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

letlovin

Something rational and reasonable would be nice that actually addressed the criticism rather than evading it by claiming it wasn't ‘legitimate’

I mean if it was truly illegitimate criticisms then shouldn’t it be easier to refute rather than refusing to address it at all?

If someone is unclear about my viewpoint I’m happy to try and explain if criticisms are made I’ll do my best to address them.

Letlovin this doesn’t have to be about remembering you can actually go back and look, that’s what I do, that’s how I know when you haven’t addressed something.

 

Indie

As I’ve said before my goal is to make societies fairer and better places to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places were people are more likely to realise their potential

This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a society where things were more unfair and many people’s lives were worse.

Your goals then seem very irrational and deeply unreasonable to me because you do seem to want a more unfair society where the potential of the disadvantaged are stifled a place where you would happily let people who have fallen into hardship through no fault of their own to suffer or even die from that hardship.

 

.

I'll respond to your other posts later, right now I have to get back to work.

 

It may seem that way to you, but that's not the way I look at it.


.

 

.

 

Yes. I retract the statements and implications that you are the recipient of "welfare" or other government benefit.

This thread is based on a Policy Analysis of the Cato Institute. You're right oldog, Cato didn't present it as a study at all.

If that's true the very private Koch Brothers are setting public policy. How exactly does this fit in with the constitution and why do you approve of it?

 

If anyone bothered to go to Cato's "Downsizing the Federal Government" website, you might have noticed under the Federal Departments to be abolished column, Coming Soon: Social Security.

So, there it is...

Wealth (the Cato Institute) wants to abolish Social Security too.

In the view of wealth, Social Security is just another welfare program to be handed over to the very private market or wealth.

But Cato will not abolish government enforcement of contracts and property "rights".

 

Well, you see....

When something that you don't like isn't in the constitution, all you have to do is bitch and moan about how the founding fathers didn't want that and it's not in the constitution (even, in some cases, like welfare, where they quite clearly ARE in the constitution, even if not in extreme detail -- which is why it gave congress the power to make laws about that shit, to flush out the details in a flexible way -- but I digress).

And if something that yo DO like isn't in the constitution, all you have to do is say that the constitution never forbade it.


So, all you have to say to justify money running the country is that the constitution was all about freedom, and the koch brothers are just being free and doing free things with their money that they got in free ways.

 

Several times since seeing the movie for the first time, I have been reminded of a question asked of "Little Forest" by "Little Jenny" during Forest's first bus ride to school -- this is another of those times. The line comes at about :55 in the clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvKzyYy6qvY&list=PL8484CEBA4AF0F209"]Forrest Gump (1/9) Movie CLIP - Peas and Carrots (1994) HD - YouTube

 

Letlovin

Oh hell letlovin we have been through this many many times…for example here -

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

Been there – The argument that - ‘things happen and life is unfair so you just have to live with it’ - is rather weak since it would have been against any change that might improve people’s lives, for example, it would countenance slavery and child labour among other things.

To the person born into slavery it would have been – ‘that happens; life is unfair so you’ll just have to live with it’

To the child who was working sixteen hours a day in a dangerous cotton mill it would have been ‘that happens, life is unfair so you’ll just have to live with it’

Just shrugging the shoulders and saying - ‘that’s how things are so they can’t be changed’ - is not an argument that things shouldn’t or can’t be changed. It is just pronouncing that you like it to be unfair.
Thing is that it is usually possible to change an unfair socio-political system to a fairer one (as was done with slavery and child labour).

Do you understand; history is full of such improvements of peoples condition most of them fought for in one way or another against those that said such things as ‘that might be unfair but that’s life’ either because of apathy or opposition to the proposed change.


*

Again this an example of blinkered either/or mentality that seems to get in the way of clear thinking

For you it is either burger flippering or an $80,000 a year job.

Thing is that we still need burger flippers, and many a student has flipped burgers and then gone on to get better jobs.

If however someone has such bad educational attainment that the only job they could ever have was the equivalent of a burger flipper then the system has failed that person. And if people with degrees can only find a job flipping burgers then the system is not working.

Why not, why shouldn’t the governments job be to even the playing field, especially if the game (structure of society) has been fixed to give one side an advantage.

You are basically making the same (Social Darwinist tinted) assertion that you did here using basket ball

Again please read –

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

here is an edited version -

My view is that the ‘basketball game’ of life is between players of roughly the same potential, but that one always has the advantage of scoring into a basket that is much lower to the ground that the others. The game is rigged in favour of one group.

That it is not a natural advantage but a structural advantage - which the advantaged do their best to keep.

But that is the point of what I’ve said above about slavery and child labour – the government has been ‘evening up the playing field’ for years I’ve given many examples some in this thread about how public money (water and sewage, education etc) and government regulation (housing, workplace health and safety, the working week etc) has improved the lives of many poor and working class people and their families.

 

Letlovin

Again I’d point to the much repeated argument about the deserving and undeserving poor -

The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.

So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged, or just a basic safety net.

The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

And as I pointed out at the time this is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward today that if people are responsible and make the ‘right choices’ they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make the wrong choices then they deserve the hardships they are in.

I don’t know your circumstances so I cannot comment but most studies on social mobility point out that those born into advantage have an advantage.

Your priority was in getting a “good paying job” your goal was material, monetary, individual enrichment, but others goals can be toward service to their community, and often such jobs are not as well paid. Imagine two doctors of equal potential one wants wealth and goes into cosmetic surgery the other goes to a hospital in a run down community. One gets rich the other is only comfortable?

In my view a sewage worker who keeps such systems going has more worth than a speculating trader in derivatives.

What do you mean by ‘bare necessities’, I mean giving people just bread and water and then forcing them to work for that, can still mean you are providing the ‘bare necessities’.

My question would be why can’t they provide for themselves?

*

Who is that and why do they need help?

That is the very point I’m trying to make. It goes back to the idea of deserving and undeserving – and the problem being that they were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

Thing is what is you definition of need and what would be you criteria for who is in need?

 

Letlovin

But the reports I’ve seen seem to indicate that fraud is actually small and that there are mechanisms already in place to investigate and prosecute fraudsters.

In some cases but not that many and thereare mechanisms already in place to investigate and prosecute those abusing the system.

But the reports I’ve seen seem to indicate that fraud is actually small and that there are mechanisms already in place to investigate and prosecute fraudsters.

And what is your definition of need what are the ‘bare necessities’ to you?

Why do you put so much emphasis on the abuse of the welfare system do you think? Do you think it could have a political dimension?

So then why do you put such emphasis on those that you claim “do not need it”? I mean how do you know they do not need it?

 

Letlovin

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

Well you call me obvious but you didn’t and don’t seem clear on your thinking here.

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.

Again you think too narrowly, direct assistance in times of hardship is only one way that governance can help the welfare of its citizens (see also above about water and housing etc). Government at all levels can have a great impact on job availability and work skills, through economic and educational policies.

Again this seems more about retribution than an effort to help. To me the thing would be to find out why they are on drugs and then try and get them off them.

Many people with depression don’t know they are depressed again this is one of the reasons why it is a good thing to try and find out why people are not working so you can help them (while forcing them to work regardless seems like punishment). An agoraphobic can be able bodied in the sense that they can work, they just need assistance to do so.

*

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

Then please go ahead and explain the way you see it - because that is what I’ve been trying to find out for some time but all you seem to do is evade.

I mean to me this very reply seems like evasion where I would have gone –‘no because…’ you just say ‘no’ and leave us in the dark as to why.

 

Letlovin

Something rational and reasonable would be nice that actually addressed the criticism rather than evading it by claiming it wasn't ‘legitimate’

But most of the time I’m not getting explanation or logical reasoning, what I get is restated assertion and viewpoint and above all evasion of addressing any criticisms.

If you find my arguments unreasonable and illogically then explain why don’t just tell me I’m wrong because my ideas are not your (unexplained) ideas as so many have here.

But I am happy to give you an explanation of my thinking, in fact people have complained that I explain too much and in too much detail.

For example I’ve written at length explaining why I think your thinking seems based in Social Darwinist ideas. You reply simply that I’m wrong but you seem totally unable to counter the arguments I’ve presented that seem to indicate they are.

Do you really think that is a good example for a political debate?

Religion belief is faith based, meaning they are often very dogmatic and so can end up so often extremist when they have power that is why spiritual or secular theocracies usually lead to ‘bad’ governance (burning heretics, gassing inferiors, staving peasants).

It is one of the reasons why I’m a great believer in the separation of church and state and very opposed to any faith based group (spiritual or secular) having control of political governance.

Are you saying that you treat your political views as a religious belief, a faith that would not be swayed by any evidence, like say a creationist that literally believes the world was created in six days by a sky god? That debate is useless because your views are not empirically or rationally based but are totally a matter of faith?

A Catholic priest can explain his beliefs in terms of faith I’m hoping you are not in relation to your politics.

I have been interested in politics since my teens and have changed my views many, many times over the years sometimes because of research other times because of debate. I believe that if an idea cannot be defended from criticism then it needs to change so it can or be dropped if it can’t.

Are you saying that is not what you think that to you an idea that you are totally unable to defend from criticism is still as totally valid as one that can be?

 

Letlovin

I mean if it was truly illegitimate criticisms then shouldn’t it be easier to refute rather than refusing to address it at all?

My point is that many here that claim others criticisms are illegitimate seem to be using that as an excuse to evade addressing the criticism. As you seem to be.

If someone is unclear about my viewpoint I’m happy to try and explain if criticisms are made I’ll do my best to address them.

Letlovin this doesn’t have to be about remembering you can actually go back and look, that’s what I do, that’s how I know when you haven’t addressed something.

I don’t have to sift through thousands I read peoples posts and so can remember what they say which means I can check to see if I’m right.

Thing is that I find it rather amusing that the ones that seem to promote the idea of working hard to get ahead seem the laziest when it comes to checking posts here.

That’s why I think it is more of an evasion tactic. I mean if you go through the sequence above that come a bit clearer.

- You claim you can’t remember

- I point out you (and others) can go and look

- You say you can’t be bothered to look.

You seem to be basically saying if you don’t see it, it doesn’t exist, even if you know it is there and know it does exist.

 

? Ok so you think I'm stupid. That's like calling me a poopie eye.

 

(Bold mine)

Do you mean like when they say things like this:

or this:

They sound like Randites to me:

Ayn's a smiling in her grave. (It might also be how they justify their stinginess toward others to themselves)

The Koch Boys by their obscene wealth and the propaganda they produce, are about influencing and controlling. What's your point?

The Koch Boys Buy Economics Department at Florida State University: Billionaire's role in hiring decisions at Florida State University raises questions...

By Kris Hundley, Times staff writer
St. Petersburg Times
May 10, 2011

[source]

 

Anyone remember what the topic of this thread was? Or should I have asked "who" it is?

 

delete

 

It has already been explained to you that the OP is about a "study" that the Koch boys produced through their think tank, the Cato Institute.