The Welfare State: The Future is Now.

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals pretend that their aim is to alleviate poverty, and 'A hand up, not a handout.'

That's a lie.






1. "Forty-seven million people participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps, and costs have increased over 358 percent since 2000.

a. The increase in recent years cannot be attributed to the economic recession..., but lax eligibility requirements and an aggressive campaign by governments to boost their rolls."
http://freebeacon.com/study-food-stamps-most-rapidly-growing-welfare-program/

2. " In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year."
Scribd

a. "….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part of the program’s growth is due to conscious policy choices by this administration to ease eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007 and are now roughly 10 percent higher than they were when Obama took office. "Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in the Food Stamps Program,” Economix,
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/the-sharp-increase-in-the-food-stamps-program/
Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected | CNS News




3. Only the willfully blind refuse to see that Liberal government's aim is not to decrease poverty and welfare dependency, but to spread it to ever increasing numbers.

a. As Winston Churchill observed:
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”





4. Need proof that the government want to increase the above?
"Spending on advertising and outreach for food stamps by federal and state governments has also increased, now amounting to $41.3 million a year.

States like Florida have hired “food stamp recruiters,” who have a quota of signing up 150 new recipients each month. Rhode Island hosts “SNAP-themed bingo games,” and the USDA tells its field offices to throw parties to get more people on their rolls.

Despite the additional spending, the USDA claims 18 million Americans are still “food insecure.”

Tanner notes the program is more successful in breeding dependence on government, which was apparent last weekend when the EBT system shutdown in several states, resulting in chaos.

“The left is correct when they talk about how small food stamp benefits are, about an average of $4.50 a day,” Tanner said. “And yet we’re told that people can’t survive without them.”

Under Obama, enrollment has surged to almost 48 million. While some chalk up the increase to the recession, Tanner finds little evidence that is the case.

“SNAP is no longer a program targeted at the poorest Americans who may need some temporary help, but it has become part of an ever-growing permanent welfare state,” the report said."
http://freebeacon.com/study-food-stamps-most-rapidly-growing-welfare-program/



5. And....explain this:
"The omnibus spending bill before Congress continues to fund U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) advertising programs for food stamps in foreign countries like Mexico,..."
Omnibus Spending Bill Continues Funding Food Stamp Ads in Mexico

 

[Disir]

Yet as Republican Congress members cry fraud to justify defunding SNAP, representatives on both sides of the aisle are expanding without question a different USDA-funded program—one that the Secretary of Agriculture and ranking members of the House Agriculture Committee have both acknowledged to suffer from a much higher incidence of fraud. The federal crop insurance program, which is intended to insure farmers’ crops against inclement weather and unexpected price fluctuations, would be expanded in both the House and Senate versions of the farm bill.

Crop insurance, in spite of its name, isn’t like the commercial insurance policies that most Americans are accustomed to. Though farmers buy different crop insurance policies from a range of private companies, all of those policies are heavily subsidized by the Department of Agriculture—and, in turn, by taxpayers. And while crop insurance has generally been subject to less scrutiny than food stamps, the program is actually far more vulnerable to fraud and abuse than SNAP, according to policy experts, government regulators and federal data.

Unlike the property or casualty insurance policies that most individuals purchase, taxpayers pay all of the administrative costs and about 60 percent of the different premium costs for crop insurance, according to an official with the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress that audits and evaluates government programs. As federal auditors have pointed out, these large subsidies effectively shield producers from the higher premiums associated with filing frequent or large claims. In other words, there’s an incentive for frequent claims embedded into the very core of the program, leaving plenty of room for widespread abuse.

The last official figure calculated by the GAO estimated that the crop insurance program lost $117 million to “fraud, waste and abuse” in 2005, or about 4.3 percent of the program's $2.7 billion cost that year. Crop insurance spending has since expanded to roughly $9 billion. Food stamp fraud, by contrast, accounts for about 1 percent of the program’s cost.

In March, federal investigators uncovered the largest detected crop insurance fraud ring in the country—a $100 million scheme involving insurance agents, claims adjusters, brokers and farmers in eastern North Carolina. “I can tell you it’s everywhere, all across the country,” Jimmy Thomas Sasser, a claims adjuster who was sentenced to four years in prison for his involvement, told the press.

Looking for Fraud in All the Wrong Places - In These Times



Facts are funny things.

 

[Mr. H.]

The aim of Liberals is to propagate and perpetuate poverty in this country.

 

[Disir]

The aim of Liberals is to propagate and perpetuate poverty in this country.

You're lying. Why?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[DGS49]

Keep in mind, the Progressives in Power believe that distributing government money, in and of itself, is good because it stimulates the economy. The justification for distributing the money may be illogical or weak (as with continuing extended unemployment benefits), but if "government" money is sent out, it is a good thing.

Food stamps are the equivalent of money, since the constitute buying power. Thus, adding people to the SNAP rolls is a good thing, even if the new recipients would not have qualified in the past, or their "credentials" may be dubious.

So increased federal spending on food stamps is not a "problem," but rather a partial solution to the stagnant economy.

The fact that the government has no fucking money and has to either borrow or print it out of thin air, well, that's someone else's problem for another day.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The aim of Liberals is to propagate and perpetuate poverty in this country.

You're lying. Why?

In order to get certain other low-information voters' bobble heads nodding up and down and posting their own versions of the lie.

And, by golly, it works.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Keep in mind, the Progressives in Power believe that distributing government money, in and of itself, is good because it stimulates the economy. The justification for distributing the money may be illogical or weak (as with continuing extended unemployment benefits), but if "government" money is sent out, it is a good thing.

Food stamps are the equivalent of money, since the constitute buying power. Thus, adding people to the SNAP rolls is a good thing, even if the new recipients would not have qualified in the past, or their "credentials" may be dubious.

So increased federal spending on food stamps is not a "problem," but rather a partial solution to the stagnant economy.

The fact that the government has no fucking money and has to either borrow or print it out of thin air, well, that's someone else's problem for another day.

Margaret Thatcher once said:

"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
snopes.com: Margaret Thatcher on Socialism

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yet as Republican Congress members cry fraud to justify defunding SNAP, representatives on both sides of the aisle are expanding without question a different USDA-funded program—one that the Secretary of Agriculture and ranking members of the House Agriculture Committee have both acknowledged to suffer from a much higher incidence of fraud. The federal crop insurance program, which is intended to insure farmers’ crops against inclement weather and unexpected price fluctuations, would be expanded in both the House and Senate versions of the farm bill.

Crop insurance, in spite of its name, isn’t like the commercial insurance policies that most Americans are accustomed to. Though farmers buy different crop insurance policies from a range of private companies, all of those policies are heavily subsidized by the Department of Agriculture—and, in turn, by taxpayers. And while crop insurance has generally been subject to less scrutiny than food stamps, the program is actually far more vulnerable to fraud and abuse than SNAP, according to policy experts, government regulators and federal data.

Unlike the property or casualty insurance policies that most individuals purchase, taxpayers pay all of the administrative costs and about 60 percent of the different premium costs for crop insurance, according to an official with the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress that audits and evaluates government programs. As federal auditors have pointed out, these large subsidies effectively shield producers from the higher premiums associated with filing frequent or large claims. In other words, there’s an incentive for frequent claims embedded into the very core of the program, leaving plenty of room for widespread abuse.

The last official figure calculated by the GAO estimated that the crop insurance program lost $117 million to “fraud, waste and abuse” in 2005, or about 4.3 percent of the program's $2.7 billion cost that year. Crop insurance spending has since expanded to roughly $9 billion. Food stamp fraud, by contrast, accounts for about 1 percent of the program’s cost.

In March, federal investigators uncovered the largest detected crop insurance fraud ring in the country—a $100 million scheme involving insurance agents, claims adjusters, brokers and farmers in eastern North Carolina. “I can tell you it’s everywhere, all across the country,” Jimmy Thomas Sasser, a claims adjuster who was sentenced to four years in prison for his involvement, told the press.

Looking for Fraud in All the Wrong Places - In These Times



Facts are funny things.

Your attempt to change the subject from the import of the OP is proof that the OP is unassailable, and that you have been wounded by same.


In short....

You're lying. Why?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Liberals pretend that their aim is to alleviate poverty, and 'A hand up, not a handout.'

That's a lie.

This is what happens when Wall Street drinks too much.


What do you think is going to happen when trillions of dollars is sucked out of the economy and into the hands of a few?

So Bush and Hank Paulson bailed out the banksters and left the rest of us out here to pound sand.

But thanks for over-analyzing and cherry-picking anyway.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I found at least six lies in your less than articulate post.


Lying certainly polishes your Liberal creds.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

2. " In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year."

And what is the Federal Budget? How about just the budget of the Defense Department?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals pretend that their aim is to alleviate poverty, and 'A hand up, not a handout.'

That's a lie.

This is what happens when Wall Street drinks too much.


What do you think is going to happen when trillions of dollars is sucked out of the economy and into the hands of a few?

So Bush and Hank Paulson bailed out the banksters and left the rest of us out here to pound sand.

But thanks for over-analyzing and cherry-picking anyway.

This is the target you linked to, and provided:

"Liberals pretend that their aim is to alleviate poverty, and 'A hand up, not a handout.'

That's a lie."



Then, you provided a post that had nothing to do with it.

Only one explanation possible:

You must be a moron.

 

[PoliticalChic]

2. " In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year."

And what is the Federal Budget? How about just the budget of the Defense Department?

You, a proven liar posts...why?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The aim of Liberals is to propagate and perpetuate poverty in this country.

You're lying. Why?

In order to get certain other low-information voters' bobble heads nodding up and down and posting their own versions of the lie.

And, by golly, it works.

Actually, the OP proves exactly what Mr. H has stated.


You see that, don't you.....that's why you haven't tried to confront it's facts.

 

[Howey]

Or maybe they're trying to help the less fortunate?

 

[editec]

Margaret Thatcher once said:

"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Editec once said:

The trouble with Capitalism is that eventually somebody has all the money.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Or maybe they're trying to help the less fortunate?

1. "On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B.
Johnson delivered a State of the Union address to Congress in which he declared an
“unconditional war on poverty in America.”
At the time, the poverty rate in America was
around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This
year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing.

2. Between then and now, the federal government spent roughly $12 trillion fighting
poverty, and state and local governments
added another $3 trillion. Yet the poverty
rate never fell below 10.5 percent and is now
at the highest level in nearly a decade."
Scribd



3. "All this spending has not bought an appreciable reduction in poverty. … the poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising
welfare spending. In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage
of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of
1996). And, since 2006, poverty rates have risen despite a massive increase in spending. Census Bureau, “Table 5–Percent of People"

by Ratio of Income to Poverty Level: 1970–2010,”
Poverty Data - U.S Census Bureau
historical/hstpov5.xls.




So.....you must believe that Liberal policy is in the hands of morons....

...I could see why that idea would appeal to you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Margaret Thatcher once said:

"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Editec once said:

The trouble with Capitalism is that eventually somebody has all the money.

And there are folks who whine if they are not the ones with 'all the money.'

Let me assuage your fears:


"Far from having the 21st-century equivalent of an Edwardian class system, the United States is characterized by a great deal of variation in income: More than half of all adult Americans will be at or near the poverty line at some point over the course of their lives; 73 percent will also find themselves in the top 20 percent, and 39 percent will make it into the top 5 percent for at least one year. Perhaps most remarkable, 12 percent of Americans will be in the top 1 percent for at least one year of their working lives.


The top 1 percent,,.... is such an unstable group that it makes no sense to write, as so many progressives do, about what has happened to its income over the past ten year or twenty years, because it does not contain the same group of people from year to year.

... the turnover among the super-rich (the top 400 taxpayers in any given year) is 98 percent over a decade — that is, just 2 percent of that elusive group remain there for ten years in a row.

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that among the allegedly privileged 1 percent, inherited wealth accounts for only 15 percent of household holdings, a smaller share than it does among middle-class families."
National Review Online | Print





Seems Liberal understanding of economics is just so much horsefeathers.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

2. " In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year."

And what is the Federal Budget? How about just the budget of the Defense Department?

You, a proven liar posts...why?

Unlike you sweetcheeks, I don't lie about anything here, I have no need to. And you are worried about the few cents you lost, when you have a dollar in your pocket. It's ideology that drives you, nothing more. The numbers prove that which is why you won't answer the question little liar.