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

56

Thing is that I get accused of these things by people whose views I’m criticising but they never seem able to produce any evidence.

Take your example for example – A prime example of twisting the words of other is included in the post to which I now respond:

I said: "Has your enlightenment progressed into ADD." You state that I am claiming you have a medical condition. I made no such claim. I asked a question. It was sarcasm. Bal, review some of your posts, make an objective evaluation – any rational person should be able to see the truth in what I’ve said.

Oh yes I think it was a sarcastic remark but sarcasm can also be insulting, you are saying that my honest inquiry for clarification as to what ‘programs and practices’ you were talking above showed somehow that I was showing signs of the medical disorder ADD/ADHD. This came on top of you claiming that I was stupid (dense) and your constant point scoring so it was clearly meant to insult rather than as ‘good nature banter’.

And now you have clarified that what you meant by programs and practices was that you think the whole system is flawed that it not just some programs and practices that are at fault, but that the whole system that is wrong.

That’s fine but the thing I’m asking is that an argument against welfare or the US system of welfare? To me a good welfare system is needed if a system isn’t working then it should be repaired or rebuilt but some such as the Cato report seem to be highlighting failures to hint at an alternative were ‘welfare’ would not exist or be drastically curtailed.

 

As I’ve said I went back to the report itself – it’s not that great and is full of the same flawed thinking, over reliance on assertion and coyness about where it wants to lead that I’ve found amongst right wing libertarian here.

Its agenda is clear from the start -

“Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-suffi*cient”.

It wants to claim welfare doesn’t work and imply that it deters the ‘poor’ from working – the idea being that work would make them self-sufficient.

But as pointed out much of the assistance the author lists is actually seems to be going to working families who are getting paid so little that they seem to still need assistance.

As to the other claim that welfare doesn’t work that is highly subjective, even the report admits nobody knows what the situation would be like if the assistance had not been given.

It is arguing from a right wing libertarian stance that things would be better with a ‘free market’ system but other than assertion and rhetoric its doesn’t seem able to explain why or how that would come about. It uses that well know ‘beyond the scope of this paper’ that is so often a get out clause and stand in for ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I don’t want to tell’.

The things it does recommend are so obviously flawed as to be almost laughable.

“we actually have a pretty solid idea of the keys to getting out of and staying out of poverty: (1) finish school; (2) do not get pregnant outside marriage; and (3) get a job, any job, and stick with it”

This places the whole emphasis on the individual ignoring such structural problems of advantage and disadvantage and perpetuates the myth of the deserving and undeserving poor (see post 33 above).

finish school

Thing is I’m a very strong supporter of education, but many right wing libertarians I’ve discussed it with seem to have a much more Social Darwinist approach, that rather than help the disadvantage in their education would wish to move resources from the disadvantaged and give it to the already advantaged.

do not get pregnant outside marriage

I’ve discussed this with many right wingers here and they often opt first and foremost for ridged or draconian measures, the just say no abstinence approach or the enforced sterilisation of the undeserving poor or removal of their children for adoption.

The reference here to marriage would seem to fit in with this ideological approach to the problem, it seems to me that many people that need assistance are married, marriage isn’t a guarantee against hardship, economic stability and jobs whether married or not is. If people find themselves for whatever reason a single parent the way to get them working is to have decent jobs available and access to affordable or free childcare.

get a job, any job, and stick with it

Again as pointed out many people needing assistance are already in work. Also the availability of jobs can also be beyond the scope of the individuals looking for work. I mean neoliberal ideas that many right wing libertarian support are not about seeking full employment as the Keynesian based models are, it is about having unemployment because that is one of the means of driving down wage prices. It is the same reason why neoliberals oppose social programmes because their removal would also increase the possibility for exploitation, as in work or starve even if that means working long hours for slave wages with no possibility of escape.

It repeats these assertions later on adding another -

stay in school, avoid unmarried pregnancies, find a job, and save money

save money

It seems to me that if people are in work and needing assistance then they are unlikely to be in a position to save money.

The thing is that right wing libertarian economic ideas are not explained but in its place we get rhetoric –

“it should be clear that we need to focus less on making poverty more comfortable and more on creating the pros*perity that will get people out of poverty”

Ok again it implies that people receiving assistance are living well on it while for many it means subsistence the author chooses comfortable. But it is the next bit that is meaningless without context - creating the pros*perity that will get people out of poverty it is repeated again elsewhere -
It would make sense therefore to shift our anti-poverty efforts from government programs that simply provide money or goods and services to those who are living in poverty to efforts to create the condi*tions and incentives that will make it eas*ier for people to escape poverty.
To me the problem is with how right wing libertarians want to – create the conditions for prosperity – because when looked at it doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny the ideas are much more likely to increase the wealth of a few at the expense of everyone else.
The report talks of the ‘power of the free market’ then hints at what it would want – low taxes, deregulation and increased free market competition. And suggests that people that need assistance to live should be encouraged to “save and invest”
And what would that likely mean for those needing assistance, they would be given the incentive to be self-sufficient by having non charitable assistance reduced or removed.

 

RooR, We seem to have very similar thoughts in regard to each other's opinions. Is that some sort of agreement?

But seriously, when I was much younger, my views were closely aligned with yours. Years of experience and observation have taught some hard lessons -- a very frustrating one being that an ideology does not produce reality.

Without the constraints inherent in the forum environment, you might find that we do share some common ground.

Thanks for the response.

 

Roo

Sorry my amusement at some replies is annoying to you but to me they actually are funny, I mean the way some people try to worm out of answering questions or try to use tricks or convoluted logic etc is funny and I always explain why I think it funny. People here have the right of reply if they want to explain why what they’ve said isn’t funny they can do so.

 

56

If you mean by that, that dogmatic ideologies don’t work in the real world and are liable to make things worse – I’d totally agree and I’ve said it many, many times here.

 

Blab, don't twist my words to fit your meaning.

Why not go back to my previous posts and try to address my criticisms of your views (and your futile attempts to rationalize them) rather than just restating your opinion.

Oh, and let me take this moment to clarify: none of my sarcasm aimed at you or your opinions, posts, etc. was intended as "good natured banter".

 

56

What am i twisting? (i would have put a LOL here but i know you find them annoying so i didn't)

Sorry but I’m still trying to work out what your criticisms are that’s why I’ve asked for clarification and asked so many questions – if you’ll address them maybe we can move forward?

For example are you claiming that no working people in the US need assistance to get by or are you saying that if they are they must be doing it fraudulently or working the system?

And besides anecdotal evidence have you got any evidence for widespread abuse I mean if the abuses are so frequent and open why are they not being tackled?

 

Please refer to my previous comment re mass/volume.

This is just another of your attempts to evade the criticisms of your views -- perhaps I shouldn't have expected anything different. Why not, since it seems you are somewhat incapable of recognizing the true meaning of any given statement, just address those criticisms based on what you believe them to be rather than claiming that you're confused.

 

56

Read them - so again what am I twisting?

Well one criticisms seems to be against my comment that there seem to be working people in the US on assistance - you seem to be implying that working people don’t receive assistance or don’t need it – is that you position?

Another criticism you seem to be levelling at welfare is that there is widespread if not wholemeal abuse and I wonder besides anecdotal evidence have you got any evidence for this and if the abuses are so frequent and open why are they not being tackled?

 

For those of us in the US the abuse is seen day to day. And that last part is exactly what needs to be focused on.

Too many times when someone says that welfare isnt working, that person is thought to want to eliminate it entirely. We can still help those who need it and stop enabeling those who abuse the help.

Edit: it goes the other way around too..... If someone says they want the government to provide for those in need, they aren't saying that they want to provide for all the lazy leeches. I think a lot of us want more of the same thing than we realize.

It is a perfect example of the establishment doing a good job of seperating us.

"Welfare is abused rabble rabble rabble!"
"We can't take assistance away from the needy rabble rabble rabble!"

Both sides are right. Some people need assistance, and some who receive assistance don't need it. Arguing back and forth like a bunch cavemen isn't going to help anyone.

 

Beats the hell out of a cardboard box......

 

yep....

 

Are you calling for dramatically increased welfare spending?

Because I agree.

 

The Cato institute is a libertarian think tank. Of course they would say such things. Libertarians promote reducing public expenditure on social services.

What else would you expect from The Cato Institute?

 

If they're so dedicated to the principals of individual liberty why do they endorse corporate personhood?

The Corporate Person violates the principals of individual liberty; if individuals are to be free the illegitimate corporate person must die.

 

No bal, if I'd meant that, I would have said that.

 

Bal, it's not even possible that you do not understand the principle of implication by rhetorical question. You feign a misunderstanding of my statement merely to make one of your own. If that's not twisting one's words, what would you call it?

What? Oh, well... If that's what you somehow believe my position to be, by all means, feel free to address that -- just don't claim that to be a truthful representation for lack of my refuting it.

Bal, when you post quotes from, and links to, published articles, it seems you believe them to be above and beyond reproach -- the same from others automatically becomes "anecdotal evidence"? Do you mean something like your link to the piece about the "Dicksons" out in Seattle? I included links to three discussions or reports of fraud or abuse in a previous post (#72).

As I believe another has already stated, many us actually in the US see abuses most every day -- we see it first hand, we see it on the news. Some federal and state agencies (relevant to the topic of this thread) make available on their websites, information regarding investigatations of fraud. Don't bother looking for it on most of the homepages -- that would detract from the "success" stories and other self promotion -- one may have to dig a little. Too, it is important to rmember that many, if not most, of those agencies providing "assistance" are state agencies administering federal programs -- federal regulation prohibits investigations of fraud by some of those agencies.

Your question -- and I assume by "tackled" you mean "investigated", "prosecuted", or similar -- is a rather easily answered one here in the US: Welfare assistance is a politically charged issue -- especially in an election year. Politicians have used the issue for years to build and develope a support base among their constituency. It's an easy sound bite -- either play the poor folks card, the kids card, the elderly card, or the race card -- or better yet, play them. Yes, I'm being facetious -- sadly, it's too true.

 

odrab, can you put a name to those buildings in your photos?

Thanks

 

Squabbling about welfare, SS, entitlements,etc while we're spending a godzillion dollars a year fighting foreign wars against an abstract enemy just seems ludicrous.
But maybe it's just me...:coffee:

Hey here's an idea (not original), it's done in Italy with unemployment payments but I don't see any reason it couldn't be applied to certain welfare cases.
It goes like this, recipients are allowed to chose to either take the weekly check as per normal or they can take a one time lump sum equal to say, 5 years of welfare payments. Wait, There's a hook...

The deal is, they would have to talk 7 other recipients into making the same deal,
and
they would all have to invest their money in a small business start up of some kind....and there would be incentives for them to pool there capitol for even bigger perhaps more lucrative start-ups....thoughts?

 

What happens if they go bust in the business?