1/ Time for some data geek material, helpful for those who get tired of hearing know-nothing right wingers prattle on about "welfare dependence" in the U.S., in general, and especially among people of color. Long thread...
2/ Keep in mind, there are several safety net programs out there, but when people talk about welfare (and especially dependence) they are usually talking about two things: cash assistance through the TANF program (what used to be AFDC) and SNAP (formerly Food Stamps)...
3/ The first of these, bc cash is the most easily criticized and longest-stigmatized effort, and the second because it is by far the largest safety net program putting benefits directly into the hands of the poor and near poor (since families up to 130% of pov line can qualify)..
4/ So, let's look at the data. Each year the Dept of Health & Human Services reports to Congress on the issue of welfare dependence due to a 1994 law requring such reporting. The most recent report (from 2018, relying on 2015/16 data) is here: aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/p…...
5/ As they note, there is a bi-partisan definition of dependence upon which lawmakers rely. A family is considered welfare 'dependent' if it receives more than 1/2 its annual income from TANF, SNAP and/or SSI (a smaller cash program 4 elderly poor and disabled poor folks)...
6/ This definition recognizes that just because a family may need to turn to such benefits at some point to cushion a rough period, layoff, etc., it isn't fair to presume them truly dependent on benefits, especially if most of their income isn't from welfare programs...
7/ Frankly, even this definition is too broad. After all, many recips (as we'll see) work & yet earn so little that these progs end up providing most of their income. To the extent they work, they probably shouldn't be considered dependent but they are so counted..
8/ Likewise, many are disabled, elderly (on SSI) or only receive benefits 4 a short period (as we'll see), so they too probably shouldn't be counted as "dependent" in any remotely perjorative sense even if program benefits account 4 over 1/2 of income, but they 2 are counted...
9/ That said, and even accepting this broad definition of dependence, the data is clear: Only about 4.6% of the population is "welfare dependent." During the last 5 years of the Obama administration, the numbers of such persons fell by 1.5 million btw...
10/ Racially, 90% of blacks, 94% of Latinx folks and 97% of whites are not dependent, and only 1 in 4 black families who receive ANY benefits end up being dependent on them in a given year. Latinx recipients are the LEAST likely to wind up dependent...
11/ As for recipients who work, among TANF recipients, 55% are in families with at least one person in the labor force, w/ no difference there by race. Among SNAP recipients, 63% are in families w/ at least one person in the labor force (40% w a full time worker)...
12/ Broken down by race/ethnicity, 62% of black recipients are in fams w/ some1 in the labor force (higher than the 58% of whites who are), and 74% of Latinx recipients are in fams w/ someone in the labor force...Indeed, 53% of Latinx recipients are in fams w/a FULL time worker..
13/ And very few folks get benefits from cash AND food assistance (contrary to popular belief). Only 0.9% of the population gets benefits from cash and SNAP in a given month. Only 2 percent of black & Latinx folks get benefits from both...
14/ As for how long folks stay on the programs...80% of TANF "spells" (new entries onto the program) last less than a year, with more than half lasting less than 5 months, and this is the same across racial lines. Only 1 in 10 TANF spells last as much as 21 months...
15/ with whites MORE likely than blacks or Latinx recipients to remain on the program for more than 20 months...As for SNAP, 54% of all spells last less than a year and 2/3 last fewer than 21 months, and again there is very little if any difference here across racial lines...
16/ So when the right screams about how dependent poor folks are on "welfare" (and especially poor folks of color), the lie they are telling is astronomical, according to the very definition that their side has agreed to use for the purpose, as part of bi-partisan research...
17/ Oh and it's pretty hard to think these benefits COULD render anyone dependent for long, given how minimal the benefits are. For a family of 3, monthly benefits only bring them above poverty in 1 state (Alaska). Only to 10% of the poverty line in MS ($170 per month)...
18/ As for SNAP, avg monthly benefits as of 2016 come to $125 per person. That's about $1.38 per meal...so much 4 the bullshit stories about folks regularly buying crab legs & lobster w/ EBT cards. Even combining SNAP & TANF (which only 0.9% do), fails 2 bring fams above poverty
19/ And although many of these fams also receive Medicaid, saying that that should be considered "dependence" inducing is absurd. It's not like providing medical care puts cash in pockets of poor folks. W/o Medicaid theyd just go without and be sicker, at great cost to every1...
20/ I know none of this will matter 2 the Trump cultists & those beholden 2 a racist, classist narrative, but 4 those who still care about facts, thought I'd provide some...facts don't care about yr feelings, right conservatives? And you clearly don't care much about facts...END
CORRECTION HERE: This should read that TANF benefits only bring a family of 3 to even 1/2 the poverty line in one state, Alaska...only TANF and SNAP (food tamps) combined gets a family close to the poverty there...
