SOCIAL PROGRAMS: Most rapid 5-year expansion since 1960s (1 Viewer)

[KidRocks]

Thank you President Bush!




http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-13-federal-entitlements_x.htm

Federal aid programs expand at record rate

A sweeping expansion of social programs since 2000 has sparked a record increase in the number of Americans receiving federal government benefits such as college aid, food stamps and health care.

A USA TODAY analysis of 25 major government programs found that enrollment increased an average of 17% in the programs from 2000 to 2005. The nation's population grew 5% during that time.

It was the largest five-year expansion of the federal safety net since the Great Society created programs such as Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s.

Spending on these social programs was $1.3 trillion in 2005, up an inflation-adjusted 22% since 2000 and accounting for more than half of federal spending. Enrollment growth was responsible for three-fourths of the spending increase, according to USA TODAY's analysis of federal enrollment and spending data. Higher benefits accounted for the rest.

Not a factor: Social Security and Medicare. Those retirement programs will not see their enrollment explode until 79 million baby boomers start to become eligible for Social Security in 2008 and Medicare in 2011.

USA TODAY found three major causes for soaring enrollment in government programs:

•Expanded eligibility:

•Increased participation:

 

[Carl]

Thank you President Bush!

Pyramid Schemes

One aspect of political assaults on the economy is that by the time a harmful policy begins to really hurt, so much time has passed that those who authored the policy are either forgotten or retired, or deceased. And the people being harmed no longer make the connection between the policy that is harming them, and those who created it. Even if they voted for, and approved of, the policy itself.

(see Rent Controls, Social Security, No-Growth Zoning, Medicaire)

Blaming a politician who by pure chance happens to preside over the collapse of the pyramid, or even the point of exponential growth preceding the collapse, is misdirected and mistaken.

Medicaire and Social Security are Ponzi Schemes, doomed to failure of the sort we see now at their very inception. The blame lays with the politicians who crafted them, and those citizens both public and private who lacked the foresight to resist and defeat such policies.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Moderator's Warning:

try to keep the quantity of quoted material closer to 10% of the piece than 90%

 

[aquapub]

A sweeping expansion of social programs since 2000 has sparked a record increase in the number of Americans receiving federal government benefits such as college aid, food stamps and health care...

...Higher benefits...

...Expanded eligibility...

1) So what about all the rhetoric during the 2004 election from the always left wing labor unions (you know, the ones needlessly making it unaffordable for companies to hire American workers and thereby sending our jobs overseas; the ones causing perpetual, gigantic cost of living increases?) about Bush screwing over poor college students by not covering their tuition? According to what you are saying now, that was all just partisan crap...shocker.

Likewise, this also deflates much of the tired, race-baiting, class warfare smears liberals were hurling at Bush during Katrina about how little he has done for blacks.

So more kinds of people are eligible and there are more benefits. Democrats are painting this as a bad thing?

Increased participation is explainable by increased eligibility. It is also explainable by fuel costs (not Bush's fault), increases in drug and insurance costs (thank you, trial lawyers-i.e., Democrats), illegal immigrants being allowed to use our health care system for free-at our expense (Bush's fault, but Democrats support him on this).

Everything that is raising the general cost of living is either a resource issue, a direct result of DEMOCRAT activities (labor unions, trial lawyers, etc.), or a situation where Bush isn't being conservative enough.



2) Also, when you show the parts of the reports you left out, it changes the meaning of what is being said...

You posted:

"USA TODAY found three major causes for soaring enrollment in government programs:

•Expanded eligibility:

•Increased participation:"

Here is that same information without your editing:

"USA TODAY found three major causes for soaring enrollment in government programs:

•Expanded eligibility: Congress has expanded eligibility for programs in ways that attracted little attention but added greatly to the scope and cost of programs. Congress added food stamp eligibility for 2.7 million people by ending a rule that disqualified people from receiving food stamps if they had a car or truck worth $4,650 or more. The change, one of a series of expansions in 2001 and 2002, was designed to make it easier for food stamp recipients to work.

•Increased participation: The government has made applying for benefits easier, prompting more eligible people to get them. Forms have been shortened, office visits reduced and verification streamlined.

•Welfare reform: 1996 overhaul pushed millions of people off cash assistance and into the workforce. Congress expanded eligibility for benefits to support people with low-wage jobs. "



What were you saying about slanted news at FOX?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

2) Also, when you show the parts of the reports you left out, it changes the meaning of what is being said...

You posted:

Here is that same information without your editing:

Your point is lost and invalid as it was Simon W. Moon who did the editing, not KidRocks. I did it w/o much regard for the flow or content. Tried to keep the highlights, but I didn't give it much thought.

These are the indicators:

Look at the bottom of the post in question. Here's what it says: "Last edited by Simon W. Moon : Today at 07:38 AM. Reason: DP Fair Use Policy"

Next examine my post where I ask that KR not use so much of an article.
​

So all of your posturing re Kid Rocks is moot.:shock:

 

[KidRocks]

Moderator's Warning:

try to keep the quantity of quoted material closer to 10% of the piece than 90%

Sorry, I tried to keep the essence of the article and found I had to print most of the article to do so.

Will watch closely next time.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Sorry, I tried to keep the essence of the article and found I had to print most of the article to do so.

Will watch closely next time.

Well there's not an explicitly set limit, but less than half is a good upper limit. Paraphrasing is recommended.

 

[Stinger]

I read the printed article at lunch and it went into much more detail. Bottom line is if any Democrats try to run on the premise that the Republicans and the Bush administration have cut social spending and that programs are lacking funding they will be lying.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I read the printed article at lunch and it went into much more detail. Bottom line is if any Democrats try to run on the premise that the Republicans and the Bush administration have cut social spending and that programs are lacking funding they will be lying.

This coming election cycles, I'd like to see some conservatives running on a platform against big gov't.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

This coming election cycles, I'd like to see some conservatives running on a platform against big gov't.

They can't. They're the party in power, the party that's been spending like they bought a new printing press, and the party controlling the White House.

A minority of them in the more secure districts can try it. Ron Paul will probably make his usual noises, but many will be ordered to cool it by the party leadership.

Besides, the Democrats will campaign on the race card and the "not enough government services" ticket, and what can the Republicans do? Campaign that they've grown government 22% in just four years? That'll go over well with their constituency, I'm sure. This is why politicians should keep their promises. The Republicans clearly didn't see the parallel when Clinton got nailed for a different set of lies.

 

[Stinger]

This coming election cycles, I'd like to see some conservatives running on a platform against big gov't.

I'd like to see some more Republicans acting like conservatives. Any of my representitives are shoe in's so it's a change for me to vote Libertarian as a sign of protest.

 

[Stinger]

Besides, the Democrats will campaign on the race card

That's petering out on them and with the growing ranks of the Black middle class.......

and the "not enough government services" ticket, and what can the Republicans do?

Which is what the USA Today article dispells, the Dems can't go around shouting that the Republicans have cut social spending.

Campaign that they've grown government 22% in just four years? That'll go over well with their constituency, I'm sure.

It won't effect the core Republicans, what will they do vote Democrat? In my case where the Republicans are sure winners anyway I may vote Libertarian as a protest, but if it gets close I'll vote for the Republian (not even sure which of my Senators is even up yet Sessions or Shelby.

 

[Alex]

I remember Bush saying that he was going to cut ~250 federal programs. What ever happen to that? I think if Conservatives did this, it would win back the good graces of their following.

 

[Carl]

I remember Bush saying that he was going to cut ~250 federal programs. What ever happen to that?

His FY2007 Budget includes across-the-board cuts in the rate of growth for all non-defense spending. That budget is now in the hands of the Congress.

Their reluctance, and propensity for attaching pork-barrel riders, is why President Bush is currently seeking a modified line-item veto.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Which is what the USA Today article dispells, the Dems can't go around shouting that the Republicans have cut social spending.

Of course they can. No one will notice that it's a lie. You're assuming the average Democrat voter can read. How silly of you.

When the GOP comes out and calls the lie a lie, the typical Dade County voter will blame it on the butterfly ballot, look carefully for the (D), and vote that way.

It won't effect the core Republicans, what will they do vote Democrat?

Core Republicans don't matter, nor do core Democrat, they all vote the suicide ticket no matter what. It's the wimpy middle that might vote for either that loses elections. And yeah, most of them are dumb enough to swallow every lie coming down the pike and believe only the last one they hear before election time.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Their reluctance, and propensity for attaching pork-barrel riders, is why President Bush is currently seeking a modified line-item veto.

No. Bush is seeking that LIV because he knows that it won't get out of committee until 2009, and he's leaving before then. But damn if it doesn't become an issue making him look good, and it blows a bit of smoke over who's to blame for all the spending he's doing.

Oh, yeah! It's the Republicans spending too much. Why would a president need a veto to curb his own party? He must really suck as a leader.

 

[Carl]

But damn if it doesn't become an issue making him look good, and it blows a bit of smoke over who's to blame for all the spending he's doing.

An interesting point of view. However, the Congress has always been, and remains, the only branch of government with the power to spend, or tax. It's blowing smoke to contend otherwise.

 

[Stinger]

I remember Bush saying that he was going to cut ~250 federal programs. What ever happen to that? I think if Conservatives did this, it would win back the good graces of their following.

Nothing can be done until entitlements are addressed and as long as the Dems have enought vote to filibuster and a few liberal Repbulicans to go along......

 

[Carl]

Nothing can be done until entitlements are addressed and as long as the Dems have enought vote to filibuster and a few liberal Repbulicans to go along......

There appears to be some action aimed at bringing back real fiscal Conservatism.

The Contract With America:Renewed

Limited-government conservatism is back. You know what I mean: the kind of conservatism espoused by Barry Goldwater and then championed by President Ronald Reagan – the kind of conservatism that the revolutionary congressional class of 1994 brought to the American people in the form of the Contract with America.
...
Led by Representatives Mike Pence (R-IN) and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the unabashed band of conservatives proposed a return to fiscal sanity by introducing an austere federal budget proposal modeled after the budget proposal contained in the 1995 Contract with America. The RSC calls their proposal the Contract with America: Renewed.

 

[Goobieman]

Nothing can be done until entitlements are addressed and as long as the Dems have enought vote to filibuster and a few liberal Repbulicans to go along......

Hear hear.

Unless you're willing to address the out-of-control growth of entitlement spending, you arent serious about cutting spending.

Entitlememts take up almost 60% of the budget, cost 3x that of the defense budget, and their yearly growth is mandated by law. FY2004-2005, entitlement speding grew $100B, more than 20% of the entire defense budget.

You can talk about cutting defense or foerign aid or whatever all you want -- you're putting a band-aid on a scrape while letting the artery bleed freely.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

His FY2007 Budget includes across-the-board cuts in the rate of growth for all non-defense spending. That budget is now in the hands of the Congress.

Their reluctance, and propensity for attaching pork-barrel riders, is why President Bush is currently seeking a modified line-item veto.

Bush has averaged 8% growth year over year in his proposed budgets and that doesn’t even count spending on the war in Iraq or Katrina. Clinton averaged only 3%. If Bush were serious about cutting spending, he would have exercised his veto power on every bloated budget congress sent him. This line item veto, which is blatantly unconstitutional, is nothing but a ploy to help his abysmal poll numbers. Moreover, you can’t cut spending if you exclude defense spending. In the general budget, defense is and always has been the single largest outlay. It is also probably the most bloated and wasteful federal outlay as well because a good bit of defense spending is nothing more than congressional pork and anytime someone even remotely questions spending on defense they are called unpatriotic. Of course, that’s probably why you have defense contractors bilking the taxpayers for things like 500 dollar toilet seats and 700 dollar hammers.

The reasons social spending has increased is the Medicare drug benefit, illegal immigration from Mexico, the fact that the poverty rate has actually risen every year Bush has been in office (went down every year during the Clinton years), and the fact that despite strong GDP growth, median income has been flat for five years now (which is the longest on record).

Numbers and sources are here:

Income is in 2004 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars.

Median Household Income Decline under Bush:

Median Household Income in 2004: $44,389
Median Household Income in 2003: $44,482
Median Household Income in 2002: $45,062
Median Household Income in 2001: $46,058


Median Household Income Increase under Clinton:

Median Household Income in 2000: $46,129
Median Household Income in 1999: $45,003
Median Household Income in 1998: $43,430
Median Household Income in 1997: $42,545
Median Household Income in 1996: $41,943
Median Household Income in 1995: $40,677
Median Household Income in 1994: $40,217
Median Household Income in 1993: $40,422

Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf

Employment Rate under Bush:

2001: 4.7%
2002: 5.8%
2003: 6.0%
2004: 5.5%

Employment Rate under Clinton:

1993: 6.9%
1994: 6.1%
1995: 5.6%
1996: 5.4%
1997: 4.9%
1998: 4.5%
1999: 4.2%
2000: 4.0%

Source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

Poverty Rate under Bush:
2001: 11.7%
2002: 12.1%
2003: 12.5%
2004: 12.7%

Poverty Rate under Clinton:

1993: 15.1%
1994: 14.5%
1995: 13.8%
1996: 13.7%
1997: 13.3%
1998: 12.7%
1999: 11.9%
2000: 11.3%

Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/pover...v/hstpov2.html

 

[Stinger]

There appears to be some action aimed at bringing back real fiscal Conservatism.

The Contract With America:Renewed


Led by Representatives Mike Pence (R-IN) and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)

You go boys!

 

[KidRocks]

You go boys!

Funny, I remember it as the "Contract on America".

 

[Stinger]

Bush has averaged 8% growth year over year in his proposed budgets and that doesn’t even count spending on the war in Iraq or Katrina. Clinton averaged only 3%.

:spin:Not because of anything Clinton did, he consistantly requested higher spending than Congress would give him, the only modern day President to do so.

If Bush were serious about cutting spending, he would have exercised his veto power on every bloated budget congress sent him.

Do you support the current budget which DOES have spending restraints?

In the general budget, defense is and always has been the single largest outlay.

Who on earth told you that, although it should be anyway.

It is also probably the most bloated and wasteful federal outlay as well because a good bit of defense spending is nothing more than congressional pork and anytime someone even remotely questions spending on defense they are called unpatriotic.

And I bet I can find another thread where you complain we don't have enough troops and we aren't giving or military what they need.

Of course, that’s probably why you have defense contractors bilking the taxpayers for things like 500 dollar toilet seats

And you could supply to toliets for the B2 bombers, about 200 of them, design it from the ground up, test it, submit it and put it in production meeting the 99.999999% realiabilty for how much?

and 700 dollar hammers.

And you can design special tools of very limited quanities and supply them for how much?

 

[Stinger]

Funny, I remember it as the "Contract on America".

Proving you have a very bad memory, but then we knew that already.

But let's test it, which provisions on the Contract With America did you oppose? Which ones did they not do as the contract stated?