Obama Will Spend More On Welfare In The Next Year Than Bush Spent On Entire Iraq War
Obama Will Spend More on Welfare in the Next Year Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War
Study Reveals
CNSN ^ | Fred Lucas
As a candidate for president, Barack Obama decried the financial toll that the Iraq war was taking on the economy, but Obama’s proposed spending on welfare through 2010 will eclipse Bush’s war spending by more than $260 billion.
“Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned,” then-Sen. Barack Obama told a Charleston, W.V., crowd in March 2008. “This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.”
During the entire administration of George W. Bush, the Iraq war cost a total of $622 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.
President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year--2010--more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.
Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. This will lead to a spending total of $10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs. These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans and those at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four. Among that total, $7.5 trillion will be federal money and $2.8 trillion will be federally mandated state expenditures.
In that same West Virginia speech last year, Obama said, “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.”
The Heritage study says, “Applying that same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.”
The welfare reform package of 1996 only targeted one program, which was Aid for Families with Dependent Children, pushing work requirements for recipients to encourage them to get off the rolls. There are still 70 different welfare programs spread across 14 different federal agencies, said Robert Rector, senior research fellow in domestic policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, who co-wrote the study.
“The average person says I thought we ended welfare. Well, it’s a good thing we ended it, otherwise we’d be spending some real money,” Rector joked while speaking about the report on Tuesday. “Reform was grossly oversold by Clinton and the Republicans. It reformed one program out of 70. Medicaid, public housing, the Earned Income Tax Credit were not reformed.”
According to his White House budget proposal, President Barack Obama will increase annual federal welfare spending by one-third, from $522.4 billion to $697 billion in his first fiscal year. Adjusted for inflation, the combined two-year increase of $263 billion is greater than any increase in welfare spending in history.
By 2014, annual spending on welfare programs will reach $1 trillion for the fiscal year.
“One in seven in total federal and state dollars now goes to welfare. But this is a completely unknown story,” Rector said. “This is not being reported. No one knows Obama is spending $10 trillion on welfare.”
Welfare spending has taken its toll on the federal debt. Since the beginning of the “war on poverty,” $15.9 trillion has been spent on welfare programs. The total cost of every war in American history, starting with the American Revolution, is $6.4 trillion when adjusted for inflation.
Welfare has been the fastest growing part of the federal government’s spending, increasing by 292 percent from 1989 to 2008. That’s compared to Social Security and Medicare, which grew 213 percent, the study says.
Adjusted for inflation, welfare is 5 percent of the gross domestic product today. It was only 1.2 percent of GDP in 1965, the report says. Also, over the next decade, $1.5 trillion in welfare benefits will be paid to low-skilled immigrants.
Still, high levels of poverty are reflected by the U.S. Census Bureau because the bureau counts only 4 percent of the total welfare spending as income when it calculates poverty. Thus, most discussions on poverty begin on the virtual premise that welfare does not exist, the study says.
“None of the $800 billion being spent is counted as income, so the Census comes back and they say, ‘Oh my goodness, we have 40 million poor people. We need to spend more money,’” Rector explained. “That is a game the taxpayer can never win.”
Changing how the money is spent could go a long way in achieving better results, the study says.
“Annual means tested welfare spending is more than sufficient to eliminate poverty in the United States,” the study reports. “If welfare spending were converted into case benefits, the sum would be nearly four times the amount needed to raise the income of all poor families above the official poverty line.”
Study Reveals
CNSN ^ | Fred Lucas
As a candidate for president, Barack Obama decried the financial toll that the Iraq war was taking on the economy, but Obama’s proposed spending on welfare through 2010 will eclipse Bush’s war spending by more than $260 billion.
“Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned,” then-Sen. Barack Obama told a Charleston, W.V., crowd in March 2008. “This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.”
During the entire administration of George W. Bush, the Iraq war cost a total of $622 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.
President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year--2010--more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.
Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. This will lead to a spending total of $10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs. These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans and those at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four. Among that total, $7.5 trillion will be federal money and $2.8 trillion will be federally mandated state expenditures.
In that same West Virginia speech last year, Obama said, “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.”
The Heritage study says, “Applying that same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.”
The welfare reform package of 1996 only targeted one program, which was Aid for Families with Dependent Children, pushing work requirements for recipients to encourage them to get off the rolls. There are still 70 different welfare programs spread across 14 different federal agencies, said Robert Rector, senior research fellow in domestic policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, who co-wrote the study.
“The average person says I thought we ended welfare. Well, it’s a good thing we ended it, otherwise we’d be spending some real money,” Rector joked while speaking about the report on Tuesday. “Reform was grossly oversold by Clinton and the Republicans. It reformed one program out of 70. Medicaid, public housing, the Earned Income Tax Credit were not reformed.”
According to his White House budget proposal, President Barack Obama will increase annual federal welfare spending by one-third, from $522.4 billion to $697 billion in his first fiscal year. Adjusted for inflation, the combined two-year increase of $263 billion is greater than any increase in welfare spending in history.
By 2014, annual spending on welfare programs will reach $1 trillion for the fiscal year.
“One in seven in total federal and state dollars now goes to welfare. But this is a completely unknown story,” Rector said. “This is not being reported. No one knows Obama is spending $10 trillion on welfare.”
Welfare spending has taken its toll on the federal debt. Since the beginning of the “war on poverty,” $15.9 trillion has been spent on welfare programs. The total cost of every war in American history, starting with the American Revolution, is $6.4 trillion when adjusted for inflation.
Welfare has been the fastest growing part of the federal government’s spending, increasing by 292 percent from 1989 to 2008. That’s compared to Social Security and Medicare, which grew 213 percent, the study says.
Adjusted for inflation, welfare is 5 percent of the gross domestic product today. It was only 1.2 percent of GDP in 1965, the report says. Also, over the next decade, $1.5 trillion in welfare benefits will be paid to low-skilled immigrants.
Still, high levels of poverty are reflected by the U.S. Census Bureau because the bureau counts only 4 percent of the total welfare spending as income when it calculates poverty. Thus, most discussions on poverty begin on the virtual premise that welfare does not exist, the study says.
“None of the $800 billion being spent is counted as income, so the Census comes back and they say, ‘Oh my goodness, we have 40 million poor people. We need to spend more money,’” Rector explained. “That is a game the taxpayer can never win.”
Changing how the money is spent could go a long way in achieving better results, the study says.
“Annual means tested welfare spending is more than sufficient to eliminate poverty in the United States,” the study reports. “If welfare spending were converted into case benefits, the sum would be nearly four times the amount needed to raise the income of all poor families above the official poverty line.”
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Proud American on -
Great intellectual data has given the victor on the battlefield the Victory
"Demand your "electeds" Repeal/Rescind/Recall
the "HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS" of your tax dollars
back from the
Stimulus, which has not be expended.
MMMMMHHHHMMMMMM Oooooohhhh Ahhhhh that makes sense.
Lord knows I hate to have to get pert with y'all.. BUT
WAKE UP AMERICA!
try emailing your "electeds" or calling your "electeds" 1-202-224-3121
or 1-202-224-3121
and ask your "public servants" that if and when America is attacked
murderously as we were on 911, will they hurl
:the emergency health care bill at the terrorists:?
or will "the crooks in dc" defend "WE THE PEOPLE" with their
"hijack and ransom"...aka cap and tax...
so..
I believe in The Principles and Values this Country was founded on..
and the obamanation has gotta go!!!!!!!
Unproudly, I will tell you all.. I voted for the hope and change..
and am still a registered democrat...
Guess what.. that a fifty cents won't get ya a cup of coffee...ANYWHERE..
"We pledge our lives, our fortunes and OUR sacred Honor...." read between the lines if you wish.
"Give me liberty or give me Death"
for without Freedoms I might as well be dead...
-
Permalink Reply by madeline harrison on -
Isn't spending money on our welfare and infrastructure a better move than fighting thugs in the Middle East? One of our great Republican presidents, T. Roosevelt, had a real hands-off approach to foreign policy (until he decided to imagine a war with Spain, that is), and it seemed to work pretty well for him. I understand that it's a different situation now, but I would really appreciate it if someone could explain to me how fighting an endless war half the world over is helping us directly.
Seems to me that after the last two years (re: financial meltdown), we could really all use a little work on our welfare.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Robinson on -
Depends on which "branch" of Conservatives people subscribe to, Madeline! Traditional (or classical) Conservatives would agree with you on this point - Neoconservatives would not. Traditional Conservatives believe in small government at home and abroad; Neoconservatives agree with small government at home but conversely support big government abroad by being the world's keeper of the peace - where Liberals tend to support Big Government at home but small government abroad. Conservatism has never supported turning this country into a Welfare State by taking money away from hard workers to support those that can but refuse to work. Welfare is not the answer to our country's economic woes, but the Free Market is - and Obama has it all backwards. What he is doing is supporting the growth of Socialism in this country; and that will adversely and negatively impact everyone (rich and poor alike)!
T. Roosevelt, however, was much more a Progressive than a Conservative; he was in favor of Big Government, anti-trust legislation, and increased regulation of businesses (which goes against Conservative support of the Free Market). Teddy Roosevelt also pushed for the courts to yield to the wishes of the executive branch on all subsequent anti-trust suits. I don't think most Conservatives consider him a good role model for contemporary Conservatives to follow - IMHO.
Do you consider yourself an isolationist, a non-interventionist, or a proponent of the U.S. being the World's Policeman?
-
Permalink Reply by madeline harrison on
-
Jim, I'm all about the grey area!!
IMO the difference between isolationist and non-interventionalist is negligible at best. The sad truth is that at this point in our nation's history, we can no longer accept isolationism as a viable stance. Until China or India steps their game up, we are the world's lone superpower, and as such, we have a duty to not shrink away from the threats posed to us and our allies.
I do think that there are worthy cases of policing the world: Rwanda, Darfur, Zimbabwe, et al. However, it seems that the only time we engage in conflict these days is when our interests are directly threatened. I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that we are the model upon which every country with the means to do so bases their government. If we're setting such an example, I'd like to see us use our diplomatic and militaristic clout to engage in some more humanitarian-oriented pursuits.
Woo, tangent. I guess I fall somewhere in between non-interventionalist and watchdog. I don't think we should engage unless it is morally reprehensible not to do so. I shame Bush for not addressing Darfur just as I shame Clinton for not addressing Rwanda... But something had to be done about Saddam,
Do you really believe that a Free Market is the answer? From where I'm standing, it looks like deregulation is what got us into this economic mess in the first place. And while I disagree with a few points in the Obama Health Care Plan, on the whole it looks like a step in the right direction. Competition from an outside force is sure to drive down costs from the Health Care Industry, and possibly improve care and coverage.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Robinson on
-
What gray area are you talking about? There are major differences between "isolationists" and "non-interventionists." Traditional Conservatism was never about isolationism - that is a very popular but highly erroneous misconception (blame Liberals for distorting this record).
Deregulation did not get us into our current financial mess - you can blame that on over-regulation and the intrusion of Big Government into the Free Market. It was government that created our problems and the conditions that led up to our current nightmare. Restoring the Free Market is the only real solution to our current crisis, not the Nanny Government and its massively inefficient bureaucracies.
Obama's healthcare plan is a big step in the wrong direction - unless you consider yourself a Liberal and Socialist. There is nothing good about this healthcare plan that Obama is trying to force on this country - nothing at all. Government controlled insurance plans will not improve our healthcare industry or drive down costs; it will have the opposite affect and cripple the system we already have. The solution is to get Big Government out of the way and let the Free Market save the day. The Constitution does not give the Federal Government any power or authority to regulate private industry and commerce - what Obama is doing is pure socialism and fascism!
Pardon me for stating the obvious, but your arguments come across more as a repudiation of Conservatism, in general, than a proclamation of it. What exactly are your political leanings? If you really aren't Conservative, I have to then question why you are even here on this "Conservative" social network. You are most certainly entitled to your own views, whatever those views might be, but please remember your surroundings and environment on TCU! Most Conservatives are not here to be converted by Liberal ideologies or leftist propaganda. We welcome civil discourse, but not if it turns into a perceived attack against our cause, ideals, principles, values, or movement. We are here to debate our actions in the upcoming elections -- not to debate our Conservative causes and principles.
As a newbie here, I hope you understand, appreciate, and support our cause and movement. If not, don't be surprised if you don't make too many friends here. Just being honest and want you to know! Most folks here are tired of Liberals sneaking on this site to create trouble and fights for their fun and amusement. Welcome aboard, for as long as you choose to stay!
-
Permalink Reply by Freda stone on -
AMEN JIM!!! [TELL IT LIKE IT IS] I WILL BACK YOU .GOD BLESS
TCUnation Links
TCUNation Shoppe
TCU Member Blogroll
Latest Activity
WOR 710 Radio has taken notice of CT GOP Conservative Congressional Candidate Rick Torres who is running against Jim Himes.
Rick was a featured guest on WNLK's Live With Lisa Wexler last Wednesday, and yesterday WOR 710 radio in New York did a fea…
tcuwww TCU users on MySpace
WOR 710 Radio has taken notice of CT GOP Conservative Congressional Candidate Rick Torres who is running against Jim Himes.
Rick was a featured guest on WNLK's Live With Lisa Wexler last Wednesday, and yesterday WOR 710 radio in New York did a fea…
WOR 710 Radio has taken notice of CT Congressional Candidate Rick Torres who is running against Jim Himes.
Rick was a featured guest on WNLK's Live With Lisa Wexler last Wednesday, and yesterday WOR 710 radio in New York did a feature on Rick, and…
BookNook
Badge
© 2010 Created by Earl B
