Doctor Fate wrote:Public assistance has not been shrinking.

It depends on what you call public assistance. Welfare has shrunk DRAMATICALLY.

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2014/05/us-spending-on-social-welfare-programs-is-way-up-but-far-less-of-it-goes-to-the-poorest/371124/ Look at the chart.

I posted this way earlier on this thread. Earned income tax credit and child tax credit increases make up for the decline in welfare, but those credits generally only work if you make money, and most of the people who receive them don't consider them public assistance since it's a part of their refund check when the do their taxes.

What am I trying to say? I think that many, many Americans in poverty are there because of the decisions they've made. No amount of public housing or assistance is going to turn some of their lives around--money isn't the ultimate issue. They need to learn how to live life. The government can't teach that--not in my experience. They need mentors and they need to listen.

I completely agree on the behavioral issues. They are vast and just stunningly stupid sometimes. Mentors are just a wonderful idea to help inform the ignorance that ruins the lives of some people, and many of their kids.

geojanes wrote:I posted this way earlier on this thread. Earned income tax credit and child tax credit increases make up for the decline in welfare, but those credits generally only work if you make money, and most of the people who receive them don't consider them public assistance since it's a part of their refund check when the do their taxes.

This would explain why much of US welfare goes to the middle class and even some to the rich.

It's 'fair' I guess, but is just passing money around to people who already have it, paid for out of government debt.

Maybe it's not just the poor who are spending beyond their means?

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Public assistance has not been shrinking.

It depends on what you call public assistance. Welfare has shrunk DRAMATICALLY.

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2014/05/us-spending-on-social-welfare-programs-is-way-up-but-far-less-of-it-goes-to-the-poorest/371124/ Look at the chart.

I posted this way earlier on this thread. Earned income tax credit and child tax credit increases make up for the decline in welfare, but those credits generally only work if you make money, and most of the people who receive them don't consider them public assistance since it's a part of their refund check when the do their taxes.

Actually, it's not saying that "Welfare has shrunk DRAMATICALLY." It cites AFDC/TANF as having declined when adjusted for inflation. What about SNAP? What about other programs?

The research was conducted by Johns Hopkins University economics professor Robert Moffitt, who presented his findings earlier this month at an annual meeting of the Population Association of America. He found that a family of four earning $11,925 a year in 2014 likely gets less government aid than a same-sized family bringing home $47,700.

I am suspicious because I know that SNAP and SSI Disability are at all time highs in terms of participation. I'd want to see everything.

What am I trying to say? I think that many, many Americans in poverty are there because of the decisions they've made. No amount of public housing or assistance is going to turn some of their lives around--money isn't the ultimate issue. They need to learn how to live life. The government can't teach that--not in my experience. They need mentors and they need to listen.

I completely agree on the behavioral issues. They are vast and just stunningly stupid sometimes. Mentors are just a wonderful idea to help inform the ignorance that ruins the lives of some people, and many of their kids.

I hate to say this, but it seems to me that THIS would be something schools can and should teach.

I wonder how many people graduating from high school can balance a checkbook? I couldn't. And, guess what? That's a problem. If you can't do it, you'll bounce checks, which will affect your rating.

Oh, who cares? It's all electronic now?

Sure, but . . . banks still make mistakes--all the time. B of A is a mistake-making machine. We moved our business account to another bank so we could stop arguing with them. They were ridiculous.

Anyway, the government has spent trillions of dollars fighting poverty . Maybe it's time they start equipping the poor with knowledge? More would be saved from poverty with that than with endless money being dumped into it.

Yes, take care of the immediate need. But, work with people to help them understand that they don't have to live like that.

danivon wrote:Maybe it's not just the poor who are spending beyond their means?

Many people do--and it is the curse of the middle class.

But, think about it--we're not even taught to save for our own retirement. Many have retirement 401K's, but many don't. Many aren't worried because, you know, they've got Social Security . . .

We need people to think about saving, about spending less than what they make, and about planning for emergencies.

Btw, the government should not give money to the middle class or the rich--or corporations or corn-growers.

See, we're all getting a little conservative here.

Doctor Fate wrote:
See, we're all getting a little conservative here.

Well, I have thought your comments were left-leaning...

Doctor Fate wrote:Actually, it's not saying that "Welfare has shrunk DRAMATICALLY." It cites AFDC/TANF as having declined when adjusted for inflation. What about SNAP? What about other programs?

I am suspicious because I know that SNAP and SSI Disability are at all time highs in terms of participation. I'd want to see everything.

Take a close look. Overall spending is up, but what's "welfare?" I would say it is not earned income tax credit, child tax credit, or SSI. I would call it AFDC and food stamps. It's up for the former, non-welfare transfers, and it's down for AFDC and fairly flat for food stamps.

Back in the early 1990s the Population Association of America was my professional association. I used to go to their annual conference. It's not at all political: it's a bunch of demographers looking to find jobs mostly.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Actually, it's not saying that "Welfare has shrunk DRAMATICALLY." It cites AFDC/TANF as having declined when adjusted for inflation. What about SNAP? What about other programs?

I am suspicious because I know that SNAP and SSI Disability are at all time highs in terms of participation. I'd want to see everything.

Take a close look. Overall spending is up, but what's "welfare?" I would say it is not earned income tax credit, child tax credit, or SSI. I would call it AFDC and food stamps. It's up for the former, non-welfare transfers, and it's down for AFDC and fairly flat for food stamps.

Back in the early 1990s the Population Association of America was my professional association. I used to go to their annual conference. It's not at all political: it's a bunch of demographers looking to find jobs mostly.

I'm just saying it's not the whole story. http://www.heritage.org/research/testim ... l-spending

Thanks for the data, DF.

Let's look at that of hidden welfare state...

In fiscal year 2008 it lists total spending of 714 billion state and federal spending on federal means tested programs:

372 billion Medical programs (of which 352 billion went to Medicaid)

So, what, those in poverty should do without health care?

Cash payments....

49 billion SSI old age assistance (this should be cut?)
42 billion Earned Income Tax Credit (this incentivizes work--are we going to cut here?
42 billion food stamps (current benefits are what $128 for an individual and $290 for a household)
15 billion TANF (classic welfare--not exactly a huge amount)
Child care credit was 34 billion (my understanding is that this program is not limited to low-income persons, though they can claim a higher percentage of costs)

18 billion pell grants (given the absurd costs of higher education we're going to cut college grants to low-income folks)?
14 billion Title I grants to local schools (I don't know but I am guessing that a lot of local schools would feel this if this were cut-out)

24 billion section 8 (I actually think this is a good program, allowing poorer folks to live in better housing, in better neighborhoods, their kids going to better schools)
18 billion other housing programs. (Don't know)

That's most of where the money is going. What programs are you going to get rid of or substantially cut? I realize this is data from 2008 but that is what your article cited and was so neatly organized that I thought it would be interesting to examine.
I have thoughts about this meme that a lack of character is the main cause of being poor but it's going to take some time to pull some studies. Here is one though. http://m.sciencemag.org/content/341/6149/976

freeman3 wrote:Thanks for the data, DF.

Let's look at that of hidden welfare state...

In fiscal year 2008 it lists total spending of 714 billion state and federal spending on federal means tested programs:

372 billion Medical programs (of which 352 billion went to Medicaid)

So, what, those in poverty should do without health care?

Please. Don't go "straw man."

Cash payments....

49 billion SSI old age assistance (this should be cut?)
42 billion Earned Income Tax Credit (this incentivizes work--are we going to cut here?
42 billion food stamps (current benefits are what $128 for an individual and $290 for a household)
15 billion TANF (classic welfare--not exactly a huge amount)
Child care credit was 34 billion (my understanding is that this program is not limited to low-income persons, though they can claim a higher percentage of costs)

All are "means-tested," yes? So, the point is we are hardly seeing draconian cuts in welfare.

18 billion pell grants (given the absurd costs of higher education we're going to cut college grants to low-income folks)?

Again, you're missing the point. We are spending a LOT on means-tested aid. That said, the President is also rewriting the repayment schedules, so a lot of this is simply added onto the Debt, because, you know, it's not like he would overreach in his authority for political benefit.

You have missed the point entirely. Geojanes was talking about the massive drop in welfare spending to the poor. If that is the case, why is overall spending on entitlements going up? Isn't the answer to reshuffle the deck so the poor get a bigger share?

I have thoughts about this meme that a lack of character is the main cause of being poor but it's going to take some time to pull some studies. Here is one though. http://m.sciencemag.org/content/341/6149/976

Again, seems like a straw man. Who said "poverty is caused by a lack of character?" I said it was, in part, caused by a lack of information.

fate

ll are "means-tested," yes? So, the point is we are hardly seeing draconian cuts in welfare

Again, you're missing the point. We are spending a LOT on means-tested aid

.

In the United States, however, only about seven percent of direct public spending goes to means-tested benefit programs. To be fair, this figure understates U.S. expenditures on low-income people because it leaves out in-kind benefits -- benefits, such as health care (including Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program), that are provided free or at reduced cost, as opposed to direct cash transfers. Nevertheless, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in 2010, 10 percent of entitlement spending in the United States went to the top ten percent of households, 58 percent of entitlement spending went to middle-income households, and 32 percent went to the bottom 20 percent.

rickyp wrote:fate

ll are "means-tested," yes? So, the point is we are hardly seeing draconian cuts in welfare

Again, you're missing the point. We are spending a LOT on means-tested aid

.

In the United States, however, only about seven percent of direct public spending goes to means-tested benefit programs. To be fair, this figure understates U.S. expenditures on low-income people because it leaves out in-kind benefits -- benefits, such as health care (including Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program), that are provided free or at reduced cost, as opposed to direct cash transfers. Nevertheless, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in 2010, 10 percent of entitlement spending in the United States went to the top ten percent of households, 58 percent of entitlement spending went to middle-income households, and 32 percent went to the bottom 20 percent.

Dude, you're slaying me! That's such a valid point . . . not.

In fact, it's a quote with a lot of data. Is there some point you wish to make from it?

fate

In fact, it's a quote with a lot of data. Is there some point you wish to make from it

i reposted it to respond to this claim by you ...
fate

Again, you're missing the point. We are spending a LOT on means-tested aid.

and this ...

Geojanes was talking about the massive drop in welfare spending to the poor. If that is the case, why is overall spending on entitlements going up

Entitlements in the US are broadly provided rather than targeted, and therefore have little to do with alleviating poverty. as the source i've quoted before illustrated.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... al-welfare

fate

Isn't the answer to reshuffle the deck so the poor get a bigger share?

Yes.
And perhaps that means things that eliminate the need for direct programs that involve a beauracracy that has to be supported first. (There will always be some unfortunates who need direct help, but many working poor would do fine if they just made a few more dollars, or didn't have to worry about expensive health care or education.)
I think we would also agree that government programs are less efficient at gettig money into those with needs than simply ensuring the working poor get more money. (middle class) with a simpler tax system. And a higher minimum wage.

rickyp wrote:fate

Isn't the answer to reshuffle the deck so the poor get a bigger share?

Yes.

Holy cow! Fate, Ricky and I all agree on this issue. Is that a pig I see flying?

geo

Holy cow! Fate, Ricky and I all agree on this issue. Is that a pig I see flying?

No.
We've agreed on lots of things. When he lets his common sense over come his ideology usually.

rickyp wrote:geo

Holy cow! Fate, Ricky and I all agree on this issue. Is that a pig I see flying?

No.
We've agreed on lots of things. When he lets his common sense over come his ideology usually.

Oh, that wounds--as it comes from you, the man with a deficit of sense, common or otherwise.

No one can win the war on poverty. Some people will refuse help because they are not quite right. Some won't do for themselves. Some don't need handouts as much as life skills.

I'm all for simpler taxes. I'm all for focusing on those in need.

We would not agree on the remedy. The Federal government is ill-equipped for the latter. As to the former, we should have a system wherein nearly all contribute something. Without that, government simply becomes a lever between the haves and the have-nots.