I don't think anyone cares to even try ... since ... it doesn't matter if he won't admit he lost "by a landslide."
Note the year over year growth rate of the budget for the United Negro College Fund. Far above the rate of inflation. Trump had to spend political capital to approve big bloated budgets that included lots of goodies for Democrat social programs because there are still some Republicans who are fiscally Conservative, at least by today’s standards, and are concerned about the size of the Federal budget deficit.
This is the point where I ask the question "Name the contributor who has provided the largest amount of money to the UNCF over the past decade?"
Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Primarily Help the GOP's Base Republicans want to shrink government. But their core voters benefit from assistance, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the most. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/gop-base-poverty-snap-social-security/516861/
5 things you should know about the Republican welfare state By Christopher Faricy Nov 2, 2015, 9:30am ESTShare this on Facebook Share this on Twitter SHAREAll sharing options US President George W. Bush speaks during a meeting on health savings accounts at the White House April 1, 2007, in Washington DC. Mark Wilson/Getty Images For the past seven years, I have examined the relationship between political party control of government and changes to the divided American social welfare state. Divided, in this context, means that in the United States and other countries social benefits and services are sometimes provided directly by the public sector (a public housing project) and sometimes by the private sector with government encouragement (tax breaks for home mortgages). This is a phenomenon that’s received some academic attention over the years (see books from Suzanne Mettler and Jacob Hacker) and even from policy entrepreneurs who’ve tried to popularize the term "tax expenditures," but the full significance of the divided welfare state to American political economy remains underappreciated. Tax expenditures are both a bigger phenomenon than most people realize and also a more partisan and more ideological one that amounts to a parallel Republican welfare state dedicated to the upward redistribution of economic resources. 1) The divided welfare state is a partisan phenomenon Democrats and Republicans both have their preferred tax breaks and spending programs, but in my new book, Welfare for the Wealthy, I demonstrate that there is a systematic partisan tendency to the evolution of the welfare state. When Republicans take control of the White House and Congress, there is a subsequent rise in the number and value of tax subsidies for private social welfare (often called tax expenditures). These programs, while not as well-known as Social Security and Medicare, are still recognizable to most citizens as tax breaks. Republicans have expanded tax deductions for individual retirement accounts (IRAs), created health savings accounts (HSAs), and extended exclusions for employment-based social benefits and services (like educational assistance). Congressional Budget Office The current crop of Republican presidential candidates wants to continue this trend. Marco Rubio is offering tax credits for paid family leave, and both Rubio and Jeb Bush are proposing increased tax subsidies for health insurance. These new tax expenditures would add to more than 80 social welfare programs — costing a total of $1.14 trillion — already embedded in the tax code. The amount of tax expenditures that go toward things like health care and pensions is larger than the entire discretionary defense budget. 2) The GOP hands out "free stuff" for the same reason as Democrats. Many Republicans believe that Democrats win elections by giving away government benefits to their core voters such as unions, the working class, and racial minorities (e.g., Jeb Bush’s recent comments about black voters and free stuff). However, the Republican Party is not immune from the electoral pressure to use government power to provide federal money to their most loyal supporters. The main difference between the two political parties is not whether to deliver government benefits to supporters but rather who those supporters are. The Democrats and Republicans have opposing socioeconomic core constituencies. The Republican Party’s core socioeconomic voting groups are wealthier households and businesses, both of which benefit when social welfare is provided through the tax code rather than through explicit spending. The main reason is that given the progressive tax structure of the federal income tax, tax breaks deliver more value to richer households. For example, if a high-income worker in the 39 percent bracket excludes $10,000 from her taxable income, she receives a government subsidy of $3,900. If a lower paid worker in the 10 percent bracket excludes the same $10,000, her tax break is worth only $1,000. Secondarily, the privatized welfare state offers direct benefits to the private companies whose services it purchases. Funding retirement security via a tax break for savings accounts, for example, generates profits for financial services companies that manage the accounts. It is not a coincidence that banks, real estate companies, and other industries that benefit the most from the federally funded private welfare state also donate more heavily to the Republican Party than to Democrats. Social welfare tax subsides have the additional electoral benefits of being able to be sold to voters as tax relief, erode public support for popular public programs like Medicare by offering a private alternative, preempt new Democratic proposals for government-run programs (e.g., paid family leave tax credit), lower the effective tax rates for the wealthy, and reduce the amount of future revenue that Democratic administrations will have to spend. 3) Private social welfare is a Trojan horse for upward redistribution The rich and large corporations have grown more unpopular with the American public in correlation with the rise of income inequality, which has made it politically challenging to offer explicit arguments in favor of shifting financial resources in their favor. Proposing tax breaks for popular social goals like financing college tuition, saving for retirement, or paying for medical bills is a convenient way of skewing the distribution of post-tax income upward while eliding explicit discussion of the distributional issue. Politicians are able to publicly frame these proposals as conservative solutions for providing citizens’ economic security while ignoring or minimizing the reality that this structure produces the greatest monetary assistance to households with the least financial need. Tax Policy Center For example, there are a number of tax-subsidized retirement accounts of which 401(k)s and IRAs are the most famous and important. These programs cost the federal government more than $150 billion annually, and 68 percent of the total benefits accrue to the wealthiest households that on average earn over $200,000 a year. But because many middle-class families also take advantage of these programs, they are much easier to market politically than straightforward cuts in the top income tax rate. 4) Republicans pair social tax subsidies for the rich with public spending cuts for the poor In my analysis, I found that Republicans in power increased tax subsidies for private welfare and paid for these programs with cuts to discretionary public spending. Republicans in the modern era have shrunk the public welfare state while using federal subsidies to build up a private social system. Republicans enjoy the institutional advantage of being able to increase their preferred form of government spending "off budget" while forcing Democrats into public battles over discretionary spending in the formal budget. But while most formal spending needs to be reauthorized on an annual basis or it goes away, tax loopholes live until they are explicitly repealed, meaning that only the formal budget is repeatedly taken hostage. Republicans increase tax subsides since these benefit their constituencies and pay for them with cuts to programs that benefit Democratic voting groups, while Democrats try the reverse strategy of taxing the rich to finance benefits for their base. The GOP trade-off of tax subsidies financed with discretionary spending cuts presents the illusion of scaling back government but in reality maintains the government hand in steering the economy while simply changing the beneficiaries. 5) The total US welfare state is huge, but it’s not targeted at the needy In Welfare for the Wealthy, I show that the combination of tax subsidies for private welfare and cuts to public programs produces higher levels of income inequality in the United States. The figure above shows two lines. The bold line represents social tax expenditures as a proportion of total government social spending (public plus tax subsidies), and the dotted line shows changes to the level of income inequality. As you can see, the lines move together quite well over time from 1970 to 2012. The combined US welfare state, encompassing both traditional public programs and tax subsidies, is as large as most European welfare states but not nearly as effective in combating poverty and inequality. The American welfare state divides beneficiaries by socioeconomic class and thus reinforces existing inequities instead of reducing them. Eliminating current policies that contribute to the growing income gap could be a powerful tool for curbing inequality. The GAO, CBO, and former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan have all recommended that tax subsidies be included alongside traditional spending in the annual budget process. This change would create an environment for more efficient government spending and reduce welfare subsidies for the wealthy. If tax subsidies for private welfare are placed alongside public spending in the formal budget process, then policymakers could be held accountable when they choose to cut programs for the poor while increasing welfare for the wealthy. Christopher Faricy is the author of Welfare for the Wealthy: Parties, Social Spending, and Inequality in the United States (Cambridge University Press 2015). https://www.vox.com/2015/11/2/9656398/republican-welfare-state
9 Surprising Facts About Welfare Recipients Share Flipboard Email Andrew Burton/Getty Images Social Sciences Sociology News & Issues Key Concepts Major Sociologists Deviance & Crime Research, Samples, and Statistics Recommended Reading Psychology Archaeology Economics Ergonomics Maritime By Nicki Lisa Cole, Ph.D. Updated June 11, 2020 Negative stereotypes about welfare recipients have persisted for ages. Common stereotypes include: They're lazy. They refuse to work and have more kids just to collect more money. They are most often people of color. Once they're on welfare, they stay on it, because why would you choose to work when you can get free money every month? Some politicians use language that encourages these stereotypes about welfare recipients. During the 2015–16 Republican primary season, the problem of an increasingly expensive welfare state was commonly cited by the candidates. In one debate, then-Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said: "We are on the path to socialism right now. We’ve got record dependents, a record number of Americans on food stamps, record low participation rate in the workforce." President Donald Trump has regularly claimed that dependence on welfare is "out of control." In his 2011 book, "Time to Get Tough" he stated, without providing factual support, that recipients of SNAP, short for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and more commonly known as food stamps, "have been on the dole for nearly a decade." He suggested that widespread fraud in government assistance programs was a significant problem. However, the number of people who receive welfare and other forms of assistance is well-documented. The U.S. Census Bureau and independent research organizations collect and analyze such data, and it can be used to debunk the myths about people on welfare and how much the federal government spends on social services. 01 of 09 Republicans claim that social services expenditures are crippling the federal budget, but these programs accounted for just 10% of federal spending in 2015. Of the $3.7 trillion the U.S. government spent that year, the largest expenditures were Social Security (24%), health care (25%), and defense and security (16%), according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (a nonpartisan research and policy institute). Several safety net programs are included in the 10% spent on social services: Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which provides cash support to the elderly and disabled poor Unemployment insurance Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), commonly known as "welfare" Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps School meals for low-income children Low-income housing assistance Child care assistance Assistance with home energy bills Programs that provide help to abused and neglected children In addition, programs that primarily help the middle class, namely the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, are included in the 10%. 02 of 09 in poverty and deep poverty (living on less than 50% of the federal poverty line). When it debuted in 1996, TANF provided important and life-changing assistance for 4.4 million families. In 2017, the program served just 1.3 million, down from 1.6 million in 2014, despite the number of families in poverty increasing over that time period. Just over 5 million families were in poverty in 2000, but as of 2019 that number was close to 5.6 million. This means that TANF is assisting fewer families than did its predecessor, AFDC, prior to welfare reform. The CBPP also reports that the cash benefits paid to families have not kept pace with inflation and home rental prices, so the benefits received by needy families enrolled in TANF today are worth about 30% less than they were worth in 1996. 03 of 09 U.S. Census Bureau report. Those more likely to receive long-term assistance are those living in households with a family income below the federal poverty line. This group includes children, black people, female-headed households, those without a high school degree, and those not in the labor force. Conversely, those most likely to be short-term participants are white, those who attended college for at least a year, and full-time workers. 05 of 09 more than 9.6 million children were enrolled in CHIP in 2018, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The CHIP program provides medical services to children of families whose income exceeds the Medicaid threshold but without sufficient income to afford health care. 07 of 09 measured by race. Given the population of the United States in 2012 and the annual rate of participation by race reported by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2015, about 35 million white people participated in one of the major government assistance programs that year. That's about 11 million more than the 24 million Latinos who participated and considerably more than the 20 million black people who received government aid. The majority of white people receiving benefits are enrolled in Medicaid. According to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 42% of non-elderly Medicaid enrollees in 2015 were white. The U.S. Department of Agriculture data for 2013 shows that the largest racial group participating in SNAP is also white, at more than 40%. 09 of 09 Great Recession Increased Participation for All Figures 16 and 17, from the 2015 U.S. Census Bureau Report, show that average monthly and total annual rates of participation in major government assistance programs increased for all people, regardless of education level. U.S. Census Bureau The 2015 report by the U.S. Census Bureau documents rates of participation in government assistance programs from 2009 through 2012. This data shows how many people received government assistance in the final year of the Great Recession and in the three years that followed it, generally known as the recovery period. However, the findings of this report show that the period of 2010–12 was not a period of recovery for all, as overall rates of participation in government assistance programs rose each year from 2009. Additionally, the rate of participation increased for all types of people, regardless of age, race, employment status, type of household or family status, and level of education. The average monthly participation rate for those without a high school degree rose from 33.1% in 2009 to 37.3% in 2012. Participation rose from 17.8% to 21.6% for those with a high school degree, and from 7.8% to 9.6% for those who attended college for one year or more. Despite how much education one attains, periods of economic crisis and job scarcity impact everyone. https://www.thoughtco.com/who-really-receives-welfare-4126592
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/30/politics/trump-writing-on-the-wall-election-advisers/index.html ... he knows, that it's over. but keeps milking his idiot followers for ... whatever.
Facts: Trump raised millions from sheeple under the guise of fraud but frauded the sheeple out of money to pay his own debts. Beautiful Ignorant Stranger: yeah but look how much money Congress gave of taxpayers money to HBCU that Trump claimes was all his doing. Facts: Do you take medication for your ADHD?