woof@hpfcla.UUCP (woof) (10/29/84)
I thought this was a facinating statistic on government waste: 'Professor Ronald Nash...points out that the United States spends $250 billion a year to fight poverty. This is enough to make an annual payment of $34,000 per year to each family below the poverty line. Black economist Thomas Sowell points out that the amount to raise every family above the poverty line has been calculated and in total it amounts to one-third of the amount spent to fight poverty.' Steve Wolf [ihnp4,hplabs]!hpfcla!woof
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/07/84)
> I thought this was a facinating statistic on government waste: > > 'Professor Ronald Nash...points out that the United States > spends $250 billion a year to fight poverty. This is enough > to make an annual payment of $34,000 per year to each family > below the poverty line. Black economist Thomas Sowell points > out that the amount to raise every family above the poverty > line has been calculated and in total it amounts to one-third > of the amount spent to fight poverty.' > > > Steve Wolf > [ihnp4,hplabs]!hpfcla!woof Sorry if I have to venture enormous skepticism about this statistic. Just what are they considering in this $250 billion figure? All of Social Security? All of Medicaid? All of student loans? These "social programs" are not intended to fight poverty. They primarily go to the Middle class, not the poor. The programs which primarily go to benefit the poor are AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) and Food Stamps. The total of those two programs is in the neighborhood of $20 billion. A far cry from the $250 billion figure cited. I would like to see the list of programs being included in this $250 billion figure. Tim Sevener whuxl!orb
reza@ihuxb.UUCP (Reza Taheri) (11/07/84)
Steve Wolf (woof@hpfcla.UUCP) in article <20300001@hpfcla.UUCP> writes:
Professor Ronald Nash...points out that the United States
spends $250 billion a year to fight poverty. This is enough
to make an annual payment of $34,000 per year to each family
below the poverty line.
I have seen data like this before. Does the $250 billion refer
strictly to such items as general welfare, food stamps, etc., or
does it include such things as the grants to poverty ridden
neighborhoods, college grants to poor students, etc? Furthermore,
does it include social programs that benefit everybody?
H. Reza Taheri
...!ihnp4!ihuxb!reza
(312)-979-7473renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (11/10/84)
> 'Professor Ronald Nash...points out that the United States > spends $250 billion a year to fight poverty. This is enough > to make an annual payment of $34,000 per year to each family > below the poverty line. Black economist Thomas Sowell points > out that the amount to raise every family above the poverty > line has been calculated and in total it amounts to one-third > of the amount spent to fight poverty.' Well, I hate to resort to using facts in net.politics. But I've done it before, and some people claim to appreciate it. So here are some numbers on federal programs which take money from taxpayers and give it to individuals, always in the name of "helping the poor and needy." Actual outlays for Fiscal 1982, in millions. (Source: Congressional Quarterly Almanac, Feb. 5, 1983, p.251 Health care services 68,350 Social security 161,805 Other income security programs (*) 67,351 ------------------------------- ------- Total transfer payment programs 297,806 (*) Income security programs include unemployment compensation, housing assistance, and food stamps That's a lot of money. Of course, not much of it goes to poor people. The largest part of it goes to the well-paid civil servants who run these programs, and to people over 65 who are not poor. Now let's consider the poor. Turn please in your copy of the U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1982-83, to page 446, where we find: Number of individuals (in families or unrelated) under the poverty level as of March 1981. Only cash income considered 12.9 million Aggregate income deficit (ie, total $ needed to bring all of these people to the poverty level) $29,700 million Wow! That works out to about $23,000 per poor person in transfer payments. The federal goverment clearly spends enough money on programs advertised as "helping the poor" to obliterate poverty. Lots, lots more than necessary. Yet there is clearly poverty in the US, seemingly untouched by federal spending. Is the federal government interested in reducing poverty? I don't think so. I think the purpose of these programs is to provide political power to those who support them in Congress. It's a simple recipe: take a little (well, actually a hell of a lot) of money from everyone, skim off a BIG slice for the civil servants, and hand it out to people likely to vote for you. Make sure that you don't actually *do* anything about poverty, else you have no reason to continue the scam. The problem is not that we don't spend enough money on social programs. The problem is that most of the social programs are not aimed at the poor. Scott Renner {ihnp4, pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (11/16/84)
In article <331@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >... The programs which >primarily go to benefit the poor are AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent >Children) and Food Stamps. The total of those two programs is in the >neighborhood of $20 billion. A far cry from the $250 billion figure cited. >I would like to see the list of programs being included in this >$250 billion figure. >Tim Sevener whuxl!orb These may be the primary direct transfer programs, but there are numerous others. Low income housing, energy subsidies, school lunches (when they truly go to the poor and not everyone else who can afford their own lunches), subsidized legal cousel (the LSC), Medicaid (a REAL biggie, not to be confused with Medicare), some urban renewal programs (indirectly), and probably quite a few others I can't think of at this moment. Of these, low income housing (with rents subsidized), and Medicaid are very large in total outlay. I don't have figures handy, but when I can, I'll probably post them in a future comment. -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard ...Though we may sometimes disagree, You are still a friend to me!
eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (11/21/84)
> In article <331@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > >I would like to see the list of programs being included in this > >Tim Sevener whuxl!orb My source is the "Statistical Abstract of the United States", 1982-3 edition, pp 319, and 446-7. The aggregate income deficit in 1980 was $29.7 billion. This is the total amount you would have to give (in cash or benefits) to all individuals below the poverty line to bring them all up to the poverty line. By the government's definition of poverty, then, it would be eliminated. Before counting government programs, there were 23.62 million poor people in 1980. After counting the benefits from government programs, 13.6 million people were still below the poverty line. If you assume that government assistance is distributed equally to all poor persons (it isn't, but the distribution data aren't in my source), then the average poor person moves up to just about the poverty line. The following list is in billions of dollars. It includes significant programs primarily to help the poor, and specifically excludes unemployment insurance, and social security: Medicaid $25.8 , Misc Health Programs $1.7 , AFDC (welfare) $13.4 , SSI $8.4, Veterans Pensions $3.6 , Earned Income Credit $2.0, General Assistance $1.4, Food Stamps $9.6, School Lunch $2.7, Misc Food Programs $1.1, Job Programs $8.7, Subsidized Housing $8.4, Subsidized Education $4.6, Energy Assistance $1.7 TOTAL - $93.1 billion My personal opinion is that the government assistance programs are achieving their goals, but that they are spending three times the amount required, i.e. 200% overhead. Clearly there is room for improvement. Dani Eder / Boeing Aerospace Company / ssc-vax!eder / (206)773-4545
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/27/84)
> The aggregate income deficit in 1980 was > $29.7 billion. This is the total amount you would have to give (in cash > or benefits) to all individuals below the poverty line to bring them all > up to the poverty line. > > Medicaid $25.8 , Misc Health Programs $1.7 , AFDC (welfare) $13.4 , > SSI $8.4, Veterans Pensions $3.6 , Earned Income Credit $2.0, > General Assistance $1.4, Food Stamps $9.6, School Lunch $2.7, > Misc Food Programs $1.1, Job Programs $8.7, Subsidized Housing $8.4, > Subsidized Education $4.6, Energy Assistance $1.7 > TOTAL - $93.1 billion > > My personal opinion is that the government assistance programs are > achieving their goals, but that they are spending three times the amount > required, i.e. 200% overhead. Clearly there is room for improvement. > > Dani Eder / Boeing Aerospace Company / ssc-vax!eder / (206)773-4545 An excellent article! I am always glad to see some facts to back up one's opinions. I also happen to agree with the assessment that all these programs may not be the best way to help the poor. Some programs (i.e. Food Stamps, Head Start (a VERY successful program as just reported in an intensive panel study conducted over many years)) may be useful to help the poor out of their rut. But many could be replaced with a simple expedient:more income. The Family Assistance Plan Nixon proposed in the early 70's would have put into effect a Negative Income Tax plan-- those under the poverty level would simply get money. However it was assaulted from both sides at once: Conservatives who objected to the idea of just "giving people money", and liberals who thought the amount of money being given wasn't enough. So instead we are stuck with this inefficient Welfare mess in which we spend $93 billion to make up a shortfall of $30 billion. Also much of the $93 billion doesn't go to the poor at all but either to bureaucrats or to the middle class. thanks for a very good article! tim sevener whuxl!orb