Obama Will Spend More on Welfare in the Next Year Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War, Study Reveals

[Fran Hollar]

Obama Will Spend More on Welfare in the Next Year Than Bush Spent o...
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer


President Barack Obama making announcement canceling missile defense shield. (AP photo)
(CNSNews.com) – 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.”

[Davetopper]

Imagine that, spending trillions of dollars for the welfare of people. Not trillions KILLING them, but for their benefit.

What a concept.

But that spending has tp be done because sooo many more people need it today. Because of another group of people, consumers. Those consumers holding out for better times, causing worse times for everyone else and eventually themselves if not careful.

No need for me to say the when, where's and how all that began.

Frau, really you should look into your own humanity ( if you can find it ) and quit focusing on greed.

[Trent Rock]

Those consumers holding out for better times, causing worse times for everyone else and eventually themselves if not careful.

I'm confused
What are you talking about?
Can you elaborate?

This is my main beef with Obama
“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.”
The whole election he used the children fear mongering game
Then come Day One in office
He starts spending like a madman
I guess he doesn't care about the children anymore??

BTW..the belief that our children will some day be presented with a "bill" for OUR spending is a myth..IMHO
Debt Doomsday on Google

[Fran Hollar]

I too was confused by the rant on consumers. I wonder if he was confusing them with capitalists since he often rants on the evil capitalists.

Aren't we all consumers?

[Edmond Kruez]

How can you blame the consumers? To me it makes no sense. Can you explain?

[Davetopper]

Of course I could explain it. But an explanation really shouldn't be necessary.

[Jimmy See]

Why not explain it? Three people have asked before. I'm the fourth. Blaming the consumers does not make sense since we are all consumers. We're not blaming anyone but how can it be pinned on the consumer? How is it that you feel no explanation is necessary?

[Davetopper]

Let's break it down.

Imagine that, spending trillions of dollars for the welfare of people. Not trillions KILLING them, but for their benefit.

That refers to wars.

What a concept.

But that spending has tp be done because sooo many more people need it today. Because of another group of people, consumers. Those consumers holding out for better times, causing worse times for everyone else and eventually themselves if not careful.

No need for me to say the when, where's and how all that began.

Frau, really you should look into your own humanity ( if you can find it ) and quit focusing on greed.

Maybe there is a need for the when ( Late 2003 early 2003 ) and where's ( Bush White House ) and how ( consumer confidence ).

I have told the tale of George Patton who was quoted as saying ( who knows if it is true ) that Americans love the sting of battle. He couldn't have been anymore wrong. No they don't, as a matter of fact, it scares them, and fear mongering didn't help. After 9/11 in almost a forward thinking broad thinking moment, George Bush said "go shopping". I guess he got that memo, when Americans are scare, the horde mentality sets in.

And it did.

So what happens when people do not buy goods? Consumers are around 70% of the economy. When they aren't exhibiting their buying power, it trickles down. This trickle down theory actually does work sadly. But when people are not buying goods and services other people are losing jobs or getting laid off.

And what happens when people get laid off? Simply stated they can't pay their bill, they can't pay the mortgage and they lose their homes. This is the sense that should have over shadowed the nonsense that the media has been selling us.

The Wall Street Journal Wrote had an article that put the blame on Carter, the dead saint of republicanism, and Bill Clinton. I guess it's too damn difficult to lay some blame where it should have fell.

When you take an economy that was already fluctuating, it is like a domino effect, or a being with a bad heart. It doesn't take much to make it flat line.

And that is and was the effect of consumer confidence going into a horde mentality because Americans FREAKED.

That's the explanation. Rather simple isn't it?

[Davetopper]

Is there a rebuttal?

[Fran Hollar]

Your pointing the finger at consumers still makes absolutely no sense. However, since I do understand that since you think it makes sense you will refuse to discuss it or elaborate further on it.

[Davetopper]

You know I could elaborate further, and I did, but for me to do more it would be like talking to a concrete highway divider.

[Trent Rock]

I think you are talking about the Paradox of Thrift
I kinda thought that is what you were talking about, that is why I asked you to elaborate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift

The paradox states that if everyone tries to save more money during times of recession, then aggregate demand will fall and will in turn lower total savings in the population because of the decrease in consumption and economic growth. The paradox is, narrowly speaking, that total savings may fall even when individual savings attempt to rise, and, broadly speaking, that increases in savings may be harmful to an economy

The POT (lol!! sweet acronym!!) is a Keynesian thing
Obama seems to like Keynesian policies
The whole stimulus package is based on Keynesian views of the multiplier effect
The POT is like most economic topics===>
Highly debatable

You have to look at the APS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_propensity_to_save
Have Americans saved more the last year?
I would say probably yes.........

I agree the media hyped up the "crisis"
That is why people are hoarding gold and 9mm ammo
Got Americans all scared of "the greatest since The Great Depression"
We have had 2 qtrs of negative GDP
The Q3 GDP report comes out on October 29th
We'll see how it compares to The Great Depression
I predict .3%...BTW

[Davetopper]

Here's a small little tidbit from a story at the pioneer press.

A recovering stock market soothes the psyche as people watch their portfolios and 401(k) retirement accounts being replenished. And if people start spending again, that may persuade more investors, including some reluctant pros, to go back into the market.

That's just the stock market, but it applies to those just buying anything.

http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_13560422?source=rss