obama's $845 global handout = recent statement

[aegyptos]

When it comes to near-term aggressive budget deficit reduction, I am not optimistic.

I'm not either. Just look at the bloated mess of a farm bill the president veto'd the other day. Congress is criminal in its obedience to the special interests.

 

[aegyptos]

If your looking for a "return" when you help someone, maybe you are the one that needs help.

Anyhow, what 6 trillion to which poor?

Regarding the $6 trillion, did you think history started with you?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

When do we start to see some return on the $6 trillion we have already invested in the poor?

Probably when the poverty rates went from over 30% to what they are today, seniors no longer made up the largest demographic living in poverty, infant mortality rates dropped immensely, they got electricity in rural areas, and so on.

 

[aegyptos]

Probably when the poverty rates went from over 30% to what they are today, seniors no longer made up the largest demographic living in poverty, infant mortality rates dropped immensely, they got electricity in rural areas, and so on.

You mix apples and oranges. I'm speaking only of welfare payments. Your reference to seniors means you are taking basic Social Security into account. Properly speaking Social Security is not a factor in this conversation which concerns what is commonly referred to as welfare. Your reference to "electricity means you are including rural electrification costs into the mix. Likewise with infant mortality. Those things aren't part of the $6 trillion we have spent on direct welfare transfer payments. Looking at the group targeted by welfare alone we see no significant reductions at all. All we have done with that $6 trillion is create dependancy on government.

 

[Iriemon]

When do we start to see some return on the $6 trillion we have already invested in the poor?

We've seen major returns. Poverty rates that have dropped by half, even more for for seniors.

 

[The silenced majority]

If poverty is defined as it is, the lowest 5th percent in income earnings, then we will always have poverty.

FrontPage Magazine ~ Poverty in the US


My COLLEGE TOWN was just declared to be poverty stricken designated for section 8 housing, because the census bureau determined that too many residents lived below the poverty line.

 

[aegyptos]

We've seen major returns. Poverty rates that have dropped by half, even more for for seniors.

I refer to my post #29.

 

[John1234]

Regarding the $6 trillion, did you think history started with you?

Did you think I am an African drinking from the same puddles i pee in?
I am an America FYI.
And we are discussing foreign aid, not whatever social program your trying to twist this into.

This does bring up another point though.
Even though I am poor as far as Americans go and have never had medical insurance, I still have enough money to donate to those less fortunate than myself.

 

[aegyptos]

Your inability to discriminate makes your contributions in this thread of no debating value whatsoever. Thanks for your thoughts but I'm moving on without you.

 

[Iriemon]

You mix apples and oranges. I'm speaking only of welfare payments. Your reference to seniors means you are taking basic Social Security into account. Properly speaking Social Security is not a factor in this conversation which concerns what is commonly referred to as welfare. Your reference to "electricity means you are including rural electrification costs into the mix. Likewise with infant mortality. Those things aren't part of the $6 trillion we have spent on direct welfare transfer payments. Looking at the group targeted by welfare alone we see no significant reductions at all. All we have done with that $6 trillion is create dependancy on government.

What are you defining as poverty how do you calculate $6 trillion.

But the poverty rate fell by half since the early 60s.

 

[aegyptos]

Refer to the US government poverty guidlines as defined by DHHS. Five or six years ago I saw a figure of $5 trillion for the total spent by the feds on all their various poverty programs such as Vista, Foodstamps, ADC, Headstart, JobCorps, Legal Services, Community Action Program and so on. I have added a trillion to that figure to account for Bush Administration poverty spending which is higher than that of any previous administration.

According to the US Census, poverty among Americans between ages 18-64 has fallen only marginally since 1966 when these programs began, from 10.5% then to 10.1% today. This fact prompted me to ask a poster who proved incapable of making a relevant response when we were going to start getting some return on that massive investment.

 

[Iriemon]

Refer to the US government poverty guidlines as defined by DHHS. Five or six years ago I saw a figure of $5 trillion for the total spent by the feds on all their various poverty programs such as Vista, Foodstamps, ADC, Headstart, JobCorps, Legal Services, Community Action Program and so on. I have added a trillion to that figure to account for Bush Administration poverty spending which is higher than that of any previous administration.

The cumulative figure spent on "income security", which includes unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, Food Stamps, family support, child nutrition, and foster care from 1968-2007 was $3.3 trillion. The amount spent on medicaid is $2.4 trillion.

According to the US Census, poverty among Americans between ages 18-64 has fallen only marginally since 1966 when these programs began, from 10.5% then to 10.1% today. This fact prompted me to ask a poster who proved incapable of making a relevant response when we were going to start getting some return on that massive investment.

Year - poverty rate

1959 18.5
1960 18.1
1961 18.1
1962 17.2
1963 15.9
1964 15.0
1965 13.9
1966 11.8
1967 11.4
1968 10.0

The poverty rate fall dramatically in the 60s with the "Great Society" programs.

The return is that poverty has not increased to those early 60s levels since.

 

[aegyptos]

The cumulative figure spent on "income security", which includes unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, Food Stamps, family support, child nutrition, and foster care from 1968-2007 was $3.3 trillion. The amount spent on medicaid is $2.4
trillion.

I forgot include medicare. Pretty close to my six trillion estimate though.

The poverty rate fall dramatically in the 60s with the "Great Society" programs.

The return is that poverty has not increased to those early 60s levels since.

The Census does not agree with you.

Obviously the hard nut, the 10.1% poverty figure, cannot be solved by increased government spending or it would have responded to the trillions thrown at it over the last 50 years. Since money won't do it, and education has also failed, what do you suggest is the reason for this persistence?

 

[Iriemon]

The Census does not agree with you.

I think it does.
Historical Poverty Tables

Obviously the hard nut, the 10.1% poverty figure, cannot be solved by increased government spending or it would have responded to the trillions thrown at it over the last 50 years. Since money won't do it, and education has also failed, what do you suggest is the reason for this persistence?

Because it is about 10% and not 18%

 

[John1234]

Why are you going on and on about poverty in America when we are discussing foreign aid packages?


We are not talking about Americans that need help with daycare or social security checks.

We are talking about people that wash their clothes, drink, and **** in the same puddle.
People who have never even layed eyes on clear water before from the day they are born till the day they die (which is often not far apart)

People that are as foreign to the social programs your talking about as we are to Mars.

And if we have to even think about it before helping these people... then we do not deserve to be here.

 

[aegyptos]

Thank you for your thoughts, John.

 

[aegyptos]

Because it is about 10% and not 18%

I said it was 10.1% and irreduceable. I don't know where your 18% number comes from.

Why is that 10.0% irreduceable?

 

[Iriemon]

I said it was 10.1% and irreduceable. I don't know where your 18% number comes from.

I've highlighted it for you.

Year - poverty rate

1959 18.5
1960 18.1
1961 18.1
1962 17.2
1963 15.9
1964 15.0
1965 13.9
1966 11.8
1967 11.4
1968 10.0

 

[aegyptos]

Okay got it. Now answer my question: why is that 10.1% apparently irreducible?

 

[Iriemon]

Okay got it. Now answer my question: why is that 10.1% apparently irreducible?

1) I don't know that it is, and 2) if it is I don't know. Why?

 

[the makeout hobo]

You are not so rash as to suggest that the democrats actually intend to do this, are you?

Clinton did.

 

[donsutherland1]

Last month, I suggested that the nation's enormous fiscal deficit might constrain policy choices for whomever is elected President. Then, I noted that the need to reduce the budget deficit that has ballooned to a figure that will likely exceed $500 billion in FY 2008 will push aside many other initiatives in at least the first year of the next Administration and perhaps beyond if substantial progress toward reducing that deficit is not addressed. Addressing that deficit and perhaps beginning to address the long-term fiscal imbalance would likely mean no big increases in military spending and no big increases in health care spending in a bid to achieve universal or near-universal coverage. Instead, new initiatives are likely to be quite modest.

Today, Reuters reported that at least some political analysts have reached similar conclusions. Excerpts follow:

When President McCain or President Obama takes office next year, he will inevitably find George W. Bush's budgetary legacy haunts the White House.

Bush will leave record budget deficits, a sluggish economy and rising health-care and retirement costs that are likely to constrain his successor's ability to pursue his own policies, analysts say.

Reuters also revealed, "Medicare, the $400 billion health-insurance program for the elderly, began paying out more than it takes in this year."​

 

[donsutherland1]

Today's edition of The Washington Post adds to the commentary that whomever is elected President will likely be constrained by the fiscal red ink that has been swelling in Washington in recent years.

Excerpts follow:

...back in Washington, tax collections are slowing, the budget deficit is rising, and the national debt is approaching $10 trillion. Whoever wins the White House this fall, fiscal experts say, is likely to have a tough time enacting expensive new initiatives, be they tax cuts or health care reform...

Meanwhile, the first baby boomers started receiving Social Security checks in January. Without major policy changes, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to devour half of all federal spending by 2050. But the more immediate problem is the depletion of excess cash in the Social Security trust fund, which has been used for years to cover a portion of the annual budget deficit. Government economists predict that the Social Security surplus will start shrinking in 2011 and dry up completely by the end of the next decade, exposing government-wide budget deficits of a magnitude not seen since Bush's first term.

The complete article can be found at: washingtonpost.com​