Uncategorized

U.S. Welfare Tab Soars To $1 Trillion

AMERICA’S DEPENDENCY TAB IS ON THE RISE The federal government spent $1.03 trillion on more than eighty different welfare programs during FY 2011 – which concluded last September.   That’s a whopping 28 percent increase from FY 2008, according to data released by the U.S. Senate Budget Committee (and provided…

AMERICA’S DEPENDENCY TAB IS ON THE RISE

The federal government spent $1.03 trillion on more than eighty different welfare programs during FY 2011 – which concluded last September.   That’s a whopping 28 percent increase from FY 2008, according to data released by the U.S. Senate Budget Committee (and provided to The Daily Caller) website).

Insane, right?

Right – not to mention totally unsustainable.  Of course this escalating dependency isn’t surprising when you consider that the welfare reforms championed by former president Bill Clinton were completely gutted less than a month after Barack Obama took office in 2009.

Under a little-known provision of Obama’s bureaucratic bailout, states were put back on the “bounty system” for welfare payments – meaning government went back to rewarding them for inflating, not reducing their rolls.  Obama has also worked to dramatically expand food stamp enrollment and Medicaid eligibility – all with passive support of so-called “Tea Party” governors.

Barack Obama: Welfare Statist.

Throw in the perpetual provision of unemployment benefits and there’s no conclusion to be drawn save that the federal government – for all its talk of wanting to “stimulate” a recovery – really wants to stimulate dependency.  Not only does that add to the taxpayer tab – it subtracts from the pool of people paying for it.

Then there’s the soaring cost of administering all of these problems … which continues to skyrocket thanks to the swelling number of welfare cases.

Incidentally, it’s worth pointing out that Milton Friedman had a novel idea for welfare reform – which was to basically take a lump sum representing the approximate value of the various programs and services government was providing and simply hand that money over to the beneficiaries.

“If the main problem of the poor is that they have too little money, (Friedman) reasoned, the simplest and cheapest solution is to give them some more,” columnist Robert Frank explained shortly after Friedman’s death. “He saw no advantage in hiring armies of bureaucrats to dispense food stamps, energy stamps, day care stamps and rent subsidies.”

Interesting concept, isn’t it?

The bottom line is that WAY too many people are on welfare in this country  – and WAY too many agencies, programs and bureaucrats are involved in providing welfare services.  Of course rather than breaking our nation’s deepening cycle of dependency and shrinking this massive welfare state, our government is rushing headlong in the opposite direction.

***

Related posts

Uncategorized

Spy Apps: Balancing Privacy And Practicality

FITSForum
Murdaughs

Buster Murdaugh Files Defamation Lawsuit

Callie Lyons
Uncategorized

Murdaugh Retrial Hearing: Interview With Bill Young

Will Folks

25 comments

? October 18, 2012 at 10:43 am

Milton Friedman was a glorified big gov’t charlatan that occasionally spouted “small gov’t” rhetoric without really meaning much of it.

Reply
ppye October 18, 2012 at 11:00 am

What a slam dunking load this is ….

Reply
Smirks October 18, 2012 at 11:16 am

The federal government spent $1.03 trillion on more than eighty different welfare programs during FY 2011 – which concluded last September.

Uh, federal welfare spending was at $746 billion. It only becomes ~$1 trillion when you add state spending on federal welfare programs, which adds $282 billion.

Of that $746 billion, Medicaid accounts for $296 billion (I’m sure Medicaid also accounts for a large amount of the state spending on federal welfare, too). Other big ticket items are SNAP ($75 billion), EITC ($56 billion), SSI ($60 billion), and the low-income subsidy for Medicare part D ($22 billion).

I’m all for streamlining these programs and eliminating fraud and abuse, but ending these programs will not help the poor.

Reply
pinckneyhampton October 18, 2012 at 11:25 am

As long as they all vote for Obama, who cares how many are on the dole?? Sign more up, I say!

Reply
Billy-Bob October 18, 2012 at 11:54 am

The blame fall at the feet of corporate America greed. They sent our jobs to third world countries to pad their wallets.

Have you paid less for an auto or underwear, since them doing so?

Reply
upstate October 18, 2012 at 12:15 pm

I just find it amazing that the recipients have no limitations on their lifestyle and no labor requirement. Note that I said Labor requirement, not pursuit of employment requirement. Anybody that suggest otherwise is a racist/unsympathetic/etc. IMO any able bodied individual who receives assistance should put in hours of labor equivalent to the $ amount of the benefit that they received, using the minimum wage rate as the multiplier to calculate the value. Let them cut grass on the side of the road, clean toilets in government office buildings, anything………even if it cost the taxpayer more $ than it saves…….just make sure that it sucks worse than working at a real job so that the only folks left doing it are the ones that are too dumb to do anything else.

It is blatantly obvious that in order to shift the cycle we are going to have to force those on the receiving end of the benefits to change. As it stands, there are plenty of situations where it is more beneficial for a welfare recipient to remain on the government dole vs getting a job. Make it hurt for them, and they will change.

Reply
Smirks October 18, 2012 at 2:24 pm

Let them cut grass on the side of the road, clean toilets in government office buildings, anything…

Don’t we already have prison labor doing those things? :P

But yes, I agree, in addition to having to make an effort to look for jobs, people chronically on welfare programs should be given some form of work.

Reply
Colascguy October 18, 2012 at 3:04 pm

@ Smirks

“But yes, I agree, in addition to having to make an effort to look for jobs, people chronically on welfare programs should be given some form of work.”

Wow one post I can agree with though I would add pursuing higher education as an acceptable alternative to work.

Reply
Eastshore9 October 18, 2012 at 11:22 pm

It’s not “people” on “welfare” it’s women with children on specific time-limited programs like TANF payments. There are no able bodied men on welfare, not even Medicaid. The right has created another blatant lie to support an agenda that increases defense spending at far higher levels than the Joint Chiefs are requesting. Stoking up the ire of the wingnuts is a side benefit. The source of the data was cooked up by the Republican members of the Senate and has no basis in reality.

Work up your resentment about others getting something for nothing as you wheel around Wal-mart in your Medicare supplied scooter. Like your favorite senator says. “We’re not generating enough angry white guys”.

Reply
upstate October 19, 2012 at 7:57 am

Eastshore………you are leaving out the part about the only way for them to receive these benefits is to not be married……which does nothing but encourage children out of wedlock (which at this point is a generational way of life). Within this segment of society, the # of fathers who are chased for child support is laughable, so the argument that the men don’t benefit is very misguided.

The family courts look at “poor” people as unable to generate income long term, and put no expectation of income to support their children on the fathers.

On the other end of the spectrum, look at a middle class father who makes 50K a year and has a kid out of wedlock or goes through a divorce. They will go after them for child support to the point of them starving.

Reply
vicupstate October 18, 2012 at 12:24 pm

If you think 41 trillion is a lot to spend on welfare, wait til you see the figure for corporate welfare.

Reply
vicupstate October 18, 2012 at 12:24 pm

The 4 was meant to be a dollar sign.

Reply
Amelia Peabody Emerson October 18, 2012 at 1:00 pm

Think about it a minute. You are bashing poor people for taking advantage of legitimate codes of law that provide money for things such as food and money for rent or children’s clothing. They are considered lazy and moochers and the Obama administration is considered “bad and evil” for making these people aware of these legitimate codes of law that they can utilize.

On the other hand we have very wealthy people like Romney who take advantage of codes of law that provide legitimate tax cuts and tax avoidance by various means, including off shore accounts. These people are considered good business men and the accountants who make them aware of these legitimate codes of law that they can utilize are considered brilliant.

Damn, it is good to be rich.

Reply
pinckneyhampton October 18, 2012 at 1:17 pm

Yea…those Rich Democrat FAT CATS who bundled for Obama are laughing all the way to the bank…Solyndra, anyone? Brite Source, anyone? Corzine, anyone?…Just ask Big Time Obama fund-raiser Warren Buffett what it feels like to own 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue…

Reply
ceilidh10 October 18, 2012 at 1:01 pm

You gotta wonder how many Republican voters fall into the category of welfare recipients. I bet there are so many, it is embarassing.

Reply
Smirks October 18, 2012 at 2:27 pm

There’s a lot of people who are on some form of social program that think they’ve never used a social program before.

boingboing.net/2011/07/08/half-of-us-social-pr.html

Reply
dwb619 October 18, 2012 at 9:25 pm

Interesting. If you ever have the chance to speak with anyone in the public school system, you would be FLOORED to learn how many of the REPUBLICAN’s children enjoy FREE or reduced price meals at school.

Reply
The Colonel October 18, 2012 at 1:13 pm

Surprising no one, this just in :
Weekly applications for U.S. unemployment benefits jumped 46,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 388,000, the highest in four months. The increase represents a rebound from the previous week’s sharp drop. Both swings were largely due to technical factors.

via CNBC

Reply
BigT October 18, 2012 at 3:39 pm

But FITS tells us there NO difference in Republicans and democrats…

Does the term Complete Dumb@$$ mean anything you you???

Pat yourself on the back FITS…people like you and Sanford are the reason we have Obama…

You’re Too D@%n Stupid to think for yourselves…so you believe everything the leftists tell you to think…

Reply
dwb619 October 18, 2012 at 9:27 pm

Pot, meet kettle.
YOU BETCHA!
YOU BETCHA!

Almost forgot,
YA’ HEADS GONNA BUST NOV.7!

Reply
BradWarthenSucks October 18, 2012 at 5:42 pm

You mean they might cut off some of the services for the 30 Obama phones one lady has gotten?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aTYiKjFnMos

Reply
UpandDown October 19, 2012 at 1:01 pm

OBAMA PHONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply
dwb619 October 19, 2012 at 2:03 pm

Introduced during the term of “Bush the Worst”.

Reply
they call me Mr. Sinister October 19, 2012 at 2:41 pm

A bumper sticker I saw says it best: “If you can’t feed’em don’t breed’em”. The longer we take care of the unproductive in this country the more they will reproduce.

Reply
Booyah October 21, 2012 at 12:42 pm

Here’s a challenge for FITS:

Follow the whole monetary path of travel. It is handed to direct recipients, but they pass it on immediately.

Where it goes FROM there will show you who the end beneficiaries are!

Reply

Leave a Comment