Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

If there weren't already 13 million people unemployed there would it would be reasonable to try to get people on welfare to go get a job. But it's just plain cruel to do it when there aren't any jobs. Throwing people out in the street only raises the crime rate. Keeping people in prison is much more expensive. If the rich REALLY DID CREATE JOBS, this wouldn't be an issue.

 

You have freedom, the truest of freedoms, the freedom to die in abject poverty to ensure every millionaire has a private jet. ~America~

 

There are ALWAYS jobs available. Maybe not the kind you would like to make a career out of, or long term jobs with good benefits, but jobs none the less. It doesn't require a rich person or persons to make jobs available, but simply someone with work to be done who is willing and able to pay. If you're unemployed and not looking for employment you're more likely to remain unemployed.

What ever happened to all those shovel ready jobs Obama wanted money to fund? Where did the money go, and did the jobs get filled? $987 billion spent, not counting social security and medicare could have created quite a good many decent paying jobs.

 

How many more would die in abject poverty if the jobs that existed in order to create that private jet were eliminated? Those with lots of money provide a source of employment for many persons producing things that are beyond the cost of the majority, and if their money was eliminated so too would be the jobs their money makes available.

 

The republicans obstructed those jobs. You know, the ones that would have fixed bridges and roads. So the next time you hit a pot hole that blows out a tire or destroys your front end, thank a con.

Right now there are 1100 crop picking jobs in Georgia. Those jobs last two weeks, and don't pay enough to pay for the travel expenses to get there and back, let alone the bills back home. It pays just enough for beans and rice while you're there. The Mexican migrant farm workers consider $2.00 an hour living high on the hog. Americans, not so much.

 

Rjhangover, I'm afraid you might be confused. The money that 'Individual' is referring to wasn't blocked by anyone. It was touted by Obama and passed during the first part of his term through a Democraticly controlled house and senate. A few wise republicans were absolutely against it, it's true, but the vast majority of even that party gave their support. And he's spot on to wonder where the fuck it all went.
CNN Bailout Tracker
As you can see from my link, the total money actually spent on the economy post 2008 totals a whopping 11 trillion dollars. The legislation that you're most likely referring to came after in 2011 and was filibustered in a Democraticly controlled senate by both republicans and democrats. AND RIGHTLY SO! If the government wasn't able to create jobs by spending 11 trillion a few years earlier, why would it be able to create jobs by spending an additional 60 billion now?
Obama's infrastructure bill
You've fallen victim to short sightedness my friend. You're only looking at one side of the coin, which is a classic fallacy in economics and politics. If it wasn't so common, I'd be upset with you! You see, it's easy to look at a bridge that the government has built and marvel at the jobs and production it's created. However, you must also look at where the government has gotten the money to build said bridge (from the private economy). All the government does, when it builds ANYTHING, is essentially take money from the economies left pocket, and place it in the economies right. Than it points to the money in its right pocket and tells everyone how awesome it is. When in reality, there was no net gain. In fact, there is almost always a net LOSS because the money is never spent as efficiently as if it would have been left alone. And it's because of this rudimentary economic law, that after the government spent 11 trillion of our dollars, it still failed to lower the unemployment rate a single percentage point. (it's actually risen since than). And also why, spending 60 billion more on "infrastructure", would be retarded. So yeah, I'll thank whoever blocked that bill.. If you say it was "cons" than I suppose I thank them.
http://www.libertariantee.com

 

If the rich did not have the money for that jet, it would not make those jobs disappear, they would simply be building jumbo jets for normal people..... or doing other things.

 

A couple billion went to save the auto industry. The rest went to banks and insurance companies to save 401K's.

If i remember right Bush started TARP. BAnks stopped lending. Obama carried it on. Both smart moves.
I love these Hipforums because they usually are posts that people write from their head and not talking posts copied and pasted or brainwashed partisans spouting their party's 'wisdom'. You dont find that hardly anywhere on forums or the net. Leave it to stoners to keep it real.

 

You're absolutely right, TARP originally started under Bush. Not many people know that. This stimulus package is where the "shovel ready jobs" line that Individual used came from. And is what I was referencing in the first paragraph of my prior post as well. As you can see, it wasn't "obstructed" by anyone. (Which was the incorrect claim of rjhangover). Signed into law by Obama and passed through Democrat controlled house and senate. We'll agree to disagree that they were smart moves. (by either Bush or Obama). 11 trillion is almost an entire years GDP. In order to justify that amount of spending to me, would require much better results than 10% unemployment, a 40% decline in wealth, a bottomed out housing market, and all the many other aspects of our current crisis. You do realize that this money isn't just magicly created in some factory. All of that spending will eventually be shouldered by the people, either through taxes, or inflation (which is just a tax on people's savings). Of course, if u were being sarcastic, I retract all of that.

 

More likely affordable kites for normal people. There's only a need for so many jumbo jets and why would there be a need for more?
The population far exceeds what is needed to produce the essential needs of society, and the greatest number of people are employed producing the wants of those who can afford them, without which, even more persons would be starving and poor.

 

How much has been spent on the wars and what has been that effect?

 

Are you trying to change the topic now?

 

Trying to get some clarity. One is as good as the other to ask if you're trying to find out which affects society and how much. I assume you-all are implying the money for welfare has been wasted. So, how about the money for war? Has it been wasted?

 

There are many ways of wasting money. While money spent on war may seem wasteful, there are times it becomes necessary. If we allow welfare to become an acceptable occupation, then I would say yes, that money is being wasted. When government assistance provides as good or an even better quality of life than a job would, the motivation to acquire a job diminishes greatly. Politicians benefit more by keeping people on, or adding people to the roles of government assistance programs, while society as a whole benefits more by getting them off those assistance programs and into the work force where they can contribute to, rather than simply consume a share of the productivity of the society.

 

Yes, the money, and lives we've spent on wars (most especially these last few ones) have certainly been just as much of a waste as the money we've spent on the welfare state. Can't argue with you there. The government as a whole, whether it be democrat, republican, the welfare state, or the military industrial complex, is a terrible burden on society, and we should be doing everything in our power to lessen it.

 

:While money spent on war MAY SEEM WASTEFULL,there are times when it becomes necessary.
The same could be said for government help--now more than ever. You rightys don't seem to see any co-relation between the jobs that have been shipped overseas, the bank and wall street rip-offs,the obstructionism of your own party and the almost violent greed that has/is ruining the monetary system. I think it's very wastefull that the 1%(or somewhat larger %) can hide their money off-shore to keep from paying a fair share of things like --THE WARS they want and make so much $ on.
You want people off welfare? Then agitate for prohibitive tariffs on products made overseas that are shipped here. In other words--if we can't make it here--we don't need it and we don't buy it.
It would surprise me greatly if what you said were true="When government assistance provides as good or even better quality of life than a job would-"when the hell has that happened?

 

This.

The "libertarian" wealthy right makes jobs, allright..... just not jobs here.

The beauty part is that in the end, they can bring manufacturing here, to make goods to sell to chinese for a pittance in wages, because america will have been destroyed and not have the money to buy these things or say no to any salary...... it will just flip everything around, leaving them in the same position with everyone's money.

Capitalism as individual argues for absolutely REQUIRES that people be starving. It's not because they don't feel like working, it's because this system uses supply and demand to force people to work for less money, in such a way that the unemployment forces anyone who can to take any job that they can, and feel lucky. And government assistance obviously throws a monkey wrench in that, it takes away the incentive to work an exploitive job that leaves one with no time AND less than one needs to meet basic needs.

 

All of those problems you mentioned are brought on by the government in an attempt to pay for useless things like entitlements, and wars, which in reality only benefit the state, and not the people. The reason we've almost lost all of our manufacturing jobs to overseas is because of our uncompetitive tax code (we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world) and regulatory burden. If we got rid of those two obstacles, all those jobs would come pouring back to our soil. It costs a lot of money to ship products manufactured in China over to America. Unfortuantely, it costs more to manufacture domestically, with our business stifling governmental policies.
The same goes for people parking their money off shore, it's because those places are tax havens. (havens from countries like us). When the government places too great a burden on people's wealth, they take that wealth elsewhere. If we got rid of the welfare state, and stopped fighting pointless wars, (which both we agreed are wastes) we could get rid of many of our taxes, and so invite that money, and those investors back home.
Advocating for Tarriffs, and more control, is he wrong direction to go in. Tarriffs hurt the domestic customer, not help it. Im not going to go into an economics lesson, but I encourage you to look up the well known economic repercussions of Tarriffs. No, what we need is to shrink, or eliminate the state, not expand it like you're suggesting. Government caused all of these problems, MORE government certainly wont solve em.

 

(To post 237)Thanks. And in their relentless quest for ALL the god damn money, they seem to forget--if we don't have any--ultimately we won't even be ABLE to buy the cheap plastic Chinese,Taiwanese,Mexican,Indian,(and other countries where "they've" gone) shit that "they"need us to buy so they can even continue to GET ALL our money. The old saying-"cut off your nose to spite your face" is appropriate here.

 

They moved because of wages, not regulation or tax.

It costs next to nothing to throw a product on a slow freighter.

They will not come back unless forced. They don't like paying wages, dealing with regulation, OR paying taxes. The only way to bring them back without regulation is by making america worse than china for the people, which means better for the corporations.

Tariffs would not work in a small country, but we are a large country, with abundant land, workers, etc. There is a massive domestic market here, and if the only way to reach it is to do business here or pay tariffs that make it more expensive to import things, then people will do business here. Hell, all our companies could go to china, and people would start new ones, that would actually be great for the economy, imo....

If there's a niche to fill and money to make, it will be made, and making things in america to sell in america is much more lucrative than making things in china to sell in china..... but it fucks everything up when you have people and companies who are able to take advantage of high standards of living in one country, and low standards in another. If you're taking advantage of the high standards to make more money, but not paying back into the same system, the standards fall because all their bloody money is going to china, or being embezzled en route.

It's like they live in two worlds and reap the best of both. That works fine for a while and makes both countries feel better off for a few years, but it's non sustainable.