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

Some people are poor because of their own choices, or inibility to make choices. Their welfare must be provided for in a civilized scrupled society. More importantly, their offspring must not go hungry or uneducated simply because of the actions of their shitty parents.

So yeah, there's a lot of dumbfucks in poverty, just like there's a bunch of evil jerks with clever accountants laughing all the way to the bank. The key is to negate each in such a way that they do the least harm to those they would effect, either accidentally or on purpose.

Individual: Ehh, I could always be wrong, I'd read an article that lead me to believe that money paid under false numbers could not, under the current rules, be used, and sat there. Either way, people working on OTHER people's legitimate numbers are quite literally paying for your SS check, so quitcha bitchin'.

Out of curiosity, indy, how much do you have saved, in whatever form it might be? It sounds that you're living well through sheer luck, and like you never managed to save a dime, the only money you have is.... what the government saved for you?

*edit* yeah, it looks like there's a "suspense fund", and like it's entirly responsible for making SS ends meet.

 

Breaking news: more Cato sponsored Welfare cuts on the horizon:

 

and all the mindless drones said....................................................

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!


wtf

 

The Cato Institute: engineering government in its own image since 1977

...brought to us by the Koch brothers (hey if you can't trust them, who can you trust, right???).

 

Hey all you working-class wealth cheerleaders, take a look at this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc_3wsLd01s"]Koch Brothers Exposed: the Film - YouTube

 

Indie

But to be it would seem idiotic to hold onto views that I could not defend from criticisms in any rational or reasonable way, yet that’s what you do.

I ask again why are you promoting ideas that you seem totally incapable of defending?

 

Wrong

I ask for answers and explanations and all I seem to get is accusations and evasion.

I mean your last few posts seem full of accusations of my supposed crimes and misdemeanours that just fall apart when looked at. As I’ve already commented this seems more and more like an evasion tactic to get out of addressing criticism, I mean I’m still waiting for you to get back to the parable of the window thing, the Social Darwinist thing, the public investment thing, let alone all the other things before and since those.

 

Wrong

I’m sorry it was rant in my opinion anyone can read it to make up their own mind. I asked –

But isn’t going back to the pre-industrial world (say the 18th century 1700-1799 the US only existing from say 1780’s) a bit far back and so vastly different economically speaking to base ideas on which to run a 21st century economy?
The rant did nothing to answer the question so can you now please answer it?

Also there seems to be a contradiction in your thinking one moment you are claiming that Keynesian type intervention was new and never been tried before the modern era and the next you seem to claim it had and was a very old idea.
I really would wish you’d explain your thinking a bit more clearly, I mean I keep asking you to but…

 

Wrong

So your emphatic NO intervention statement was untrue? -

I've pointed you to several depressions where the government did NOT intervene, did NOT give bailouts, did NOT give monetary stimulus, and not only did we still recover, we recovered FASTER. [my bold]

You have implied this before with your ‘several depressions’ argument (see above) but again I ask what depressions are you talking about (I think this will be the fourth time of asking). I mean you have mentioned some economic downturns but when looked at they didn’t seem to back up your claims.

Ok first you admit the markets have never been ‘left alone’? And what do you mean by ‘smallest’ - I’d want ‘good’ governance. I mean even Murray Rothbard in the book you asked me to read seems to imply that one of the problems with the early Americans banking system was too little or non-existent regulation.

But anyway we have been through this before and you still have not addressed the criticisms of this viewpoint.

To repeat - The US had risen on a wave of previously untapped resources but by the 1940's resources had either been tapped, were becoming harder to extract or had been exhausted. I mean the material and mineral wealth of the old world has been exploited for some 5000 years (for example tin mining in Cornwall). Large areas of the US didn’t become exploited until the 19th century. For example in 1848 Europe was in turmoil as revolutions sprang up across the continent many based around resources and there distribution, while in the US you had the beginning of the California gold rush(post 363)

Again as pointed out the last time this is rather simplistic, much of the improvement in peoples lives were due in large part to public money and government legislation. People had to fight for better living conditions, safer and healthier working conditions etc.

Again we have been through this before improvement in living conditions could be uneven –

As late as the year 1900, the United States had the highest job-related fatality rate of any industrialized nation in the world. Most industrial workers still worked a 10-hour day (12 hours in the steel industry), yet earned from 20 to 40 percent less than the minimum deemed necessary for a decent life. The situation was only worse for children, whose numbers in the work force doubled between 1870 and 1900.
http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-82.htm
(post 363)

Again the point I’m making is that you seem to believe in a theory of either/or of buinesses been completely viable or complete failures.

But they did collapse often that was one of the reasons why after the 1907 panic measures were being sort to deal with that problem.

When banks could be easily set up with spurious (even non-existent) funds, then they were very likely to collapse during any downturn. So we read that at every US financial problem during the history of the US up to the 1930’s of sometimes hundreds of banks going bankrupt.

 

Charity was unable to perform social provision that’s why people fought for public provision.

Wrong

The only evidence I have is history. There are many, many examples from history.

And also it should be remembered that private assistance was never capable on its own, it was always backed up or ran alongside public assistance. In the US this was based originally on the English Elizabethan poor laws, which the colonists had brought with them when they came to Americas.

Now even in upturns such private assistance as was given however genuine and heartfelt as it could be, could be inadequate, but during downturns that system was often overwhelmed (and giving could even drop in times of greatest need as people looked to their own needs).

“While the genuine warmth emanating from these volunteer institutions produced a true sense of community with revitalising effects in depressed urban neighbourhoods, participants quickly realised that private charity was not enough. Charity Organisation Societies modelled on those of London and Berlin had emerged in the early 1880’s to be succeeded by Associated Charities designed to prevent duplication of effort among the score of secular and church philanthropies, but relief measures possible under a system of private endeavour, no matter how earnest or how efficiently organised, could not handle the problems arising in periods of economic distress.
Public institutions to care for indigents, the ill, the widows and orphans, the aged and the insane never had money enough during boom times, and when hard times set in and the burden increased, city welfare budgets lagged still further behind the amounts needed.”
The Rise of Urban America by Constance Mclaughlin Green

Also we have discussed such things as sewage works and housing amongst others where public money and government legislation did a lot to help to improve the lives of people.

 

Wrong

But whose argument would you give more credence to - someone that is clearly a liar who constantly uses evasion to get out of address any criticisms of their views or someone that is open and willing to address criticisms?

As to refuting Indies arguments, I’ve presented criticisms that he seems unwilling and unable to address let alone refute, so they stand, the comment on his character is just based on the observation that he does lie.

The idea that Indie is paid to pump out propaganda, is just a theory – a theory based on observation – to explain, if someone really believed a set of ideas wouldn’t they want - even desire - to address any criticism of them?

I put ideas up here to be looked at, commented on and criticised, to see if they stand up to scrutiny, if they don’t I’d change them or even drop them. I’ve often changed my mind on things over the years because of study, discussion and debate. That is the joy of debate and the reason I come here.

Indie is different he doesn’t seem to want or even like debate, all he wants to do is repeat the same old stuff over and over again doing his very best to evade all criticism.

In fact he seem incapable of address any criticism and he keeps repeating it even when he know there are outstanding criticisms

That seems strange to me, he seems more like an advertiser someone that’s getting paid to say it rather than someone that actually believes it.

I mean an actor doesn’t have to like the burger or beer they endorse in a commercial they just have to repeat the words given to them in each given ad and then cash the cheque.

 

1. I'd like to know where you read such an article, but I'm unaware of a single cent of real money received by government that remains unspent. There is no social security lock box containing the excess revenue received exceeding what is paid out, only an accounting of how much was received and spent on other government expenditures which it is liable for returning when needed.

2. It's unimportant and none of your business as to how much I've saved, but I will say that in addition to paying taxes, social security and medicare, I also managed to invest and save an amount which is able to provide much more than what social security provides each month. Had I been able to invest the social security and medicare taxes in addition to what I did on my own I would be quite wealthy in my retirement.

3. What are you calling a suspense fund?

4. What happened to welfare? I don't see social security mentioned in the thread topic at all.

 

How did the Cato Institute and the Koch brothers become relevant in this thread, I may be mistaken, although I think not, that the facts presented in the OP were produced by the government. If they were made public by the Cato Institute, then they should be thanked for bringing light to the subject, as it appears that few here care to know the facts, and become overly upset when they are aired openly.

 

The agenda of the Cato Institute is the subject of this thread:

...the "study" is about tearing down one portion of the safety-net but the goal of the Cato Institute (wealth) is to dismantle those government programs (including social security) that do not directly serve them.

However, the Cato Institute (wealth) will not tear down government that functions as the enforcer (with much coercion) of contracts and property rights.

Cato's libertarianism is a theory of government.

Charles Koch founded and funds the Cato Institute.

The "-and Fail" part of the title of the study is the opinion of Michael Tanner and the Cato Institute.

Why would anyone want to thank someone for mixing fact with opinion then presenting it as a study?

 

out,

Then you are claiming that Federal welfare programs have achieved their goals successfully and economically?

We all have our opinions, and just looking at most Federal government spending over the last century, my opinion is that the Federal government has created a fiscal problem which is only growing more difficult to solve, and at an increasingly rapid pace. While the Cato Institute, and the Koch brothers may have an agenda, it would appear that they at least are attempting to do something to combat the agenda which has produced most of the problems which have only worsened in hopes that some rational and reasonable actions may result before we have no choice but to accept total economic collapse.

 

outthere:

Is there any method, other than consideration of facts, one might employ in forming a logical opinion?

 

So you still believe the Cato "study" is pure, unbiased fact?

opinion- a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

If complete certianty is the goal, opinions need to be seperated from fact before drawing conclusions. Accepting the Cato "study" as pure fact is not very reasonable considering the mission of the Cato Institute is to shrink government to a form of its own choosing:

Of course, you don't care because you're probably some old guy who's collecting a social security check and getting free health care through medicare. The chance of draconian legislation affecting you and those already collecting from those government programs are about nil.

But if precious oldog was affected by cuts to his entitlements, mister precious would change his mind in a hurry.

 

Indie

The Cato piece had statistics but you have always told me that you don’t take any notice of statistics because they can so easily be manipulated. And as I mentioned in one of my first post in this thread most are ‘Author’s Calculations’.

And as also pointed out the conclusions are pure and biased opinion.

 

Indie

Define successful and economically in this context as I’ve said its more complicated that you seem to wish to present it – to repeat - I mean according to the National Poverty Centre at the University of Michigan -
In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.
For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004. (15.1 percent in 2010 my edit)
So basically it goes up and down

1950s - 22.4% (US government began calculating poverty figures 1959)
1960s –70s declining to 11.1%
1980s – rising to 15.2
1990s-2000 declining to 11.3%
2000-10 rising to 15.1%

But there are problems here first the way the US defines ‘poverty’ doesn’t seem very good -

The current federal poverty line was created in 1964 by Mollie Orshansky, an economist working at the U.S. Social Security Administration.1 Tasked with setting a threshold for what it meant to be poor, she started by analyzing the cost of one of life’s basic necessities: food. Orshansky’s first step was to determine the cost of feeding a family on the “economy food plan,” the cheapest of the four food plans deemed nutritionally adequate by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). She then estimated that the average family spent one-third of its budget on food. The poverty threshold, then, could be set by multiplying the cost of the most basic food plan by three... Except for annual adjustments for inflation, the poverty line has not been touched since. (Beyond the Poverty Line By Rourke L. O'Brien & David S. Pedulla

But what about housing, water, electricity, the environment etc

I mean - In 1950, 27 percent of all households in the country lacked access to complete plumbing facilities…By 1970, only 5.9 percent of all U.S. households lacked piped water.
Still Living Without the Basics
http://win-water.org/reports/RCAP_full_final.pdf

Now this was mainly achieved through public investment in the water and waste infrastructure.

So while a lot of people in 1950’s America (some 50% in rural areas) had no plumbing or flushing toilets by today only a few go without those things.

Now this is a great improvement in many peoples quality of life (and health) and could be seen as a movement away from an ‘existence of poverty’ but it also comes with a utility bill that would not have been there before, an extra cost that is not taken into account by the US definition of ‘poverty’.

 

Indie

Yes but some can defend their opinions from criticism in a reasonable and rational way and others (like you) seem unable to do so.