Steeles Royal

Obama, the Welfare POTUS

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Wow... numbers that should startle...

Report: Welfare government’s single largest budget item in FY 2011 at approx. $1.03 trillion


The government spent approximately $1.03 trillion on 83 means-tested federal welfare programs in fiscal year 2011 alone — a price tag that makes welfare that year the government’s largest expenditure, according to new data released by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee.

The total sum taxpayers spent on federal welfare programs was derived from a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on federal welfare spending — which topped out at $745.84 billion for fiscal year 2011 — combined with an analysis from the Republican Senate Budget Committee staff of state spending on federal welfare programs (based on “The Oxford Handbook of State and Local Government Finance”), which reached $282.7 billion in fiscal year 2011.

The data excludes spending on Social Security, Medicare, means-tested health care for veterans without service-connected disabilities, and the means-tested veterans pension program.

According to the CRS report, which focused solely on federal spending for federal welfare programs, spending on federal welfare programs increased $563.413 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $745.84 billion in fiscal year 2011 — a 32 percent increase.

Further, spending on the 10 largest federal welfare programs has doubled as a share of the federal budget in the last 30 years: In inflation-adjusted dollars, according to Republican staff on the Senate Budget Committee, the amount spent on these programs has increased 378 percent in that 30 year time frame.

CRS reports that food assistance programs — the third largest welfare category behind health and cash assistance — experienced the greatest increase in spending, with 71 percent more spending in 2011 than in 2008. The agency explained that this spending increase was largely due to the growth in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps.

CRS further noted that the largest expenditure category, health, was 37 percent higher in fiscal year 2011 than fiscal year 2008. In that same period, cash aid increased 12 percent, education assistance increased 57 percent, housing and development assistance increased 2 percent, social services increased 3 percent, employment and training remained the same (though fluctuated in intervening years), and energy assistance was 67 percent higher in fiscal year 2011 than fiscal year 2008.

The total federal spending on federal welfare programs vastly outpaced fiscal year 2011 spending on such federal expenditures as non-war defense ($540 billion), Social Security ($725 billion), Medicare ($480 billion), and departments such as Justice ($30.5 billion), Transportation ($77.3 billion) and Education ($65.486 billion) — a fact that alarmed the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, who requested the report from CRS.

“These astounding figures demonstrate that the United States spends more on federal welfare than any other program in the federal budget,” Sessions wrote The Daily Caller in an email. “It is time to restore — not retreat from — the moral principles of the 1996 welfare reform. Such reforms, combined with measures to promote growth, will help both the recipient and the Treasury.”

When state spending on federal welfare programs — specifically Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program — was thrown into the mix, the amount spent on federal welfare increased 28 percent, from $798.813 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $1.028.54 trillion in fiscal year 2011.

“No longer should we measure compassion by how much money the government spends, but by how many people we help to rise out of poverty,” Sessions continued. “Welfare assistance should be seen as temporary whenever possible, and the goal must be to help more of our fellow citizens attain gainful employment and financial independence. This is about more than rescuing our finances. It’s about creating a more optimistic future for millions of struggling Americans.”

With food assistance spending increasing the most out of every category, Sessions, who has been sounding the alarm on the expanding food stamp rolls, noted that the Obama administration has allowed for the food stamp increase through misleading promotion and a disregard for self-reliance.

“The administration ludicrously argues that every five dollars in food stamp spending results in nearly 10 dollars in economic benefit. They insist that communities ‘lose out’ when more people don’t sign up for benefits,” Sessions noted. “[The United States Department of Agriculture] even awarded a recruitment worker for overcoming people’s ‘mountain pride.’ Is this a hopeful vision for the future? Do these priorities make our country stronger and our economy more secure?”

Update: In early October the Alabama senator sent a letter to the United States Department of Agriculture, which oversees nutrition assistance programs like SNAP, requesting that it “eliminate all materials, training and recruitment efforts that” could be construed as pressuring eligible people to accept benefits. The deadline for USDA to respond to Sessions is Thursday. Senate Budget Committee Republican aides tell TheDC that given their past missed deadlines and current unresponsiveness, it is highly unlikely USDA will respond today. USDA has not responded to TheDC’s request for comment on the letter.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,489
11
38
Thanks for pointing out that the wealthy have not been creating all those jobs they say that only unregulated entrepreneurship can. Thanks be they're at least paying some taxes.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,044
6,058
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
US is Reaping the Bitter Harvest of GOPer Globalism

These FACTS are sooooo simple only a fool or bottom couldn't see!!!.....:rolleyes:

Mom's don't send your kids to business school to learn fuzzy numbers!....:Eek:

Or they may just wind up being a salesman for Apple!....:biggrin1:
 

MyHobbyist

New member
Sep 2, 2012
911
0
0
Wow... numbers that should startle...

Report: Welfare government’s single largest budget item in FY 2011 at approx. $1.03 trillion


The government spent approximately $1.03 trillion on 83 means-tested federal welfare programs in fiscal year 2011 alone — a price tag that makes welfare that year the government’s largest expenditure, according to new data released by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee.

The total sum taxpayers spent on federal welfare programs was derived from a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on federal welfare spending — which topped out at $745.84 billion for fiscal year 2011 — combined with an analysis from the Republican Senate Budget Committee staff of state spending on federal welfare programs (based on “The Oxford Handbook of State and Local Government Finance”), which reached $282.7 billion in fiscal year 2011.

The data excludes spending on Social Security, Medicare, means-tested health care for veterans without service-connected disabilities, and the means-tested veterans pension program.

According to the CRS report, which focused solely on federal spending for federal welfare programs, spending on federal welfare programs increased $563.413 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $745.84 billion in fiscal year 2011 — a 32 percent increase.

Further, spending on the 10 largest federal welfare programs has doubled as a share of the federal budget in the last 30 years: In inflation-adjusted dollars, according to Republican staff on the Senate Budget Committee, the amount spent on these programs has increased 378 percent in that 30 year time frame.

CRS reports that food assistance programs — the third largest welfare category behind health and cash assistance — experienced the greatest increase in spending, with 71 percent more spending in 2011 than in 2008. The agency explained that this spending increase was largely due to the growth in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps.

CRS further noted that the largest expenditure category, health, was 37 percent higher in fiscal year 2011 than fiscal year 2008. In that same period, cash aid increased 12 percent, education assistance increased 57 percent, housing and development assistance increased 2 percent, social services increased 3 percent, employment and training remained the same (though fluctuated in intervening years), and energy assistance was 67 percent higher in fiscal year 2011 than fiscal year 2008.

The total federal spending on federal welfare programs vastly outpaced fiscal year 2011 spending on such federal expenditures as non-war defense ($540 billion), Social Security ($725 billion), Medicare ($480 billion), and departments such as Justice ($30.5 billion), Transportation ($77.3 billion) and Education ($65.486 billion) — a fact that alarmed the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, who requested the report from CRS.

“These astounding figures demonstrate that the United States spends more on federal welfare than any other program in the federal budget,” Sessions wrote The Daily Caller in an email. “It is time to restore — not retreat from — the moral principles of the 1996 welfare reform. Such reforms, combined with measures to promote growth, will help both the recipient and the Treasury.”

When state spending on federal welfare programs — specifically Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program — was thrown into the mix, the amount spent on federal welfare increased 28 percent, from $798.813 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $1.028.54 trillion in fiscal year 2011.

“No longer should we measure compassion by how much money the government spends, but by how many people we help to rise out of poverty,” Sessions continued. “Welfare assistance should be seen as temporary whenever possible, and the goal must be to help more of our fellow citizens attain gainful employment and financial independence. This is about more than rescuing our finances. It’s about creating a more optimistic future for millions of struggling Americans.”

With food assistance spending increasing the most out of every category, Sessions, who has been sounding the alarm on the expanding food stamp rolls, noted that the Obama administration has allowed for the food stamp increase through misleading promotion and a disregard for self-reliance.

“The administration ludicrously argues that every five dollars in food stamp spending results in nearly 10 dollars in economic benefit. They insist that communities ‘lose out’ when more people don’t sign up for benefits,” Sessions noted. “[The United States Department of Agriculture] even awarded a recruitment worker for overcoming people’s ‘mountain pride.’ Is this a hopeful vision for the future? Do these priorities make our country stronger and our economy more secure?”

Update: In early October the Alabama senator sent a letter to the United States Department of Agriculture, which oversees nutrition assistance programs like SNAP, requesting that it “eliminate all materials, training and recruitment efforts that” could be construed as pressuring eligible people to accept benefits. The deadline for USDA to respond to Sessions is Thursday. Senate Budget Committee Republican aides tell TheDC that given their past missed deadlines and current unresponsiveness, it is highly unlikely USDA will respond today. USDA has not responded to TheDC’s request for comment on the letter.
GOOD READ.. thanks
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,044
6,058
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Isn't Globalism great???
Look at what it did to America!!!....:Eek:
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
GOOD READ.. thanks
Fricking scary is what it is.... spending more on welfare payments (not inclusive of retirement or health benefits) than defense... following Europe down the drain....

OTB
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,085
1
0
Fricking scary is what it is.... spending more on welfare payments (not inclusive of retirement or health benefits) than defense... following Europe down the drain....

OTB
Considering that the large majority of countries that are considered the best of the best have better social support than the USA, what the problem with supporting the lesser fortunate? Wow, actually take money form the the largest military budget in the world by a country mile, just in case, to help those who need it now, TERRIBLE. They should be ashamed, not.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,489
11
38
Fricking scary is what it is.... spending more on welfare payments (not inclusive of retirement or health benefits) than defense... following Europe down the drain....

OTB
You think it would be good if the US was more afraid or had more enemies? What a strange mind you live in.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,489
11
38
The mind that sees spending to help others as A Bad Thing, if it's less than what's spent to improve your killing power is not a place I'd ever want to inhabit.

But I'll try to remember it the next time someone tells me the US is really a Christian country.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,085
1
0
The mind that sees spending to help others as A Bad Thing, if it's less than what's spent to improve your killing power is not a place I'd ever want to inhabit.

But I'll try to remember it the next time someone tells me the US is really a Christian country.
Then the GOP want to spend more on the military and less on the social programs.
 

OddSox

Active member
May 3, 2006
3,148
2
36
Ottawa
The mind that sees spending to help others as A Bad Thing, if it's less than what's spent to improve your killing power is not a place I'd ever want to inhabit.

But I'll try to remember it the next time someone tells me the US is really a Christian country.
Sorry, but where did you get the idea that welfare spending is meant to help others? It's meant to provide government jobs, and good pensions.
 

GG2

Mr. Debonair
Apr 8, 2011
3,183
0
0
When America becomes a carbon copy of Western Europe, the world as we know it is over. It'll be a more violent, more dangerous, poorer world. China and Russia will welcome it.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,489
11
38
Sorry, but where did you get the idea that welfare spending is meant to help others? It's meant to provide government jobs, and good pensions.
I'd have thought that the proper term would be government hiring, but that must mean that the US has no unemployement, yes? Or is it that jobs and pensions are bad?
 

train

New member
Jul 29, 2002
6,992
0
0
Above 7
I'd have thought that the proper term would be government hiring, but that must mean that the US has no unemployement, yes? Or is it that jobs and pensions are bad?
Speaking of pensions OJ. I guess you noticed that Harper kept his promise and reformed MP pensions on Friday. As I recall that means you owe him an apology for some of your past mis-posts. I'm not holding my breath but let's see how big a man you really are :D
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,489
11
38
Speaking of pensions OJ. I guess you noticed that Harper kept his promise and reformed MP pensions on Friday. As I recall that means you owe him an apology for some of your past mis-posts. I'm not holding my breath but let's see how big a man you really are :D
Please quote or reference anything specific you think I should apologize for. Harper originally signed on as a Reformer promising to do away with MP's gold plated pensions. It was party policy. Hasn't happened.

After how many years as PM? —not to mention years as an MP when he could have moved a private member's bill, he's finally gotten around to this first, hesitant step. It leaves MP's still enjoying pensions better even than the reviled civil servants whose jobs and pay they legislate. They are certainly not pensions 'in line with average Canadians' as was the boast over this half-measure. Most Canadians have no actual pension plans. Harper has not shown the slightest concern about that, or about his earlier conviction regarding MP's rewards for losing their seat, although he did increase the time they had to serve before being pensioned a bit past the old six year minimum.

Sorry, I see no reason why MP's salaries and pensions shouldn't be legislatively tied to middle manager rates in the public service. So when there's a wage freeze or rollback, it would apply in the House as well. Heck, if we had a Statistics Canada, we could use an established private sector benchmark. Let's see the smarmy rhetoric about 'getting public sector remuneration back in line with reality' finally mean something.

He did do something, but did he keep his promise? No. Perhaps you should apologize for giving him overmuch credit here.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,085
1
0
Speaking of pensions OJ. I guess you noticed that Harper kept his promise and reformed MP pensions on Friday. As I recall that means you owe him an apology for some of your past mis-posts. I'm not holding my breath but let's see how big a man you really are :D
Wow, it's about time, he's been the government for how long? Yet am I wrong to say this little piece of housekeeping doesn't take affect until after the next election. Nice.
 
Toronto Escorts