PDA

View Full Version : Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty




tod evans
10-27-2012, 07:49 AM
Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/over-60000-welfare-spentper-household-poverty_657889.html

New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.

"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."

This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.

To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year. After all, many above the poverty line also receive benefits from social welfare programs (e.g. pell grants).

But if welfare is meant to help bring those below the poverty line to a better place, it helps demonstrate that numbers do not add up.

As for the welfare programs, the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note:

A congressional report from CRS recently revealed that the United States now spends more on means-tested welfare than any other item in the federal budget—including Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. Including state contributions to the roughly 80 federal poverty programs, the total amount spent in 2011 was approximately $1 trillion. Federal spending alone on these programs was up 32 percent since 2008.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011. These figures exclude entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to which people contribute, and they refer exclusively to low-income direct and indirect financial support—such as food stamps, public housing, child care, energy assistance, direct cash aid, etc. For instance, 47 million Americans currently receive food stamps, and USDA has engaged in an aggressive outreach campaign to boost enrollment even further, arguing that “every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy… It’s the most direct stimulus you can get.” (Economic growth, however, is weaker this year than the two years prior, even as food stamp “stimulus” has reached an all-time high.)

Here's a breakdown of the welfare spending:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/America%20Spent%20Enough%20On%20Federal%20Welfare% 20Last%20Year%20To%20Send%20$60,000%20To%20Each%20 Household%20In%20Poverty.preview.jpg

torchbearer
10-27-2012, 07:57 AM
how much of the 60,000 is administrative cost?

ShaneEnochs
10-27-2012, 07:57 AM
If we could get our healthcare system under control it wouldn't be too bad. My son is covered under Medicaid, and the last doctor visit he had cost something like $1,300 and all the doctor did was listen to his lungs and filled out a prescription for Albuterol. That's absolutely insane.

Now my family does receive about $400 in food stamps, but we don't usually use it all. We use the left-over money for our local food bank and shelters, or we let it go back into the system if we don't have the time to go buy for them.

I'm not really sure what "State contributions to federal welfare" is, but it's obviously up there with healthcare and needs to be addressed.

MelissaWV
10-27-2012, 08:22 AM
If we could get our healthcare system under control it wouldn't be too bad. My son is covered under Medicaid, and the last doctor visit he had cost something like $1,300 and all the doctor did was listen to his lungs and filled out a prescription for Albuterol. That's absolutely insane.

Now my family does receive about $400 in food stamps, but we don't usually use it all. We use the left-over money for our local food bank and shelters, or we let it go back into the system if we don't have the time to go buy for them.

I'm not really sure what "State contributions to federal welfare" is, but it's obviously up there with healthcare and needs to be addressed.

Did you ask the doctor how much it would have been for private payment?

By the way, Medicaid does not pay full price. Just because I bill them $200 for an initial home health nursing evaluation, doesn't mean I will get that. In fact, they do not pay for evaluations at all; we are expected to do them for free. The other visits (also $200) are paid at roughly $25-$30 per visit. It costs more to send the nurse out.

tod evans
10-27-2012, 08:52 AM
The first question that popped into my mind was;

How in the hell can any of us justify $30,000.00+ of government administration for every household below the poverty line?

acptulsa
10-27-2012, 08:52 AM
To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year. After all, many above the poverty line also receive benefits from social welfare programs (e.g. pell grants).

Bwahahahahahahaha!

Damn, that spin is a major insult to our intelligence! Pell grants are the only reason all the households in poverty don't get sixty grand a year? Subtract Pell grants and that's how close they come to getting sixty grand a year? This idiot isn't trying to inform, he's trying to incite a riot!

Means testing, administrative costs, Medicare, kickbacks, corruption, compliance enforcement, general incompetence and all those other things that make government far, far less efficient than charity don't deserve the slightest mention? I see. But this isn't propaganda, mind you...

No wonder whenever a Republican Talk Radio Victim drives by the Section 8 housing and sees the owner's new car in front of the office (or the pimp's), he assumes that was bought with welfare money. :rolleyes:

Divide and conquer. Don't look at the waste, don't look to charity to bridge the gap between you, get mad at someone.

awake
10-27-2012, 08:54 AM
My guess is the bureaucracy who feeds off of parading the poor eats most of it...If people on welfare or in poverty were getting that much for doing practically nothing, then sign me up.

acptulsa
10-27-2012, 08:58 AM
My guess is the bureaucracy who feeds off of parading the poor eats most of it...If people on welfare or in poverty were getting that much for doing practically nothing, then sign me up.

No, no. They aren't. Obviously.

But you can get all of that and more for doing practically nothing, and no competence required. The first step is to take the Civil Service Exam...

ShaneEnochs
10-27-2012, 09:24 AM
Did you ask the doctor how much it would have been for private payment?

By the way, Medicaid does not pay full price. Just because I bill them $200 for an initial home health nursing evaluation, doesn't mean I will get that. In fact, they do not pay for evaluations at all; we are expected to do them for free. The other visits (also $200) are paid at roughly $25-$30 per visit. It costs more to send the nurse out.

Actually my son's doctor doesn't take private payment. You have to have insurance/medicaid to be seen, or at least that's what they told me. Whenever we first moved here we hadn't had a chance to sign up for medicaid yet, and the place refused to see us even though we offered to pay cash as long as it wasn't above $200.

2young2vote
10-27-2012, 09:38 AM
They want people dependent on them. If people are dependent, then how can someone argue against helping the poor and elderly? Honestly, you can hardly argue with people about this because their reactions are emotional rather than logical. "How could you possibly want to take poor old Grandma Betty's money away, you corporation lover!" They don't think about the future and how a feel-good welfare system can only last so long. They live in the present without taking into consideration the consequences of the programs they have implemented.

ShaneEnochs
10-27-2012, 09:45 AM
They want people dependent on them. If people are dependent, then how can someone argue against helping the poor and elderly? Honestly, you can hardly argue with people about this because their reactions are emotional rather than logical. "How could you possibly want to take poor old Grandma Betty's money away, you corporation lover!" They don't think about the future and how a feel-good welfare system can only last so long. They live in the present without taking into consideration the consequences of the programs they have implemented.

Not trying to be a smartass or anything, I genuinely want to know. Do you think there is any place for a tax-sponsored safety net for the poor?

tod evans
10-27-2012, 09:50 AM
Not trying to be a smartass or anything, I genuinely want to know. Do you think there is any place for a tax-sponsored safety net for the poor?

I could easily back a tax deduction for people or corporations that donated to private local charities that provided such a safety net.

But I'm dead set against government involvement.

AuH20
10-27-2012, 09:57 AM
Not trying to be a smartass or anything, I genuinely want to know. Do you think there is any place for a tax-sponsored safety net for the poor?

Yes, but the not one that currently exists. It's insanity. It's more of a prison than a safety net. Secondly, the system supports many individuals who truly don't need it. If an individual is truly developmentally disabled, then they should qualify for disability.

AuH20
10-27-2012, 10:01 AM
Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/over-60000-welfare-spentper-household-poverty_657889.html

New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.

"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."

This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.

To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year. After all, many above the poverty line also receive benefits from social welfare programs (e.g. pell grants).

But if welfare is meant to help bring those below the poverty line to a better place, it helps demonstrate that numbers do not add up.

As for the welfare programs, the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note:

A congressional report from CRS recently revealed that the United States now spends more on means-tested welfare than any other item in the federal budget—including Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. Including state contributions to the roughly 80 federal poverty programs, the total amount spent in 2011 was approximately $1 trillion. Federal spending alone on these programs was up 32 percent since 2008.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011. These figures exclude entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to which people contribute, and they refer exclusively to low-income direct and indirect financial support—such as food stamps, public housing, child care, energy assistance, direct cash aid, etc. For instance, 47 million Americans currently receive food stamps, and USDA has engaged in an aggressive outreach campaign to boost enrollment even further, arguing that “every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy… It’s the most direct stimulus you can get.” (Economic growth, however, is weaker this year than the two years prior, even as food stamp “stimulus” has reached an all-time high.)

Here's a breakdown of the welfare spending:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/America%20Spent%20Enough%20On%20Federal%20Welfare% 20Last%20Year%20To%20Send%20$60,000%20To%20Each%20 Household%20In%20Poverty.preview.jpg

This $60,000 figure sounds about right for spending per household. Say 60k divided by 4.

Zippyjuan
10-27-2012, 12:06 PM
The number doesn't really mean much since it counts all aid and assumes it all went to only one small part of the population when it did not. One could just as easily come up with the amount of government aid divided by the number of "rich" households.

To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year. After all, many above the poverty line also receive benefits from social welfare programs (e.g. pell grants).

I would agree that levels of aid are very high.

2young2vote
10-27-2012, 12:26 PM
Not trying to be a smartass or anything, I genuinely want to know. Do you think there is any place for a tax-sponsored safety net for the poor?

Not on the federal level, no. The problem with being poor in today's economic environment is that it is very hard to get out of the pit, and that is almost entirely due to government regulation of the private sector. I know a man who makes his own ice cream and sells it at the farmer's market everyrday in the summer. I got good homemade ice cream every saturday. I asked him if he was going to wholesale it to local businesses for the winter time and he told me that he wasn't allowed to because he couldn't obtain a license for it.

That is government telling him he cannot operate his business the way he wants to. Then when we take into account zoning laws we find that the cost of commercial real estate goes beyond what any "poor" person is capable of affording. They are almost entirely limited to working for other people because most simply cannot afford to work for themselves. There are some things that they could do, but the options are limited.

As for the elderly. Well, I just got back from raking leaves at some old people's houses. Imagine if government provided lawn cleaning services to the elderly and someone wanted to take those away. People would be screaming bloody murder about how leaves would be piled three feet high because nobody would clean their lawns, yet here we are volunteering, doing it for free. Same thing applies for food. And if government didn't take so much of their money from taxes then they would be able to save a decent amount of money for retirement, but they aren't allowed to do that.

I recently made an excel spreadsheet and calculated the cost of living in a tiny house with a wood burning stove, no car, solar panels for electricity and a couple of ten gallon jugs for water. I found that i could work a minimum wage job ($14000 per year) and, if i lived frugally, could put $6000-7500 per year in a savings account. But people don't want to live like that, so they buy houses that have inflated prices due to "safety" standards and zoning regulations.

If it wasn't for government the poor wouldn't be so helpless, and the elderly would still receive help. I'm sure you know all of this, though. I'm just ranting.

Jamesiv1
10-27-2012, 12:43 PM
Not trying to be a smartass or anything, I genuinely want to know. Do you think there is any place for a tax-sponsored safety net for the poor?

Back in the day, if you were hungry or homeless, you went to your Church and begged for alms.

If you were poor and needed medical care, you went to a charity hospital.

If we removed the bad, and put the good back into our society (like saving, tithing and charitable giving) it would go a long way toward getting rid of state-sponsored entitlement.

John F Kennedy III
10-27-2012, 12:51 PM
The first question that popped into my mind was;

How in the hell can any of us justify $30,000.00+ of government administration for every household below the poverty line?

Ok how do we provide this welfare without that 30k in administration? Just fixing that would help a ton.

Zippyjuan
10-27-2012, 01:00 PM
The $30k administration is a fictictious number. It continues from the false impression that all social payments went to those below the poverty line.

ShaneEnochs
10-27-2012, 01:03 PM
http://20somethingfinance.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2012_US_poverty_guideline.png

Poverty chart.

tod evans
10-27-2012, 02:22 PM
The $30k administration is a fictictious number. It continues from the false impression that all social payments went to those below the poverty line.


Ok how do we provide this welfare without that 30k in administration? Just fixing that would help a ton.

Of course it's an arbitrary number, in reality though it's very likely close..

Eliminating the federal government from both collecting and disbursing domestic aid would be a good start.

There'd be folks/corporations who choose not to contribute but that too is simply rectified by a two for one tax credit ( roughly the same rate government is charging to collect and disburse aid now)

awake
10-27-2012, 03:42 PM
Paying the poor to stay unskilled and idle robs both the taxpayer and the recipient.

jclay2
10-27-2012, 09:10 PM
Quick side note here: To those of you who have not prepared yourself and family for any short term to medium crisis, I urge you to do so. Just imagine how much shtf could happen if every one of those people/corporations/jobs dependent on welfare just dries up do to a debt crisis/hyperinflation. It will not be pretty. Be ready for utilities to go off and civil unrest to reach heights never seen since the civil war. Please rpf community (if you have not arranged basic preparations for your family), prepare now!!!!

Stock up on water/food/fuel/guns/ammo/...anything that will enable you to comfortably take care of your family without having to rush to empty shelves at the big box stores.

Bman
10-28-2012, 04:40 AM
Paying the poor to stay unskilled and idle robs both the taxpayer and the recipient.

Tell me about it. One thing I cannot stand is section 8 housing. Talk about keeping someone idle. I certainly don't support the programs on any level since they require tax through theft, but sheesh you think they could at least be smart enough to offer those programs where there was low unemployment. Keeping people where they will never find a job is stupid.

awake
10-28-2012, 08:07 AM
Tell me about it. One thing I cannot stand is section 8 housing. Talk about keeping someone idle. I certainly don't support the programs on any level since they require tax through theft, but sheesh you think they could at least be smart enough to offer those programs where there was low unemployment. Keeping people where they will never find a job is stupid.

Politicians can't calculate. If they were good at it they would be entrepreneurs instead. Government officials simply spend money blindly, or worse, for those who wine the loudest in their ear. In any regard it is a wasted effort which is otherwise known as mal-investment. Mistakes that need to be undone or not further continued.

oyarde
10-28-2012, 10:45 AM
There is zero role for Federal govt welfare.Zero. Any programs should be private , or state level or lower. That is how you eliminate admin costs .

jbauer
10-28-2012, 06:34 PM
So $60k is more then my wife and I took in last year. I'll be waiting for my check in the government mail.

jbauer
10-28-2012, 06:41 PM
Quick side note here: To those of you who have not prepared yourself and family for any short term to medium crisis, I urge you to do so. Just imagine how much shtf could happen if every one of those people/corporations/jobs dependent on welfare just dries up do to a debt crisis/hyperinflation. It will not be pretty. Be ready for utilities to go off and civil unrest to reach heights never seen since the civil war. Please rpf community (if you have not arranged basic preparations for your family), prepare now!!!!
Stock up on water/food/fuel/guns/ammo/...anything that will enable you to comfortably take care of your family without having to rush to empty shelves at the big box stores.

There's certainly some truth to being able to fend for yourself. However to me it does you little good to stock-pile "stuff". The things you should be stock-piling is knowledge. Instead of stocking away 10 years of beans learn how to grow them. Instead of keeping 1000s of gallons of water figure out how to collect it. Be proficient at shooting those guns you'll need less ammo. I've seen so many "preppers" that have tonage but very little idea of how to go on without the basics. They think they're going to hold up in their little fort knox for 10 years.

Life could get ugly for days or even months but life will go on with our without this governement. Making yourself useful will make your life significantly better in the days to come.

Liberty74
10-28-2012, 06:53 PM
My guess is the bureaucracy who feeds off of parading the poor eats most of it...If people on welfare or in poverty were getting that much for doing practically nothing, then sign me up.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VthkEW6aB9s

phill4paul
10-28-2012, 07:07 PM
When I want to see how what I am contributing is spent I usually check out this place...

http://www.charitynavigator.org/?gclid=CJD5hK2EpbMCFQMFnQodaC4A6Q

I wonder how the federal government would stack up under their guidelines?