Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip
Ihavenofingerprints wrote:I don't know how to word this question in a way that describes my exact query here, but here is my thought process:
People who receive welfare are unlikely to save that money.
If the money they receive is entirely spent on rent and goods/services then the tax businesses pay in this area (the percentage of the federal budget allocated to welfare) will be repaid by those on welfare.
So it would seem that welfare at the lower levels is less "wealth redistribution" and more of a loan to the poorest people in society to help them get by.
I tried to find academic articles on this topic but struggled. Anyone got any good links that discuss the efficiency or are familiar with the topic?
epete wrote:I've seen reports and articles documenting that welfare spending is one of the best ways to stimulate an economy. As you say, virtually all of it is pumped straight back into the economy.
CdesignProponentsist wrote:epete wrote:I've seen reports and articles documenting that welfare spending is one of the best ways to stimulate an economy. As you say, virtually all of it is pumped straight back into the economy.
From the government to welfare recipient to the crack dealer to the gold watch manufacturer.
CdesignProponentsist wrote:epete wrote:I've seen reports and articles documenting that welfare spending is one of the best ways to stimulate an economy. As you say, virtually all of it is pumped straight back into the economy.
From the government to welfare recipient to the crack dealer to the gold watch manufacturer.
Loren Michael wrote:How do we determine efficiency here? Like, what's the intent with welfare and what is the value we're putting on that?
Swed Simon wrote:
If we talk about reducing absolute poverty (in at least developed countries), suggestions on any better alternative would this far be in a state of theoretical considerations rather than empirical such (see my earlier post). What we do know is that countries with relatively less welfare are negatively correlated to reduction of absolute poverty, in comparison to welfare states*.
Developed countries welfare expenditures are also positively correlated to giving more to foreign aid*. An explanation suggested is that welfare states creates a national ideal of giving, and that this ideal ''spills over'' to include other countries. National welfare states (in developed countries) are ''efficient'' for other countries as well.
*http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/7/9/0/p97901_index.html?phpsessid=80b15uhhp3dp7ahop91l614e16
*Not to be confused with socialism
Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Loren Michael wrote:How do we determine efficiency here? Like, what's the intent with welfare and what is the value we're putting on that?
There's a couple of things I'm thinking of here.
First of all I was just wondering if businesses get most of the tax they pay in this area back through people spending their welfare money? But now I'm also wondering if giving the poorest welfare increase the number of consumers within an economy, and increases demand enough to benefit the economy more than removing this area of tax altogether.
I know we can just point at societies with a welfare system and show it works. But I'm wondering what it is that makes this system work, so we can know how to maximize it's benefits or reduce it's losses.
Ihavenofingerprints wrote:I don't know how to word this question in a way that describes my exact query here, but here is my thought process:
People who receive welfare are unlikely to save that money.
If the money they receive is entirely spent on rent and goods/services then the tax businesses pay in this area (the percentage of the federal budget allocated to welfare) will be repaid by those on welfare.
So it would seem that welfare at the lower levels is less "wealth redistribution" and more of a loan to the poorest people in society to help them get by.
I tried to find academic articles on this topic but struggled. Anyone got any good links that discuss the efficiency or are familiar with the topic?
n the United States, “welfare” is most often used to refer to means-tested cash benefits, especially the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program and its successor, theTemporary
Assistance for Needy Families
Block Grant. Sometimes, especially by critics of government social spending, it is used to refer to all means tested programs, including for example, healthcare through Medicaid and food and nutrition programs (SNAP).[20]
AFDC (originally called Aid to Dependent Children) ADC was created during the Great Depression to alleviate the burden of poverty of families with children and allow widowed mothers to maintain their households. (New Deal employment program such as the Works Progress Administration primarily served men.) Prior to the New Deal, anti-poverty programs were primarily operated by private charities or state or local governments; however, these programs were overwhelmed by the depth of need during the Depression.[21] The United States has no national program of cash assistance for non-disabled poor individuals who are not raising children. The exception to this is permanent alimony, which is still administered in a handful of states including New Jersey, Florida and Oregon. Alimony Reform movements in these states are attempting to end this form of private welfare.[22]
In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act changed the structure of Welfare payments and added new criteria to states that received Welfare funding. After reforms, which President Clinton said would "end Welfare as we know it",[23][dead link] amounts from the federal government were given out in a flat rateper state based on population.[24][dead link] Each state must meet certain criteria to ensure recipients are being encouraged to work themselves out of Welfare. The new program is called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).[25][26] It encourages states to require some sort of employment search in exchange for providing funds to individuals, and imposes a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance.[23][25][27] In FY 2010, 31.8% of TANF families were white, 31.9% were African-American, and 30.0% were Hispanic.[26]
According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released September 13, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% (46.2 million) in 2010,[28] up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993. In 2008, 13.2% (39.8 million) Americans lived in relative poverty.[29]
House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) could use the same trick he used to avoid the “fiscal cliff” earlier this year: pass a harsher version of the bill through the Tea Party-controlled House with only Republican votes, and then turn around and pass a final compromise version — with lower cuts to food stamps — using mostly Democratic votes. But there’s reason to believe that the Tea Party wing may not stand for such a maneuver — and that the farm bill could die on the vine for the second time in a year.
It’s those food stamps cuts that threaten to doom the whole enchilada. The Senate passed a farm bill last year that included $4 billion in cuts to the food stamp program and likely will again. But splitting the difference with the House version — say, adding another $8 billion in cuts to food stamps — is a non-starter in the Senate. Meanwhile, the Tea Party wing of the House killed the farm bill last year because food stamp cuts weren’t deep enough, so it is unlikely to support less than the $20 billion figure currently in the House version.
SNAP Rolls: They’re Elevated for a Reason
May 21, 2013 at 9:09 pm
So I’m driving into work the other day, and since 8-10 hours of this stuff isn’t enough for me, I’m listening to wonk radio where this guy is going on about the SNAP, or Food Stamps, program. He’s a knowledgeable guy making a lot of sense, until he goes off and says something to the effect of: unemployment’s coming down, so the SNAP rolls should be coming down too.
It’s not an unreasonable thought, and it probably resonated with lots of listeners (or at least with the three other people in the world listening to this sort of thing at 8am in the morning). The notion that the SNAP rolls are “too high” has also become a bit of a conservative meme.
But it’s wrong in at least two ways. First, because the labor force participation rate has been dropping, in part due to people dropping of out the labor force due to lack of opportunity, the unemployment rate is a less reliable measure of labor slack right now (it’s artificially low because of the dropouts). A better indicator of the weakness of the recovery and the continued need for nutritional support for low-income households is the employment rate—the share of the population employed. And that’s been flat-lining for a while, meaning that job growth has just kept up with population growth. Under those conditions, you’d expect elevated SNAP rolls.
The figure, not included here, makes the case. It shows SNAP recipients as a share of the population compared to the unemployment rate and the employment rate (it’s on the right axis). As you can see, unemployment drifts down but the employment rate stays flat. I’d argue that right now, it’s the latter—employment rates—that captures the weakness in labor demand more so than unemployment.*
Skagit River Bridge Collapse: Interstate 5 Span In Washington State Falls Into The Water
Posted: 05/23/2013 10:46 pm EDT | Updated: 05/24/2013 7:48 am EDT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/2 ... 29496.html
The Interstate 5 Bridge over the Skagit River in Washington state collapsed around 7 p.m. on Thursday, dumping cars and people into the water, KIRO-TV reported.
According to the Trooper Mark Francis, public information officer for the Washington State Patrol, both north and southbound lanes of the interstate were affected.
No fatalities were reported.
Continues…
How do we determine efficiency here? Like, what's the intent with welfare and what is the value we're putting on that?
Are there alternatives to welfare that accomplish those ends at a lower cost?
I think it's kind of hard to talk about this without considering specific policies. Different policies accomplish the same end at different costs and in different circumstances.
In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), replacing the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) as the largest single source of federal funding for workforce development activities. WIA was to create a universal access system of one-stop career centers, which would provide access to training and employment services for a range of workers, including low-income adults, low-income youth, and dislocated workers.
As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Congress made substantial, badly-needed new investments in WIA. As Congress looks to reauthorize WIA in 2012 it will be an opportunity to help ensure our nation’s workers receive the services and supports they need to go back to work and begin rebuilding our economy. Ensuring that every U.S. worker has at least an industry certification, vocational degree or two years of college should be a national priority.
This page contains overview materials on WIA, as well as analysis and recommendations for reauthorization developed by National Skills Coalition.
CdesignProponentsist wrote:epete wrote:I've seen reports and articles documenting that welfare spending is one of the best ways to stimulate an economy. As you say, virtually all of it is pumped straight back into the economy.
From the government to welfare recipient to the crack dealer to the gold watch manufacturer.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest