They call it the Moocher Index

[Zeb_Carter]

The Moocher Index

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

The Center for Immigration Studies recently put out a study arguing that immigration has had negative effects on California. One of their measures was a comparison of how many people in the state were receiving some form of welfare compared to other states. I found that data (see Table 3 of the report) very interesting, but not because of the immigration debate (I’ll leave others to debate that topic).

-------

So, how does your state fair?

 

[Dragonlipz]

We have too many Texans moving here.............

 

[TE999]

Heh! Florida's 5th from the bottom...but over 1/2 the states' population's on Social Security and Medicare... so it might not be a fair assessment.

A lot of those 'moochers' may have a lot to do with how the individual states programs are administered. Said programs 'successes' are measured on how many 'clients' they have on their rolls. Not following up on an applicants eligibility could only boost the number of 'clients', and unless someone reports a 'moocher' committing fraud, no one's the wiser. State's happy, 'moocher's' happy.

 

[Huckleman2000]

There is a serious, but common, computational error made in this Moocher Index.

The two figures combined, i.e., the Poverty Rate and the "Table 3. Households Using at Least One Major Welfare Program" do not use the same universe, although they are both expressed as percentages.

In the first case, the Poverty Rate is expressed as a percentage of Persons in the US, by state. That is, each man, woman, or child counted once each - about 301,041,000 people.

In the second case, Table 3 of the report expresses use of "Major Welfare Programs" as a percentage of US households, by state. That is, each household is counted once, regardless of the size of the household - about 117,181,000

So, while the Moocher Index sounds like it actually measures something, it simply combines two numbers that cannot be logically combined to produce a meaningful result.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Heh! Florida's 5th from the bottom...but over 1/2 the states' population's on Social Security and Medicare... so it might not be a fair assessment.

A lot of those 'moochers' may have a lot to do with how the individual states programs are administered. Said programs 'successes' are measured on how many 'clients' they have on their rolls. Not following up on an applicants eligibility could only boost the number of 'clients', and unless someone reports a 'moocher' committing fraud, no one's the wiser. State's happy, 'moocher's' happy.

That's what the article that accompanied the chart said.

Also, the chart data has had all those below the poverty level and retirees removed, leveling only those who could otherwise pay their own way...moochers.

 

[TE999]

That's what the article that accompanied the chart said.

Also, the chart data has had all those below the poverty level and retirees removed, leveling only those who could otherwise pay their own way...moochers.

Therein lies the problem when you're promoted for giving money away, not for finding ways to crack down on cheaters. I'll wager one applicant in a 1,000 is vetted when they apply for assistance to a given program...fed, state or local. The suits want to see growth in a program...and that means more 'clients'...the programs' original purpose to help the destitute and needy becomes irrelevant.

 

[Huckleman2000]

That's what the article that accompanied the chart said.

Also, the chart data has had all those below the poverty level and retirees removed, leveling only those who could otherwise pay their own way...moochers.

That's what the article claims, but the numbers used to draw the conclusion are meaningless.

Someone didn't have his math checked.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Therein lies the problem when you're promoted for giving money away, not for finding ways to crack down on cheaters. I'll wager one applicant in a 1,000 is vetted when they apply for assistance to a given program...fed, state or local. The suits want to see growth in a program...and that means more 'clients'...the programs' original purpose to help the destitute and needy becomes irrelevant.

Well, you're just arguing based on a wish, not mathematics or logic. The "Index" is a math error.

 

[Loring2]

You're right ...

Well, you're just arguing based on a wish, not mathematics or logic. The "Index" is a math error.

I had missed that until I read your post Huck. The Report appears to have been trying to cover it's direction; Almost as though it was trying to sell something.

Nice shot

 

[egelante]

There is a serious, but common, computational error made in this Moocher Index.

The two figures combined, i.e., the Poverty Rate and the "Table 3. Households Using at Least One Major Welfare Program" do not use the same universe, although they are both expressed as percentages.

In the first case, the Poverty Rate is expressed as a percentage of Persons in the US, by state. That is, each man, woman, or child counted once each - about 301,041,000 people.

In the second case, Table 3 of the report expresses use of "Major Welfare Programs" as a percentage of US households, by state. That is, each household is counted once, regardless of the size of the household - about 117,181,000

So, while the Moocher Index sounds like it actually measures something, it simply combines two numbers that cannot be logically combined to produce a meaningful result.

My goodness! that's a fairly extraordinary bit of statistical chicanery... almost worthy the last British government!

 

[Dragonlipz]

Moocher Index - like ZebCoot, LoringCoot, JaggassCoot, AmiCoot and the rest of the Coots? Pack of Tea-Baggers and Know-Nothings......
Move to Haiti,,,,,,,no taxes or government there...............