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

That's where private charities would step in, helping the remaining few who are unable to find help. Most people have friends and/or family who would help them, and probably in ways much more reasonably, rationally, and cost effectively than any help provided by a government organization.

 

Actually I've much evidence, but from real life experience rather than some study which I can't confirm factually. One case just appeared in an email from a Liberal friend in Wisconsin I received today, who has been unemployed since 2009 and will remain so until he is unable to receive any government benefits. He and his wife come to visit me occasionally as he can live with friends for free for short periods of time, as long as we are willing to put up with him.

Yes, it would be my aim to gradually reduce and eventually eliminate government welfare programs. That is a fact you should have no need to ask repeatedly.

The minimum wage already eliminates many jobs from being made available, so increasing it would more likely result in more persons being laid off and work load distributed among those who remain employed, or jobs being shipped overseas where 10 or more persons could be productively employed at less cost than that of a single American.

 

Welfare?

There aint no stinkin; welfare in Texas. Not for Caucasians anyway. No monthly checks in the mail, no food stamps unless you have kids. No free clinics, no commodities for the elderly, no free nothing. You best have rich relatives or belong to a church group cuz, you aint gettin' nothin' from Obama in Texas, he hates texas bc he didnt get no electoral collage votes.

Last yr when Texas was on fire, 'Nero Fiddled', never even came to assess the damage. He cut all federal funding to social services in our state and gave amnesty to illegals which sent a flood of unauthorized immigrants pouring into Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.

Our resources have been depleted and not replenished. Katrina took it's toll on Texas as well as LA. The refugees from the flood sent thousands to Texas for safety. With the Illegals now occupying our country, the aftermath of Katrina and the fires that ravages our farm lands and our cattle and hay production. Texas has to depend on herself.

That's why Rick Perry, asshole that he is, wanted to secede Texas from the union.

Not to be off topic, but it is on topic in a trickle down effect.

You can get TANIF if you are working to help with child care in certain circumstances and food stamps if you have 0 income or have kids and are low income. There is only health care for children and the disable ( SSI ).

It all boils down to being outsourced so large corporations can make more profit to payoff the governmental entities to pass laws that would benefit their large corporations.

 

What would be a good end?

Individual:
How do you feel about Corporate Welfare?

Why do you throw rocks at the bottom rungs of society while being simultaneously blind to welfare at the top of the economic food chain?

 

OK, even if your claims regarding the success of the law are true, it's still an example of putting limits on welfare not on taking it away completely over time. I already made these objections.

It's a pretty weak effort to claim that all fundamental economic thinkers agree with you, but you just don't have the time to quote anything they've written that evidences this. Like I said I'm reading Smith and I don't think he even mentions welfare, not as far as I've read anyway.

If I need to read a few chapters to see how your theorists think removing welfare over time is economically positive, name the chapters and I'll read them. Until you do, I'm assuming that the evidence you're claiming you have, is simply fictional.

 

Oops, I'll cop that one, my bad. I meant to say the former, semantic clarity is important. How ironic.

Welfare comes from the government though and since neither of us disputed that, I'm not sure what your point is.

 

Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You have NOTHING to suggest

- The majority of people have access to help that would sustain them to the degree equal to a living wage (especially with kids)

-A family on a living wage can supplant the needs of individuals who are not, more effectively than the government.

Finally, what kind of charities are you talking about? Salvation Army etc? They do good work, but they're not a replacement for a living wage.

 

There's a name for 'evidence fromreal life experience'. It's called anecdotal evidence, and represents such a ridiculously narrow breadth of experience that they're useless. Most importantly reliance on it means you're ignoring any evidence or perspective that is not accessible to you as an individual.

 

What would YOU consider to be a good end?

What is it you're calling Corporate welfare?

 

Are you simply looking for them to have written something about reducing and eliminating welfare? Where have you found them to have written about creating a government welfare system? Look to Marx for that.

 

Maybe looking at the thread title once again might provide a clue.

 

Neither government welfare nor private charity should be seen as a replacement for a living wage.

 

So how do you rate the success of government welfare programs when the broadly gathered evidence shows that as the spending increases the number of those in poverty only grows larger?


Are you interested at all in finding a solution to the problem of poverty, or simply content allowing government to print and/or borrow money and increase the debt owed by future generations as a solution?

 

Yes, to have proposed that reducing and eliminating welfare as a good system.

I don't need to find references to what government welfare systems would look like in theory because it's not a theory, it's practice. It's being done and we can analyse the current practice rather than relying on ideas and theories.

Your idea is an untested theory though, and needs, minimum, to be backed by sound economic theory.

 

Let's not get off focus...

You were objecting to me calling welfare 'their money' in reference to benificerees.

The article in the OP is not relevant to that particular semantic point. The Cato Institute or Foundation or whatever isn't really what I'd call a reliable source either.

 

But the kindness of strangers is?

Maybe poor people should learn to eat LOVE.

 

I think we should aim to do what works.

If you have some broadly gathered evidence to show me feel free to quote it. On that note, feel free to get those chapter numbers to me on your lists of economic theorists.

Claiming evidence exists is not the same as providing it.

 

If that's how you're reading, you should read in reverse order as government welfare programs are a more recent creation to our form of government.

You do appear content with extending and/or expanding the current system we now have in practice so I would assume you feel that it is functioning well and needs no changes, other than perhaps more funding?

I think the OP of this thread tries to point out that the current practices are not having any effect in eliminating, much less reducing poverty. You obviously seem to disagree, do you not?

 

The thread title " Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect" IS the topic.

Yes, I do object to your calling welfare 'their money' as it was not earned in any way, shape or form by the beneficiary, therefore it is a gift provided by government, without having allowed the providers the freedom of choice in giving, but through exercising the power of force in its acquisition.

In that we are likely to disagree on the source from which we obtain reliable information, it is highly unlikely we would ever benefit from any conversation with each other, perpetually arguing in disagreement. Would you not agree?

 

Charity should be viewed as a hand up, not a source of income. You seem to think that welfare is the equivalent of an occupation, or a livelihood.