FORUMS › General Discussions › Politics › Limiting welfare to the truly needy
TOPIC: Limiting_welfare_to_the_truly_needy
« Prev  1  2  3  4  5 
41 to 44 of 44
User Details are only visible to members.
Think of it like this. You have two fires, one requires a gallon of water to quench, the other a single cup of water. If we only have a cup of water, then we would want to try to quench the smaller fire and prey that the larger fire burns itself out as the cup of water is only going to be wasted or worst make the fire hotter. (ever watch a hot fire vaporize rain water and become more intense?)

Both fires are taking from the public, but the working poor have a better chance of rising to a higher class... The deeper poverty classes aren't so abled are where you least motivated are located. Resource management dictates that we help those who are best able to rise to a higher status so to return the favor.

Sadly, resource management isn't always full of heart and the less we want to spend on filling the cup of water, the smaller the fires we can quench.

Hazle Township PA
Username hidden
(8416 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
What a great topic. Eliminate corporate welfare. That would mean the end of all Congressional-level expenditures as earmarks. Yes, yes yes! What a great victory!

Include revenue gains from eliminating tax exclusions for religious institutions, denominations and organizations, and you have a winning national budget deficit solution. Tax them all. All religious properties and donations. Make sure to include that, because the religious welfare cheaters are not truly needy.

Once earmarks and religious contribution tax exclusion are eliminated, Mitch McConnell's face will sink into the sea of forgetfulness, and Americans will be free from atavistic/archaic monetary policies that have contributed to the ruin of the American economy.

Mitch is the golem of American/political fundamentalism, along with his twisted sister John Boehner and the lead falsetto voice of Eric Cantor. What a sad American baptist opera consortia.

Minneapolis MN
Username hidden
(9142 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I did quite a bit of work on this in the late 90's around welfare reform.

I'll address the post this evening when I am not typing on my phone...

San Diego CA
Username hidden
(23052 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Some people say that the "safety net" should be there only for people who are making an effort, and not for those who don't work. An interesting article (partially copied below) points out that during the first three years of the recession, $150 billion of extra spending went mostly to the working poor above the basic poverty level. (The official "poverty level" is about $11,000 for a single person and about twice that for a family of four). 

The article goes on to say that we could save about $265 billion annually if we just restricted the major safety net programs (TANF, food stamps, Medicaid, earned income tax credits, and subsidized housing) to those at or below the poverty level. 

Presumably a fair amount of that spending will recede on its own as we recover from the recession and employment/wages begin to grow again more strongly. But the question remains. 

Should the lower middle class (the working poor) be cut out? Would doing so be a disincentive for people moving from welfare to work? Would taking that money out of the economy diminish aggregate demand to the extent it would adversely impact the economy?

Here's the first section of the article:

Restoring a True Safety Net DAVID J. ARMOR and SONIA SOUSA

The Obama years have seen unprecedented growth in spending on what used to be known as the federal "anti-poverty" or "welfare" programs: means-tested initiatives to provide food, health insurance, housing benefits, and income support to the poor. These programs certainly grew during the Bush administration, with spending increasing by a total of about $100 billion over that eight-year period ($12.5 billion per year in 2010 dollars). But that spending increased another $150 billion in just the first two years of the Obama administration.  

The scale of these increases is staggering. In three years, from 2008 through 2010, total annual spending on welfare programs (in 2010 dollars) increased from $475 billion to $666 billion — a 40% increase after accounting for inflation. At a combined annual cost of two-thirds of a trillion dollars, these programs are now on the same scale as the defense budget ($693 billion), Social Security ($700 billion), and Medicare ($551 billion).

Some of these spending increases were justified by the deep recession that began in December 2007. Indeed, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), or the stimulus program, specifically targeted poverty programs for greatly expanded funding. And, as in the recessions of the early 1980s and early '90s, the poverty rate climbed during the 2008 recession — to 15% from an average of about 12.5% during the mid-2000s. But this rise in poverty does not explain most of the recent increases in spending on anti-poverty programs.

Rather, it is the dramatic expansion of eligibility for these programs — spreading their benefits well into the middle class — that has driven the explosion of spending. Today, more than half of the benefits allocated through programs we think of as "anti-poverty" efforts actually go to people above the poverty line as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. As a result, our poverty programs — once justified and defended as a safety net for Americans truly in need — exist, increasingly, to make life more comfortable for the middle class. --------------- Here's a link to the chart of proposed savings if these benefits were limited to the official poverty level or to alternative percentages above it:

nationalaffairs. com/imgLib/20120921_Armor_Table4LARGE. jpg

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(14139 posts)
« Prev  1  2  3  4  5 
41 to 44 of 44
TOPIC: Limiting welfare to the truly needy
This site does not contain sexually explicit images as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2256.
Accordingly, neither this site nor the contents contained herein are covered by the record-keeping provisions of 18 USC 2257(a)-(c).
Disclaimer: This website contains adult material. You must be over 18 to enter or 21 where applicable by law.
All Members are over 18 years of age.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 1998-2016 DashBoardHosting, LLC. All Rights Reserved.