How Much Do We Spend on the Nonworking Poor?

By Kevin Drum

The Republican primary field has recently decided to revive the Welfare Queen trope, perhaps in hopes that a bit of that old Reagan magic will rub off on them. The argument, as usual, is that there's a vast stream of federal money going to people who are sitting on their asses eating Cheetos instead of going out and earning a living instead. These people are being bred into dependence on Uncle Sam's tit and having their work ethics destroyed.

So the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities decided to add up the numbers and figure out how much money the federal government spends on the nonworking poor. The answer: about 10 percent of all federal welfare spending. How did they come up with that? CBPP's methodology uses census data to figure out exactly where program dollars are going, but you can get pretty much the same answer using a simpler, easier-to-understand technique. Step One is to list every federal welfare program. Step Two is to deduct spending on the elderly, blind, and seriously disabled. That's Social Security, Medicare, SSI, and about two-thirds of Medicaid. Step Three is to deduct spending that goes to the working poor. That's unemployment compensation, EITC, and child tax credits. Step Four is to add up the rest. This overstates how much goes to the nonworking poor, since these programs are open to both working and nonworking families, but it gives you a rough idea.

It comes to about $235 billion, the bulk of which is SNAP (formerly food stamps) and about one-third of Medicaid. That's 12 percent of all federal welfare spending and about 6 percent of the whole federal budget. Once you account for the fact that some of these program dollars go to the working poor, you end up with CBPP's estimate of 10 percent, or about 5 percent of the whole federal budget.

Is that too much? I guess you have to decide for yourself. But I'll bet most people think we spend a lot more than 5 percent of the federal budget on this stuff. They might be surprised to know the real numbers. The CBPP's chart is below, with spending on the nonworking poor highlighted.

blog_spending_nonworking_poor.jpg

How Much Do We Spend on the Nonworking Poor? | Mother Jones

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The Center On Budget and Policy Priorities

Donors

The Center is supported by a number of foundations, including the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the Ford Foundation, as well as individual donors. It accepts no government support.

According to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is also funded by the Democracy Alliance
The Democracy Alliance is a partnership of business and philanthropic leaders who commit to making make human and financial donations to organizations the Alliance has endorsed.
According to Bai's account, representatives of CBPP attended a May 2006 meeting of the Democracy Alliance to "talk about the agendas they were busy crafting that would catapult Democratic politics into the economic future."

Criticisms and Response

The Heritage Foundation and The Tax Foundation, two politically conservative groups that oppose the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities's policy positions, accuse the group of producing misleading studies. These critics focus on what they consider to be fallacious assumptions and inaccurate projections made by the group's analysts. Defenders of the group note that the Center's analyses are based on the work of independent, nonpartisan authorities such as the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Government Accountability Office.
 
Last edited:

Just added Mother Jones to my lost of sites that cannot do simple arithmetic. Just an FYI here, $259 billion is more than $235 billion, and the total of all of those is $394 billion, which is more than half of what we spend on the DOD.

the smack, has been laid down.....:clap2:

I guess Quantum Windbag will have to add you to his list of people with reading comprehension problems, too.

FMI, see my first post in this topic. Page 2.
 
I should tell that to my 78 year old mother! You're going to drain me dry! Pull your own weight! Conservatives, those God loving Conservatives, told me the truth about sponges like you!

That ought to do it, right?

Good thing you ain't talking to my 76 yr old Mother about Welfare because she'd tell ya to shove it up your ass.

She was no fan of Welfare or the handouts the Govt gives out and she wasn't shy about talking about it either.

If you want to assume the burden for these folks then feel free. Have at it. They will love you and take every dime they can get.
Aren't you glad your mother receives Social Security and Medicare? Or should she send that money back? After all, it's just making her dependent, right?

Aren't you glad they (and you) were FORCED to participate instead of having the option to invest on your own for your retirement or future in this free society??
 
By Kevin Drum

The Republican primary field has recently decided to revive the Welfare Queen trope, perhaps in hopes that a bit of that old Reagan magic will rub off on them. The argument, as usual, is that there's a vast stream of federal money going to people who are sitting on their asses eating Cheetos instead of going out and earning a living instead. These people are being bred into dependence on Uncle Sam's tit and having their work ethics destroyed.

So the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities decided to add up the numbers and figure out how much money the federal government spends on the nonworking poor. The answer: about 10 percent of all federal welfare spending. How did they come up with that? CBPP's methodology uses census data to figure out exactly where program dollars are going, but you can get pretty much the same answer using a simpler, easier-to-understand technique. Step One is to list every federal welfare program. Step Two is to deduct spending on the elderly, blind, and seriously disabled. That's Social Security, Medicare, SSI, and about two-thirds of Medicaid. Step Three is to deduct spending that goes to the working poor. That's unemployment compensation, EITC, and child tax credits. Step Four is to add up the rest. This overstates how much goes to the nonworking poor, since these programs are open to both working and nonworking families, but it gives you a rough idea.

It comes to about $235 billion, the bulk of which is SNAP (formerly food stamps) and about one-third of Medicaid. That's 12 percent of all federal welfare spending and about 6 percent of the whole federal budget. Once you account for the fact that some of these program dollars go to the working poor, you end up with CBPP's estimate of 10 percent, or about 5 percent of the whole federal budget.

Is that too much? I guess you have to decide for yourself. But I'll bet most people think we spend a lot more than 5 percent of the federal budget on this stuff. They might be surprised to know the real numbers. The CBPP's chart is below, with spending on the nonworking poor highlighted.

blog_spending_nonworking_poor.jpg

How Much Do We Spend on the Nonworking Poor? | Mother Jones

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

5% is too much, what you miss all the time with these social issues is the government becomes a dependency role, just as our politicians should have limited time in office the same goes for social support programs, yet we do nothing of the sort...

When you continue to support someone who will not help themselves, all you're doing is hurting them, is this concept too hard for you to comprehend? I have no problem with giving someone a second chance, but sooner or later you have to cut them loose...

We have a couple in our family with a child who needs extensive care, a very sad situation, she receives support with restrictions on her income, basically income below the poverty line, so they file separated and have no ambition to increase her income to where they could begin to stand on their own, now tell me how is the government doing the right thing with our tax dollars...
 
Good thing you ain't talking to my 76 yr old Mother about Welfare because she'd tell ya to shove it up your ass.

She was no fan of Welfare or the handouts the Govt gives out and she wasn't shy about talking about it either.

If you want to assume the burden for these folks then feel free. Have at it. They will love you and take every dime they can get.
Aren't you glad your mother receives Social Security and Medicare? Or should she send that money back? After all, it's just making her dependent, right?

Aren't you glad they (and you) were FORCED to participate instead of having the option to invest on your own for your retirement or future in this free society??
Absolutely! Given the variables in the "free market" one could lose everything in yet another inevitable crash. Market speculators, get rich quick schemers and white collar crooks could easily wipe out a retirement account if it meant another multi million dollar bonus check was the reward. Thank God for the security of the federal government!

Of course there will be those with the means to invest and risk independently. But, as the disparity between the rich and everyone else widens, at least there's a secure form of retirement security.
 
Aren't you glad your mother receives Social Security and Medicare? Or should she send that money back? After all, it's just making her dependent, right?

Aren't you glad they (and you) were FORCED to participate instead of having the option to invest on your own for your retirement or future in this free society??
Absolutely! Given the variables in the "free market" one could lose everything in yet another inevitable crash. Market speculators, get rich quick schemers and white collar crooks could easily wipe out a retirement account if it meant another multi million dollar bonus check was the reward. Thank God for the security of the federal government!

Of course there will be those with the means to invest and risk independently. But, as the disparity between the rich and everyone else widens, at least there's a secure form of retirement security.

<<< pssttttttt...... SS is insolvent >>>
 
Instead of worrying about how much we spend on the poor, a better cause of action might be wondering how much of our cash was squandered on enriching the already rich.

Americans aren't rich people - we've never been rich people. But we had something very, very special - a quality of living that included the majority of us. A living standard giving us access to materials goods unlike anything the world had ever seen or may ever see again.

But suddenly, it all started to slip and slide away from us. And as if that wasn't shock enough to the system billions of middle-class taxpayer dollars were literally handed carte blanche to those whose ruthless greed brought about this downfall. A downfall from which they made millions and paid themselves millions for accomplishing. And as if that wasn't enough sand kicked in our face, this was sanctioned by our duly elected fatuous representatives who were allegedly to protect our interests. More than likely not one of those clowns contributed as much as a dime to that kitty. More likely they each had their hands over extended.

Yet America prattles on and on about the poor or other non-consequential nonsense. As Stephen Colbert would say that is tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

35% of the nation's wealth is now held by a 12% of the population. Those numbers don't sound outrageous, but stop and think a moment about just how much money that is and how few people have it. But then I'm not so sure this wasn't always the plan. In comparison to what the bastards stole from us and were then rewarded by an appreciative government, what is spent on the poor is a pittance. Of course, as more and more of us join those ranks that cost might escalate a bit. But then poor people don't really have pricey living standards, do they?

Abraham Lincoln said that there is a struggle going between good and bad. A struggle that has been going on a long time and continues on and on. It is, he said, the struggle of the right of humanity against the divine right of kings. This nation was founded on the right of humanity, only to end up apparently bowing to the latter.
 
Last edited:
"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. "

~Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey
 
"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. "

~Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

This explains it...:eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle:
 
"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. "

~Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

This explains it...:eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle:

Whoa..........deep.

You either exist on a plane high above the rest of us......and you have just verbally winked at the other really, really brilliant people.....................or you are poser who expects that nobody will bother to ask what the fuck you meant by that.
 
Just added Mother Jones to my lost of sites that cannot do simple arithmetic. Just an FYI here, $259 billion is more than $235 billion, and the total of all of those is $394 billion, which is more than half of what we spend on the DOD.

If you read the part you quoted, Mother Jones plainly states they deducted 2/3 of the $259 billion spent on Medicaid because that is the amount spent on the elderly, blind, and seriously disabled. The remaining 1/3 is what is spent on the "non-working poor" or, if you prefer, "lazy, shiftless bums". The context makes it obvious that "non-working poor" are those who are capable of working, but aren't, for whatever reason. The elderly, blind, and seriously disabled do not fall into this category, and so the money spent on them was subtracted.

So perhaps you should add yourself to the list of people with reading comprehension problems.

I didn't quote anything from Mother Jones, I just added up the actual figures they provided and came up with a different number. Last time I checked, people who are not working count as non working. Just because someone wants to count only lazy shiftless bums as non working poor, and then argue that the rest of the non working poor are not really non working poor, does not mean I will go along with them.

While we are on the subject, I do not think the church should support people who can work but don't, but I am pretty sure the government is not the church, despite Obama's attempt to make it into one. I would prefer that programs for poor people be administered on a local level, other than that I have no problem with a modest social safety net. I think it should be designed to encourage people to work, and not provide more than a subsistence existence to those that do not, but that is a separate issue from Mother Jones and their lack of basic arithmetic skills.
 
Last edited:
Why are we spending money on anyone? We all have a responsibility to take care of ourselves and our families.

I don't understand why cons like you cannot grasp the concept that there are people who really cannot take care of themselves.

- The mentally retarded

- Severely disabled veterans

How could such people possibly get by on their own?
 
Last edited:
"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. "

~Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

This explains it...:eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle:

Whoa..........deep.

You either exist on a plane high above the rest of us......and you have just verbally winked at the other really, really brilliant people.....................or you are poser who expects that nobody will bother to ask what the fuck you meant by that.

On a plain high above you...

Most of mankind does, except TM, retardean & you...

Now you know...
 
I think the Republican plan is to let them die, but I'm not sure.
 
Aren't you glad your mother receives Social Security and Medicare? Or should she send that money back? After all, it's just making her dependent, right?

Aren't you glad they (and you) were FORCED to participate instead of having the option to invest on your own for your retirement or future in this free society??
Absolutely! Given the variables in the "free market" one could lose everything in yet another inevitable crash. Market speculators, get rich quick schemers and white collar crooks could easily wipe out a retirement account if it meant another multi million dollar bonus check was the reward. Thank God for the security of the federal government!

Of course there will be those with the means to invest and risk independently. But, as the disparity between the rich and everyone else widens, at least there's a secure form of retirement security.

And that is you.... you can be glad... but the forcible participation is wrong... some of us would like the freedom (damn, there is that word again) to seek higher return... and if you want secure with higher returns, CD's, IRA's, Money Markets, etc ALL would give you a better return on investment than SS... the forced participation is ridiculous....
 

Forum List

Back
Top