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

I didn't read all the posts on this thread, so someone may have already said it, but the reason why welfare isn't working is because the majority of the money goes to support the bloated bureaucracy that dispenses it.
And, to all the people who are concerned about who is or is not paying their fair share of taxes, consider how business is set up, at least in the USA. Businesses are allowed to deduct costs that include benefits. Having been in business a few times, and picking the brain of my accountants during those times, it was clear that I could pretty much call anything I wanted to a benefit and deduct it. Not everything, but it is amazing what can be. For instance, one contractor I worked for told me all about how he could not afford a 5 dollar T shirt at the Goodwill on what he paid himself. I said that was probably true, considering that his company bought his clothes, his car, his house, his food, pretty much everything he and his family needed to live, and he probably didn't pay himself anything, or very little. This sort of thing is allowable under USA law. As I understand it, even Steve Jobs took advantage of this, getting a 1 dollar a year salary in pay, but everything he had was owned by his company, which he CONTROLLED. These guys know that they don't need to pay themselves anything, they let their companies pay for all their needs, and their companies deduct it from their taxes. To say that some poor slob who makes minimum wage is some sort of criminal for trying to get out of paying taxes is just wrong. From what I have been able to tell, people who work for a living as at will employees shouldn't even have to be paying tax on what they earn that way. The whole USA income tax law is a joke. It started out as a way to make the rich pay more. The rich, being able to pay for top advice, found ways around the laws. The feds, making very little off this new tax, learned how to coerce the working stiffs into paying it, and we have been paying it ever since WW2. The "Victory Tax" was how it started, use patriotism to get people used to the idea of paying, then never let them go.

 

What about morality?

 

I'll have to rate that as the MOST reasonable, rational, and morally founded post I have ever viewed on these forums. Not only did I like it, I agree totally with what he says.

 

There's no benefit in reading every post in this or any lengthy thread. If anything of real value has been posted previously, there's no harm in it being re-posted from time to time.

Quite a bit of truth, and all this actually began back in the late 19th century with the progressive movement, which has been useful for over a century now in bringing about many changes, often viewed by many as desirable and/or necessary, but in addition consequences with varying effects upon the society as a whole that although being undesirable, have also served as useful tools by those who govern in dividing the society upon one another for their (the politicians & their cronies) benefit.

 

Wrong

Again it depends on what you mean by value - to repeat basically what I posted just above.

It depends on what your definition of value is - can you explain it?

As I’ve told you before, you really must think things through –
relative worth – but relative to what?

Utility – but what might be useful to one person might not be to another it will also change with circumstance.

Importance – well what is important to you?

For example what value would you give to a person’s life? Would it be what you could harvest from it? What price would you pay for a loved one that had been kidnapped? Would you be happy to see people that through no fault of their own have fallen into difficulty to suffer or even die of that circumstance?

To repeat - how do you know they would or would not be produced? As I’ve said before you would need two world one in which public money was used (as it was) and one where it wasn’t (which didn’t happen).

As to value I’m still unsure what you se as of value – I mean if a government builds and maintains a sewage system in poor areas that makes no direct monetary profit but improves the lives (and health) of many people does that have ‘value’?

 

Wrong

You seem to imply that recessions/depressions were less serious before suggesting for example that recovers were always faster.

To quote you - “and not only did we still recover, we recovered FASTER” post 876

But as I’ve been trying to point out to you - ‘value’ - can be subjective in time, place and between individuals – to take the definition you gave

relative worth – but relative to what?

Utility – but what might be useful to one person might not be to another it will also change with circumstance.

Importance – well what is important to you?

A person’s values, financial, moral or even intellectual can have an impact on what they see as being of value.

One person might see a lump of scrap metal whose value could be realised by selling it off by the kilo while another person might see it as a work of art. (“Bronze sculpture worth £3m was melted down and sold off as scrap for just £1,500, say police” The Observer)

 

Wrong

But main seem to think that the Austrian school isn’t part of that ‘mainstream’.
Also there seem to be several views on many of the ‘recessions/depression’ what part of Christina Romer’s views are you talking about?
Thing is I think you need to explain a bit more are you saying there was no economic problems in the US between 1873-1879 when some seem to believed “18,000 businesses went bankrupt, including hundreds of banks, and ten states went bankrupt, while unemployment peaked at 14% in 1876” (wiki)
And are you trying to say that there were no ‘real’ economic problems in the US until the 1930’s? I mean you seem to have said there were.

 

Wrong

But you have already said ‘boom and busts’ happened before ‘government intervention’ and the records seem to indicate that they were disruptive and seemingly often longer that those from the 1940’s to the 2008.
Now as I see it the theory is an economic downturn or crash happens and nothing is done to alleviate its effects in the belief that the economy will eventually, sometime off in the future possibly ‘realign’ itself and emerge better or just the same as it was before, but again why prolong a downturn?

 

Wrong

Untrue - again the same assertion, without you addressing the criticisms of it, can you address the criticisms and stop making unsubstantiated accusations?

But the problem is that I don’t advocate ‘corporate welfare’ and apart from the assertion you have been unable to actually show that I do.

Which you said went to an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public
And as I said that sounds a lot like investment.
As I’ve said before - I mean there are things that governments have created or helped to create, I mean I’ve already talked about the sewers and such things as the Erie Canal, then there was the railways and the roads, I mean Eisenhower’s Federal Aid Highway act of 1956 has been called the "Greatest Public Works Project in History". Then there is the development of jets as well as the internet and the World Wide Web.
I mean it could be said that a bank or entrepreneur that invests in a new business (that is not yet making money) is subsidising it until the point when it makes ‘good’ for them in the form of profit.
If a government makes an investment in say building and maintaining a sewage system in poor areas that makes no direct monetary profit but improves the lives (and health) of many people isn’t that deemed advantageous to the public?

 

Wrong

Untrue - again the same assertion, without you addressing the criticisms of it, can you address the criticisms and stop making unsubstantiated accusations?

But the problem is that I don’t advocate ‘corporate welfare’ and apart from the assertion you have been unable to actually show that I do.

Which you said went to an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public
And as I said that sounds a lot like investment.

As I’ve said before - I mean there are things that governments have created or helped to create, I mean I’ve already talked about the sewers and such things as the Erie Canal, then there was the railways and the roads, I mean Eisenhower’s Federal Aid Highway act of 1956 has been called the "Greatest Public Works Project in History". Then there is the development of jets as well as the internet and the World Wide Web.

I mean it could be said that a bank or entrepreneur that invests in a new business (that is not yet making money) is subsidising it until the point when it makes ‘good’ for them in the form of profit.

If a government makes an investment in say building and maintaining a sewage system in poor areas that makes no direct monetary profit but improves the lives (and health) of many people isn’t that deemed advantageous to the public?

 

Wrong

As I’m said many times I’m not a fan of ‘bail outs’, and I’m actually arguing that it would be better if economic situations didn’t become so bad that businesses and people needed assistance.

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

 

Wrong

I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s noticed you are still not addressing most of the criticisms levelled at you; can you please start doing so?

I mean apart from telling me I’m wrong because you are telling me I’m wrong you still haven’t addressed the criticisms I’ve got with that parable of the broken glass you presented.

You also make pronouncements about such things as ‘value’ but when asked to explain them from your perspective seem to become rather coy.

Once more I’m getting the strong smell of evasion in your posts that is familiar from other right wing posters.

 

Indie

I go where I’m often led - remember I’m trying to work out why you have the views you have, why you still hold on to them when you seem unable to defend them from criticism in any rational or reasonable way.

Well as I’ve said I’m often led I mean you often make pronouncements or assertions that you know have been covered elsewhere and for which you know there are outstanding criticisms that you have not addressed, I think that needs to be pointed out, because otherwise people wouldn’t know that such criticisms are outstanding, also on many occasions I’ve asked you to go back to such threads and address the outstanding criticisms something you seem very reluctant to do.

For example after complaining you then go on to pontificate on ‘small government’ knowing full well that we have been through that in the -

Question About Operation of Small Government
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=361461&page=3

As covered your idea of ‘small government’ would only seem to enhance the ‘freedom’ of a few to the detriment of others by giving the few much more power and influence in society and politics.

As covered you have argued against democracy and have even suggested that wealth be given greater voting rights so it could block the majority vote.

As covered your ideas would only seem to enhance the ‘freedom’ and ‘choices’ of a few to the detriment of others by giving the few much more power and influence in society and politics.

As covered I have never thought that total equality is possible or even desirable but I would like to make societies fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life, such places where all people are more likely to realise their potential.

This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a society where things were more unfair and many people’s lives were worse.

Your goals then seem very irrational and deeply unreasonable to me because you do seem to want a more unfair society where the potential of the disadvantaged are stifled a place where you would happily let people who have fallen into hardship through no fault of their own suffer or even die from want

 

Bal,

Thankfully, everything is NOT and would not be as what it "seems to be" in your mind.

ThisIsWhyYoureWrong - I had to go find and listen to the entire April 6, 2008 Health Care Discussion/Debate as Richard Epstein was so rationally persuasive in the short clip you provided. Now I'll probably spend time looking for some of his books as well. Thanks

 

Well, shouldn't we deal with poverty and inequality in a moral way? It's a fair call.

 

Wait.

You're genuinely saying "why isn't it ok to exploit poor people systematically for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful?"

That's horrible.

 

And we have a winner!

 

I must have missed it. Could you point out where this was said?

 

I believe the vast majority of us do.

 

I said nothing at all like that, I simply asked a question. "The reasoning being?"