Bush's War Spending vs. Obama's Welfare Spending

Search
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
44,998
Tokens
[ Wake the fuck up ]


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

Wednesday, September 23, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer


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.”
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Obama Will Spend More on Welfare in the Next Year Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War, Study Reveals

===
Bar: This is great news. Helping to feed and to house my brother is an enlightened advance to killing my brother


 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
Obama Will Spend More on Welfare in the Next Year Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War, Study Reveals

===
Bar: This is great news. Helping to feed and to house my brother is an enlightened advance to killing my brother

Is your brother unemployed? And why would you want to kill your brother? Did he piss you off?
 

RX Senior
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Messages
47,431
Tokens
Fest Zit is the man!! I was looking for some good political news. (It had been a while.)
 

Everything's Legal in the USofA...Just don't get c
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,199
Tokens
Michael Savage is an idiot, but even an idiot finds a grain of truth once in a while.

If Barman and helmut really believe that we are the ones who are proliferating the killing in Iraq and Afghanistan, then it's true - "Liberalism is a mental disorder".

Perhaps the two greatest accomplishments of the Clinton administration were eliminating the deficit and ending welfare. Bush ruined the former, and rather than repairing it, Obama is instead intent on ruining the latter.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
44,998
Tokens
Michael Savage is an idiot, but even an idiot finds a grain of truth once in a while.

If Barman and helmut really believe that we are the ones who are proliferating the killing in Iraq and Afghanistan, then it's true - "Liberalism is a mental disorder".

Perhaps the two greatest accomplishments of the Clinton administration were eliminating the deficit and ending welfare. Bush ruined the former, and rather than repairing it, Obama is instead intent on ruining the latter.

Michael Savage is simply brilliant.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Is your brother unemployed? And why would you want to kill your brother? Did he piss you off?

According to those who I view as Master Teachers in life - notably Jesus Christ - Every Man Is My Brother.

Your own attitude might be different.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
If Barman and helmut really believe that we are the ones who are proliferating the killing in Iraq and Afghanistan....

Can't speak for Helmut, but from my own end I believe the U.S. is only responsible for the killing which is done by those in our military and otherwise contracted with our federal tax dollars. Others - from a wide range of nations, religions and ethnicities - combine to be responsible for the rest of it.

When done for reasons other than straight up self-defense, it's all equally reprehensible. Thus I'd be remiss if I proclaimed that any one group of killers was better or worse than any of the others.


But the lead Topic - at least as I understood it - was a comparison between two different ways of using U.S. tax dollars. I'm far more pleased with the priorities of the current administration in comparison to the priorities of the previous eight years.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
641
Tokens
Spending more money helping people on welfare than killing them, what have we done?
 

Yo Mama Does It
Joined
Aug 27, 2007
Messages
1,218
Tokens
Spending more money helping people on welfare than killing them, what have we done?

perpetuated the welfare mentality of an entire generation. Humans should make the effort to help themselves and take responsibility for their actions. You do, I do, why don't the "lifers" in the welfare system? I'll tell you why, they have no reason to try and now that being financially successful has been made a capital offense, why does anyone want to succeed in this country?
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
44,998
Tokens
Spending more money helping people on welfare than killing them, what have we done?

By getting as many leeches sucking the government tit, you
destroy a society.

Especially when said government is already bankrupt, and is
printing funny money to try and stay afloat.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
perpetuated the welfare mentality of an entire generation. Humans should make the effort to help themselves and take responsibility for their actions. You do, I do, why don't the "lifers" in the welfare system?

Your wording implies that the vast majority of people who receive one or more forms of federal assistance never make sincere efforts to improve their lot. I find such a supposition preposterous based on the literally millions of Americans who have previously received one or more forms of federal assistance and who today live without a dime from federal aid.


It also implies that one can - in the year 2009 - be an actual "lifetime receipient" of federal welfare programs, though most such programs have clearly defined limits for qualifying. Most such limits kick in at 2 years or less.
 

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
8,811
Tokens
It might also imply that while you make people dependent on the government, you can continue with your agenda which has done little to speed along a recovery since "Green" jobs take an extremely long time to implement (that is where the bulk of the stimulus is targeted...other than pork barrel projects that have done nothing to help the economy). I'm curious how the unemployed feel about that now and this constant banter about a "jobless recovery". That's gotta make people feel good when they can't make their house payments.
 

Rx. Senior
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
5,490
Tokens
Having trouble following the numbers, but it looks like the increase in Bush's spending from his predecessor is greater than the increase in Obama's spending from his predecessor

Also, what is the return on money put into war compared to welfare? There is nothing wrong with the government spending money efficiently to help the community. Unfortunately it seems almost all spending is too wasteful. Still if the community sees 50% from $100, that's still a better use of resources than if we see 20% back from $80
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
According to those who I view as Master Teachers in life - notably Jesus Christ - Every Man Is My Brother.

Your own attitude might be different.

Every man is your brother, does that included JoeC?

Nice try but no cigar.

Yes my attitude is different, I have no use for drug dealers, drug users, child molesters, rapists, murders, perpetual welfare abusers, gang bangers, corrupt politicians and smug elitists, just to name a few.

But what I really find repugnant are stupid people who pretend their not.
 

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
8,811
Tokens
Having trouble following the numbers, but it looks like the increase in Bush's spending from his predecessor is greater than the increase in Obama's spending from his predecessor

Also, what is the return on money put into war compared to welfare? There is nothing wrong with the government spending money efficiently to help the community. Unfortunately it seems almost all spending is too wasteful. Still if the community sees 50% from $100, that's still a better use of resources than if we see 20% back from $80

I'm just curious where you got the 50% and 20% numbers. My apologies if I missed it in the preceding posts.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,810
Messages
13,573,480
Members
100,871
Latest member
Legend813
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com