SS and Medicare depleted sooner than expected

[Iriemon]

the 5 years before retirement is NOT the time to worry about growth. it is the time to worry about preservation of capital. A shift from the pursuit of 10% growth or better to a pursuit of 6-8% returns is a wise and prudent strategy.

That assumes someone already has a sufficient portfolio for retirement, in which case they don't need to wait 5 years to retire. Few people are lucky enough to be in that situation.

Even someone in retirement may need more in stocks IMO, for the portfolio to both generate sufficient return and keep up with inflation.

If you got $10 million, you're in a different category but relatively few will be so lucky.

It has absolutely nothing to do with 'luck', it has to do with being responsible for yourself and planning and making sure your own future is financially sound and taken care of.

Or inheret $10 million from a family member. Luck.

 

[KittenKoder]

The problem, if they hadn't taken the money from us in the first place, then promised that it would be there, then most of us would have done better preparing for it on our own. We were foolish when younger to believe the government actually had our best interests at heart, and now it's too late for many. They fucked us with a mac truck and used the money to fund their pet projects instead of saving it like they promised. Even now, knowing they have drained it beyond repair, instead of trying to fix it they are looking for more pet projects, groups, organizations, to spend it on. Also, it wasn't just one side or the other that did it, both sides did, excusing some of them just because they are in one party or another is foolish.

 

[Iriemon]

the 5 years before retirement is NOT the time to worry about growth. it is the time to worry about preservation of capital. A shift from the pursuit of 10% growth or better to a pursuit of 6-8% returns is a wise and prudent strategy.

That assumes someone already has a sufficient portfolio for retirement, in which case they don't need to wait 5 years to retire. Few people are lucky enough to be in that situation.

Even someone in retirement may need more in stocks IMO, for the portfolio to both generate sufficient return and keep up with inflation.

If you got $10 million, you're in a different category but relatively few will be so lucky.

anyone can save several million by the time they retire. all it takes is saving 20% of your gross income.

Many can't afford to save 20% of their gross income; and even of those that can many don't.

But irrespective. If you are lucky enough to have $10m, I'd agree with your investment strategy.

For the many more that find themselve 5-7 years away from retirement and don't have a sum like that, a more aggressive portfolio than you recommend might be in order.

 

[Iriemon]

The problem, if they hadn't taken the money from us in the first place, then promised that it would be there, then most of us would have done better preparing for it on our own. We were foolish when younger to believe the government actually had our best interests at heart, and now it's too late for many. They fucked us with a mac truck and used the money to fund their pet projects instead of saving it like they promised. Even now, knowing they have drained it beyond repair, instead of trying to fix it they are looking for more pet projects, groups, organizations, to spend it on. Also, it wasn't just one side or the other that did it, both sides did, excusing some of them just because they are in one party or another is foolish.

We were also foolish to believe pandering politicians who sold us this snake oil scheme called "supply side economics" where they said we could cut taxes, yet revenues would magically grow faster. We tried it again and again in 1980, 1984, 1992, 2000, and 2004. But surprise surprise, when they cut the tax rates, revenues grew slower, adding trillion to the debt.

 

[jreeves]

That assumes someone already has a sufficient portfolio for retirement, in which case they don't need to wait 5 years to retire. Few people are lucky enough to be in that situation.

Even someone in retirement may need more in stocks IMO, for the portfolio to both generate sufficient return and keep up with inflation.

If you got $10 million, you're in a different category but relatively few will be so lucky.

anyone can save several million by the time they retire. all it takes is saving 20% of your gross income.

Many can't afford to save 20% of their gross income; and even of those that can many don't.

But irrespective. If you are lucky enough to have $10m, I'd agree with your investment strategy.

For the many more that find themselve 5-7 years away from retirement and don't have a sum like that, a more aggressive portfolio than you recommend might be in order.

I bet a lot more would if the government didn't tax them so much and if they didn't have to put into a retirement plan that gave them returns that were subpar to 401k plans.

 

[jreeves]

That assumes someone already has a sufficient portfolio for retirement, in which case they don't need to wait 5 years to retire. Few people are lucky enough to be in that situation.

Even someone in retirement may need more in stocks IMO, for the portfolio to both generate sufficient return and keep up with inflation.

If you got $10 million, you're in a different category but relatively few will be so lucky.

I'll tell you what, how about a system where you could save in Social Security or invest in the markets? If you want to dump your money into a system that is going to be depleted and all returns are mandated by the government, then go ahead.

Your post has nothing to do with our discussion. But the problem with your proposal is that no one would put into SS but we'd still have folks who are disabled, surviving family members and aged who didn't amass enough assets for whatever reason out in the streets. I like living in a country were there aren't hords of cripples, elderly and orphans living under freeways and beginning at stoplights, and SS is a big reason we don't have that.

I would like to live in a country where Social Security wasn't used by the unscrupulous in our society to get a free pass.

 

[Iriemon]

anyone can save several million by the time they retire. all it takes is saving 20% of your gross income.

Many can't afford to save 20% of their gross income; and even of those that can many don't.

But irrespective. If you are lucky enough to have $10m, I'd agree with your investment strategy.

For the many more that find themselve 5-7 years away from retirement and don't have a sum like that, a more aggressive portfolio than you recommend might be in order.

I bet a lot more would if the government didn't tax them so much and if they didn't have to put into a retirement plan that gave them returns that were subpar to 401k plans.

Probably true, but then we'd have the masses that didn't and those who are disabled or survivors or aged and don't have the assets to live on being under the freeways.

Actually, the best solution might have been to take the extra SS tax receipts and actually put them in a trust fund where they would grow rather than steal them to finance deficits.

 

[Iriemon]

I'll tell you what, how about a system where you could save in Social Security or invest in the markets? If you want to dump your money into a system that is going to be depleted and all returns are mandated by the government, then go ahead.

Your post has nothing to do with our discussion. But the problem with your proposal is that no one would put into SS but we'd still have folks who are disabled, surviving family members and aged who didn't amass enough assets for whatever reason out in the streets. I like living in a country were there aren't hords of cripples, elderly and orphans living under freeways and beginning at stoplights, and SS is a big reason we don't have that.

I would like to live in a country where Social Security wasn't used by the unscrupulous in our society to get a free pass.

Me too, unfortunately we do have some unscrupulous folks and always will. But in general its pretty hard to fake your age, or that your daddy died when you are young, and even disability is pretty tough to get from SS in general.

 

[jreeves]

Many can't afford to save 20% of their gross income; and even of those that can many don't.

But irrespective. If you are lucky enough to have $10m, I'd agree with your investment strategy.

For the many more that find themselve 5-7 years away from retirement and don't have a sum like that, a more aggressive portfolio than you recommend might be in order.

I bet a lot more would if the government didn't tax them so much and if they didn't have to put into a retirement plan that gave them returns that were subpar to 401k plans.

Probably true, but then we'd have the masses that didn't and those who are disabled or survivors or aged and don't have the assets to live on being under the freeways.

Actually, the best solution might have been to take the extra SS tax receipts and actually put them in a trust fund where they would grow rather than steal them to finance deficits.

That's an oxymoron, trusting politicians with a surplus of money.

Really so you would think that the actions the US has taken would have helped reduce the amount of people living in poverty, but it hasn't.

 

[jreeves]

Your post has nothing to do with our discussion. But the problem with your proposal is that no one would put into SS but we'd still have folks who are disabled, surviving family members and aged who didn't amass enough assets for whatever reason out in the streets. I like living in a country were there aren't hords of cripples, elderly and orphans living under freeways and beginning at stoplights, and SS is a big reason we don't have that.

I would like to live in a country where Social Security wasn't used by the unscrupulous in our society to get a free pass.

Me too, unfortunately we do have some unscrupulous folks and always will. But in general its pretty hard to fake your age, or that your daddy died when you are young, and even disability is pretty tough to get from SS in general.

Not as hard as you think.

 

[Iriemon]

I bet a lot more would if the government didn't tax them so much and if they didn't have to put into a retirement plan that gave them returns that were subpar to 401k plans.

Probably true, but then we'd have the masses that didn't and those who are disabled or survivors or aged and don't have the assets to live on being under the freeways.

Actually, the best solution might have been to take the extra SS tax receipts and actually put them in a trust fund where they would grow rather than steal them to finance deficits.

That's an oxymoron, trusting politicians with a surplus of money.

Really so you would think that the actions the US has taken would have helped reduce the amount of people living in poverty, but it hasn't.

Poverty rates fell by half after the Great Society programs; and most significantly among seniors who had had the highest poverty levels and now have the lowest. SS is a big reason for that.

And in fact, IMO SS is too rich. Benefits rise with wages, not inflation (I agreed with Bush's idea to tie it into inflation) and the seniors are the wealthiest group of Americans. Benefits are paid to many that have no need. With the nation $11 trillion in debt we shouldn't be sending SS checks to Warren Buffet, IMO.

 

[jreeves]

Probably true, but then we'd have the masses that didn't and those who are disabled or survivors or aged and don't have the assets to live on being under the freeways.

Actually, the best solution might have been to take the extra SS tax receipts and actually put them in a trust fund where they would grow rather than steal them to finance deficits.

That's an oxymoron, trusting politicians with a surplus of money.

Really so you would think that the actions the US has taken would have helped reduce the amount of people living in poverty, but it hasn't.

Poverty rates fell by half after the Great Society programs; and most significantly among seniors who had had the highest poverty levels and now have the lowest. SS is a big reason for that.

And in fact, IMO SS is too rich. Benefits rise with wages, not inflation (I agreed with Bush's idea to tie it into inflation) and the seniors are the wealthiest group of Americans. Benefits are paid to many that have no need. With the nation $11 trillion in debt we shouldn't be sending SS checks to Warren Buffet, IMO.

Also an important note, poverty rates were falling when LBJ waged his war on poverty. Look at Figure 1 in the link below, you can clearly see the poverty rates were free falling from 1960 to 1965. This was prior to the start of the War on Poverty. Even though spending on the elimination of Poverty has dramatically increased since then the poverty rate has remained in large part unchanged since the late 60's. See...

http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/poverty/povmeasure.description.pdf

 

[Iriemon]

That's an oxymoron, trusting politicians with a surplus of money.

Really so you would think that the actions the US has taken would have helped reduce the amount of people living in poverty, but it hasn't.

Poverty rates fell by half after the Great Society programs; and most significantly among seniors who had had the highest poverty levels and now have the lowest. SS is a big reason for that.

And in fact, IMO SS is too rich. Benefits rise with wages, not inflation (I agreed with Bush's idea to tie it into inflation) and the seniors are the wealthiest group of Americans. Benefits are paid to many that have no need. With the nation $11 trillion in debt we shouldn't be sending SS checks to Warren Buffet, IMO.

Also an important note, poverty rates were falling when LBJ waged his war on poverty. Look at Figure 1 in the link below, you can clearly see the poverty rates were free falling from 1960 to 1965. This was prior to the start of the War on Poverty. Even though spending on the elimination of Poverty has dramatically increased since then the poverty rate has remained in large part unchanged since the late 60's. See...

http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/poverty/povmeasure.description.pdf

The War on Poverty began with a $1 billion appropriation in 1964 and spent another $2 billion in the following two years.

Great Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poverty rates continued to fall into the mid 70s. But sure, economic growth helped.

But look at how dramatically poverty rates fell for the seniors. That is SS at play.

 

[jreeves]

Poverty rates fell by half after the Great Society programs; and most significantly among seniors who had had the highest poverty levels and now have the lowest. SS is a big reason for that.

And in fact, IMO SS is too rich. Benefits rise with wages, not inflation (I agreed with Bush's idea to tie it into inflation) and the seniors are the wealthiest group of Americans. Benefits are paid to many that have no need. With the nation $11 trillion in debt we shouldn't be sending SS checks to Warren Buffet, IMO.

Also an important note, poverty rates were falling when LBJ waged his war on poverty. Look at Figure 1 in the link below, you can clearly see the poverty rates were free falling from 1960 to 1965. This was prior to the start of the War on Poverty. Even though spending on the elimination of Poverty has dramatically increased since then the poverty rate has remained in large part unchanged since the late 60's. See...

http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/poverty/povmeasure.description.pdf

The War on Poverty began with a $1 billion appropriation in 1964 and spent another $2 billion in the following two years.

Great Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poverty rates continued to fall into the mid 70s. But sure, economic growth helped.

But look at how dramatically poverty rates fell for the seniors. That is SS at play.

The poverty rate is virtually the same as it was in 1969. All that has happened since then is an explosion of social spending on all types of means tested welfare, with no results.

 

[Iriemon]

Also an important note, poverty rates were falling when LBJ waged his war on poverty. Look at Figure 1 in the link below, you can clearly see the poverty rates were free falling from 1960 to 1965. This was prior to the start of the War on Poverty. Even though spending on the elimination of Poverty has dramatically increased since then the poverty rate has remained in large part unchanged since the late 60's. See...

http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/poverty/povmeasure.description.pdf

The War on Poverty began with a $1 billion appropriation in 1964 and spent another $2 billion in the following two years.

Great Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poverty rates continued to fall into the mid 70s. But sure, economic growth helped.

But look at how dramatically poverty rates fell for the seniors. That is SS at play.

The poverty rate is virtually the same as it was in 1969. All that has happened since then is an explosion of social spending on all types of means tested welfare, with no results.

Elderly poverty continued to fall dramatically after 1969. Overall poverty rates bottom out in the late 70s, increase a few points in the 80s, and decreased a few points in the 90s.

Historical Poverty Tables

"Welfare" spending, including unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, but excluding medicaid, has stayed relatively stable since the early 70s. See CBO historical table, http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls Table F-10. There has been no explosion of spending in welfare.

Medicaid spending has increased, along with all medical costs.

 

[jreeves]

The War on Poverty began with a $1 billion appropriation in 1964 and spent another $2 billion in the following two years.

Great Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poverty rates continued to fall into the mid 70s. But sure, economic growth helped.

But look at how dramatically poverty rates fell for the seniors. That is SS at play.

The poverty rate is virtually the same as it was in 1969. All that has happened since then is an explosion of social spending on all types of means tested welfare, with no results.

Elderly poverty continued to fall dramatically after 1969. Overall poverty rates bottom out in the late 70s, increase a few points in the 80s, and decreased a few points in the 90s.

Historical Poverty Tables

"Welfare" spending, including unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, but excluding medicaid, has stayed relatively stable since the early 70s. See CBO historical table, http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls Table F-10. There has been no explosion of spending in welfare.

Medicaid spending has increased, along with all medical costs.

Sure...
The U.S. welfare system may be defined as the total set of government programs—federal and state—that are designed explicitly to assist poor and low-income Americans.

Nearly all welfare programs are individually means-tested.1 Means-tested programs restrict eligibility for benefits to persons with non-welfare income below a certain level. Individuals with non-welfare income above a specified cutoff level may not receive aid. Thus, Food Stamp and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) benefits are means-tested and constitute welfare, but Social Security benefits are not.

The current welfare system is highly complex, involving six departments: HHS, Agriculture, HUD, Labor, Treasury, and Education. It is not unusual for a single poor family to receive benefits from four different departments through as many as six or seven overlapping programs. For example, a family might simultaneously receive benefits from: TANF, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Public Housing, WIC, Head Start, and the Social Service Block Grant. It is therefore important to examine welfare holistically. Examination of a single program or department in isolation is invariably misleading.



Welfare spending is so large it is difficult to comprehend. On average, the annual cost of the welfare system amounts to around $5,600 in taxes from each household that paid federal income tax in 2000. Adjusting for inflation, the amount taxpayers now spend on welfare each year is greater than the value of the entire U.S. Gross National Product at the beginning of the 20th century.



As Chart 2 shows, throughout most of U.S. history welfare spending remained low. In 1965 when Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty, aggregate welfare spending was only $8.9 billion. (This would amount to around $42 billion if adjusted for inflation into today's dollars.)

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty in 1965 welfare spending has exploded. The rapid growth in welfare costs has continued to the present.

*
In constant dollars, welfare spending has risen every year but four since the beginning of the War on Poverty in 1965;
*
As a nation, we now spend ten times as much on welfare, after adjusting for inflation, as was spent when Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty. We spend twice as much as when Ronald Reagan was first elected.
*
Cash, food, housing, and energy aid alone are nearly seven times greater today than in 1965, after adjusting for inflation;
* As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, welfare spending has grown from 1.2 percent in 1965 to 4.4 percent today.

 

[jreeves]

The War on Poverty began with a $1 billion appropriation in 1964 and spent another $2 billion in the following two years.

Great Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poverty rates continued to fall into the mid 70s. But sure, economic growth helped.

But look at how dramatically poverty rates fell for the seniors. That is SS at play.

The poverty rate is virtually the same as it was in 1969. All that has happened since then is an explosion of social spending on all types of means tested welfare, with no results.

Elderly poverty continued to fall dramatically after 1969. Overall poverty rates bottom out in the late 70s, increase a few points in the 80s, and decreased a few points in the 90s.

Historical Poverty Tables

"Welfare" spending, including unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, but excluding medicaid, has stayed relatively stable since the early 70s. See CBO historical table, http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls Table F-10. There has been no explosion of spending in welfare.

Medicaid spending has increased, along with all medical costs.

There is nothing in your CBO link that disputes the information above....

 

[Iriemon]

The poverty rate is virtually the same as it was in 1969. All that has happened since then is an explosion of social spending on all types of means tested welfare, with no results.

Elderly poverty continued to fall dramatically after 1969. Overall poverty rates bottom out in the late 70s, increase a few points in the 80s, and decreased a few points in the 90s.

Historical Poverty Tables

"Welfare" spending, including unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, but excluding medicaid, has stayed relatively stable since the early 70s. See CBO historical table, http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls Table F-10. There has been no explosion of spending in welfare.

Medicaid spending has increased, along with all medical costs.

Sure...
The U.S. welfare system may be defined as the total set of government programs—federal and state—that are designed explicitly to assist poor and low-income Americans.

Nearly all welfare programs are individually means-tested.1 Means-tested programs restrict eligibility for benefits to persons with non-welfare income below a certain level. Individuals with non-welfare income above a specified cutoff level may not receive aid. Thus, Food Stamp and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) benefits are means-tested and constitute welfare, but Social Security benefits are not.

I just took the definition for "income support" in the CBO's budget figures. I've seen welfare defined many different ways.

The current welfare system is highly complex, involving six departments: HHS, Agriculture, HUD, Labor, Treasury, and Education. It is not unusual for a single poor family to receive benefits from four different departments through as many as six or seven overlapping programs. For example, a family might simultaneously receive benefits from: TANF, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Public Housing, WIC, Head Start, and the Social Service Block Grant. It is therefore important to examine welfare holistically. Examination of a single program or department in isolation is invariably misleading.

View attachment 7369

Welfare spending is so large it is difficult to comprehend. On average, the annual cost of the welfare system amounts to around $5,600 in taxes from each household that paid federal income tax in 2000. Adjusting for inflation, the amount taxpayers now spend on welfare each year is greater than the value of the entire U.S. Gross National Product at the beginning of the 20th century.

View attachment 7370

As Chart 2 shows, throughout most of U.S. history welfare spending remained low. In 1965 when Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty, aggregate welfare spending was only $8.9 billion. (This would amount to around $42 billion if adjusted for inflation into today's dollars.)

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty in 1965 welfare spending has exploded. The rapid growth in welfare costs has continued to the present.

*
In constant dollars, welfare spending has risen every year but four since the beginning of the War on Poverty in 1965;
*
As a nation, we now spend ten times as much on welfare, after adjusting for inflation, as was spent when Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty. We spend twice as much as when Ronald Reagan was first elected.
*
Cash, food, housing, and energy aid alone are nearly seven times greater today than in 1965, after adjusting for inflation;
* As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, welfare spending has grown from 1.2 percent in 1965 to 4.4 percent today.

Sure, its not free. But overall poverty dropped from 13.9% in 1965 to 9.8% today (2006). That's a 30% decline, which in my book is a pretty good improvement.

The 4.4% figure used by the Heritage Foundation (we wouldn't expect them to present figures in a light favorable to welfare, would we?) is a little higher than the 3.2% for "income support" and "medicaid" the CBO budget is broken into. But the Heritgage chart affirms what I said: Since the early 70s, the vast bulk of the growth is attributed to Medicaid, which reflects the fact that health care costs overall have been growing much faster other costs. Putting Medicaid aside, other welfare costs have not grown much as a percentage of GDP.

Edit: looking back at my prior post, when I wrote that welfare spending "has stayed relatively stable since the early 70s" I neglected to add "as a percentage of GDP" which I meant as referred to in the CBO table I cited. Omitting that; my statement is incorrect because Welfare spending obviously has gone up over the years, as has everything else. It was misleading to omit that.

 

[jreeves]

Elderly poverty continued to fall dramatically after 1969. Overall poverty rates bottom out in the late 70s, increase a few points in the 80s, and decreased a few points in the 90s.

Historical Poverty Tables

"Welfare" spending, including unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, but excluding medicaid, has stayed relatively stable since the early 70s. See CBO historical table, http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls Table F-10. There has been no explosion of spending in welfare.

Medicaid spending has increased, along with all medical costs.

Sure...
The U.S. welfare system may be defined as the total set of government programs—federal and state—that are designed explicitly to assist poor and low-income Americans.

Nearly all welfare programs are individually means-tested.1 Means-tested programs restrict eligibility for benefits to persons with non-welfare income below a certain level. Individuals with non-welfare income above a specified cutoff level may not receive aid. Thus, Food Stamp and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) benefits are means-tested and constitute welfare, but Social Security benefits are not.

I just took the definition for "income support" in the CBO's budget figures. I've seen welfare defined many different ways.

The current welfare system is highly complex, involving six departments: HHS, Agriculture, HUD, Labor, Treasury, and Education. It is not unusual for a single poor family to receive benefits from four different departments through as many as six or seven overlapping programs. For example, a family might simultaneously receive benefits from: TANF, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Public Housing, WIC, Head Start, and the Social Service Block Grant. It is therefore important to examine welfare holistically. Examination of a single program or department in isolation is invariably misleading.

View attachment 7369

Welfare spending is so large it is difficult to comprehend. On average, the annual cost of the welfare system amounts to around $5,600 in taxes from each household that paid federal income tax in 2000. Adjusting for inflation, the amount taxpayers now spend on welfare each year is greater than the value of the entire U.S. Gross National Product at the beginning of the 20th century.

View attachment 7370

As Chart 2 shows, throughout most of U.S. history welfare spending remained low. In 1965 when Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty, aggregate welfare spending was only $8.9 billion. (This would amount to around $42 billion if adjusted for inflation into today's dollars.)

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty in 1965 welfare spending has exploded. The rapid growth in welfare costs has continued to the present.

*
In constant dollars, welfare spending has risen every year but four since the beginning of the War on Poverty in 1965;
*
As a nation, we now spend ten times as much on welfare, after adjusting for inflation, as was spent when Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty. We spend twice as much as when Ronald Reagan was first elected.
*
Cash, food, housing, and energy aid alone are nearly seven times greater today than in 1965, after adjusting for inflation;
* As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, welfare spending has grown from 1.2 percent in 1965 to 4.4 percent today.

Sure, its not free. But overall poverty dropped from 13.9% in 1965 to 9.8% today (2006). That's a 30% decline, which in my book is a pretty good improvement.

The 4.4% figure used by the Heritage Foundation (we wouldn't expect them to present figures in a light favorable to welfare, would we?) is a little higher than the 3.2% for "income support" and "medicaid" the CBO budget is broken into. But the Heritgage chart affirms what I said: Since the early 70s, the vast bulk of the growth is attributed to Medicaid, which reflects the fact that health care costs overall have been growing much faster other costs. Putting Medicaid aside, other welfare costs have not grown much as a percentage of GDP.

We spend 10 times more than we did when LBJ first launched his war on poverty after inflation, its in the link. That's a substantial increase or an explosion of spending.
The poverty rate is what....

Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The official poverty rate in the U.S. increased for four consecutive years, from a 26-year low of 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004, then declined somewhat to 12.3% in 2006. This means that 36.5 million people (approx 1 in 8 Americans) were below the official poverty thresholds in 2006, compared to 31.1 million in 2000[14], and that there was an increase of 4.9 million poor from 2000 to 2006 while the total population grew by 17.5 million. [15] The poverty rate for children under 18 years old increased from 16.2% to 17.8% from 2000 to 2004 and had dropped to 17.4% in 2005 and 2006. [16] The 2007-2008 poverty threshold was measured according to the HHS Poverty Guidelines[17] which are illustrated in the table below.


Damn are you just making stuff up now?

 

[Iriemon]

Sure...
The U.S. welfare system may be defined as the total set of government programs—federal and state—that are designed explicitly to assist poor and low-income Americans.

Nearly all welfare programs are individually means-tested.1 Means-tested programs restrict eligibility for benefits to persons with non-welfare income below a certain level. Individuals with non-welfare income above a specified cutoff level may not receive aid. Thus, Food Stamp and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) benefits are means-tested and constitute welfare, but Social Security benefits are not.

I just took the definition for "income support" in the CBO's budget figures. I've seen welfare defined many different ways.

The current welfare system is highly complex, involving six departments: HHS, Agriculture, HUD, Labor, Treasury, and Education. It is not unusual for a single poor family to receive benefits from four different departments through as many as six or seven overlapping programs. For example, a family might simultaneously receive benefits from: TANF, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Public Housing, WIC, Head Start, and the Social Service Block Grant. It is therefore important to examine welfare holistically. Examination of a single program or department in isolation is invariably misleading.

View attachment 7369

Welfare spending is so large it is difficult to comprehend. On average, the annual cost of the welfare system amounts to around $5,600 in taxes from each household that paid federal income tax in 2000. Adjusting for inflation, the amount taxpayers now spend on welfare each year is greater than the value of the entire U.S. Gross National Product at the beginning of the 20th century.

View attachment 7370

As Chart 2 shows, throughout most of U.S. history welfare spending remained low. In 1965 when Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty, aggregate welfare spending was only $8.9 billion. (This would amount to around $42 billion if adjusted for inflation into today's dollars.)

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty in 1965 welfare spending has exploded. The rapid growth in welfare costs has continued to the present.

*
In constant dollars, welfare spending has risen every year but four since the beginning of the War on Poverty in 1965;
*
As a nation, we now spend ten times as much on welfare, after adjusting for inflation, as was spent when Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty. We spend twice as much as when Ronald Reagan was first elected.
*
Cash, food, housing, and energy aid alone are nearly seven times greater today than in 1965, after adjusting for inflation;
* As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, welfare spending has grown from 1.2 percent in 1965 to 4.4 percent today.

Sure, its not free. But overall poverty dropped from 13.9% in 1965 to 9.8% today (2006). That's a 30% decline, which in my book is a pretty good improvement.

The 4.4% figure used by the Heritage Foundation (we wouldn't expect them to present figures in a light favorable to welfare, would we?) is a little higher than the 3.2% for "income support" and "medicaid" the CBO budget is broken into. But the Heritgage chart affirms what I said: Since the early 70s, the vast bulk of the growth is attributed to Medicaid, which reflects the fact that health care costs overall have been growing much faster other costs. Putting Medicaid aside, other welfare costs have not grown much as a percentage of GDP.

We spend 10 times more than we did when LBJ first launched his war on poverty after inflation, its in the link. That's a substantial increase or an explosion of spending.

You said there was an explosion since 1969, not since LBJ first launched his war on poverty. So let's look at the claim you made, OK?

According to your chart, spending since 1969 increased from about $100 billion to about $400 billion in 2000, or 4 times. Since 1969, real GDP has grown from 3.7 trillion to 9.8T in 2000, or a little less than three times. So, since 1969, welfare spending, as set out in the chart by the right wing anti-welfare Heritage Foundation, as just grown just a little ahead of GDP growth.

But your chart also makes it clear to see that the bulk of the real growth has been in health care costs via Medicaid. In fact, according to your chart, "Cash food and housing" assistance was almost $100 billion in 1975, and is about $150 billion today. A little more than a 50% increase. Real GDP was 4.3T in 1975 and 9.8T today. It has more than doubled. What that tells us is that cash food and housing assistance has, as a percentage of the budget, actually shrank from 1975 to 2000.

So what we see is that since the early 70s, the increase in welfare spending relative to GDP has been because of the increase in health care; and taking out medicare, welfare spending has remained relatively stable as a percent of GDP.

Which is I think what I originally said.

The poverty rate is what....
View attachment 7371
Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The official poverty rate in the U.S. increased for four consecutive years, from a 26-year low of 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004, then declined somewhat to 12.3% in 2006. This means that 36.5 million people (approx 1 in 8 Americans) were below the official poverty thresholds in 2006, compared to 31.1 million in 2000[14], and that there was an increase of 4.9 million poor from 2000 to 2006 while the total population grew by 17.5 million. [15] The poverty rate for children under 18 years old increased from 16.2% to 17.8% from 2000 to 2004 and had dropped to 17.4% in 2005 and 2006. [16] The 2007-2008 poverty threshold was measured according to the HHS Poverty Guidelines[17] which are illustrated in the table below.

Wiki is a fairly good source, but I'll rely on the US census bureau for poverty statistics, as that is the agency responsible for keeping them.

Damn are you just making stuff up now?

Pretty funny thing for you to say after making up the claim that JFK authorized waterboarding.

But what exactly are you accusing me of making up. I've made up nothing.