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

Yomama

Sorry must have missed this - well in my youth I lived in countries where I could claim unemployment benefit and in places where I couldn’t – and I’ve suffer times of unemployment in both.

In the place where I couldn’t claim unemployment benefit, I spent a lot of time just getting by (getting food finding a means to keep warm etc) and worrying about what might happen, and wondering at what point I’d have to start begging or if I’d have the nerve to mug someone or rob a house. I never did commit a crime but it is there at the back of your mind and don’t believe any man who has been in that position who claims they didn’t think about it (women who have been there often wonder about other things). I always thankfully found some work before I starved or did anything rash but sometimes it was not the best of jobs things like day labouring (going to somewhere with the hope of being picked for work that day) these were often backbreaking or dangerous work for little pay but they would get you by although often still hungry and cold.

Where I could claim unemployment benefit, it was never a great deal of money but it got you by (although you could often end up cold and hungry) it did mean however that I could give more time to looking for work (and thoughts of crime never entered my head). It also meant I could be more selective with what I accepted and choose things that better paid work that better suited my abilities and that were not dangerous to my health and had prospects.

*

Thing is that although people who have never suffered hardship believe they would never turn to crime to get by it seems to me that the reason for that belief hasn’t been tested. But in economic terms periods of high unemployment are linked to periods of higher crime rates with all the accompanying personal and social cost that can entail. And the other thing is that lack of unemployment benefits can lead to exploitation and a great loss of personal and social potential as well as having the effect of lowering wages across the board.

 

Bal,

What I have promoted is a power structure which flows bottom upwards, from individuals through local government, State government, a lastly what has been consented to by the both the people as represented by their districts elected House representative, and the States as represented by their States 2 Senators, as defined in our Constitution. Money will flow to where power is exercised, and the less power the people allow to be exerted by the Federal government without their consent greatly restricts the ability of money to have influence on the actions of our government over the people AND the States, who should should also demand their representatives spend much more time communicating with and faithfully representing them when in session. The people are now only relevant come election time, and most government is along the lines of the national party they belong to, regardless of the way the people they claim to represent lean. So you might say I support a strong Constitutional form of government with democracy taking place frequently, and not just in election years. In todays world there are far too many issues to think that any elected representative is capable of addressing each issue to the satisfaction of even a simple majority of his/her constituents without frequently communicating with them, and it is even more likely that government would run more efficiently, effectively, and acceptably by a larger majority if less time was spent in Washington, and more time with those they have been elected to represent, the authentic lobbyists who have employed them.

 

.

 

The govt. needs to give more cash to the poor and let them use it how they want so they can work their way out of poverty. Grants or something. Not loans!
The traditional way of welfare doesn’t work. The biggest waste is just giving them enough food stamps, rent subsidy and a little check to get by each month. That’s what keeps them dependent and immobile. Also, put social workers on the ground. No sitting behind a desk all day. They need to follow up and mentor and coach the poor on how to get mobile. No time limits. Keep good data to see what works for who and what doesn’t. Get communities and neighbors involved. People see what their neighbors are doing. It does take a village or a good friend, family member or coach to commit to helping a person get on their feet and independent.
The whole welfare model is screwed and just keeps social workers employed and makes the poor poorer and powerless

 

How observant you are. You must have read the words "What I have promoted" to deduce that.

 

Yeah, yeah. I didn't have enough time then to properly decode your jargon. It was a hasty post on my part.

Here is the comment you're responding to:

But the constitution already exists and is codified into law.

I have demanded my representative represent me but all I received was a form letter thanking me for my views. I know of others who routinely receive the same treatment.

Agreed

So in your view, balance can be restored if only representatives and constituents communicate more?

The problem with your solution is that it doesn't address the real problem of corruption.

 

1. That's a beginning, after all the only way a politician can represent the views of those he/she is supposed to be representing in Washington, is to get their opinions from not only the ones who voted for him/her but also those who did not but still are constituents.

2. Like I said you have to start somewhere, and the first step in my opinion is bringing government under control of the people, who then have to take responsibility in holding their individual representatives accountable to them and not just to large contributors. There is no quick and easy fix that would eliminate the necessity of vigilant oversight of our elected politicians by their constituents.

 

Sounds about right to me. I guess that's why I don't get the ones who are always bleating about it being useless to vote. After all,it's the only way to get ones opinion in the mix. Enough opinions/votes =winner.

 

The only problem is I've never found any candidate I can agree with on each and every issue, and then again many issues can arise after the election which without communicating with his/her constituents may result in them not being represented at all.

 

What's the middle and end?
I'm not sure what you mean by "those who did not but still are constituents." Could you clarify?

The control of government is secured by money. Is it reasonable to suggest that the oppressed should simply outspend their political opponents "bringing government under control of the people?"

 

In my opinion, a corrupted political system polluted by obscene amounts of corporate cash thereby securing "influence" could be a reason why it would be useless to vote because "influence" is often multinational corporate interests not national. So some multinational corporation gets representation but real americans who vote none. That wasn't a bleat was it?

 

1. There is no middle or end.

2. Those who did not vote or voted against the election winner. They are no less constituents than those who did.

3. I've not seen that suggested, but I would suggest that rather than allow the political parties to provide candidates of their choosing, the people would be better served by initiating the selection of who they would like to be their candidate. Taking control of the parties away from those who currently pull the strings is a necessity in wresting power from them and into the hands of the people.

 

Now there's a novel idea... why hasn't anyone else thought of that?

How observant you are.

 

And as I pointed out already, I cited it to reinforce the following concept, "any money given to manufacturing must be extracted from other sectors of the economy, and so money spent to prop up bad businesses can only be done at the expense of successful ones." Which yes, refers to the "assistance" you mentioned in your post. You're the one who needs to go read the posts, not me. I'm trying to get you off of the parable because, as I've pointed out, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT. Your introduction of insurance is so far removed from logic and reason it quite literally does not warrant a response. For instance, in your mind the window breaking represents an "economic downturn" (like you said), however if this were true.. why would the towns people be asking if the window breaking is beneficial or not to the economy? An "economic downturn" is, by definition, bad for the economy. The entire point of the parable, is determining whether or not breaking a window is beneficial to the economy. The baker having Insurance, as I've pointed out,does not change the outcome of this question. The overall state of the economy, does not change the outcome of this question. You keep saying you understand my views, and yet you haven't managed to represent them, or address them, in a single post.

You commit the very same fallacy below as well, observe:

Where do you think the City Council gets it's money? If "Money is tight" and no one has money to invest, why does the City Council? The City Council gets it's funding from those same businesses which are too "tight" to invest.

And as I've already pointed out, this assumes that things built by the government would not have been built otherwise. Which is not empiracally or logically true. Sewers, roads, courts, police officers, public transit, have all been supplied by private means at some point in the past. http://libertariantee.com/I/user.php?nameFix=10 Here are a couple examples. If anything the government does has value to consumers, it will be supplied by the market. Just like all other services that have value to consumers, are being supplied by the market. Things like shoes, electronics, food, cars, etc. Why would the services you mentioned, if they have value, be any different?

There is no such thing as a perfectly controlled economic experiment. My point was that there have been many depressions that were NOT met with bailouts, and did NOT result in a complete economic collapse. You claimed that in the absence of bailouts there would have been a "complete economic collapse". In order for this to be true, you would have to show that depressions where the government did not respond with bailouts resulted in a "complete economic collapse". You cannot produce a single one. Because it's never happened.

Corporate Welfare, as defined by google, "Government support or subsidy of private business".
Is that not what you're advocating for Balbus?

OutHere.. I don't know.. you tell me.. where does the practice of Keynesian economics differ from corporate welfare?

 

Wrong

Yes and I’ve covered that several times in the above pages so can you please now address what has been said?
(post 884) Again are you saying the baker is a bad business that he must accept the consequences of things beyond his control?

That the baker’s use of insurance to pay for an accidental breakage is at the expense of all the other businesses in the scheme and so he shouldn’t be allowed to have assistance?

As I’ve pointed out the only person in the story that needs help is the baker and you seem to be saying that rather than paying into an insurance policy that could help him in such times of adversity he should instead spend the money elsewhere and just hope nothing happens.

Your argument is that if money is invested in one thing it will not be invested in another.

If it is invested in say some type of insurance or scheme to help in case of accident or economic downturn then it isn’t been invested in something else.

 

Wrong

Sorry shouting at me that I didn’t just accept your understanding of it without question does not address the criticisms I’ve presented of it. Can you please address those issues?

LOL – evasion, what you mean is you know that you have not rational or reasonable argument so you are trying to sidestep. I’ll repeat – if it is so illogical and unreasonable shouldn’t it be easier to refute? So why is it you don’t even seem able to address it let alone refute it?

 

Wrong

So the window did brake, and since it did happen then yes it is going to give work to the glazier (as the towns people comment), but it is a big and rather illogical step from there to claiming that it would be a good thing to smash all windows on purpose.

Keynesian ideas work perfectly ok without accidents they don’t need accidents BUT it is an economic system that prepares for bad things happen rather than just hoping they will not and telling people to spend the money that could be used to be prepared causing them great hardship when the inevitable bad then does happen.

But if the baker is prepared, he has budgeted in the insurance payments and separately saved up for the coat so when the accident happens the insurance pays for the window and he still has the money for the coat. Unless you are saying (as you seem to) that the baker shouldn’t be prepared and not spend his money on insurance but on other things?

 

Wrong

But the window did brake, and since it did happen then yes it is going to give work to the glazier (as the towns people comment), but it is a big and rather illogical step from there to claiming that it would be a good thing to smash all windows on purpose.

Keynesian ideas work perfectly ok without accidents they don’t need accidents BUT it is an economic system that prepares for bad things happen rather than just hoping they will not and telling people to spend the money that could be used to be prepared causing them great hardship when the inevitable bad then does happen.

But if the baker is prepared, he has budgeted in the insurance payments and separately saved up for the coat so when the accident happens the insurance pays for the window and he still has the money for the coat. Unless you are saying (as you seem to) that the baker shouldn’t be prepared and not spend his money on insurance but on other things?

 

Wrong

But the window did brake, and since it did happen then yes it is going to give work to the glazier (as the towns people comment), but it is a big and rather illogical step from there to claiming that it would be a good thing to smash all windows on purpose.

Keynesian ideas work perfectly ok without accidents they don’t need accidents BUT it is an economic system that prepares for bad things happen rather than just hoping they will not and telling people to spend the money that could be used to be prepared causing them great hardship when the inevitable bad then does happen.

But if the baker is prepared, he has budgeted in the insurance payments and separately saved up for the coat so when the accident happens the insurance pays for the window and he still has the money for the coat. Unless you are saying (as you seem to) that the baker shouldn’t be prepared and not spend his money on insurance but on other things?

 

Wrong

Try reading - Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353

In the up period the government pays off its debts incurred in the low period and possibly its stakes in some industries and business it nationalised or bought in the low period.

In the low period the government is then in a position to put money into the system and nationalise or buy up viable businesses that have got into trouble.

As said it is like the baker been prepared. Its like paying into an insurance scheme.