Posted by jack
1. These 10 States are classified as death spiral states according to a study done by Forbes magazine. In other words, these are states that are in terrible financial shape because of mismanagement:
California
New Mexico
Mississippi (Mississippi hopes to fix this by busing homeless to CA)
Alabama (Alabama hopes to fix this by busing homeless to CA)
Illinois
Kentucky
Ohio
New York
Maine, and
South Carolina (South Carolina hopes to fix this by busing homeless to CA)
And what happens when all the Middle East and African “migrants” come here?
Captain Jack, you’re just going to have to sell more paintings to help pay for it all.
Warm up those brushes and get to it, Jack!
Whoa. Deja vu. I could have sworn I’ve debunked this old meme here before.
Anyway, here you go again:
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/jan/11/chain-email/chain-email-says-11-states-have-more-people-welfar/
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/01/death-spiral-states/
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/deathspiral.asp
https://www.truthorfiction.com/more-people-are-on-welfare-than-are-employed-in-11-states/
Long story short: the claim that “10 States now have more people on welfare than they do employed” is false. No state even comes close.
2. Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reports that in fiscal year
2012, between food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid and
other benefits, the average U.S. Household below the poverty line
received $168.00 a day in government support.
You can’t possible believe this. It’s an insane thing to believe. And it isn’t true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-misleading-chart-on-welfare-spending/2013/02/20/1b40bcde-7ba4-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_blog.html?utm_term=.f3e9929355e3
Chris is right, this was a debunked letter moving around the internet…ORIGINS: In November 2012, Forbes magazine published an article listing eleven states (California, Maine, New Mexico, Hawaii, Alabama, Mississippi, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky, and South Carolina) which it identified as being in financial “death spirals” — that is, according to Forbes, those states were at “high risk of a fiscal tailspin” which made them “danger spots for investors.” As elements of this article made their way around the Internet through various repostings and forwardings, the “death spiral” label was simplified into one supposedly denoting states in which the number of welfare recipients was greater than the number of employed persons. That isn’t what Forbes originally reported, however.
Thanks, Jack. Much respect.
Chris, we receive a large amount of interesting information for consideration and there’s only so many minutes in the day, but that should be no excuse. Constant vigilance is the only answer, and I must do better. Thanks for spotting this one.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2015/12/22/which-are-death-spiral-states/#65974dc36840
Snopes —
“Forbes determined states with more “takers than makers” by defining “the taker count [as] the number of state and local government workers plus the number of people on Medicaid plus 1 for each $100,000 of unfunded pension liabilities.”
No where does the author William Baldwin say that is his criteria in the article (original or re-published), what he does state is, “A taker is someone who draws money from the government, as an employee, pensioner or welfare recipient.”
It appears Snopes pulled the article’s criteria it states as fact out of a hat (or somewhere else).
Baldwin’s actual criteria is not an unreasonable, nor — for that matter — is Snopes (evidently incorrect) interpretation of his criteria. Some may think one or both are unreasonable.
“Does your state have more takers than makers? Check it out.
“California has a powerful economy, with 14 million private-sector jobs. It also has burdens: welfare recipients (12.6 million), generously paid government employees (2.1 million) and people collecting government pensions (1.3 million).
“Add up the numbers. There are 114 clients drawing from the government for every 100 people chipping in by working outside the government and paying taxes. We’re calling this the Feedme Ratio. Six states have a number over 100.
“These states are at risk of going into a downward spiral in the next recession. The burdens will remain but too many of the providers—employers in the private sector—might shrink or decamp. Why add jobs in a state that asks each productive worker to carry not just his or her own weight but also the weight of one other person?
“A City Journal essay by Victor Davis Hanson notes that the state spends $10 billion a year on entitlements for illegal aliens.”
So, to reiterate, while correlation does not imply causation, three of the states that Mr. Baldwin says are in a “Death Spiral” (California, New York and Illinois) also happen to be the states carrying 32% of the illegal immigrant population for the entire US.
As the widely respected and prominent historian and author Victor Davis Hansen states, “California has the nation’s largest population of illegal aliens, on whom it spends an estimated $10 billion annually in entitlements. The illegals also deprive the Golden State’s economy of billions of dollars every year by sending remittances to Latin America.”
https://www.city-journal.org/html/california-here-we-stay-13507.html
Jack’s post that 10 states have more welfare recipients than employed people may be factually incorrect, but that does not change the seriousness of the truth of the situation for what Baldwin terms “Death Spiral States.” In fact, if you read both the Forbes article and the Victor Davis Hansen article (which Baldwin quotes), Jack has been instrumental in exposing the truth rather than obscuring it by putting the erroneous “more people on welfare than employed” information up on Post Scripts.
Thank you Jack.
This post contains errors. It has been corrected and edited for clarification below in the main section of comments.
Not so fast. The statistics are not in error, although they may have been disseminated inaccurately, much like any story passed from one person to another.
Oct 26, 2012, The Weekly Standard, “Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty”
August, 2013 WSJ, “Work or Welfare: What Pays More?”
February 2014, Forbes, “The U.S. Middle Class Is Turning Proletarian”
Joel Kotkin is the author of the above article. Regarding the highlighted portion, I was a Tea Party enthusiast and I am definitely on the right and yet I agree with his pro-growth solutions so, I am perplexed by his assertion that the right will not support them. It’s also clear that many of us chose to vote for Donald Trump once he became the candidate because of his interest in growing the economy and middle class jobs.
Tina, from your Weekly Standard article:
“According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795,” the Senate Budget Committee notes. “If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011.
I’ve explained before why it makes no sense to divide by “the number of households with income below the poverty line” in order to calculate the average spending on welfare programs per household. Many of the programs Sessions counted in his calculations also serve people above the poverty line. It would make far more sense to divide by the number of households receiving some form of welfare. But that wouldn’t get the Republicans on the Budget Committee, led by Jeff Sessions, the absurd number that they wanted, so they chose to divide by the number of households below the poverty line instead.
To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year.
There is no evidence, other than Sessions’ nonsensical calculation, that any household below the poverty line gets $61,194 a year. That number doesn’t pass the smell test.
What evidence do you have that Republicans “want” the California economy to fail?
The state has been run by Democrats for some time now. They’ve enacted left-wing economic policies and from my observation the policies are causing the state to sink lower and lower. Those who live and work in the wealthy areas may not realize it…privileged as they are…but much of the rest of California is struggling. Our schools are not even close to what they once were in terms of student achievement or curriculum even in the wealthy areas of the state. The people are over taxed and the unfunded pensions/perks are breaking the budget: “Although its 2014-15 budget was balanced, California’s state government ended the fiscal year $175.1 billion in the red, thanks largely to state retirement obligations that had to be included in its balance sheet for the first time.”
Yeah, they used to hide this debt from us. Now they are compelled by law to disclose it.
It’s inexcusable that all of those who represent us manage our hard earned tax money so poorly. They have a fiduciary responsibility to us. But if the people don’t hold them accountable why should they care?
Celebrate? I don’t think that word adequately describes the point being made.
The point is the profound ignorance of California policymakers who offer fat carrots to other states to send the problem our way. The message to other states? Californians love spending money on the hopelessly indigent and addicted why not bus yours to us? We might as well put up neon billboards all across the nation, “California – the Go-To-State for Beggars, Derelicts, and Addicts”
We aren’t against offering assistance to people in need. But it’s easy enough to identify those who are down on their luck and want help. They show up; they make an effort! We have services for those people. They aren’t the ones loitering in our streets, sleeping in our parks, damaging and defacing property, at times terrorizing citizens, and leaving garbage behind them.
Those who have no intention of lifting themselves up should not be encouraged in their dysfunction and California cities and citizens are nuts to encourage them to come and stay. Enabling them, is not the answer. It’s sad but nothing can be done for them until they choose to change their own lives.
The mentally ill are another problem. That won”t be fixed until the laws are changed.
Bottom line? We Americans are a hearty, hard working people. We are also very generous with our time and our money. Government policies that have compromised the working man and blunted his opportunity should be rejected. Government policies that create less than 2% growth and a stagnant economy should be rejected. We should learn the lessons of the last eight years and move on to policies that work! We know what they are…revisit Kennedy and Reagan. Both created eras of abundance, innovation, and a strong broad middle class. In a state of abundance there is more the individual as well as the community can do to help those truly in need.
What is it that ties you to failed policies?
That point was acknowledged in the Weekly Standard article, Chris: “To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year.”
Do you deny that we are spending a hell of a lot to assist people who are capable and who would rather take care of themselves?
Do you deny that we have a lot of duplicate programs and mismanaged funds?
The Republicans don’t do these studies to deceive people as you suggest but to make a larger point.
It is absurd that so many capable Americans are living lives of dependency and stagnation for lack of opportunity!
It’s absurd that so many Americans are falling into poverty, that the middle class is disappearing, and that our economy has been blunted and people denied opportunities to work and make a decent living.
It’s also unconscionable that some of it was done in order to further the left’s social and green political agenda!
Death spiral conditions are not something we should aspire to achieve.
What makes you resist so?
I didn’t say that Republicans want the economy to fail. I said they wanted to exaggerate the amount of money welfare recipients receive to justify their agenda. Since…that’s what they did, in a really overt way, I think my judgment holds up. It’s possible there was no intent to deceive, and they merely went with bad methodology because it fit their confirmation bias. But Jeff Sessions doesn’t merit the benefit of the doubt at this point. Not after all his lies about Russia.
I see now you meant this in reply to Jim, not me, Tina. I’d say it’s not so much that Republicans want the economy to fail as they want it to look like it’s failing under Democrats and succeeding under Republicans. (Of course, the reverse is true of Democrats.)
Re: “These 10 States now have more people on welfare than they do employed! California …”
6 in 10 illegal aliens the United States live in one of 20 metro areas. Three regions in Southern California make up the largest cluster of people living in the country illegally. California has the highest number of estimated illegal aliens of any state. California has nearly the same number of estimated illegal aliens as Texas and Florida combined or Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois combined.
Rank By Estimated # Of Illegal Aliens (2014 data)
1 California–2,350,000
2 Texas——-1,650,000
3 Florida—–850,000
4 New York—-775,000
5 New Jersey–500,000
6 Illinois—-450,000
(Total estimated illegal aliens 11,100,000, USA, 2014)
Now, correlation does not imply causation, but it is interesting to note —
1) Within the top 6, not only do three states — California, New York and Illinois — have more people on welfare than are employed, but Callifornia with 12% of the nation’s population spends 33% of the nation’s welfare dollars.
2) Three of the states with more people on welfare than employed (California, New York and Illinois) carry 32% of the illegal alien load for the entire nation.
3) 78% of the total US estimated population (2016) do not live in California, New York and Illinois yet those three states carry 32% of the illegal alien population load for the entire US and, coincidentally, have more people on welfare than are employed.
Well done Pie…it’s great to hear from you again. I’ve missed your sharp and to the point comments.
DITTO!!!!!
Thanks Pie, this adds a lot clarity to this enormous and growing financial/social problem. And it’s very serious problem that must be addressed! I believe that a number of our states are in a “death spiral,” as Forbes notes. California being among the very worst for squandering our wealth. I see a major financial collapse coming, ala Brazil, within the next 20 years and unless spending is controlled we have a very dark future. Right now CA has a AA- Fitch rating which is a big drop from where we once were. Check it out, Fitch is the first rating listed:
Alabama AA+ Aa1 AA
Alaska AA+ Aa3 AA
Arizona NR NR NR
Arkansas NR Aa1 AA
California AA- Aa3 AA-
Colorado NR NR NR
Connecticut A+ A1 A+
Delaware AAA Aaa AAA
Florida AAA Aa1 AAA
Georgia AAA Aaa AAA
Hawaii AA Aa1 AA+
Idaho NR NR NR
Illinois BBB Baa3 BBB-
Indiana NR NR NR
Iowa NR NR NR
Kansas NR NR NR
Kentucky NR NR NR
Louisiana AA- Aa3 AA-
Maine AA Aa2 AA
Maryland AAA Aaa AAA
Massachusetts AA+ Aa1 AA
Michigan AA Aa1 AA-
Minnesota AAA Aa1 AA+
Mississippi AA Aa2 AA
Missouri AAA Aaa AAA
Montana AA+ Aa1 AA
Nebraska NR NR NR
Nevada AA+ Aa2 AA
New Hampshire AA+ Aa1 AA
New Jersey A A3 A-
New Mexico NR Aa1 AA
New York AA+ Aa1 AA+
North Carolina AAA Aaa AAA
North Dakota NR NR NR
Ohio AA+ Aa1 AA+
Oklahoma AA Aa2 AA
Oregon AA+ Aa1 AA+
Pennsylvania AA- Aa3 A+
Rhode Island AA Aa2 AA
South Carolina AAA Aaa AA+
South Dakota NR NR NR
Tennessee AAA Aaa AAA
Texas AAA Aaa AAA
Utah AAA Aaa AAA
Vermont AAA Aaa AA+
Virginia AAA Aaa AAA
Washington AA+ Aa1 AA+
West Virginia AA Aa2 AA-
Wisconsin AA Aa1 AA
Wyoming NR NR NR
TOTAL STATES RATED: 37 39 39
Again, there are no states with more people on welfare than employed.
I find mildly interesting that Chris relies on well known left wing misinformation sites for his dismissal of the claims about the number of people on welfare versus people employed in various states.
This is not to say that his sources are incorrect, partially incorrect, wholly incorrect, correct, or partially correct on this. I am simply noting that his sources are bigoted, ideologically driven, agenda driven slur slinging smear machines working for the left. Just like the SPLC.
Re SPLC, offered without comment:
Free Beacon
The Weekly Standard
I disagree with your characterization of those sites, Pie, but we’ve had that argument before and unfortunately were not able to come to an agreement. Can you recommend some better, non-partisan fact-checking websites for me? I do concede that many of the sites I linked to have a slight left-wing bias, but I believe they make an effort to overcome that bias and attempt to be fair. But if there are better, less biased fact-checking sites that I could be using, I’d like to know what they are.
If it helps, Politifact cites the conservative Heritage Foundation to explain why the “more people on welfare than working” statistic is not true:
Separately, senior research fellow Robert Rector of the conservative Heritage Foundation gave us a broader definition of welfare — 79 federal programs — though even by that measure, he told us by phone, “Welfare recipients do not outnumber workers.”
The programs Rector cited in May 3, 2012, testimony to the U.S. House Budget Committee were all means-tested (meaning beneficiaries qualified at least in part due to their income levels) and provided cash, food, housing, medical care, social services, training and certain education aid. Some programs that recipients had contributed to, such as Social Security and Medicare, were excluded.
On the list are major initiatives such as food stamps and the Supplemental Security Income program Schott mentioned, but also the Earned Income Tax Credit, which by definition goes to people with jobs, and smaller efforts such as helping to weatherize houses and educate migrants.
We sought to compare the data state by state, and counting adults only, as we did with the TANF numbers. But Rector said Heritage didn’t have the recipients broken down by states or by age.
Nationally in 2011, Rector said, the average number of recipients was approximately 100 million — nearly a third of the U.S. population, he noted. According to the bureau’s employment data, 140 million people had a job that year.
Upshot: There were three employed people for every two “welfare” recipients, including children, as defined by the Heritage Foundation.
Because Schott had pointed out to us that the percentage of TANF recipients varied a lot from state to state, we asked Rector if he thought any of the states individually would have more welfare recipients (by Heritage’s standard) than employed residents.
“No, I don’t think that would be true,” Rector said. “That’s a pretty extreme statement. … That would be very, very large levels of dependency.”
While Politifact has a left-wing bias, I don’t think anyone could ever accuse the Heritage Foundation of the same.
Chris … that’s what you get for positing fact to the King and Queen of Denial (Pie & Tina) … you get denial. Denial sourced by debunked sources, yet.
It should be funny … but it’s not no more.
To be fair, Libby, Pie did correct several statements, some without even being prompted to do so.
I originally posted this in the wrong place and it contained some conflation and errors. By way of explanation, I was flipping back and forth between the 2012 article “Do You Live In A Death Spiral State?” and the 2015 article “Which Are Death Spiral States?”, both written by William Baldwin.
Here is that earlier post corrected and edited for clarification …
Snopes —
“Forbes determined states with more “takers than makers” by defining “the taker count [as] the number of state and local government workers plus the number of people on Medicaid plus 1 for each $100,000 of unfunded pension liabilities.”
Baldwin’s criteria is not an unreasonable one. Some may think one or both are unreasonable.
William Baldwin, Forbes Magazine contributor, author “Do You Live In A Death Spiral State?” Nov 25, 2012
https://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2012/11/25/do-you-live-in-a-death-spiral-state/#2b6a47b37380
“Eleven states make our list of danger spots for investors. They can look forward to a rising tax burden, deteriorating state finances and an exodus of employers. The list includes California, New York, Illinois …
“Two factors determine whether a state makes this elite list of fiscal hellholes. The first is whether it has more takers than makers. A taker is someone who draws money from the government, as an employee, pensioner or welfare recipient. A maker is someone gainfully employed in the private sector.
“A City Journal essay by Victor Davis Hanson notes that the state spends $10 billion a year on entitlements for illegal aliens.”
William Baldwin, Forbes Magazine contributor, author “Which Are Death Spiral States?” Dec 22, 2015
https://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2015/12/22/which-are-death-spiral-states/#4ed81e6a6840
“California has a powerful economy, with 14 million private-sector jobs. It also has burdens: welfare recipients (12.6 million), generously paid government employees (2.1 million) and people collecting government pensions (1.3 million). [See ***NOTE *** below.]
“Add up the numbers. There are 114 clients drawing from the government for every 100 people chipping in by working outside the government and paying taxes. We’re calling this the Feedme Ratio. Six states have a number over 100.
“These states are at risk of going into a downward spiral in the next recession. The burdens will remain but too many of the providers—employers in the private sector—might shrink or decamp. Why add jobs in a state that asks each productive worker to carry not just his or her own weight but also the weight of one other person?”
*** NOTE *** 12.6 + 2.1 + 1.3 million = 16 million “takers” estimate in 2015. California state population estimate 2016 — 39.1 million. Takers = ~ 41%.
To reiterate, while correlation does not imply causation, three of the states that Mr. Baldwin says risk a “Death Spiral” (California, New York and Illinois) also happen to be states that are carrying 32% of the illegal immigrant population load in the US.
Respected and prominent historian and author Victor Davis Hansen notes, “California has the nation’s largest population of illegal aliens, on whom it spends an estimated $10 billion annually in entitlements. The illegals also deprive the Golden State’s economy of billions of dollars every year by sending remittances to Latin America.”
https://www.city-journal.org/html/california-here-we-stay-13507.html
Jack’s post that 10 states have more welfare recipients than employed people may be factually incorrect, but that does not change the seriousness of the truth of the situation for “Death Spiral States.” In fact, if you read both Forbes articles and the Victor Davis Hansen article (which Baldwin mentions in the 2012 article), Jack has been instrumental in exposing the truth rather than obscuring it by putting some erroneous information up on Post Scripts.
Thank you Jack.
Dang, Pie where the heck have you been?
I was beginning to think the liberals had you liquidated.
Were you out mixing it up with Antifaw?
Nice to have your commentary back, Pie!
I am always troubled on why Republicans want the California economy to fail. Why do you celebrate states which want to dump the homeless problems on the generous people of our home state?
Re Chris: “Since…that’s what they did, in a really overt way, I think my judgment holds up.”
I guess as long as you’re looking for deceitfulness or malintent you’ll find it.
There are many ways of looking at things. Statistical information can be manipulated to illustrate any point.
Chris you seem to have a very negative opinion about the motives of Republicans, as if the only thing that matters to them is justifying “their agenda.” (And yes, we know both sides do what they can to sell their agenda) The point for us is not so much whether the numbers always add up exactly as it is to notice what the numbers say about conditions in which we are living and the ways in which policy has impacted those conditions.
What about the people whose lives have been negatively impacted, especially in the last decade, due to the Democrats’ agenda? Do the Republicans (and the Democrats really) have a responsibility to do something about it?
I’ll ask again: Do you deny that we are spending a hell of a lot to assist people who are capable and who would rather take care of themselves?
Do you deny that we have a lot of duplicate programs and mismanaged funds?
And I’ll add a couple of others: Do you think it’s possible that there is a better way of doing things so that more Americans earn a decent living and fewer are dependent on government?
Or do you agree with the radicals of your party that dependency on government is good, even preferable?
I believe government should, to the greatest degree possible, stay out of the way of individual industry and effort and that to the degree it does intrude, it should take care not to negatively impact some citizens in order to help others. Obamacare has been extremely bad for many individuals and small to medium businesses but democrats will not own the problems and will not work with republicans to address them. Their agenda, single payer, is more important than the mess this transition law has imposed on millions of Americans.
Lawmakers, Democrats particularly, have used “the general welfare” portion of the Constitution to pick winners and losers and to transfer funds from groups to group. In the process, over the last 10 years in particular, they have done severe harm to the middle class and working poor.
What does it take to get the attention of Democrats like yourself who say you care about people?
An article in Investors Business Daily illustrates my point about policy that picks winners and losers and harms large swaths of the population:
Preliminary data from the 2017 tax season are in, and they’re shocking. Not only does it look like the working class bore the brunt of ObamaCare individual mandate penalties this year, but people with relatively modest incomes apparently paid a lot more than the Congressional Budget Office anticipated.
The data underscore a reality that Democrats would prefer not to talk about: While ObamaCare has been a big help to the near-poor and those with major medical needs, it gives a bad deal to nearly everyone else. Even among working-class households earning 150% to 250% of the poverty level, supposedly among the law’s biggest beneficiaries, just 1 in 3 people who lack insurance from other sources are getting silver coverage that will protect them from financial disaster. Most of the other two-thirds are uninsured, either because they or a spouse work full time and don’t qualify for exchange subsidies, or else they’ve spurned subsidized bronze plans that carry $6,000-$7,000 deductibles — despite the threat of an individual-mandate penalty. …
… The 2017 tax data offer new evidence that there’s much to be gained by moving away from the individual mandate and much to lose by sticking with it. Tax returns that had been processed as of April 27 included 4 million that paid ObamaCare fines (officially known as individual shared responsibility payments), with an average payment of $708.
What is striking about the data is that the average payment is barely higher than the minimum payment of $695. Since people were required to pay the greater of $695 or 2.5% of taxable income above the filing threshold ($10,350 in 2017), one takeaway is that most of the $2.8 billion in fines paid through April appear to have come from people with modest to moderate incomes. As a frame of reference, CBO’s 2014 analysis implied that the average mandate payment for this tax season would be roughly $1,075 and that the total amount paid by people earning up to three times the poverty level would barely exceed $1 billion.
Another article in the WSJ, “The Cruelty of Barack Obama – On immigration, the ex-president isn’t what he says he is” is also illustrative of dirty tricks played by Democrats to push an agenda:
If the issue is political deception and game playing is your issue Chris, I’d love to see you take a greater interest in observing it within the party you prefer.
Examples continues to trickle on down.
NY Post, “How Obama is funding the anti-Trump resistance”