50% on food stamps

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,538
227
63
Bowling Green Ky
In case you wonder why O and Company are cutting seniors benefits--and have increased welfare benefits--their stroking their future (Da Base) if they can just get them to the polls--

Half of US kids will get food stamps, study says
Nov 2 04:01 PM US/Eastern
By LINDSEY TANNER
AP Medical Writer


<!-- article start --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> GA_googleFillSlot("news_story_left_sidebar"); </SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/ads?correlator=1257250254007&output=json_html&callback=GA_googleSetAdContentsBySlotForSync&impl=s&a2ids=nNig%2Cn1RA&cids=Ma7suA%2CMhAFEQ&client=ca-pub-9229289037503472&slotname=news_story_left_sidebar&page_slots=news_leaderboard%2Cnews_ticker2%2Cnews_story_left_sidebar&cookie=ID%3Df0b5fbf27dc0547f%3AT%3D1249635578%3AS%3DALNI_MZs4mZR-SNJqM8EK9Be_lOsa3ZePQ&ga_vid=1711464584.1249635579&ga_sid=1257250254&ga_hid=2089493583&ga_fc=true&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Farticle.php%3Fid%3DD9BNKH3O1%26show_article%3D1&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereport.com%2F&lmt=1257250254&dt=1257250254888&cc=100&biw=1003&bih=603&ifi=3&oe=utf-8&u_tz=-360&u_his=2&u_java=true&u_h=768&u_w=1024&u_ah=738&u_aw=1024&u_cd=32&flash=9.0.124.0"></SCRIPT><!-- FM Wide Skyscraper - ROS Zone --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://static.fmpub.net/zone/2369"></SCRIPT><!-- FM Wide Skyscraper - ROS Zone -->
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/fmpub.breitbart/;sz=160x600;fmzid=2369;tile=2;qcseg=D;qcseg=T;ord=4682142571057900?"></SCRIPT>

<SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://remnant.fmpub.net/zone/2369?t=js"></SCRIPT><!-- no fm remnant ad to serve: L1 -->
CHICAGO (AP) - Nearly half of all U.S. children and 90 percent of black youngsters will be on food stamps at some point during childhood, and fallout from the current recession could push those numbers even higher, researchers say. The estimate comes from an analysis of 30 years of national data, and it bolsters other recent evidence on the pervasiveness of youngsters at economic risk. It suggests that almost everyone knows a family who has received food stamps, or will in the future, said lead author Mark Rank, a sociologist at Washington University in St. Louis.


"Your neighbor may be using some of these programs but it's not the kind of thing people want to talk about," Rank said.
The analysis was released Monday in the November issue of Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. The authors say it's a medical issue pediatricians need to be aware of because children on food stamps are at risk for malnutrition and other ills linked with poverty.
"This is a real danger sign that we as a society need to do a lot more to protect children," Rank said.
Food stamps are a Department of Agriculture program for low-income individuals and families, covering most foods although not prepared hot foods or alcohol. For a family of four to be eligible, their annual take-home pay can't exceed about $22,000.
According to a USDA report released last month, 28.4 million Americans received food stamps in an average month in 2008, and about half were younger than age 18. The average monthly benefit per household totaled $222.
Rank and Cornell University sociologist Thomas Hirschl studied data from a nationally representative survey of 4,800 American households interviewed annually from 1968 through 1997 by the University of Michigan. About 18,000 adults and children were involved.
Overall, about 49 percent of all children were on food stamps at some point by the age of 20, the analysis found. That includes 90 percent of black children and 37 percent of whites. The analysis didn't include other ethnic groups.
The time span included typical economic ups and downs, including the early 1980s recession. That means similar portions of children now and in the future will live in families receiving food stamps, although ongoing economic turmoil may increase the numbers, Rank said.
An editorial in the medical journal agreed.
"The current recession is likely to generate for children in the United States the greatest level of material deprivation that we will see in our professional lifetimes," Stanford pediatrician Dr. Paul Wise wrote.
Wise said the Archives study estimate is believable.
"I find it terribly sad, but not surprising," Wise said.
James Weill, president of Food Research and Action Center, a Washington-based advocacy group, said the analysis underscores that "there are just very large numbers of people who rely on this program for a month, six months, a year."
"What I hope comes out of this study is an understanding that food stamp beneficiaries aren't them?they're us," Weill said. The analysis is in line with other recent research suggesting that more than 40 percent of U.S. children will live in poverty or near-poverty by age 17; and that half will live at some point in a single-parent family. Also, other researchers have estimated that slightly more than half of adults will use food stamps at some point by age 65.
 

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,935
737
113
50
TX
there are lots of lazy asses out there Dogs who can work and choose to sit on the porch drinking beer and smoking pot.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,564
315
83
Victory Lane
there is no way you can prove that money is taken away from seniors and given to welfare.

Money is taken away every day.

you just like to use it for your stupid agenda
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,538
227
63
Bowling Green Ky
I can most certainly prove money was given to welfare --over 25% of stimulus

Seniors haven't been ripped yet as healthcare reform has not passed yet and he hasn't got to fixing ssn yet.

I could say he took ssn cost of living raise away this year--but can't blame him on that one as cost of living has went down
--fair and balanced ;)
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,564
315
83
Victory Lane
In case you wonder why O and Company are cutting seniors benefits--and have increased welfare benefits--their stroking their future (Da Base) if they can just get them to the polls--
....................................................

YOU LIE !



show me where cuts from seniors is going into welfare.

:SIB :SIB
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,538
227
63
Bowling Green Ky
I'll get the #s for you tomorrow Scott--Got to make me something to eat--and what election results--
Predictions
GOP romps in Virginia
Corsine win New Jersy after recounts--
Believe it will be so close recount will be allowed--if so- we know the oregon/mn reversals on recounts of absentees and NJ has 2/1 adv on registered dems over rebs
--and New Jersey corruption only 2nd to Chicago :)

and in your area--toclose to call--

AP

- November 03, 2009
Atlanta Mayoral Election Could Make History


In all, six candidates are vying for the position, including councilwoman Mary Norwood, who would become the city's first white mayor in a generation if she is elected.

The city's voters could choose a new mayor and make history despite an expected low voter turnout.
Polls open for Atlanta's general election at 7 a.m. and close at 8 p.m. Among the frontrunners to become the new mayor of Atlanta are city council President Lisa Borders, councilwoman Mary Norwood and state Sen. Kasim Reed. In all, six candidates are vying for the position, including Norwood, who would become the city's first white mayor in a generation if she is elected.
If Norwood does not get a majority of the votes cast, she would face a Dec. 1 runoff, likely between either Borders or Reed, according to most political observers.
Also on the ballot are races for city council, board of education and municipal court judges.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,564
315
83
Victory Lane
I'll get the #s for you tomorrow Scott--Got to make me something to eat--and what election results--
................................................................

Yeh I see what is important to you- stuffing your face

I think this is one of them threads that you decided not to return to


EVER !!!!

:0corn :0corn
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,538
227
63
Bowling Green Ky
Good Morning Scott

on the medicare cuts I am surprised you ask that question--everytime Dems asked how they pay for plan --iits cuts in medicare--and taxes on rich.

To be more precise on medicare--one area they are adamant about cutting in all proposed plans is Medicare advantage--You can do search and find thousands of links on it--but this one describes it pretty well.



Medicare Advantage users. Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats want to cut back this program?care provided by private companies and subsidized by the government. Medicare Advantage grew by 15% last year; 10.5 million seniors, or 22% of all Medicare patients, are now enrolled.
The program is especially popular with those in badly served urban areas and with those who can?t afford the premiums for Medicare supplemental (MediGap) policies. A total of 54% of Hispanics on Medicare have chosen Medicare Advantage, as have 40% of African-Americans, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at the Department of Health and Human Services.
These plans tend to provide better coordinated and preventive care, and richer prescription drug coverage. But Democrats dislike Medicare Advantage?s private-sector nature, and they have some legitimate beefs with its unevenly generous reimbursement rates. This week Mr. Obama told the Washington Post that the program was ?a prime example? of his efforts to cut Medicare spending, because he claims people ?aren?t getting good value? from it.
That?s not what others say. In January, Oregon?s Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski wrote the Obama administration expressing his concern about its efforts ?to scale back Medicare Advantage? because the plans ?play an important role in providing affordable health coverage.? He noted that 39% of Oregon?s Medicare patients had chosen Medicare Advantage, and that in ?some of our Medicare Advantage plans . . . with proper chronic disease management for such conditions as heart disease, asthma and diabetes, hospitalization admission rates have declined.?
The $156 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts over the next decade proposed by Mr. Obama will force many seniors to go back to traditional Medicare at greater expense. A new study for the Florida Association of Health Plans found that because Medicare Advantage plans have richer benefits and lower deductibles and copayments than traditional Medicare, seniors in that state would face dramatically higher payments if forced to give up their Medicare Advantage plans. Cost increases would range from $2,214 a year in Jacksonville to $3,714 a year in Miami.
There are reasons that Blue Dog Democrats in Congress are leery of their party?s health-care reform plans. Many are in districts or states carried by John McCain, and they worry about the political fallout when these groups realize they will be paying for health-care reform.

On increasing welfare benefits--this is where about a 3rd of our "stimulus" money went--

<TABLE width="80%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=program>Department of Housing and Urban Development - Office of Inspector General</TD><TD>$15,000,000 </TD></TR><TR class=category><TD class=category>Aid to People Affected by Economic Downturn</TD><TD>$36,910,807,000</TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Rural Housing Service insurance fund program account - direct loans and unsubsidized guaranteed loans</TD><TD>$11,672,000,000</TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Rural community facilities program account</TD><TD>$130,000,000</TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children (WIC)</TD><TD>$500,000,000</TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>School lunch programs for schools in which at least 50% of students are eligible for free or reduced price meals</TD><TD>$100,000,000</TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Food bank commodity assistance program</TD><TD>$150,000,000</TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Temporary increase in benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps)</TD><TD>$19,900,000,000</TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Food distribution program on Indian reservations</TD><TD>$5,000,000</TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Agricultural disaster assistance transition - Federal Crop Insurance Act</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Farm operating loans</TD><TD>$173,367,000</TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Direct farm operating loans</TD><TD>$20,440,000</TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>IRS health insurance tax credit administration</TD><TD>$80,000,000</TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Emergency food and shelter</TD><TD>$100,000,000</TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Bureau of Indian Affairs job training and housing improvement programs</TD><TD>$40,000,000</TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Indian guaranteed loan program</TD><TD>$10,000,000</TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Community service employment for older Americans</TD><TD>$120,000,000 </TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Extra funding for state unemployment insurance </TD><TD>$150,000,000 </TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>State re-employment services for the jobless</TD><TD>$250,000,000 </TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Child care assistance for low-income families</TD><TD>$1,651,227,000 </TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Child care assistance for low-income families through state programs</TD><TD>$255,186,000 </TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Child care assistance for low-income families to improve infant and toddler care</TD><TD>$93,587,000 </TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Community Service Block Grant Program</TD><TD>$1,000,000,000 </TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Social Security Act funding</TD><TD>50,000,000</TD></TR><TR><TD class=program>Social Security Administration processing of disability and retirement workloads
++++++++++++++++++++++++
point most are not aware of on these entitlement programs is while they are only counted once in stimulus many plans will conyinue and be yearly drains on deficit--



February 11, 2009
Stimulus Bill Abolishes Welfare Reform and Adds New Welfare Spending
by Robert Rector and Katherine Bradley
WebMemo #2287
<TABLE id=idLayout2 class=CS_Layout_Table cellSpacing=0 summary="" cellPadding=5 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=CS_Layout_TR><TD id=idCell2x1x1 class=CS_Layout_TD>A major public policy success, welfare reform in the mid-1990s led to a dramatic reduction in welfare dependency and child poverty. This successful reform, however is now in jeopardy: Little-noted provisions in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate stimulus bills actually abolish this historic reform. In addition, the stimulus bills will add nearly $800 billion in new means-tested welfare spending over the next decade. This new spending amounts to around $22,500 for every poor person in the U.S. The cost of the new welfare spending amounts, on average, to over $10,000 for each family paying income tax.
Ending Welfare Reform
The welfare reform of 1996 replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a new program named Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The key to welfare reform's reduction in dependency was the change in the funding structure of AFDC.[1]
Under the old AFDC program, states were given more federal funds if their welfare caseloads were increased, and funds were cut whenever the state caseload fell. This structure created a strong incentive for states to swell the welfare rolls. Prior to reform, one child in seven was receiving AFDC benefits.
When welfare reform replaced the old AFDC system with TANF, this perverse financial incentive to increase dependence was eliminated. Each state was given a flat funding level that did not vary whether the state increased or decreased its caseload. In addition, states were given the goal of reducing welfare dependence (or at least of requiring welfare recipients to prepare for employment).
The House and Senate stimulus bills will overturn the fiscal foundation of welfare reform and restore an AFDC-style funding system. For the first time since 1996, the federal government would begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads. Indeed, the new welfare system created by the stimulus bills is actually worse than the old AFDC program because it rewards the states more heavily to increase their caseloads. Under the stimulus bills, the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under AFDC.
It is clear that--in both the House and Senate stimulus bills--the original goal of helping families move to employment and self-sufficiency and off long-term dependence on government assistance has instead been replaced with the perverse incentive of adding more families to the welfare rolls. The House bill provides $4 billion per year to reward states to increase their TANF caseloads; the Senate bill follows the same policy but allocates less money.
Unnecessary Changes
Proponents of the stimulus plan might argue that these changes are necessary to help TANF weather the current recession. This is not true. Under existing TANF law, the federal government operates a TANF "contingency fund" with nearly $2 billion in funding that can be quickly funneled to states that have rising unemployment. It should be noted that the existing contingency fund ties increased financial support to states to the objective external factor of unemployment; it specifically avoids a policy of funding states for increased welfare caseloads, recognizing the perverse incentives this could entail.
If the authors of the stimulus bills merely wanted to provide states with more TANF funds in the current recession, they could have increased funding in the existing contingency fund. But they deliberately did not do this. Instead, they completely overturned the fiscal and policy foundations of welfare reform.[2]
Writing in Slate, liberal commentator Mickey Kaus criticizes the stimulus bill welfare provisions as a "liberal conspiracy to expand the welfare rolls."[3] He laments, "Why use the aid specifically to encourage expansion of welfare? ? At the very least the extra aid to the states shouldn't be triggered by caseload expansion. (You could, for example, give states aid in proportion to their local unemployment rate.)"[4] These are reasonable suggestions; the authors of the stimulus bills pursued a different policy precisely because they wish to overturn welfare reform and increase dependence on government.
Welfare Spendathon
But overturning welfare reform is just the beginning. In his recent press conference, President Obama explained that the stimulus bill would provide "tax relief" and "direct investment" in infrastructure. He neglected to mention that of the $816 billion in new spending and tax cuts in the House stimulus bill--32 percent or $264 billion--is new means-tested welfare spending, providing cash, food, housing, and medical care to poor and low income Americans.[5] (The figure in the Senate bill is about 15 percent lower.)
In the first year after enactment of the stimulus bill, federal welfare spending will explode upward by more than 20 percent, rising from $491 billion in FY 2008 to $601 billion in FY 2009. This one-year explosion in welfare spending would be, by far, the largest in U.S. history. But spending will continue to rise even further in future years. The stimulus bill is a welfare spendathon, a massive down payment on Obama's promise to "spread the wealth."
Hidden Welfare Spending
While $264 billion in new welfare spending may seem like a lot, it is only the tip of the iceberg. If the stimulus bill is enacted the real long-term increase will be far higher. This is because the stimulus bill pretends that most of its welfare benefit increases will lapse after two years. In fact, both Congress and President Obama intend for most of these increases to become permanent. The claim that Congress is temporarily increasing welfare spending for Keynesian purposes (to spark the economy by boosting consumer spending) is a red herring. The real goal is a permanent expansion of the welfare system.
The House and Senate bills contain a half dozen or more new welfare entitlements or expansions to benefits in existing programs.[6] The pretense that these welfare expansions will lapse after two years is a political gimmick designed to hide their true cost from the taxpayer. If these welfare expansions are made permanent--as history indicates they will--the welfare cost of the stimulus will rise another $523 billion over 10 years.[7]
Once the hidden welfare spending in the bill is counted, the total 10-year cost of welfare increases will not be $264 billion but $787 billion. This new spending will amount to around $22,500 for every poor person in the U.S. The cost amounts, on average, to over $10,000 for each family paying income tax in the U.S.
The overall 10-year fiscal burden of the bill (added to the national debt) will not be $814 billion but $1.34 trillion. To this figure must be added the interest on the debt issues to finance this spending deluge.
A Trojan Horse
Both the Senate and House stimulus bills are Trojan horses that deliberately exploit anxiety about the current recession to conceal their destruction of the foundation of welfare reform and a massive expansion of the welfare system. Since its enactment in the mid-1990s, such reform has proven to be a very successful policy that dramatically reduced welfare dependency and child poverty. The fact that the stimulus proponents seek to conceal the bill's massive permanent changes in welfare is a clear indication that they understand how unpopular these changes would be if the public became aware of them. Far from an exercise in "unprecedented transparency"--as President Obama claims--the stimulus bills are an example of unprecedented deception.


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Is there any other details you like?
What about true cost of stimulas if they keep these entitlements?

True Cost of Stimulus: $3.27 Trillion

<!-- sphereit start -->All of the major news outlets are reporting that the stimulus bill voted out of conference committee last night has a meager $789 billion price tag. This number is pure fantasy. No one believes that the increased funding for programs the left loves like Head Start, Medicaid, COBRA, and the Earned Income Tax Credit is in anyway temporary. No Congress under control of the left will ever cut funding for these programs. So what is the true cost of the stimulus if these spending increases are made permanent?
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) asked the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the impact of permanently extending the 20 most popular provisions of the stimulus bill. What did the CBO find? As you can see from the table below, the true 10 year cost of the stimulus bill $2.527 trillion in in spending with another $744 billion cost in debt servicing. Total bill for the Generational Theft Act: $3.27 trillion.
cboa.JPG


</TD><TD>$460,000,000 </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,564
315
83
Victory Lane
cant look through all that right now, got to go make a sandwich

my first inclination is to call bullchit and you are foggy up the original question
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top