Skip to comments.Over 100 Million Now Receiving Federal Welfare
Posted on 08/08/2012 11:59:57 AM PDT by Red Badger
A new chart set to be released later today by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee details a startling statistic: "Over 100 Million People in U.S. Now Receiving Some Form Of Federal Welfare."
"The federal government administers nearly 80 different overlapping federal means-tested welfare programs," the Senate Budget Committee notes. However, the committee states, the figures used in the chart do not include those who are only benefiting from Social Security and/or Medicare.
Food stamps and Medicaid make up a large--and growing--chunk of the more than 100 million recipients. "Among the major means tested welfare programs, since 2000 Medicaid has increased from 34 million people to 54 million in 2011 and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps) from 17 million to 45 million in 2011," says the Senate Budget Committee. "Spending on food stamps alone is projected to reach $800 billion over the next decade."
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Do they have to show photo identification to receive it?
Raise Import tariffs. It’ll provide the government more revenues to help pay for this, while encouraging more production here at home. Jobs are needed to get people off of welfare.
The only way that it could go up that much that fast is if there were an all out campaign to hook people on to welfare or the books are being cooked or both.
OR (ahhm) the economy isn't doing NEARLY as good as 0bama claims that it is doing!
Thank you China and Mr. Bernanke for all the money!
Well, it didn’t say they were All AMERICANS, just 100 million people.....
You insensative children hating racist you! /s
Well, how about an Illegal Immigrant Tax?
Starting at $1000 per head per year? Democrats LOVE taxes............
Are things too far gone to fix?
. . . and that government of the plunderers, by the plunderers, and for the plunderers shall not perish . . .
When the system collapses, it is essentially ‘fixed’..........
collapse = ‘fixed’, sad, but true.
...and thieves, parasites, grifters, con men, democrats and the like..........
And each of their votes counts as much as yours. Maybe more, since they are more likely to be involved with voter fraud.
That was essentially the whole point of Atlas Shrugged..........
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. — attributed to Benjamin Franklin.
“Raise Import tariffs.”
Ah, you mean “raise prices”, and as prices rise (on business and consumers) from where is it that new jobs will be distributed, to main street, or to the conglomerates, and of them how many will go to a majority of the currently unemployed? They’ll go to the conglomerates and most not to a majority of the present unemployed.
More jobs will be outsourced and sent off shore to cut costs. A higher portion of new jobs will be for people with college degrees and fewer new jobs for those without them. Many of those jobs will go to new immigrants with college degrees, especially in engineering - we don’t have enough.
Those best fixed to pay for higher prices (that’s what raising tariffs and limiting imports does) will suffer the least; those not able to raise their own incomes/revenues will suffer the most.
The largest beneficiaries will be the biggest companies and their existing employees. The biggest losers will be main street and a majority of American workers.
Is that what you’re looking for.
I was wondering why the wagon was getting harder to pull. Lots of Barry’s freeloaders are riding on the backs of the US taxpayers and Barry is inviting more in. It won’t be long now before the whole thing breaks down. The fit is going to hit the shan.
I'm thinking that it is...
You aren’t going to find many of them that will go back to work now that TANF work requirements have been neutered. If you look at the programs that are available to the average “poor” person here, the amount of spendable income they actually get (rent, utilities, Obamaphone, etc. aside) is MORE than a man with family of 3-4 making near $50,000 year!. Why would they want to work when they can sit home and let us pay for everything?
I never dreamed, though, the number of them numbers 1/3 of the total population. We won’t last 20 more years.
Your question is outstanding. It would be nice to understand why or why not.
Look for the Union label.
” - - - Are things too far gone to fix?”
Duh, isn’t that called “To Big to Fail?”
I was wondering why the wagon was getting harder to pull.
Lots of Barry?s freeloaders are riding on the backs of the US taxpayers and Barry is inviting more in.
It won?t be long now before the whole thing breaks down.
The fit is going to hit the shan.
thought your comment warranted a photo.
it is essentially fixed.......... NORMALCY.
Due to happen about Dec. 21, 2012. Our new Imperial Leader will declare a Socialist United Western Hemisphere, following the principles of Sharia Law.
That's 1 in 3 people, if the population is measured accurately.
It's not believable.
But if it's true, and the definition of "welfare" isn't too liberal, all I can say is "the plane is in a nosedive."
So %#$%& pathetic.
These people make me physically ill. All of the freedom, and none of the motivation.
For this chart, ‘welfare’ means a household where at least one person is getting some form of government money or assistance, NOT, REPEAT NOT counting Social Security or Medicare recipients.........
At this point it's use foreign labor, or go out of business.
Payroll taxes + insurance + regulatory issues + threats of unionization, etc make it difficult to employ Americans.
If it were only a matter of paying higher wages, businesses might be able to adjust. Some people are willing to pay a premium for "made in America". But there is so much more.
[ Are things too far gone to fix? I’m thinking that it is... ]
OK.. there you go... if so...
The only fix of the system, THEN, is to crash the system..
CRASH IT.. then recovery can begin..
In which case a “PATRIOT” would try to crash the system..
Which would be to AID OBAMA in crashing the system..
FORCE every american to face their greedy taker hearts..
Its a rare republican that would send back a givernment check..
Its matter of HOW the system is crashed not IF...
Romney is just a Union stooge like Santorum.. and many of the rest..
A crashed system can be rebuilt.. I say FORCE the world to STOP loaning US money.. AND TAX americans to death.. tax the very air they breathe..
Two killers of givernment...
1) NOT enough good money..
2) TOO much worthless money..
This is not a bad thing for Hussein and the Dems. This is their goal. To get as many people on the guvmint dole as they can. The more of them addicted to the guvmint teat, the more likely they are to vote for the commies.
The only new tax we need is a one dollar tax to vote. The Democrats would never win another election.
The American Welfare State: How We Spend Nearly $1 Trillion a Year Fighting Poverty—And Fail
When most Americans think of welfare, they think of the cash benefit program known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), formerly known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). But in reality TANF is only a tiny portion of a vast array of federal government social welfare programs designed to fight poverty. In fact, if one considers those programs that are means-tested (and therefore obviously targeted to low-income Americans) and programs whose legislative language specifically classifies them as anti-poverty programs, there are currently 126 separate federal government programs designed to fight poverty.
Cato Policy Report, November/December 1995
Welfare Pays Better Than Work, Study Finds
$36,000 a Year in Hawaii
Welfare benefits are far more generous than commonly thought and substantially exceed the amount a recipient could earn in an entry-level job. As a result, recipients are likely to choose welfare over work, increasing long-term dependence. Those are the principal findings in “The Work vs. Welfare Trade-Off” (Policy Analysis no. 240) by Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies; Stephen Moore, director of fiscal policy studies; and David Hartman, CEO of Hartland Bank in Austin, Texas. The paper was released at the height of the welfare debate in Congress.
The study examines the combined value of benefits—including Aid to Families with Dependent Children, food stamps, Medicaid, and others—for a typical welfare recipient in each of the 50 states. The value of those tax-free benefits is then compared with the amount of take-home income a worker would have left after paying taxes on an equivalent pretax income. The following are among the study’s findings.
Yes, assuming you mean “fix” as in “repair before it breaks”.
Implementing a 30-year plan to eliminate the debt (a full generation!) would require a 50% cut in _all_ non-debt-service spending _RIGHT_NOW_. Since, as indicated by the point of this thread, doing so would cause massive rioting unto civil war, that’s not an option. And it’s the best, lowest-impact, most-expedient option available; few other “options” do anything but delay the crash, and those few would have equivalent social-unrest consequences.
Bread flour is $16 for 50lbs at Costco. Stock up. Gonna get ugly.
US Welfare Spending
Total Government Spending
in the United States
Government Health Care
+ $1.1 trillion
+ $0.9 trillion
+ $0.9 trillion
+ $0.6 trillion
All Other Spending
+ $1.7 trillion
Total Government Spending
+ $1.3 trillion
What to Know About That Big Ole Farm Bill
Yall heard about this Farm Bill thats hit the Senate? Its kind of a big deal as deals out some HALF TRILLION DOLLARS on crop insurance, conservation and nutrition programs. It includes legislation on programs that affects urbanites like SNAP (aka food stamps) as well as farmers and of course, you, the consumer. And not only is it big money, but a BIG bill over 900 pages containing legislation on hundreds of programs. Heres a quick rundown of which parts of this behemoth you should concern yourself with:
most of the bills $969 billion budget, nearly $800 billion is made up in SNAP spending. So a 4.5 bil cut doesnt seem like a big deal, but with 1 in 7 Americans on food stamps (46 million people), this is a big deal.*
Bookmark for later
Absolutely!! Just look at the stunning success of Smoot-Hawley in preventing the Great Depression. Well, maybe not.
The fact remains that 25% of our people are unemployed, yet you walk into any wal-mart store and most of the goods are made in China. Why are we paying China to do what we have unemployed sitting around that could do for our selves?
When you look at the history of tariffs, our founding fathers started out with protective tariffs on the order of 15%. Since 1980 we've almost completely eliminated import tariffs, and our domestic manufacturing has paid the price in jobs.
Bipolar rates have increased over that same time frame.
Though I found it interesting that 7.7% of people taking anti-depressants convert to bi-polar.
I agree that it's arguable whether or not Smoot-Hawley worsened or lengthened the Great Depression. Any blame may certainly be unfair.
Smoot-Hawley, though, clearly didn't help to alleviate the Great Depression. After its passage in 1930, the depression continued unabated through the rest of the decade.
You're kidding, right? Imagine cattle @ feedlot being loaded for a one-way trip to the slaughterhouse. At what point do they realize it was all a set-up from the git-go? When the stunbolt gun is being lowered to their head?
On our human/national time frame, the system that is harvesting the assets of tax donkeys and other associated productive people was launched in 1913. It really was ingenious - how many people knew the eventual outcome and played the suckers for all they were worth?
There's a reason they don't teach this exponential curve in school. The sheer ussustainability would be so obvious even the most clueless would catch on to the con:
To be sure there will be retaliatory tariffs, and exports will be similarly affected. We need to select very carefully the industries we want returned to the U.S. and tariff those. That would include all military components and most high tech stuff that's not highly toxic.
We really ought to tie our tariffs to unemployment levels, so that they can automatically drop as unemployment goes down and automatically raise as unemployment goes up.
That 16% is understated. Chinese don’t even make minimum wage. That 16% may well be a 25-30% increase in the economy in the U.S. Some things would cost consumers more, but government entitlements would drop as employment rose. Government revenues would go up both due to the tariff and due to the greater employment.