The Welfare Generation: 51.7% Kids in 2017 Lived in Households Getting Govt Assistance

The Census Bureau has released new data that strengthens the case for calling the current generation of American children “The Welfare Generation.”

Among American residents under 18 years of age in 2017, according to the Census Bureau, 51.7 percent lived in households in which one or more persons received benefits from a means-tested government program.

That was down slightly from the 52.1 percent of Americans under 18 in 2016 who lived in households receiving means-tested government assistance. (Also, because this new Census Bureau estimate is for 2017, it predates the significant economic and job growth the United States has seen in 2018).

But in each of the last five years on record (2013 through 2017), according to the Census Bureau, at least 51 percent of Americans under 18 have lived in households receiving means-tested government assistance.

In fact, the 51.7 percent in 2017 was the lowest percentage in any of the last five years on record.

The programs the Census Bureau includes in its estimate of how many people are living in households receiving means-tested government assistance include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps), Supplemental Security Income, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, Medicaid, public housing, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and the National School Lunch Program.

The data on the number of people living in households in which one or more persons received means-tested government assistance comes from Table POV-26 of the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, 2018 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

The table enumerates, by various characteristics, “[p]eople who lived with someone (a nonrelative or relative) who received aid.”

“Not every person tallied here,” Table POV-26 says, “received the aid themselves.”

In 2017, the Census Bureau estimates, according to the table, that there were approximately 322,549,000 people living in the United States. Of these, 114,637,000—or 35.5 percent—lived in a household that received means-tested government assistance.

Of the 322,549,000 people in the United States in 2017, 73,356,000 were under 18 years of age. Of these children, 37,908,000—or 51.7 percent—lived in a household that received means-tested government assistance.

Even when the school lunch program was excluded from the group of means-tested government programs, there were still 32,467,000 people in America under 18 (or 44.3 percent of that demographic) living in a household receiving means-tested government assistance.

The 51.7 percent of people under 18 on means-tested government assistance in 2017 was a slight declined from the 52.1 percent on means-tested government assistance in 2016.

In 2016, according to the Census estimate, there were 73,586,000 people under 18 in the United States (compared to 73,356,000 in 2017) and 38,365,000 (compared to 37,908,000 in 2017) were living in households receiving means-tested government assistance.

The percentage of persons under 18 living in households receiving means-tested government assistance also varied by the type of household the person was living in, according to the Census data.

But it was above 40 percent even in married-couple families.

In married couple families in 2017, according to Table POV-26, there were 49,436,000 related children under 18. Of these, 20,230,000—or 40.9 percent—lived in households in which one or more persons received means-tested government assistance.

There were 5,330,000 related children under 18 living in households headed by a male householder with no spouse present. 3,371,000 of these children—or 48.7 percent—lived in a household receiving means-tested government assistance.

There were 17,766,000 related children under 18 living in households headed by a female householder with no spouse present. 13,702,000 of these children—or 77.1 percent—lived in a household receiving means-tested government assistance.

After the 51.7 percent of children under 18 who lived in a household that received means-tested government assistance in 2017, the next most likely age group to live in a household that received means-tested government assistance were those 18 to 24. There were 29,363,000 in that age bracket and 11,855,000—or 40.4 percent—lived in a household getting means-tested government assistance.

The age group least likely to be receiving means-tested government assistance were people 75 and older. There were 20,713,000 in that age bracket in 2017 and only 3,894,000—or 18.8 percent—lived in a household on means-tested government assistance.

This chart summarizes key data from the Census Bureau's POV-26 tables from 1994 through 2017, showing the total population each year, the total number of people in households receiving means-tested assistance, the percentage in households getting asisstance, the total number of residents under 18, the total number in households receiving means-tested assistance, and the percentage of children in households getting means-tested assistance:
(Edit: to view charts, click link)

https://www.cnsnews.com/commen...ment-assistance-drop

Meanwhile.... in completely unrelated news:


Debt ceiling will be set to record high of $22 trillion, fund government to just summer

The federal government is set to reinstate its borrowing limit, and a new analysis indicates that it will be a record-high $22 trillion — and then, it won’t provide enough money to fund the government past summer.

The shocking number, however, is only slightly higher than the current actual debt of some $21 trillion.

The ceiling has been in suspension and the debt has grown under President Trump. It is set to be reinstated on March 2, 2019.

A new Bipartisan Policy Center estimate suggests that the new limit will be $22 trillion, assuming no action is taken by lawmakers before that time.

The BPC analysis said: “Treasury will be able to fully fund the government until at least mid-summer 2019 by using extraordinary measures, cash-on-hand, and incoming cash flow. But costs to taxpayers will start earlier from factors associated with reaching the debt limit such as higher interest rates on U.S. Treasury securities.”

The analysis warned of troubles with the growing debt.

“Our long-term debt path is reckless and potentially dangerous for the future of our economy, but the debt limit in its current form carries unacceptable costs and risks,” Shai Akabas, economic policy director at BPC, said. “It’s also proven to be an unsuccessful playbook for debt reduction. The American people have seen this movie before, and we should demand a different ending.”

The BPC analysis is here.

https://www.washingtonexaminer...nment-to-just-summer

The school system here is reporting nearly 3/4 of students on free or reduced meals and they feed them during the summer too.

Is anyone really surprised by this?

Heh, my family was actually part of that statistic I guess.

quote:

and the National School Lunch Program

We moved our kids from private school to public a couple years ago. For our twins at the elementary school, we asked them about how the food program payments work etc. They just gave us a stupid look and babbled something.

Turns out, due to the amount of low income families at the school, the whole school had "free" breakfast and lunch. No forms, no means testing, no mechanism to pay if you wanted to.

At first I felt bad since we can afford to pay, then laughed at the realization that there is no "free lunch" and since it is taxpayer dollars anyway, we are likely one of the few families that are paying...

This year I guess the income balance shifted and it is no longer "free" for everyone, there is a means test application (that I didn't bother to even look at) so we are paying for them.

quote:

Originally posted by Leemur:
The school system here is reporting nearly 3/4 of students on free or reduced meals and they feed them during the summer too.

So lets see where this is all heading.

The government...

1 - Pays for the birth of children.
2 - Feeds and pays subsidies to house the children.
3 - Educates the children K-12.
4 - Finances the children's college education.
5 - Controls their healthcare.
6 - Finances their home purchase (assuming they can ever earn enough for that to happen).
7 - Then starts the cycle over with their children.

Hmmm. Anybody else notice where this appears to be heading?

So far it’s led to my wife and I getting soaked for every penny “for the children!”

And those of us who never married and have no children also pay for all of it. (I don't mind paying for the school and teachers--I think the country benefits when the citizens are educated--but I do object to the lack of real value in that education.)

flashguy

quote:

Hmmm. Anybody else notice where this appears to be heading?

Dependency. It's the opposite of freedom.
When half the people are living at the expense of the other half... neither half is free. Eventually, the half pulling the wagon decide to stop pulling and get in the wagon. It's very destructive.

The entire progressive/socialist program and ideology is socialism... and socialism is based on theft. It's the idea that if you don't tend your own garden you can eat from your neighbor's garden.

The lesson of the recent election is that we are becoming more divided and we will continue to become more divided until we turn away from socialism and back toward individual liberty.

quote:

Originally posted by Leemur:
The school system here is reporting nearly 3/4 of students on free or reduced meals and they feed them during the summer too.

The schools in Memphis put all the kids on free meals so the underprivileged wouldn't be ashamed.

Those numbers are almost hard to believe

quote:

Originally posted by olfuzzy:
The schools in Memphis put all the kids on free meals so the underprivileged wouldn't be ashamed.

I remember a time when shame was a good thing.

How many are from single mom households?

51.7%?!?

quote:

Originally posted by lkdr1989:
How many are from single mom households?

From the article above:

quote:

There were 17,766,000 related children under 18 living in households headed by a female householder with no spouse present. 13,702,000 of these children—or 77.1 percent—lived in a household receiving means-tested government assistance.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Leemur:
The school system here is reporting nearly 3/4 of students on free or reduced meals and they feed them during the summer too.

So lets see where this is all heading.

The government...

1 - Pays for the birth of children.
2 - Feeds and pays subsidies to house the children.
3 - Educates the children K-12.
4 - Finances the children's college education.
5 - Controls their healthcare.
6 - Finances their home purchase (assuming they can ever earn enough for that to happen).
7 - Then starts the cycle over with their children.

Hmmm. Anybody else notice where this appears to be heading?

A Brave New World.

quote:

Hmmm. Anybody else notice where this appears to be heading?

Single mother homes.

This is what happens when you have a baby daddy and not a father.
And women have children out of wedlock instead of planning for a family.
Now I get to pay for their fuck trophies.

When our kid started school this year and we were meeting with his teach to figure out how all this shit works, she said we should drop him off early in the morning to get breakfast “since it was free anyway”. I was bewildered. Haven’t done it simply because I want to make sure he eats before leaving the house so I can see he’s eaten (hungry kids- my kid anyway- are a recipe for disaster in many situations, certainly not ideal to try and get a hungry kid to listen and learn). So I get them trying to make sure everyone’s got food, but free? Without even checking to see if we can afford it? There should at be a qualifying question.

They have a summer lunch program, and a weekend “backpack” program, too, I believe it’s called. Sadly, I’ve heard tell (from a little old liberal lady who was involved) that those with the backpacks go home, get the packs with the food in them taken and sold for drugs, etc, or simply eaten by their folks. The kids themselves don’t always get the food.

And yes, I think it’s totally unfair for those without kids to be required to pay taxes for the schools- if they want to, fine, but come on. Especially if we have so many who have kids! It’s awful to listen to the rationalizations.

Don’t forget, at least in my state, some insurance companies PAY their state aid recipients to BRING THE CHILD TO THE DOCTOR - for a routine annual. It’s in the form of a gift card, I believe, but seriously? The cost of the visit is already on me, (and the other state taxpayers), minus a < 10.00 copay- IF they can afford that copay- otherwise the office has to waive it - and now they’re giving them money on top of it.

On the other side, it seems like some rich folks are figuring this out, too. I had one of the richer parents (and a school board member to boot) pull her ineligible kid out of Algebra today so that he could go watch the football game.

Those are the priorities of today's parents. Something tells me he will be receiving tax money in the future instead of contributing.