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

What is it that you feel works? And in what way is it working well?

How about providing some broadly gathered evidence which supports what you claim to be working, to be working well.

 

I haven't formed much of an opinion on anything other than that some kind of welfare is probably needed, and taking away peoples welfare is a dick move.

 

I agree that some KIND of welfare is likely to always be needed. Why don't you try to form an opinion first, and then talk about how that might best be accomplished.

 

So, when people get gifts, they don't own them? I've stolen a lot of shirts from ex girlfriends then. You can object if you like,but when money changes hands it changes ownership, regardless of if they 'earned' it.

Perhaps we could argue forever without you benefiting from it; I've already had a few benefits. I better understand the U6 and Labor Participation Rate thanks to whoever it was in this thread who took the time to give references, and the political act whose name isn't coming to mind at present, that Gringrich pushe onto Clinton in 96. I've had my views on welfare challenged and have come up with some new questions. Also I've been entertained and amused by your consistent pattern of claiming you have evidence to prove your idea of stripping away welfare then failing to provide it (other than READ ALL OF THE BOOKS! and an email from your liberal friend), your attempts to use smart and clever sounding language to sell the repugnant, and your claim that the poor will magically just skip around being helped out by their fellow man in a peaceful utopian wonderland (as opposed to prostitution, theft, starvation and suicide).

Surely you realise that an economic report from a Libertarian (Or Marxist, or Anarchist) is unreliable in that the source already holds a firm prejudice as to their view of economics.

So, anyhow, I reject the authority of the Cato Somethingorother on the above grounds, but I'm still getting plenty out of this conversation, and it's a pity you're not.

 

If people aren't getting a wage.
And aren't getting welfare.
And aren't getting all their financial needs met by charity.

How exactly are they meant to eat? This is the end product of your genius scheme to eliminate welfare. So you'd probably want to address this minor point.

 

I don't have any opinions on what's working well. I'm not well versed on economics, so I don't have any stupid economic save the world plan of my own. That's why I have to rely on other peoples stupid economic save the world plans for amusement.

I don't feel inclined to provide evidence to back us assertations I've made because I've avoided making any.

 

Well, that fiddle's playing a different tune now. It seems we're in agreement.

I don't feel like having an opinion yet. I suspect more people might benefit from that approach.

 

Examine what you've just posted in a rational way.

If your girlfriend gives you a gift, unless she is receiving money from a government welfare program, it was purchased by her own free choice using money that was acquired by her own labors. Would you also rationalize that a successful bank robber is the rightful owner of the money he/she possesses? Once in his/her hands it becomes his/hers? Possession is 10/10 of the law?

 

As I reject the bias of the more prevalent Left winged authoritarians.
And I didn't say I was getting nothing out of the conversation, just nothing of useful value in resolving the problem as relates to the thread topic.

 

I think charities could easily fill the eating needs, but maybe until they start earning a wage they should learn to reduce their financial needs.
Eliminate government as a welfare provider is what I said, replacing it with privately operated and funded welfare, otherwise known as charitable organizations. Providing aid and assistance to fellow humans is not a problem that will ever be totally eliminated, just as socialism will never bring about a utopian world or society.

 

Noted.

 

I've been playing the same tune all along if you had only read closely.

If after living nearly 8 decades you've yet to form any opinions, it would indicate that you have lived with both your eyes shut and your ears closed.

 

So welfare is unearned so people who possess welfare money don't own the money they have.

You do have a collection of interesting ideas.

 

Again, you have a talent for making the repugnant sound so benign.

Sure all the people who use I get welfare can just 'reassess their financial needs'. Maybe they can 'reconsider their need to drive' or 'find alternative sources of nutrition.'

What you're suggesting is that people on low finance who are on welfare should have less, get less and spend less. Maybe eat less.

The stuff you suggest makes people's lives worse.

 

I think maybe were NOT on the same track.

Now you're saying you support welfare because 'charity is welfare.'

Of course I'm sure your realised that you were obscuring your real views by claiming you supported 'some welfare' but that seems to be your game.

Btw, got those chapters yet? The broad data you referenced? I'm patient.

I think it's probably better to fill up with knowledge than opinions. Opinions really don't take much effort. Any idiot can pop a couple out on command.

 

How about you make the case for how the recipient of welfare has earned what they have received?

While they could be said to now own the money they have been given, the real providers were given no choice in the matter.

Try presenting some ideas of your own, perhaps I might some of them interesting as well. You seem to be astutely opposed to anything I post even though anything I propose would benefit you much more greatly than it would myself, considering the apparent age difference.

 

How might you motivate people to become more responsible?

Should those living on government welfare programs live better than those who are working and not receiving any government benefits?

 

The options as I view them are (1) government provided and operated welfare, and (2) private funded and operated charity. I've never said or even implied that I do not support charity, and while the function of both are to provide aid and assistance to the needy, that's their only similarity.

Don't wait on me to give you chapters to read as I no longer have their books available myself, and they are probably available on the internet so go hunt them up and you may learn much more by reading them entirely than you would arguing over selections I might suggest. Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell, you could probably find some videos of explaining this subject as well as many more related to economics, the free market, free enterprise, capitalism, etc. I doubt seriously they are mentioned in schools today. There's a whole new world out there if you bother to look.

 

Wrong

Are you actually going to address the outstanding criticisms of your views or what?

That is where you produced it – you know just there where you say This is called "The Broken Window Fallacy".

And I’ve covered the above in posts 505

Can you actually address the criticisms raised?

But can you actually address the criticisms of it?

But was cited in response to my comment - if you want say manufacturing to remain stable or improve in an economic down turn it might be a good thing to give it assistance.

So can you now address the criticisms of you viewpoint?

LOL - so no you can’t address the criticisms of your views. I’ll remind you - ignoring criticisms does not make them go away it just seems to indicated they have validity.

And as I’ve pointed out several times your ideas seem somewhat fundamentally flawed – it seems to me that it is better to be insured against bad things happening rather than just hoping they will not and instead spending the insurance money on something else then finding yourself broke then the ‘window breaks’.

So can you address the criticisms of you viewpoint yet?

 

Wrong

Who do you think would most feel the pain of the following depression?

You don’t think total economic collapse might not cause economic suffering?

I know the theory – eventually some time possibly in the future the economy should maybe emerge rebuilt better than it was before…better…stronger…faster…

OK to repeat -

But as said it’s a bit hard to pick up the pieces again if their theories turn out to be wrong and people are fighting to death over a tin of beans in a burnt out Wal-mart.

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

Oh I know this trick as well pretend your inability to defend your views is because I don’t understand what you are saying.

Sorry Wrong it might work on other forums but not here we are wise to dishonest debaters.

Oh I’m sure you have another evasive comeback but you should know we’ve seen them all before – hell Indies used most of them.