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

1. Yes, that is right, it is NOT the Federal governments job. But recognize that is not the same as saying that assistance should be totally withheld from people in need.

2. No, I said nearly 30% of annual budget. I don't remember having mentioned drone strikes at all.

 

I was referring to your last post, where, if I read (and remember) correctly, you said you think the number is closer to a trillion than a half trillion.

And I was saying, I'd sure as hell rather the government spent it on welfare, as they're going to spend it anyways, and most of the other ways involve murdering foreign nationals.

 

1. As was I, but recognize the fact that the National debt represents money which has been spent, the budget deficit represents money which is being borrowed and spent, and added to the existing debt. It makes no sense at all to look at each years spending on welfare programs as a percentage of the National debt, but only as a percentage of the current years budget.

Unlike privately ran and funded charitable organizations who also redistribute wealth, do so without having negative economic effects. They can only redistribute money which has been donated for that purpose, which imposes no debt and interest payments on future generations, not to mention that their work can be carried out by volunteer workers who receive no wages, salaries, benefits, future pensions, etc. related to their volunteer work, while government run and funded charitable replacement programs have deep economic impact on society, as government spends money which it does not have, and has to print and/or borrow if tax revenues collected are inadequate to provide the funding, and the work is carried out by Federal, State, and local government employees who are likely unionized, difficult to eliminate, inefficient, more often corrupt, and paid wages, salaries, and benefits, while working, as well as pensions and benefits after.

If you really wish to compare welfare spending to the National debt, it would account to more than the total National debt accumulated to date, over the history of cumulative welfare spending.

2. The primary reason the United States of America exists as a Nation, is for the purpose of protection of the borders of each member State from attack by a superior force. We could become 50 totally separate sovereign Nations, which would reduce the military to simply what each State and its citizens would allow and fund. Nothing in the Constitution implies that the Federal government was ever given the power or responsibility to provide aid and assistance on an individual basis to the inhabitants of the Nation within each State by the means of taxation and redistribution.

 

Letlovin

Ignoring criticism is not ‘addressing’ something, I’m sorry but I cannot ‘refuse to hear’ what has not been expressed.

For example –

Yes you say that - But as has been pointed out your outlook often seems to be Social Darwinist, I’ve tried to discuss this apparent contradiction with you on a number of occasions.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7271065&postcount=1416

Below is another link, do you remember your ‘genetic luck’ idea?

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7282672&postcount=1533

Yes I know that is your view - but you seem unable to address the criticisms levelled at the idea of forced labour – just restating your viewpoint does not address those criticisms.


Remember Letlovin that we have been here before (a few times in fact) with you making accusations and claims that you later cannot back up.

Can you please stop this obvious evasion and enter into honest debate?

As to braveheartlion, I’m still unsure of her position this was her only post to Politics, and as said there seemed to be the hint she’d put some types of limits on public assistance and a general disillusionment with the system, but I’m unsure how far she would go, would she for example be in favour as some here seem to suggest that assistance should only come from voluntary contribution (the trust of my question)? I hope she will get in touch and enlighten us.

 

Indie

But you are on record as saying 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 such voluntary contribution was not forthcoming.

Have you changed your mind?

And what do you mean by ‘totally withheld’, I mean giving people just bread and water and then still forcing them to work for that, is not ‘totally withholding’ assistance.

 

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.

 

Let us imagine a plague, a disease that could affect anyone but will actually end up only affecting half of the population but nobody knows which half. (*)

That is a societal problem.

In such a situation I think most sensible people would want the community’s government to try and do something about it and be willing to pay the taxes to tackle the situation.

Now lets say that half a population are born into disadvantage and half not. But since no one can choose beforehand to which half they are to be born, it basically means disadvantage could affect anyone.

So again it is a societal problem.

The difference is that there is the problem of hindsight, when those born into advantage are taxed to help the disadvantaged, they may not be inclined to go ‘oh I could have been born disadvantaged myself’ they might go ‘why should I help’.

It is like knowing who would be affected by the disease and who not. Some might help out of compassion and for the good of society but others might think ‘I’m all right jack’ and decide it’s none of their business if others suffer - something I’m sure they wouldn’t think if they didn’t now they wouldn’t be effected.

(*And I’m not saying disadvantage is a disease, I’m just using the plague idea as an example)

 

if you have the plague then its probably a good idea to not have any kids. for your sake and the childs.

 

pen

I’m unsure of your meaning can you clarify? I mean how does anyone know in advance whom will contract the illness?

 

I still fail to understand what about my viewpoints you are classifying as "social darwanism." I am not against social programs that help people who need it. I would just like to see things run more efficiently so that the money gets to the hands that need it, instead of those who are abusing the system. How is that social Darwinism? Maybe I don't fully understand the term?

As far as "forced labor" goes, I don't remember seeing any legitimate criticisms against my stance. I understand that you, and many others don't like the idea. We just don't see eye to eye. We can run around the circle jerk routine all day long but that's not gonna get us anywhere

I'm curious as to what you would consider to be a legitimate response to your criticisms of ideas that you do not support.

 

This has been explained previously: Here in the US there are many things that are not and cannot be accomplished by government simply due to lack of funds. Then, there are those things that government cannot legally do. The performance of such work by other than government forces or funding is commonly referred to as “community service”.

One example: within a particular neighborhood a vacant piece of property has become littered, overgrown with vegetation, or otherwise unsightly or unhealthy. In absence of the property owner’s efforts to abate the offensive issue, most local governments have the authority to perform the required work, assess the cost toward the property either in the form of tax or as a lien on the property – such process takes time – in some cases months or even years. In the meantime the issues still exist and the neighborhood suffers in one way or another. At that point a “community service” program or group – possibly even an informal one – may take on the project of cleaning up or otherwise abating the offending issue.

Ideas associated with the concept of “community service” include: bringing those of the neighborhood together for discovering common goals or values, developing better relationships within the neighborhood, restoration of pride in one’s community. Performance of “community service” may include almost anything – from cleaning of either public or private property to yard work for an elderly or disabled person to assisting an elderly or disabled person with their shopping to simply visiting those in an assisted living facility.

Many times, the more fortunate members of a community are involved in the programs, thereby creating the distinct possibility that contact may be made which results in gainful employment for those not so. Since the work accomplished under “community service” was not to be performed by government anyway (for one reason or another), no one is put out of work by these programs. The concept is a good one and should be promoted and utilized more often.

I think the point braveheartlion is trying to make is that such service might also rekindle some sense of self-worth in a person long unemployed or otherwise unfortunate – and that the community would receive some immediate benefit from that service.

As to “why are they not paying” (?): who the hell might know – there’s a multitude of reasons and excuses – and is that even relevant? If such persons have been court-ordered to pay, then they should have to pay even if such payment is deducted from their “assistance” for in the US we also have provisions already in place to “take the money at the source”. As for jailing those not paying, I can think of no better incentive – most develop more of a willingness to fulfill their obligation after a little jail time. As harsh as some may think it or however it might be labeled, there are those that fail or refuse to understand anything else.

We, in the US, have Article 4, Section 1, of the US Constitution that covers it pretty well. We also have something called “due process” – which can become a quagmire even in the most simple and mundane cases – the authorities of one state cannot enter into another state without proper authorization.

Again? Did you mention “education” previously in this post? Regardless, how is this about education? Do you believe the girls/women mentioned are unaware of what makes them pregnant? Yeah, hell, I know – unfortunately, it IS possible.

The sterilization bit does seem over the proverbial line. But, there are extreme cases – even more extreme that the poster cites – where such seems justified. Remember “octo-mom”? LOL In all fairness and in consideration of the content of most of your posts, Bal, you seem more in favor of all carrot and no stick.

The abuse, as has been said before, is tolerated or goes unchecked for any number of reasons: one being the mindset you demonstrate by your implication that the poster stated something which was not stated nor inferred – it’s the “better-to-fund-a-few-frauds-than-to-cut-off-those-really-in-need” thinking – and that’s rational thinking, except the “few” snowballs into hundreds of thousands. The fact is, the post by “braveheartlion” includes no suggestion that “all assistance should be stopped” but does include an indication that the poster is well aware of both “sides” of the issue.

Come on, Bal. Surely, by considering the context of the particular passage you quote, you are able to understand the meaning of “all of this..” Based on the general gist of the post, I’d fill the blank with “government involvement” of one description or another. I won’t attempt to add my own words to that of the post you quote, but one would do well to consider the context and overall direction of the post.

And I would ask, “Wouldn’t a strong and inclusive community negate the necessity for many of the programs?” Isn’t that what the post really says?

Bal, I expect – unless you just ignore my (this) post – that you’re going to respond with something to do with “point scoring” or with some accusation of “restating the same position without addressing outstanding criticisms”. Ok, so be it. And sure, you can claim that your goal is building a society of more equality, blah, blah, blah. But the plain truth is that the issue here is fixing, repairing, or reforming a system that has failed to accomplish its stated goal. Continuing and/or expanding such a system is nothing short of complete idiocy unless, of course, the purpose of doing so is to increase government dependency and control of those the system “serves”.

braveheartlion entered the discussion here with first-hand knowledge and experience of and with the US welfare system. Her post included examples of specific problems and seems to express a deep frustration with the system. Picking apart her post with your usual hollow rhetoric and false implications was/is a disservice to her and to others with a genuine interest in the topic of this thread and will likely discourage her further participation.

Isn’t it time to accept the very real fact that you do not understand the US welfare system and the problems with it as well as you so desperately want to believe?

 

But Cato's "fact" that welfare is a failure is not true. It's opinion:

Failure is the only possible outcome of this Cato "study."

A "study" designed to fail cannot be true.

 

As what form of literature did Cato present it?

 

A messenger who shows such contempt for the poor for no other reason than their poverty deserves to be attacked.

Progress can only be achieved when parasitic wealth (the Cato Institute), is destroyed.

 

what is the definition of progress again?

 

If your intent was to “retract” the statements and implications that I am the recipient of “welfare” or other government benefit, Thank you – ‘ nice of you to have left some of that pie for others.


However, if the intent was to retract only the “I shall now refer to you as precious” statement, then, pfft, go paint your toenails or something!

Yes, we’ve certainly already discussed (ad nauseam) the poverty rate and the failing of the system to substantially reduce it. And, I have stated previously that a level of “zero”, while certainly preferable, is not realistically attainable.

However, if the system were successful there should be some indication that poverty is on a steady decline. Even those incapable – the handicapped, children in needful circumstances, etc. – should, by a successful system, be lifted from the ranks of the impoverished by such system. Granted, no public or private system is or would be able to remove the actual need of those incapable of providing for themselves. The need of children should, by a successful system, be eliminated by the lifting of their parents from poverty, while the handicapped might very well require (at least some) assistance on a lifelong basis. Those falling into either category, i.e. “children” or “the handicapped” (intentionally broadly encompassing for the sake of space) should, as the result of a successful system, be removed from the poverty level by their having been or remaining (as with the handicapped) recipients of the assistance provided by a successful system – it certainly seems such is not the case – those truly incapable seem to remain at or below the poverty level along with those capable but unwilling, only more comfortably so.

You keep saying that, but offer no evidence to any truth of it. You are aware, aren’t you, that Balbus takes a very dim view of “restating things that still have outstanding criticisms leveled at them” – better to stay in the good graces, huh?

And now you’re claiming that criteria used to determine the success or failure of the welfare system should be based on something other than a measurement of the systems success or failure?

Wanna try it again? Make it easy on yourself: pick the parts you accept as “data” (rather than opinion) and provide some evidence of the erroneous nature of that data – evidence such as the “real” facts and figures. Since, in a previous post you used the phrase, “..mixing fact with opinion…”, you obviously accept some information provided by Cato as factual. Separate fact from opinion, as you say (and as I agree) should be done, then demonstrate why Cato’s conclusion is flawed.

Make it even easier: get past your hatred of the Cato Institute. Never mind the disagreement or bias, forget that it’s anyone’s conclusion and simply show how the system has reduced poverty – produce a study of your own.

I used a “witticism” to correctly demonstrate that statistics can be manipulated – we both know that. You labeled personal experience as “anecdotal” and discounted its merit. And, your own account of having received “assistance” (if I remember correctly, it was unemployment compensation, which is not necessarily “welfare”) included an indication that it helped but didn’t remove you from poverty – only made your plight more comfortable. What was it that did pull you from poverty? Could it have been getting a job?

Hell, I already have personal knowledge of those who have received government assistance and were able to work their way to being productive members of society. But, I also have personal knowledge of second, third, and possibly even fourth generation welfare families. There are facets of success and failure in almost everything. Shouldn’t the overall results be used in determining a program’s success or failure?

Nice little edit, out: from “controlled” in your original version to “influenced” in the final one. LOL

I find no pleasure in the fact that the US government is influenced by anyone other than the people it was designed and intended to serve. Wouldn’t a smaller, less centralized government lessen both the available and actual influence to and by those of special interests?

Are you saying that you do find pleasure in the “control” or “influence” (you choose -- it’s your red wagon) of your country’s government by other think tanks – those whose ideology you support or agree with – or, just those unlike Cato?

To use your words: “look at the title”… then look just above that in the GIANT font. How’d you miss that?

 

I guess if you are looking at it from the perspective of having provided resources taken from the earnings of others as the means of eliminating the effects of poverty, you would consider the programs a success. That too is an opinion, but maintaining a perpetual 15% of a growing population the means, which also increase perpetually, does not equate to what most rational persons would consider to be a great success, especially when new programs are constantly being dreamed up by politicians eager to keep/attract them as a voting block.

 

Progress: To move towards a destination.

Destination: The place you want to reach or goal you want to achieve.

Now if only everyone wanted to reach the same place or achieve the same goal.

 

Letlovin

Then address posts i linked to above and we’ll discuss it. I mean the comments of yours that they are based on seemed Social Darwinist based. I asking can you defend your views against what I said?

Who is that and why do they need help?

Which implies that it isn’t getting to people that need it but only (or mostly) to those abusing the system, but the reports I’ve seen seem to indicate that fraud is actually small and that there are mechanisms in place to investigate and prosecute fraudsters.

I’m all for reform but you seem to be starting off from the position that most of the people seeking assistance are criminals wanting to milk the system because they are too lazy to work, which is likely to colour your attitude towards what reform you would take.

I mean you have already said to the question put by me “are they lazy?”

To you a good number of those seeking assistance are only doing so because they are lazy.

And have described the present system not as a safety net but a hammock.

Well first could you please address the other things you have said (linked examples above) which seem to be based on Social Darwinist thinking.

But then let us look at your thinking above, you seem to be implying that many if not most welfare recipients are lazy and petty criminals. That would fit in with Social Darwinist ideas about the ‘lower orders’ and the reason for why hey are in the lower orders.

 

Letlovin

Oh hell, go back to post 182 and then re-read post 323

But we could begin with your clarification that I tackle in post 324

And to clarify......I'm not talking about requiring a full work week. Which would by all means hinder their employment search. I'm only proposing, let's say, 10 hours a week. Or even ten hours every two weeks. I don't think that's too much to ask. And it may have been missed when I said it earlier, that this would only apply to able bodied LONG TERM welfare recipients. People that have been collecting welfare, food stamps, housing, etc. for extended periods of time.

OK – I’d still ask why they are not working.

In your reply you say you don’t now why and don’t seem to care about finding out and anyway you seem to think that most are just lazy.

Just making people work 10 hours a week may not tackle why they haven’t been able to get a real job.

If it is down to a lack of jobs or deficient skills then no amount of litter picked up its not going to help. If it is down to alcoholism or drug addiction then all you are doing is getting an alcoholic or drug addict to pick up litter its not getting them better, and if its down to depression or say acrophobia you might be just pushing someone to suicide or having a fit because you’ve dragged them out into a public space to pick up litter.

My criticism of your idea being that it seems more about retribution than an effort to help.