Support NeoGAF

[zero shift]

This is undeniably false.

In 2011, we spent $78B on the SNAP program alone (source: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/04-19-SNAP.pdf). With total spending of $3.6T in 2011 (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget), that's 2.2% of the federal budget.

So, if we consider food stamps to be the only welfare program (which is an unbelievable stretch), the number presented by mother jones is barely 1/5 of the size of the actual number.

Mother Jones' own site cites a study in a different article that shows that we spend roughly $1.8B per year on welfare programs (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/how-much-do-we-spend-nonworking-poor). Taking out social security and medicare, which I would rather not debate even though they technically are wealth transfers, we are talking about roughly $700B, which would be about 20% of the federal budget.

tl;dr = mother jones says mother jones is wrong by more than a a factor of 10, possibly a factor of 100 depending on how you define a welfare program. Good mythbusting.

While it isn't true, welfare as a whole really isn't that much of the budget. It is half of defense for example. This is less than any other first world country besides Japan (who has higher poverty than us), and while Mother Jones's quote is wrong it does go against the whole "benefits are bankrupting our country!"

Why are they looking at numbers for just the US? What about on a global scale?
If poverty is decreasing globally (6.5 billion people) but increasing in the US (300 million people) does that mean "We're winning the war on poverty" is a myth?

Because this if focused on America and not Asia and Africa? If there was an article about busting a myth of "There are less murders now than ever before" in Honduras and I claim that it isn't true because homicide rates around the world are dropping, does that make any sense?

 

[benjipwns]

Say you are working class, would you want to go back 50 years? Me? Possibly. Gay rights is a big issue for me, but not everything is better. A lot is, but many things are actually worse too.

You're nuts. This is nuts. Pecan level.

 

[mustafa]

While it isn't true, welfare as a whole really isn't that much of the budget. It is half of defense for example. This is less than any other first world country besides Japan (who has higher poverty than us), and while Mother Jones's quote is wrong it does go against the whole "benefits are bankrupting our country!"

Military spending is bankrupting our country. Welfare spending is bankrupting our country. Those statements aren't mutually exclusive. We can have 2 or more things that are bankrupting our country. Mother Jones' quote doesn't help anything because it is so absurdly wrong that it misleads readers.

 

[Coriolanus]

Military spending is bankrupting our country. Welfare spending is bankrupting our country. Those statements aren't mutually exclusive. We can have 2 or more things that are bankrupting our country. Mother Jones' quote doesn't help anything because it is so absurdly wrong that it misleads readers.

They are, however, wrong.

 

[SwiftDeath]

The age of poverty is finally over. We made it guys.

Clearly we just have to elect a homeless person president.

Hey elect a homeless woman president and kill 2 birds with one stone!

 

[entremet]

Military spending is bankrupting our country. Welfare spending is bankrupting our country. Those statements aren't mutually exclusive. We can have 2 or more things that are bankrupting our country. Mother Jones' quote doesn't help anything because it is so absurdly wrong that it misleads readers.

Explain how a country with a FIAT currency can go bankrupt.

 

[Coriolanus]

Explain how a country with a FIAT currency can go bankrupt.

Loss of trust in currency/country.

Not so much the country going bankrupt, though. More a sympton of the current government becoming unsustainable. See: Argentina, Brazil circa early 90's, Venezuela.

But yes, a fiat country cannot go bankrupt in the same way a person can.

 

[Bolivar]

#livingthehighlife

at least their fridge is clean. The fridge I share with 3 other roommates is a fucking mess since its packed with tons of food all the time.

Honestly its not that easy being able to afford copius amounts of food. I have to take the trash out all the time cuz of wrappers and bottles. The kitchen gets dirty quicker. Sometimes I get high and eat so much I feel sick the next day. Its rough.

 

[zero shift]

Military spending is bankrupting our country. Welfare spending is bankrupting our country. Those statements aren't mutually exclusive. We can have 2 or more things that are bankrupting our country. Mother Jones' quote doesn't help anything because it is so absurdly wrong that it misleads readers.

The stereotype is that welfare and benefits constitute the majority of government spending. That isn't true when it's barely over 10%..

 

[God Dayumm]

Isn't military spending a form of welfare as well? Any numbers on how much can be cut before it affects the people that depend on it?

 

[Beelzeboss]

We're winning the war on poverty!

When everyone is poor, no one will be.

 

[Darkgran]

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Who honestly believes any of those

GOP voters

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Is this for real?

I love it. The country gets richer so obviously what we consider poverty should, like, never ever change ever.

 

[Dark Octave]

Sorry, it's best I could do on short notice. And those microwave stats. lolol

lol This has to be true though. After my parents split and we moved across the country, we grew up poor and me and everyone I knew always had gaming systems.

This documentary called Tent City on Netflix showed a homless couple that got government funded housing for a year and they were playing GTAIV and had a good stack of PS3 games and they didn't even have jobs.

 

[Desi]

Well having a outlet for recreation is important. I wouldn't frown on someone owning a game system with a stack or so of games, I haven't paid more than $15 for a game(s) in years myself.

The Welfare budget can be a bit misleading as all numbers are since it is up to each state to allocate the money as they see fit. Living in Baltimore City I can see how some of the money could have "disappeared" like much of the education budget did with our last Director of Schools.

 

[rudieboy77]

The stereotype is that welfare and benefits constitute the majority of government spending. That isn't true when it's barely over 10%..

Depends on what you think of as welfare. If you include "defense" spending, banking/investing, farm, energy, business subsidies, foreign aid (not tied to high interest loans), tax kick backs etc... Welfare could make up almost all of the yearly budget.

 

[benjipwns]

Individual welfare might not be a huge share of the budget but corporate and district/state welfare certainly is.

 

[Earthstrike]

This is undeniably false.

In 2011, we spent $78B on the SNAP program alone (source: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/04-19-SNAP.pdf). With total spending of $3.6T in 2011 (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget), that's 2.2% of the federal budget.

So, if we consider food stamps to be the only welfare program (which is an unbelievable stretch), the number presented by mother jones is barely 1/5 of the size of the actual number.

Mother Jones' own site cites a study in a different article that shows that we spend roughly $1.8B per year on welfare programs (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/how-much-do-we-spend-nonworking-poor). Taking out social security and medicare, which I would rather not debate even though they technically are wealth transfers, we are talking about roughly $700B, which would be about 20% of the federal budget.

tl;dr = mother jones says mother jones is wrong by more than a a factor of 10, possibly a factor of 100 depending on how you define a welfare program. Good mythbusting.

Wait, run that 700 billion number by me again. How did you get that?

 

[Windu]

I'm surprise not more people are talking about this one. Very eye raising.

1.1 million is not that many people in the grand scheme of things.

 

[BurnOutBrighter]

not going to even post all ten?

Now you know what it's like to live in poverty.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Why are people talking about fridges? Do I even want to know? I don't think I have the stomach for fox news bullshit.

 

[bomma_man]

No need to apologise.
As long as you acquire the skills, I agree, and you're correct that different people will have different ways of learning these skills. The point we both emphasise is that they should be a requirement for any kind of higher education, independent of the information one needs to know in order to do their job.

It's scary that most of the knowledge I have on the topic comes from GAF (thanks Opiate).

 

[demon]

Why are people talking about fridges? Do I even want to know? I don't think I have the stomach for fox news bullshit.

Fox News pointed out the disturbing statistics that most "poor" people in fact have refrigerators. Which, of course, means they're not really poor. You know, because it's not like virtually every rental apartment no matter how cheap will include a fridge in the kitchen.

 

[TAJ]

How is 0.47 percent of the budget considered "bankrupting"?

It's actually closer to 3% if you count housing subsidies. Still probably about a tenth to a twentieth of what most people think it is.
But in a typical year corporate welfare is about twice that even going by the most conservative definition of what constitutes corporate welfare. Much more some years.

 

[BigDug13]

lol This has to be true though. After my parents split and we moved across the country, we grew up poor and me and everyone I knew always had gaming systems.

This documentary called Tent City on Netflix showed a homless couple that got government funded housing for a year and they were playing GTAIV and had a good stack of PS3 games and they didn't even have jobs.

But they're usually old for really poor people. A hand me down console from a relative or cheaply purchased used system. I was playing Atari 2600 when most kids had NES. I finally got an NES when I had friends playing Genesis and SNES.

If you're willing to stay a gen behind, you can game supremely cheap.

 

[Darkgran]

Is this for real?

I love it. The country gets richer so obviously what we consider poverty should, like, never ever change ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zx71SC7V3M

Edit:

I love the title "the new poor"

 

[mustafa]

Wait, run that 700 billion number by me again. How did you get that?

$1.8B - social security - medicare

or

Unemployment + SSI + Temporary Assistance for Needy Families + SNAP + School Lunches + EITC + Child tax credit + Medicaid + Childrens Health Insurance Program

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

Electricity is a luxury.

Have a car, TV, eat everyday? Then you're not poor by Conservative standards.

You have to be a caricature straigh out of Oliver Twist to be considered poor to them.

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

lol This has to be true though. After my parents split and we moved across the country, we grew up poor and me and everyone I knew always had gaming systems.

This documentary called Tent City on Netflix showed a homless couple that got government funded housing for a year and they were playing GTAIV and had a good stack of PS3 games and they didn't even have jobs.

The really old used games sell for like $2-3.
Any person can pick up a used PS2 system for $20.

That's not really a luxury.

 

[outunderthestars]

I'm surprise not more people are talking about this one. Very eye raising.

Well look at number of bullshit degree programs out there. A BA in women's studies or art history isn't exactly going to make someone a more attractive candidate for a job.

 

[The Lamp]

 

[BitStyle]

LOL

 

[mightynine]

Is that real? Can't be right?

The video game picture is photoshopped.

The refrigerator is not. Gotta love how they used a fully stocked, nice model.

 

[zero shift]

lol This has to be true though. After my parents split and we moved across the country, we grew up poor and me and everyone I knew always had gaming systems.

This documentary called Tent City on Netflix showed a homless couple that got government funded housing for a year and they were playing GTAIV and had a good stack of PS3 games and they didn't even have jobs.

For the Tent City thing it is possible that they had the games prior to becoming homeless. That being said, video games are pretty cheap. 20 used games is the equivalent of $250.

 

[Earthstrike]

$1.8B - social security - medicare

or

Unemployment + SSI + Temporary Assistance for Needy Families + SNAP + School Lunches + EITC + Child tax credit + Medicaid + Childrens Health Insurance Program

For all the insurances, do people not pay into them? For instance in Canada I pay into an EI program so that if I lose my job, I have a stream of income coming, funded by what I paid into it. Are you considering insurance programs of this nature welfare?

 

[biggersmaller]

Although Fox News is utter bullshit - it is far better to be "impoverished" in modern day America than nearly anywhere/anytime else. Even raised on public assistance in Reagan's America in an urban area, my family had food on the table and a roof over our heads. Even with Dad working at Burger King and Mom working at Dayton's - we knew we would be sleeping under a bridge.

The problem with partisan politics is that liberals refuse to believe things are pretty damn good for America's poor and conservatives refuse to believe public assistance funding is not the driving force behind government deficits.

The more shocking statistics like those found at Mother Jones or Fox News are - the more dubious they are.

 

[jetjevons]

Why are people talking about fridges? Do I even want to know? I don't think I have the stomach for fox news bullshit.

I think Fox news said something along the lines of "some or most of the people living beneath the poverty line have FRIDGES!" Cue John Stewart making a joke about a poor person living the life of luxury because they are able to refrigerate milk. "I'm so wealthy I don't even have to drink all this milk at once!"

 

[Dead Man]

You're nuts. This is nuts. Pecan level.

Yeah, fuck job security, housing affordability, a higher relative wage, who needs all that?

 

[Devolution]

Society is going to have rungs but I don't understand the need to make sure the bottom lives in absolute squalor, destitution and misery.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zx71SC7V3M

Edit:

I love the title "the new poor"

sounds like a good punk band name.

The really old used games sell for like $2-3.
Any person can pick up a used PS2 system for $20.

That's not really a luxury.

I hate the luxury argument. It says to me that poor people aren't allowed any entertainment. Video games can be had for cheap (like you said) and can provide a great return on money spent vs time spent (in fact it can be cheap as fuck, cheaper than anything else really) and life fucking sucks when you just work and sleep.

Like what the fuck else are you going to do with your miserable life but sit on a chair in a dusty room twiddling your fingers until your next shift happens?

 

[Log4Girlz]

If you're not face down in a ditch you're not poor

-signed Fox News

 

[YoungHav]

Sorry, poor people get free public school. What more do these leeches want?

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

Society is going to have rungs but I don't understand the need to make sure the bottom lives in absolute squalor, destitution and misery.

because people like hurting people.

 

[BajiBoxer]

For the Tent City thing it is possible that they had the games prior to becoming homeless. That being said, video games are pretty cheap. 20 used games is the equivalent of $250.

There's also charities, especially around Christmas, that may get some pretty nice gifts to needy families.

 

[benjipwns]

Yeah, fuck job security, housing affordability, a higher relative wage, who needs all that?

You'd prefer to be fifty years poorer as long as everyone else is within slightly closer bounds of poverty to you?

Ignore that your "job security" comes in part because of less competition from certain groups.

 

[Dead Man]

You'd prefer to be fifty years poorer as long as everyone else is within slightly closer bounds of poverty to you?

Ignore that your "job security" comes in part because of less competition from certain groups.

50 years poorer? What does that mean? If it means a blue collar job can pay for a mortgage, I'll take being poorer. And I did say there were also downsides, but Gates was acting as nothing at all was better then. And increased work opportunities for non white and non male people is not the main reason for job insecurity.

 

[benjipwns]

There's been 50 years of wealth created since 1964. We're using part of it right now.

That mortgage you'd have would give you a smaller house, less amenities and everything else. More of your wages would be consumed by transportation and food AND the house payment.

 

[zero shift]

Although Fox News is utter bullshit - it is far better to be "impoverished" in modern day America than nearly anywhere/anytime else. Even raised on public assistance in Reagan's America in an urban area, my family had food on the table and a roof over our heads. Even with Dad working at Burger King and Mom working at Dayton's - we knew we would be sleeping under a bridge.

The problem with partisan politics is that liberals refuse to believe things are pretty damn good for America's poor and conservatives refuse to believe public assistance funding is not the driving force behind government deficits.

The more shocking statistics like those found at Mother Jones or Fox News are - the more dubious they are.

It is true that most poor Americans are still better off than any country that isn't in Western Europe or called Canada. The reality is that you aren't going to rally up voters by telling them we should improve the convo my via education and infrastructure spending and taxation. Nor will you rally up voters by talking about tax breaks for corporations and less regulations for businesses. People get amped by telling them that people are starving to death or that we send so much money that we are about to have an economic collapse.

There's been 50 years of wealth created since 1964. We're using part of it right now.

That mortgage you'd have would give you a smaller house, less amenities and everything else. More of your wages would be consumed by transportation and food AND the house payment.

I mean it could balance out. But not by much. Hard to image wanting to live in the 1950s.

 

[Dead Man]

There's been 50 years of wealth created since 1964. We're using part of it right now.

That mortgage you'd have would give you a smaller house, less amenities and everything else. More of your wages would be consumed by transportation and food AND the house payment.

Not in the country I live in. Housing affordability is at record lows in Australia. At any time in the past, an average mortgage would consume less of an average paycheque. A cheap house starts at 400k.

Not fun.

So yeah, no era is perfect, but Gates is off his rocker if he thinks nothing was better 50 years ago. Overall, for me, now is better, but to act as if there are not significant things that have gotten worse is utter stupidity.