw gave the government an efficiency of 26%. Charitable organizations have to maintain a minimum number of I believe 65%.
Show me the links/studies. I have to be able to evaluate the source before just believing something.
Quote:
There is one measure of efficiency, and that is TOTAL COST versus SERVICES DELIVERED. Paying the Electric bill is not an Administrative Expense.
This is exactly the number I gave for the food stamp program if you go back and look. The total budget allotted was around $50 billion, and the amount that went to benefits paid out (services delivered) was $46 billion. I then linked to a report that found that of that $46 billion in benefits, quality control analysis showed only a 4.4% mispayment rate (that means either delivering to the wrong persons, or delivering too much or too little benefits to eligible persons).
What is the problem with those numbers?
Quote:
Creative accounting can hide many things, and the Government is a master at this. They also are difficult to fire for incompetence, unlike a private entity. Nobody at the United Way comes up with terms like "Hexaform Rotational Surface Compression Units" as a deliberate way to deceive. Paying $6.00 each for a simple nut might cause an outcry, but just call them hexaform rotational surface compression units and everybody is too confused to notice.
And you think creative accounting is exclusive to government? Private companies could never do this? It's funny you mention the United Way:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/business/19WAY.html
Quote:
The most important difference is simply that charities to not have the power to reach into my pocket and forcibly remove whatever amount of money they want, to use however they want. Also, dumbasses do not rise to the top.
I would love to hear the explanation of how providing a government safety net allows "dumbasses to rise to the top."
Edit: DC pointed out to me that I read your last paragraph wrong. My apologies. You can strike my last statement.
Last edited by tjs7; 10/12/10 06:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I would love to hear the explanation of how providing a government safety net allows "dumbasses to rise to the top."
He was talking about government employees within the agencies, not the safety nets themselves... 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
As far as your 1st article, man, that was from back before Obama even took office. (November 2008) I doubt that it worked in the adjustments brought about by the changes in the "Stimulus" bill.
That was deliberate, to show that it predated the stimulus. If the increase in funds to food stamps were an attempt to hook people on welfare, then why did it come after food stamp usage had gone up? And the increase seems to have been attributed to new users, likely newly unemployed, which again, predated the stimulus.
Further, I highly doubt that food stamp usage spiked in Nov 2008, then, during the worst of the recession, plunged back down before Feb 2009, and then Obama unjustifiably gave more funds to food stamps. Does that make any sense, with rising unemployment going on during all that time?
Quote:
From your 2nd article, as far as "COLA" increases dying .... they should die when there is no cost of living increase. However, there should not be increases to those who receive "free" benefits from the taxpayers at the same time. That is an insult to working people everywhere.
From what I understand, as far as Social Security goes, a CPI is used to determine COLA that is more broad in scope. And this broad CPI shows no inflation. But seniors spend a higher proportion of their income on food and health care, two areas where prices have continued to rise. This puts undue pressure on seniors who have paid into the system.
As far as welfare, increases in welfare are determined by different CPIs. For example, food stamp benefits are determined by the food and beverage CPI. The increase in funds to a given person would have happened regardless of the economy, and has been for years and years, to match rising prices in food. But the number of people using things like food stamps has gone up due to unemployment. That is what the money is for, not some unjustified, unprecedented, extreme increase in benefits to individuals.
Although I could be way off base on how that works.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
My mistake. I read that entirely wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,797 |
My point is that each food stamp recipient, as a result of a stimulus bill, got a raise. Each person receiving food stamps got more food stamps as a result of the stimulus bill.
It has nothing to do with the number of people on food stamps. Each and every person already collecting food stamps at the time the stimulus bill, and each person collecting food stamps since, is now getting more dollars per month than they did before the stilumus bill passed.
So, when this stimulus runs out are we going to say "Sorry, but we're now going to put your food stamps back to what they were before the stimulus passed? Probably not. There would be chaos. So instead we'll "freeze" food stamp increases for a year ..... advocates for those collecting food stamps will cry class warfare and racism and oppressing the poor ..... and increases will go through anyway .....
In an environment where there is no inflation, and no one else was getting cost of living adjustments, those who are merely draining money from the system should not have benefitted, and they certainly should not have been among the first to benefit.
That's my point.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
You're right. I did have that backwards. The number on benefits did increase, but so did the benefits per person. As for the rest, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I still don't have a problem with the food stamp increases, given that at the time of the stimulus, over the previous year average food prices had spiked 6.1%, and more specifically, food at home average prices had gone up 7.2% since the second half of 2007 (before the recession started). http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid08sv.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
My point is that each food stamp recipient, as a result of a stimulus bill, got a raise. Each person receiving food stamps got more food stamps as a result of the stimulus bill.
It has nothing to do with the number of people on food stamps. Each and every person already collecting food stamps at the time the stimulus bill, and each person collecting food stamps since, is now getting more dollars per month than they did before the stilumus bill passed.
So, when this stimulus runs out are we going to say "Sorry, but we're now going to put your food stamps back to what they were before the stimulus passed? Probably not. There would be chaos. So instead we'll "freeze" food stamp increases for a year ..... advocates for those collecting food stamps will cry class warfare and racism and oppressing the poor ..... and increases will go through anyway .....
In an environment where there is no inflation, and no one else was getting cost of living adjustments, those who are merely draining money from the system should not have benefitted, and they certainly should not have been among the first to benefit.
That's my point.
And they'll call that a "reduction in spending" or a "budget surplus." 
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Food stamp recipients at an all
time high
|
|
