Barone: Romney to win comfortably

stormwatch89 wrote:Gosh, I hope he's right, but am not so sure. Reading this kind of stuff makes me think that it's a lot easier to promise handouts than try to offer work and with our "entitlement" mentality, that's where the votes will be.

It could easily make him one of the most powerful "presidents" to date, I fear.

Roughly 100 million people—one-third of the U.S. population—receive aid from at least one means-tested welfare program each month. Average benefits come to around $9,000 per recipient. If converted to cash, means-tested welfare spending is more than five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the United States.

Despite the fact that welfare spending was already at record levels when he took office, President Obama has increased federal means-tested welfare spending by more than a third. Benefits under “means-tested” programs are calculated based on a recipient’s means to support himself; in other words, they are intended to assist low-income Americans. The character of this aid is hand-out more than hand-up. Able-bodied recipients rarely are required to work or prepare for work to receive aid.

At the beginning of this year, only four of the 80-plus federal welfare programs had work requirements; the Obama Administration has now suspended the work requirements in two of these. After the Obama Administration suspended the work requirement from the food stamp program in 2009, the number of people on food stamps doubled.

The more than 80 federal means-tested aid programs provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to low-income people. Here’s how the spending breaks down:

Federal: At $746 billion, federal means-tested spending exceeded spending on Medicare ($480 billion), Social Security ($725 billion), or the defense budget ($540 billion).
State: In 2011, state contributions into federal welfare programs came to $201 billion, and independent state programs contributed around $9 billion.
Combined: Overall means-tested welfare spending from federal and state sources reached from all sources reached $956 billion.

Some might argue that this is a reasonable, temporary response to the recession, but Obama seeks a permanent increase in the size of the welfare state.

According to the President’s budget plans for fiscal year 2013, means-tested welfare will not decline as the recession ends, but will continue to grow rapidly for the next decade. Overall, President Obama plans to spend $12.7 trillion on means-tested welfare over the next decade.

Welfare spending has long passed the amount spent on defense. In 1993, welfare spending exceeded defense spending for the first time since the Great Depression of the 1930s. In subsequent years, the ratio of welfare to defense spending averaged about $1.33 to $1. Obama’s spending plans would inflate this disparity: By 2022, there will be $2.33 in federal and state welfare spending for every $1 spent on national defense.

Needless to say—but we’ll say it anyway—Obama’s big spending plans will result in ruinous and unsustainable budget deficits. These deficits are, in part, the result of dramatic, permanent increases in means-tested welfare. An important step in reducing the federal deficit would be to return welfare spending to pre-recession levels.

Doubling the welfare rolls, handing out benefits without any work requirements, and spending twice as much on welfare as we spend on defense: This is Obama’s new normal.

Floridatexan wrote:
Storm, you have failed to provide a link for all your claims.

Here's a discussion of government hiring during the last few presidents:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2012/07/economic-policy

Nekochan wrote: I hope that the losing side accepts

Bob wrote:

Nekochan wrote: I hope that the losing side accepts

hahahahahaha. that's a good one.

Nekochan wrote:doesn't go nuts.

Bob wrote:

Nekochan wrote:doesn't go nuts.

hahahahahahah. that's a good one too.

Nekochan wrote:I know, Bob. It worries me.

Bob wrote:

Nekochan wrote:I know, Bob. It worries me.

It's not like it was a couple of decades ago. All you need do is listen to the media figures. listen to the politicians. listen to the bloggers. listen to the social media (this place is a good example). There is NO longer any shared feeling of being all one country. It's two sides who each see the other as the ENEMY.
Each side sees the other as the destroyer of the country.
The only thing short of civil war is outright shooting at each other. But in some ways it's even worse than the 1860's. Then they were divided over really only one issue ("slavery" or "states rights" depending on who is telling it). THIS TIME we are divided on literally EVERYTHING. There is no issue in which one side does not see the other as dead wrong and the enemy.None of that is hyperbole.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Bob wrote:

Nekochan wrote:I know, Bob. It worries me.

It's not like it was a couple of decades ago. All you need do is listen to the media figures. listen to the politicians. listen to the bloggers. listen to the social media (this place is a good example). There is NO longer any shared feeling of being all one country. It's two sides who each see the other as the ENEMY.
Each side sees the other as the destroyer of the country.
The only thing short of civil war is outright shooting at each other. But in some ways it's even worse than the 1860's. Then they were divided over really only one issue ("slavery" or "states rights" depending on who is telling it). THIS TIME we are divided on literally EVERYTHING. There is no issue in which one side does not see the other as dead wrong and the enemy.None of that is hyperbole.

The ruling oligarchy is just loving this, too. Because, divided, we are easier to manipulate into their New World Order. If the truth were to ever filter through, we would unite against these manipulators and their heads would be publicly displayed on pikes for all to see.