More money and same results

WaveCameCrashinWaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
edited June 2012 in A Moving Train
I think this just goes to show that you can't just keep throwing money,tax payer money that is at ths problem and think it's just going to get better. Until we actually get in the trenches and help people help themselves nothing is ever going to change. Look I know that there are millions of people whether they may be mentally or physically incapable of working but there are millions who are going to take advantage of gov assistance. The ones who want to get off gov assistance can't bcos they can only work so many hours .If they work over like 30 hrs they will loose their assistance. So in other words people get sucked in and can't get out. Am I wrong?




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


(CNSNews.com) – The federal government is not making much headway reducing poverty despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars, according to a study by the libertarian Cato Institute.

Despite an unprecedented increase in federal anti-poverty spending, the national poverty rate has not declined, the study finds.

ince President Obama took office [in January 2009], federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year,” the study says.

Federal welfare spending in fiscal year 2011 totaled $668 billion, spread out over 126 programs, while the poverty rate that remains high at 15.1 percent, roughly where it was in 1965, when President Johnson declared a federal War on Poverty.

In 1966, the first year after Johnson declared war on poverty, the national poverty rate was 14.7 percent, according to Census Bureau figures. Over time, the poverty rate has fluctuated in a narrow range between 11 and 15 percent, only falling into the 11 percent range for a few years in the late 1970’s.

The federal poverty rate is the percentage of the population below the federal poverty threshold, which varies based on family size.

While the study concedes that some of the increased spending under Obama is a result of the recession and the counter-cyclical nature of anti-poverty programs, it also finds that some of the increase is deliberate, with the government having expanded eligibility for welfare programs.

In fiscal year 2008, anti-poverty spending was $475 billion. In fiscal year 2009, when Obama took office, it had risen to $590 billion.

“But the dramat ically larger increase also suggests that part of the program’s growth is due to conscious policy choices by this administration to ease eligibility rules and expand caseloads,” the Cato report says. “For example, income limits for eligibility have risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007 and are now roughly 10 percent higher than they were when Obama took office.”

In fact, the study points out that according to the administration’s own projections, federal welfare spending is unlikely to decline even after the economy recovers – further evidence that not all of the increase in spending is recession-related.

“All this spending has not bought an ap preciable reduction in poverty,” the study says.  “[T]he poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising welfare spending.”

The study counts as a welfare program any federal program that is means-tested and provides some kind of cash or in-kind benefit. Means-tested programs are federal programs that only make benefits available to people at or below a certain income level. In-kind benefits are things like healthcare, housing, or other non-cash benefits that are given in lieu of money.

Included in this expanded definition of welfare spending are traditional welfare programs such as food stamps and cash welfare benefits, as well as in-kind, means tested programs like Medicaid, energy assistance grants for low-income people, and the refundable portions of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The study faults the way poverty programs are designed, saying that the increase in spending and largely unchanged poverty rate showed that the issue is not a matter of money, but a matter of what the programs aim to achieve.

“The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable – giv ing poor people more food, better shelter, health care, and so forth – rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty.”

Instead, the study recommends refocusing anti-poverty efforts on keeping people in school, discouraging out-of-wedlock births, and encouraging people to get a job – even if that job is a low-wage one.

“It would make sense therefore to shift our anti-poverty efforts from government programs that simply provide money or goods and services to those who are living in poverty to efforts to create the condi tions and incentives that will make it eas ier for people to escape poverty.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,492
    I agree that the system needs to be completely overhauled with the long-term goal of getting people off of assistance versus today's goal of keeping people dependent on the assistance so they keep voting the way you want when or if they even show up at the polls. Or to obtain the votes of individuals that do show up to the polls, have their hearts in the right place and care about the people on welfare, but have completely misunderstood what is really best for them.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 40,184
    I dont know if the eligibilty changes have a end date on them but they were put in place to further help those who got fuvked over byu the greed that still remains prevelent.


    How I see things, the "job creators" would rather donate millions upon millions to elect one of their own than actually create the jobs that would get people off the welfare rolls. You posting this seems to suggest that the expansion was purposeful on the part of THIS president to grow the size of the government only.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    mickeyrat wrote:
    I dont know if the eligibilty changes have a end date on them but they were put in place to further help those who got fuvked over byu the greed that still remains prevelent.


    How I see things, the "job creators" would rather donate millions upon millions to elect one of their own than actually create the jobs that would get people off the welfare rolls. You posting this seems to suggest that the expansion was purposeful on the part of THIS president to grow the size of the government only.

    I agree that President Obama isn't the problem with welfare. It isn't the job creators either. It is a concept that stems from having your heart in the right place but the solution not happening the way it was designed as Cincy said. this to me says, we keep throwing money at the problem thinking it will fix it, but it hasn't. time for a new strategy maybe?
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • Tenzing N.Tenzing N. Posts: 466
    15%?

    Seems pretty low to me actually. I mean- somebody has to be on the left side of that bell curve right?

    What's the target level?
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 40,184
    Tenzing N. wrote:
    15%?

    Seems pretty low to me actually. I mean- somebody has to be on the left side of that bell curve right?

    What's the target level?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in ... ted_States
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,191
    I agree that the system needs to be completely overhauled with the long-term goal of getting people off of assistance versus today's goal of keeping people dependent on the assistance so they keep voting the way you want when or if they even show up at the polls. Or to obtain the votes of individuals that do show up to the polls, have their hearts in the right place and care about the people on welfare, but have completely misunderstood what is really best for them.

    The goal isn't keeping people dependent on assistance, and depending on what type of assistance it is, there are different job related requirements and time limits. The percentage of people on assistance long term is much lower than some people would want you to believe. Developing more programs to help people towards employment and getting off assistance is something nearly everyone can agree on, but they wont agree on how much to spend on it, and programs like that are expensive.

    People who are poor tend to be the ones that are less likely to vote, and if they do, they tend to vote Republican. Our economic system won't have 0% unemployment by design, so unless that system is overhauled, you will have a large group of people needing some sort of assistance. You could say the goal of public assistance programs isn't to eliminate poverty, but a way to deal with an outcome of our economic system.
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,492
    Go Beavers wrote:
    I agree that the system needs to be completely overhauled with the long-term goal of getting people off of assistance versus today's goal of keeping people dependent on the assistance so they keep voting the way you want when or if they even show up at the polls. Or to obtain the votes of individuals that do show up to the polls, have their hearts in the right place and care about the people on welfare, but have completely misunderstood what is really best for them.

    The goal isn't keeping people dependent on assistance, and depending on what type of assistance it is, there are different job related requirements and time limits. The percentage of people on assistance long term is much lower than some people would want you to believe. Developing more programs to help people towards employment and getting off assistance is something nearly everyone can agree on, but they wont agree on how much to spend on it, and programs like that are expensive.

    People who are poor tend to be the ones that are less likely to vote, and if they do, they tend to vote Republican. Our economic system won't have 0% unemployment by design, so unless that system is overhauled, you will have a large group of people needing some sort of assistance. You could say the goal of public assistance programs isn't to eliminate poverty, but a way to deal with an outcome of our economic system.

    Each system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets. Want different results, gotta change the system.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    Go Beavers wrote:
    I agree that the system needs to be completely overhauled with the long-term goal of getting people off of assistance versus today's goal of keeping people dependent on the assistance so they keep voting the way you want when or if they even show up at the polls. Or to obtain the votes of individuals that do show up to the polls, have their hearts in the right place and care about the people on welfare, but have completely misunderstood what is really best for them.

    The goal isn't keeping people dependent on assistance, and depending on what type of assistance it is, there are different job related requirements and time limits. The percentage of people on assistance long term is much lower than some people would want you to believe. Developing more programs to help people towards employment and getting off assistance is something nearly everyone can agree on, but they wont agree on how much to spend on it, and programs like that are expensive.

    People who are poor tend to be the ones that are less likely to vote, and if they do, they tend to vote Republican. Our economic system won't have 0% unemployment by design, so unless that system is overhauled, you will have a large group of people needing some sort of assistance. You could say the goal of public assistance programs isn't to eliminate poverty, but a way to deal with an outcome of our economic system.

    People who are poor aren't necessarily on gov't assistance. They also might not think about money when they vote.
    from what I have seen, the people on public assistance overwhelmingly vote democrat. http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/campbell/pro ... _Data_Set/
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,191
    Go Beavers wrote:
    I agree that the system needs to be completely overhauled with the long-term goal of getting people off of assistance versus today's goal of keeping people dependent on the assistance so they keep voting the way you want when or if they even show up at the polls. Or to obtain the votes of individuals that do show up to the polls, have their hearts in the right place and care about the people on welfare, but have completely misunderstood what is really best for them.

    The goal isn't keeping people dependent on assistance, and depending on what type of assistance it is, there are different job related requirements and time limits. The percentage of people on assistance long term is much lower than some people would want you to believe. Developing more programs to help people towards employment and getting off assistance is something nearly everyone can agree on, but they wont agree on how much to spend on it, and programs like that are expensive.

    People who are poor tend to be the ones that are less likely to vote, and if they do, they tend to vote Republican. Our economic system won't have 0% unemployment by design, so unless that system is overhauled, you will have a large group of people needing some sort of assistance. You could say the goal of public assistance programs isn't to eliminate poverty, but a way to deal with an outcome of our economic system.

    Each system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets. Want different results, gotta change the system.

    Not sure where you're going with that.
Sign In or Register to comment.