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

Individual:

Since you're a disciple of Ayn Rand, I was wondering what you thought of this on-topic article: Cato Shrugged ?

The new president of the Cato Institute wants to remake the think tank in Ayn Rand’s image.

 

A prime example of how you purposely misinterpret what people say in order to make them out like some sort of cold hearted bastard. You talk all day about "honest debate" and whatnot, but all the while employ the same nasty tricks as the most vile politicians. You are a smart guy, perhaps much smarter than I will ever be. But it's not intelligence that earns respect. If there's anything I disrespect the most it's a hypocrite.

 

Outhouse:

You couldn't be further from the truth -- I'm not retired, nor have I EVER been the recipient of ANY government retirement, assistance, relief, or welfare (your choice of terms – one or all); no low-interest/government-backed loans, no federally insured mortgages, no education assistance, nothing from the government (well, except grief, of course). My reliance has been on the only entity I’ve found completely reliable: myself.

Speculation:

a. a conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture
b. reasoning based on inconclusive evidence, conjecture or supposotion

And, no, I do not accept or admit that the Cato analysis includes “speculation”. However, I don’t believe that either Individual or I have ever denied the inclusion of opinion. My point has always been that the conclusion of a failed/failing welfare system is a correct and reasonable one and one based on fact – the system has failed and continues to fail. No evidence has been provided to the contrary.

 

Detroit Councilmember JoAnn Watson confirms, as I and others have previously stated, that politicians use government assistance to build their voter base:

Ms. Watson was the only councilmember to vote against the proposal to refund the pension plan.

Read more here.

 

I didn't bother to read the 'study' by Cato at all. The figures mentioned were of more interest, and the info made available directly from the government allows each of us to see if there is a basis of fact and make up our own minds as to the progress achieved by government programs and their effect on poverty. While government assistance programs, like private run charities both are employed to reduce the effects of poverty, only jobs can reduce the number of persons living in poverty and reduce the costs of providing assistance overall.

 

I'm not a disciple of Ayn Rand at all. Presumably you infer this because I've quoted her, but I've quoted Karl Marx in the past as well, and I'm most definitely not a disciple of his. You seem to be of the belief that if you dislike a person for any reason you should disagree with everything they might say. Cato Institute can do as they please, as can the Liberal, Left wing, Progressive, and other think tanks. Each of them have an agenda, but the facts, if accurate, speak for themself and each of us is free to use our own personal bias in how we wish to interpret them. None of us is free of bias.

 

I fail to see hypocricy in Balbus' question. The Cato Institute and posters in this thread have unambiguously made the assertion that all assistance should be stopped. I think it's a valid question.

 

I have no idea what what the Cato Institutes position is, nor do I really care. I'm also missing where any posters in this thread have made the assertion that all assistance should be stopped.

I have promoted the removal of the Federal government from involvement in funding of aid programs which the beneficiaries have not paid into as the means of entitlement and returning them to the States to fund and implement as their citizens are willing to accept responsibility for, and allowing private charities to once again become the primary source of providing such assistance. The problem with most Federal programs is that they become so large, complex, and often redundant, that waste and fraud becomes ignored, and even seen as unimportant to eliminate, after all what's a few million or even tens or hundreds of millions of dollars when we're talking about hundreds of billions or a trillion dollars? In addition, what sense does it make to send money to Washington only to have Washington return it and more to where it originated from, after taking a cut to pay the wages and benefits to bureaucrats who are far removed from the problems that if eliminated would cost them their jobs?

 

LLTH takes no issue with the question, but in the way it was asked and the true intent of asking it. What he points out is Blabus's very common tactic of implication by asking for "clarification" of a point that was clearly never intended.

Anyone possessing so much as a rudumentary understanding of the English language and reading the post of braveheartlion that Balbus responds to, is able to understand that the poster included not even the slightest inference of holding the opinion so implied by B's request for "clarification". What that post did include was the expression of dissatisfaction with the system and (anecdotal) evidence of abuse within the system along with suggestions for solutions to some of the problems. Whatever opinion or position one may take in regard to those suggestions, the poster, in having made them has done more toward solving the problem than many others posting here.

Can you point to where "..posters in this thread have unambiguously made the assertion that all assistance should be stopped..."? You can't -- because it's not here. Your assertion is merely more misdirection and cheerleading in the absence of substance.

 

Letlovin

Again you come here to accuse me of something but not to address the many outstanding criticisms of your views, remember the Social Darwinism thing, how about the forced labour thing. To me honest debate is about debating honestly that mean confronting stuff you may not like to address.

I was asking Lion to explain her thinking – there are those that seem to think that assistance should be withdrawn (in large part or completely) – she said “Of course I've seen lots abuse this system and on the other side seen some people bring themselves up and get back on their own feet without starving to death”

To which I replied - Some people may need assistance and some may not, but are you suggesting that because some may not then all assistance should be stopped?

I’m seeking to work out what is her full meaning because she seems to be at least hinting at withdrawal in some cases.

 

Indie

YES I know your opinion the problem as we have seen time and again is that you seem unable to defend it from criticism.

Please stop just restating your ideas and actually address the criticisms of them.

As has been explained to you several times, there are many people that are statistically in poverty and needing assistance that are in work.

If you want to reduce the number of people claiming assistance, why not begin by getting employers to pay living wages?

It is also worth repeating that while wealth has become vastly richer over the last thirty years or so the real term incomes of middle and low class groups have in large part fallen or stagnated. Those groups have become poorer while wealth has grown richer.

Also as has been explained many many times free market/neoliberal ideas seem about driving down the wages of the middle and lower groups. One way this could be achieved they seem to believe is through the withdrawal of welfare benefits so you get in effect a ‘work or stave’ economic model that is open to the exploitation of the weak.

 

Indie

But you have often commented glowingly about her and her works and said she is one of the greatest 20th century visionaries with the “uncanny ability to fictionalize events prior to their achieving the status of fact” (although you’ve never seemed able to address any criticisms of her deeply flawed ideas and her rather ludicrous opinions).

Disciple might be a bit strong but I think follower would seem to fit.

 

Indie

YES I know your opinion the problem as we have seen time and again is that you seem unable to defend it from criticism.

Please stop just restating your ideas and actually address the criticisms of them.

You have argued many many many many times that assistance should only come from voluntary contribution even stating that in your model of society you would be happy to allow people that have got into hardship through no fault of there own to suffer and even die from that hardship if no such voluntary contribution was forthcoming.

But as we have gone through many many many many times..yours is an ideology and while you may go on about ‘federal government’ your ideology covers all governance.

And we have been through the whole localism thing and the seeming flaws in your views in that area criticisms you still refuse to address.

But as explained to you several times private giving was never able to give the assistance needed.

 

I have addressed both of those things. You just refuse to hear it because you don't agree. Here ya go.

Social Darwinism - I'm not for it

Forced labor - what you call forced labor I call being productive and earning your money. I am for productivity.

I didn't see anything in Lions post that suggest a complete removal of social welfare programs. Would you care to point it out?

 

I retract my statement:

… and I'll have some pie:

Surely, we've already discussed this:

The Cato analysis is obviously incorrect because the pass/fail criteria can produce only one outcome: failure.

Let's look at the Title:

You and the Cato Institute are claiming that welfare is a failure. In order to make that assertion (in any kind of "study"), a pass/fail criteria must be established.

The pass/fail criteria you presented was this:

Cato's conclusion is obviously flawed because the pass/fail criteria is designed to fail.

That welfare has failed is not a fact, its the opinion of Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute.

For evidence of the success of welfare, talk to people who have been helped by it. As you've said, statistics are a type of lie.

I find no pleasure in the fact that the government of the country of which I am a citizen is being influenced by the Koch brothers (wealth) through think tanks like the Cato Institute: Koch brothers now at heart of GOP power .

As what form of literature did Cato present it?

 

The assertion that all federal government assistance should be stopped (for human individuals, not corporations) is by the Cato Institute (wealth). [Source]

 

I didn't see the post in this thread made by the Cato Institute. What did they have to say?

 

Hello... is anybody home?

This thread you've been posting to is about a "study" written by the Cato Institute.

(although oldog said "Cato didn't present it that way at all." I asked him to clarify.)

 

Sorry, but I have only been dealing with the facts presented, not with the source, which I believe according to government provided figures was somewhat understated, and actually over $1 trillion.

I don't really see how any progress can be achieved by attacking the messenger, no matter who it is, if their facts are true. Obviously poverty could be eliminated completely by just printing and distributing an amount of money that would provide everyones needs entirely, and that seems to be what the Fed is doing looking at the money base growth over the last 4 years. One dollar printed equals Ten new dollars on the books. This is how wealth disparity occurs, and government can then raise taxes on the wealthiest as they suffer no losses at all in reality, which the poor and middle classes are kept happy with benefit and wage increases to try and keep them from noticing that they have gained nothing at all.

 

Indie.... YOU have been asserting that it is not the government's job to provide assistance.... for this thread, and for years before this thread.

Also... oh noes, you think that a 1/16th, instead of a 1/32nd, of the national debt was spent to actually HELP people? What a waste, just imagine how many more foreign national non-combatants we could have murdered with drone strikes for that much money!