Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Primarily Help the GOP's Base

[Zalatix]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/gop-base-poverty-snap-social-security/516861/

Using results from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, with supplemental data from an Urban Institute analysis of transfer payments, the new CBPP study challenges the frequent assumption that government anti-poverty programs primarily benefit minority communities. Instead, by examining the experience of working-age adults ages 18 to 64, the study presents evidence that education levels, not race, are the key dividing line in the programs’ reach.

“Safety-net programs are particularly beneficial for adults without a college degree,” wrote the study’s authors, Isaac Shapiro, Danilo Trisi, and Raheem Chaudhry. “The vast majority of working-age adults lifted above the poverty line by government benefits and tax credits are people lacking a college degree.”

The study’s biggest surprise may be how many of those beneficiaries are the non-college-educated whites critical to GOP fortunes. The study found that without accounting for government benefits, the poverty rate stood at nearly 25 percent for working-age white adults in families where no one holds at least a four-year college degree. That represents 14.1 million people in all.

But after accounting for the impact of federal anti-poverty and income-support programs—including Social Security, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (known formerly as food stamps), Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (generally described as welfare), and the earned-income and children’s tax credits—6.2 million of those non-college-educated white adults were raised above the poverty line. That reduced their poverty rate to less than one in seven, and meant that government benefits lifted fully 44 percent of otherwise poor, non-college-educated whites above the poverty line.

African Americans, Hispanics, and members of other races without advanced degrees confronted even higher poverty rates than working-class whites. But they didn’t gain quite as much from the federal anti-poverty programs. Although the CBPP analysts have not fully isolated the cause of that disparity, they say one factor may be the important role of Social Security in lifting people from poverty. That benefits whites most because they comprise the vast majority of today’s older Americans.

So the very group that screams the loudest about theft and communism and socialism are (by their own definition of the words) the thieves.

Some older data also backs this up:
Map of Food-Stamp Enrollment by County (Interactive) | TIME.com

But according to a TIME analysis of county-by-county food-stamp-enrollment data compiled by the nonprofit Feeding America, it appears that House Republicans represent more districts with high levels of participation in the program than House Democrats. Of the 350 congressional districts in which TIME was able to estimate the percentage of people enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), 76 had levels of 20% or higher. Of those, 43 are held by Republicans while 33 are controlled by Democrats.

Which makes this issue of Republicans-on-welfare a long-standing issue.

Perhaps when Republicans talk about the poor lazy black welfare mooches living off the hard working white "Christian" man, they should start applying these principles to themselves in their daily lives?

 

[Josie]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/gop-base-poverty-snap-social-security/516861/

So the very group that screams the loudest about theft and communism and socialism are (by their own definition of the words) the thieves.

Some older data also backs this up:
Map of Food-Stamp Enrollment by County (Interactive) | TIME.com

Which makes this issue of Republicans-on-welfare a long-standing issue.

Perhaps when Republicans talk about the poor lazy black welfare mooches living off the hard working white "Christian" man, they should start applying these principles to themselves in their daily lives?

Who says the underlined statement? Name them and quote them.

 

[katzgar]

americas poor are primarily rural and trump voters, cant get much dumber than that

 

[HenryChinaski]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/gop-base-poverty-snap-social-security/516861/

So the very group that screams the loudest about theft and communism and socialism are (by their own definition of the words) the thieves.

Some older data also backs this up:
Map of Food-Stamp Enrollment by County (Interactive) | TIME.com

Which makes this issue of Republicans-on-welfare a long-standing issue.

Perhaps when Republicans talk about the poor lazy black welfare mooches living off the hard working white "Christian" man, they should start applying these principles to themselves in their daily lives?

It's amazing how the GOP has convinced their base to vote against their own needs and interests. Poor and disenfranchised rural folk consistently vote for those that defund and strip away the services that they desperately need. ****ing weird.

 

[joG]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/gop-base-poverty-snap-social-security/516861/

So the very group that screams the loudest about theft and communism and socialism are (by their own definition of the words) the thieves.

Some older data also backs this up:
Map of Food-Stamp Enrollment by County (Interactive) | TIME.com

Which makes this issue of Republicans-on-welfare a long-standing issue.

Perhaps when Republicans talk about the poor lazy black welfare mooches living off the hard working white "Christian" man, they should start applying these principles to themselves in their daily lives?

You are right. We should punish parents, whose children do not make college.

 

[mike2810]

Nice to see the other Parties help the GOP.:mrgreen:

Since your lean is a "socialist", "In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis'
What is Socialism? | World Socialist Movement

One should ask, what are you really complaining about?

 

[Josie]

It's amazing how the GOP has convinced their base to vote against their own needs and interests. Poor and disenfranchised rural folk consistently vote for those that defund and strip away the services that they desperately need. ****ing weird.

Perhaps because those who vote don't believe the government should be taking care of them. They aren't voting against their own needs and interests at all since their needs and interests have everything to do with personal responsibility.

 

[Josie]

americas poor are primarily rural and trump voters, cant get much dumber than that

....he says, while brutalizing the English language.

 

[Zalatix]

Nice to see the other Parties help the GOP.:mrgreen:

Since your lean is a "socialist", "In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis'
What is Socialism? | World Socialist Movement

One should ask, what are you really complaining about?

GOP voters scream about not living off of others' hard work. Yet that's exactly what many of them are doing. You don't see the hypocrisy in that? Then I guess I can explain it to you but, I can't understand it for you.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Another attempt to portray Social Security as "welfare" to get the right (left?) mix of numbers.

Obviously, those with less education are more likely to have lower incomes but education level has little to do with age or disability which are used to claim Social Security benefits.

Despite "welfare", in all of its many forms, we have maintained a population below the poverty line of between 12% and 15% for about the last 50 years. Poverty cannot be fixed without a change in behavior by the poor (reducing living expanses or increasing earned income), thus the cycyle of poverty remains unbroken by simply adding entitlement benefits.

Using household size and household income alone is a lousy measure of poverty. For example, if we (myself and my girlfriend) were to move 25 miles north (from Uhland, TX to Austin, TX) then we would be much worse off financially (mainly due to an increase in rent) despite having exactly the same household size and household income - yet we would still be above the official poverty line. Basically, poverty is having higher living expenses than earned income.

 

[Zalatix]

Another attempt to portray Social Security as "welfare" to get the right (left?) mix of numbers.

Obviously, those with less education are more likely to have lower incomes but education level has little to do with age or disability which are used to claim Social Security benefits.

Despite "welfare", in all of its many forms, we have maintained a population below the poverty line of between 12% and 15% for about the last 50 years. Poverty cannot be fixed without a change in behavior by the poor (reducing living expanses or increasing earned income), thus the cycyle of poverty remains unbroken by simply adding entitlement benefits.

Using household size and household income alone is a lousy measure of poverty. For example, if we (myself and my girlfriend) were to move 25 miles north (from Uhland, TX to Austin, TX) then we would be much worse off financially (mainly due to an increase in rent) despite having exactly the same household size and household income - yet we would still be above the official poverty line. Basically, poverty is having higher living expenses than earned income.

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/is-social-security-welfare/

Social Security is welfare.

Most Americans would never consider Social Security to be welfare because they think that they paid, or are paying, into the system their whole working lives and therefore earned, or are earning, their benefits and are just receiving, or will be receiving, their contributions back with interest.

But there are several reasons that Social Security is welfare.

Some people think that Social Security isn’t welfare simply because part of the payroll tax collected under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) is listed on pay stubs as being taken for Social Security and the other part as being taken for Medicare. That’s it. If the taxes extracted from Americans’ paychecks were called simply “payroll taxes,” then the notion that Social Security is not just another form of welfare would vanish overnight. Social Security would then be viewed as welfare for seniors, just as TANF is viewed as welfare for the poor, WIC is viewed as welfare for new mothers, and SSI is viewed as welfare for the disabled.

Social Security is welfare because there is no connection between the taxes paid and the benefits received. Take two men who are the same age and have identical incomes. One works for exactly 35 years, reaches full retirement age, and then retires. The other works for 45 years, reaches full retirement age, and then retires. Since Social Security benefits are based on the average of a worker’s 35 highest years of earnings, as related above, the benefit amount that these two men receive every month will be substantially the same. The fact that each man paid vastly different amounts into the system yet received basically the same benefits is irrefutable proof that there is no connection between Social Security taxes and benefits.

Social Security is welfare because Congress may, at will, change the Social Security benefit schedule at any time. According to Title XI, section 1104 of the Social Security Act, “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to Congress.” That means that Social Security taxes can be changed at any time with no change in Social Security benefits; conversely, Social Security benefits can be changed at any time with no change in Social Security taxes. According to the Social Security Administration website,

So who's wrong here, you or the Conservative think tanks?

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's amazing how the GOP has convinced their base to vote against their own needs and interests. Poor and disenfranchised rural folk consistently vote for those that defund and strip away the services that they desperately need. ****ing weird.

The question should be - why are those (government?) "services" (entitlement handouts?) so desperately needed? My interest is in earning a sufficient income to meet my living expenses and having a bit left over for entertainment and luxuries - that goal (the American dream?) is unlikely to be attained by relying on "low income" entitlement programs.

 

[Zalatix]

The question should be - why are those (government?) "services" (entitlement handouts?) so desperately needed? My interest is in earning a sufficient income to meet my living expenses and having a bit left over for entertainment and luxuries - that goal (the American dream?) is unlikely to be attained by relying on "low income" entitlement programs.

There aren't enough high paying jobs to go around. Barely or perhaps less than half of the jobs out there even pay $15 an hour.

1 In 2 Working Americans Makes Less Than $30, | The Daily Caller <--- Conservative source.

 

[ttwtt78640]

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/is-social-security-welfare/

So who's wrong here, you or the Conservative think tanks?

Social Security retirement is definitely a federal entitlement program but is not based on poverty (low income) and is (largely) based on past individual contributions. If you simply count any federal or state individual "entitlement" benefit then you may as well include those collecting veterans, unemployment insurance and civil service retirement benefits as being "on welfare" too. I do not consider benefits "earned" through past contributions of money and/or labor to be "welfare".

 

[Zalatix]

Social Security retirement is definitely a federal entitlement program but is not based on poverty (low income) and is (largely) based on past individual contributions. If you simply count any federal or state individual "entitlement" benefit then you may as well include those collecting veterans, unemployment insurance and civil service retirement benefits as being "on welfare" too. I do not consider benefits "earned" through past contributions of money and/or labor to be "welfare".

Well that is your opinion and you're entitled to it. Conservative think tanks, though, would disagree, and their reasoning is also valid.

Like they said:

Social Security is welfare because there is no connection between the taxes paid and the benefits received. Take two men who are the same age and have identical incomes. One works for exactly 35 years, reaches full retirement age, and then retires. The other works for 45 years, reaches full retirement age, and then retires. Since Social Security benefits are based on the average of a worker’s 35 highest years of earnings, as related above, the benefit amount that these two men receive every month will be substantially the same. The fact that each man paid vastly different amounts into the system yet received basically the same benefits is irrefutable proof that there is no connection between Social Security taxes and benefits.

 

[joG]

americas poor are primarily rural and trump voters, cant get much dumber than that

Yeah. Real deplorables. But at least they vote.

 

[DarkWizard12]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/gop-base-poverty-snap-social-security/516861/

So the very group that screams the loudest about theft and communism and socialism are (by their own definition of the words) the thieves.

Some older data also backs this up:
Map of Food-Stamp Enrollment by County (Interactive) | TIME.com

Which makes this issue of Republicans-on-welfare a long-standing issue.

Perhaps when Republicans talk about the poor lazy black welfare mooches living off the hard working white "Christian" man, they should start applying these principles to themselves in their daily lives?

It's because the GOP base tends to be older or retired, and are being given the entitlements that were promised to them when they were in their 20's.

Also, again, who's saying the black man is "mooching" off the white man? Quote them...or are you just projecting?

 

[cpwill]

It's amazing how the GOP has convinced their base to vote against their own needs and interests. Poor and disenfranchised rural folk consistently vote for those that defund and strip away the services that they desperately need. ****ing weird.

A better way to put this might be:

"It's amazing that the Democrat Party has done such a good job of convincing rural whites that they loathe, mock, and despite them, that they are willing to vote even for the party that might deny them benefits, rather than the party that denies them dignity."

 

[cpwill]

There aren't enough high paying jobs to go around. Barely or perhaps less than half of the jobs out there even pay $15 an hour.

1 In 2 Working Americans Makes Less Than $30, | The Daily Caller <--- Conservative source.

OMG YA'LL, DID YOU KNOW THAT HALF OF WORKING AMERICANS MAKE A BELOW-AVERAGE WAGE??!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!




<------ people who are bad at math. I wonder what their analysis will be when they discover that half of the population has a below-average IQ, and that half of them are below-average in height.

 

[Harshaw]

It's amazing how the GOP has convinced their base to vote against their own needs and interests. Poor and disenfranchised rural folk consistently vote for those that defund and strip away the services that they desperately need. ****ing weird.

This is just dumb.

What makes you think you know what their "interests" are? Why is it that you think their "interests," and what they find important, align with what you think they should be? What makes you think they find it important to get goodies from the government? What if they just plain don't believe in that?

You: "They should want what I think they should want, and because they don't vote for what I think they should want, it baffles me."

 

[ocean515]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/gop-base-poverty-snap-social-security/516861/

So the very group that screams the loudest about theft and communism and socialism are (by their own definition of the words) the thieves.

Some older data also backs this up:
Map of Food-Stamp Enrollment by County (Interactive) | TIME.com

Which makes this issue of Republicans-on-welfare a long-standing issue.

Perhaps when Republicans talk about the poor lazy black welfare mooches living off the hard working white "Christian" man, they should start applying these principles to themselves in their daily lives?

What a ridiculous claim.

It doesn't require much brain power to recognize larger populations of people would contain larger numbers of people in all economic categories.

Apparently, those who might be challenged by even that minor effort think it's an avenue to back some claims containing no connection to reality.

 

[Zalatix]

A better way to put this might be:

"It's amazing that the Democrat Party has done such a good job of convincing rural whites that they loathe, mock, and despite them, that they are willing to vote even for the party that might deny them benefits, rather than the party that denies them dignity."

OMG YA'LL, DID YOU KNOW THAT HALF OF WORKING AMERICANS MAKE A BELOW-AVERAGE WAGE??!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

You are terrible at reading comprehension. Nowhere did I say "average wage". I said half the country earns less than $30k a year, which is a pathetic pittance. That's a totally different thing than "average wage". You must have had Betsy DeVos as a teacher back at Trump U or something.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There aren't enough high paying jobs to go around. Barely or perhaps less than half of the jobs out there even pay $15 an hour.

1 In 2 Working Americans Makes Less Than $30, | The Daily Caller <--- Conservative source.

I make under $30K/year yet get no government assistance (except Social Security retirement) and am not considered to be living in poverty. The combination of "safety net" benefits and a work requirement place downward pressure on wages offered - if one requires $X in order to live comfortably then they don't much care what portion of $X is supplied by their paycheck and what portion of $X is added by the "safety net". Trying to use a McJob (entry level work) as a McCareer is a bad plan, especially if one intends to support 2 or more people on that income. I can (and do) make over $15/hr simply mowing grass - even more doing other handyman work.

 

[Zalatix]

What a ridiculous claim.

It doesn't require much brain power to recognize larger populations of people would contain larger numbers of people in all economic categories.

Apparently, those who might be challenged by even that minor effort think it's an avenue to back some claims containing no connection to reality.

Not ridiculous at all. Republicans always talk about the evils of welfare. Yet so many of them depend on welfare. Literally your rant did nothing to refute that.

 

[katzgar]

....he says, while brutalizing the English language.

Are we just on the playground now or do you have an actual point