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

For someone who rambles on about the Constitution and manages to insert it into many of his posts, it's odd that you would be concerned about thread purity.

As has already been pointed out, your opinion of the matter is irrelevant. The opinion of the Cato Institute (aka- the Koch boys) on the other hand is a different matter; they have the wealth and propaganda machine to influence government and individuals.

Did you not read the previous post to your question about how the Cato Institute indicated in their Downsizing the Federal Government website that they consider Social Security in the same category as "Welfare": a government program to be abolished ?

Also, as Imray pointed out earlier, the Cato Institute is fair game for this thread since they wrote the "study" (really propaganda or policy analysis) that the OP is based on.

 

"The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable … rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty.”

Yes, it sounds like their agenda is to draw focus to the fact that the current methods of reducing poverty ignore causation and only attend to the effects, which increasingly become a greater burden on the societies collectively.

 

1. Except for the fact that the Constitution IS relevant to everything our government does.

2. If, as you state, MY opinion of this or any other matter discussed in these forums is irrelevant, then the discussion of any political matters in these forums is irrelevant.

3. That may be true, but is another matter entirely.

4. As you've already clearly made it obvious that you dislike the Koch brothers, and the Cato Institute, how about giving some attention to the facts they provided, from your propagandized point of view.

 

Oh Indie for fuck sake lol

Why do you continue to restate stuff you know perfectly well has already been covered and you have been unable to defend from criticism?

The problem as we have covered many times already is that the Cato study states opinions that are based on right wing free market neoliberal ideology that is incredibly simplistic and blinkered and doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny.

An ideology as has been explained in detail that seems to want to give greater power and influence to wealth to exploit people and the wider society for its own interests.

A charge you still seem unable to address let alone refute.

 

Indie

OH again-

The study is blinked in its ideas on causation, as has been gone through more than once

Let us look at the full quote -

The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable—giv*ing poor people more food, better shelter, health care, and so forth—rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty. And we actually have a pretty solid idea of the keys to getting out of and staying out of poverty: (1) finish school; (2) do not get pregnant outside marriage; and (3) get a job, any job, and stick with it.[my bold]

OK as has been explained many times

The thrust of the Cato piece (and seemingly right wing libertarians in general) is that the poor are lazy and will only seek work if they are starved, forced to live in meagre living conditions and have little or no access to healthcare.

But the problem is - AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT SEVERAL TIMES - many of the benefits mentioned by the study are aimed at low income working people.

I ask - why are people that are working in need of public or charitable assistance, shouldn’t they be getting a wage that means they don’t need assistance?

Another problem as we have discussed many many many times is that free market / neoliberal ideas are not about seeking full employment as the Keynesian based models are, it is about having unemployment because that is one of the means of driving down wage prices. It is the same reason why neoliberals like the Cato Institute oppose social programmes because their removal would also increase the possibility for exploitation, as in work or starve. I mean as you have admitted in your model of society you’d be happy for disadvantaged people who through no fault of their own have fallen into hardship to suffer greatly or die of want.

 

Indie

Now let us look at the supposed causes and Cato’s ‘solutions’ to ‘poverty’.

(1) finish school
(2) do not get pregnant outside marriage
(3) get a job, any job, and stick with it

One - Why are they not finishing school? The suggestion of Cato is that the reason for this is that such people drop out of education because they are lazy and want to live of welfare because life on it is too comfortable, although no evidence is produced to support such a suggestion.

And if you look at graduation rates if that is the case why does Denmark and Norway with their more generous systems have graduation rates of 85.00 and 91.00 compared with the US’s 76.00

The Cato solution to this is to cut assistance and bring in a free market based educational system. The latter presumably been wealth based would mean that the type of education someone received would be based on the ability of the parents to pay for it.

This would seem counter-productive since it would most likely mean that the most disadvantaged would be the worsted educated and more likely to drop out because they are gaining little benefit from it.


Two – I’m not sure why marriage seems so important to Cato but the idea once again seems incredibly simplistic implying that disadvantaged women get pregnant because they know they can live ‘comfortably’ off welfare. To me it would seem more of a problem of education, expectation and healthcare access.

Now one great indicator of this would be teenage pregnancy and thanks in large part to government sponsored educational programmes and greater access to contraception in the US teenage pregnancy has dropped dramatically in the last decade (44 percent drop from 1991 to 2010) although there are nine times as many teen mothers in America than in other developed countries.

Now once again since many of those other countries have rather generous public assistance but vastly smaller rates of teen pregnancy, the Cato suggestion that such things are linked to generous welfare doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny.

(The US rate is 39 births per 1,000 girls, ages 15 through 19 BUT Sweden has a rate below 8 and the Netherlands is close to 4.)

And a number of studies indicate that high teenage pregnancy rates seems more linked to religious beliefs against contraception than welfare.

The Cato paper doesn’t seem to have a solution other than cutting assistance.

Three – As pointed out there are people on public assistance who are working and many of the benefits mentioned by the study with the suggestion that they should be reduced or scrapped are aimed at low income working people.

The Cato solution would be to lower taxes which would mostly advantage wealth and has not advantaged the middle or lower groups who have basically seen their incomes stagnate or fall over the last thirty odd years. It also thinks that reducing regulation would help, for example Cato has long time advocated the reduction of environmental and work place regulation.

It also wants the poor to save and invest. But if you have a work or stave economy where people are employed in jobs that don’t pay a living wage that would seem harder to do.

 

Indie

As I and others have indicated the Cato study seems more about allowing greater exploitation of people rather than wanting to actually help them away from assistance.

It seems to want to bring about a society where most people have to exist “in the most meager of condition” which it seems to claim should be most humans ‘natural’ condition.

“Poverty, after all, is the natural condition of man. Indeed, throughout most of human history, man has existed in the most meager of conditions.”

But that situation was never ‘natural’ - the main reason for most people going hungry (even staving) living in unhealthy hovels and slums, and without access to such things as healthcare was because the few that didn’t have to live like that had the power and influence to exploit others for their own interests and it seems to me that this study and Cato would really like that situation to return.

 

We now live in an age where paid messages are being broadcasted at every facet of our lives seeking our attention. The messages are addressed to our conscious and subconscious mind.

Why would a rational being choose to be blind (as you seem to be suggesting) to the source of those messages?

 

The true source from where the facts were derived are the government, you can deal with them emotionally or rationally. I prefer the latter.

Until the year 1902, the Federal government had no funding mechanism for Pensions, Health Care, Education, Welfare, or protection (Police & Fire), but only for Defense (the military). That should give you an idea of how our Constitution had been interpreted since the founding.

The top 5 Federal government spending items summed from 1792 until 2012 are as follows:

1. Education $17,508,259,700,000
2. Pensions $17,340,604,000,000
3. Defense $16,980,707,700,000
4. Health Care $16,270,761, 500,000
5. Welfare $11,495,579,000,000

Note: Defense has been funded twice as long as the other items, and is only the third item on the list. The other items did not just crop up out of no where, but received funding by other means, State, local, and charitable. In addition, a total of $8,573,599,500,000 has been spent on debt interest payments over the same time period, with 1984 being the year the cumulative interest broke the $1 trillion mark, and over the past 28 years an additional $7,495,440,900,000 has been spent on debt interest, or an average of a little more than $267 billion wasted each year, and growing.
The Fed by keeping interest rates between 0% and .25% is not going to last forever and once the demand forces reasonable interest rates of say 5% again, we're going to be looking at $1 trillion or greater annual debt interest payments. Well, at least those of you who are younger than me will be.

Consumer debt in 1960 averaged about 2.9%, and today averages around 24-25%. Not only individuals, but also State and local governments have accumulated massive debts and unfunded liabilities which as they begin to require funding are going to create what I can only describe as a 'REAL' fiscal crisis. Currently there is no chance of falling over the fiscal cliff, as all that is happening is the debt relative to the height from which the fall will eventually occur is being raised higher and higher, which will only increase the havoc which incurs.

 

Indie

But to repeat yet again – the opinions presented are not facts they are opinions. I and others have explained in detail and at length the many and serious flaws in those opinions

So far you seem unable to defend the ideas presented by the Cato piece from criticism.

Oh indie

Why do you continue to restate stuff you know perfectly well has already been covered and you have been unable to defend from criticism?

The original government of the US was set up mainly by and in the interests of the ‘squire class’. That is why it was originally an oligarchy, with a limited voting franchise (white men of a certain property qualification) and why slavery continued. It has been argued that the US actually didn’t become a ‘true’ modern democracy until 1965.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=361461&page=3

I mean wasn’t until the 1850’s before property ownership and tax requirements were eliminated.

*

As to the emphasis on federal government we have gone through that many many many many times..yours is an ideology and while you may go on about ‘federal government’ your ideology covers all governance.

*

After WWII the US’s national debt was up to around 117% of GDP it was brought down in just 36 years less than one generation (by 1981 it was down to 32.5%) until successive right wing and neo-liberal policies (tax cuts and anti-communist military spending) from the 1980 onward increased it cumulating in the profligate spending and tax cuts of the Bush Admin. At the same time the free market ideology (deregulation, hollowing out of manufacturing and a belief that the ‘new’ markets were safe) set up the financial sector for a fall and has caused the debt to rise to around 80-90% of GDP.

The problem isn’t ‘government’ the problem is a right wing, wealth supported, neo-liberal, free market ideology that hijacked the system.

Try - The Decline and Fall of the America Empire: Part One 1945-
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=435209&f=36

Fall in top rate tax
1945 - 94%
1970 – 70%
1982 - 50%
1990 - 28%
2010 – 33%


Rise in top levels of pay
In the 1950’s CEO pay was 25-50 times that of an average worker that has risen to 300-500 times by 2007.
A bigger gap than any other developed nation.

Trade deficit
1960 – Trade surplus of 3.5 billion
2008 – Trade deficit of 690 billion
(The last time the US posted a trade surplus was in 1975)

Decline in manufacturing
1965 - Manufacturing accounted for 53% of the US’s economy.
2004 – It accounted for 9%
The Economist (10/1/2005) stated: “For the first time since the industrial revolution, fewer than 10% of American workers are now employed in manufacturing.”

 

For anyone who hasn't been following this thread, here's my summary:

The OP "study" was written by an employee of the Cato Institute. The founder of the Cato Institute is Charles Koch.

Who is Charles Koch?

Thom Hartmann on Charles Koch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Pg1zChX-UY"]Hartmann: Koch vs Buffet - Who's right and why? - YouTube

Last week billionaire capitalist Warren Buffet called on Congress to stop "coddling" millionaires and billionaires and to raise taxes on people like himself to the same level that his secretary pays.

Asking that the uber-rich pay taxes like everybody else he didn't just draw the ire of talking millionaires heads like Eric Bolling at Fox so-called news, who apparently missed Econ 101 and thus called Buffett a "socialist".

He also upset a fellow billionaire - oil oligarch Charles Koch.

In a statement released to right-wing media outlets - Charles Koch responded to Buffett by writing.

I believe my business and non-profit investments are much more beneficial to societal well-being than sending more money to Washington.

Which makes me wonder if Charles Koch even knows how he made his billions in America?

Does he realize that it was thanks to "Washington's" international treaties, negotiated by "government" negotiators and ratified by the "Government" Senate that allowed his dad to do business with Joseph Stalin and make hundreds of millions by setting up 15 oil refineries in the Communist Soviet Union?

And that it was thanks to "Washington's" banking system that then allowed his dad to bring those millions back to the United States - and invest it - and eventually bequeath it to his brothers?

Does Charles Koch realize that it was "Washington's" court system - that enforces his contracts to do business and to take-over other smaller competitors - and fire workers and streamline services - and expand his own mega corporation?

Does he realize that it's "Washington's" investment in the nation's infrastructure that allows him to transport his goods all over the nation in an efficient way to maximize profits?

Does he even realize it's "Washington's handouts" that - as the "New York Observer" and "Institute for Public Accuracy" have uncovered - allowed his timber and cattle ranching companies to set up shop on public lands paid for by us taxpayers - and use public roads - again paid for by us the taxpayers.

Does he realize he makes millions from his government contracts with "Washington"?

Does he realize his corporation directly reaps benefits from the billions in taxpayer subsidies and corporate welfare that goes to oil companies every year, you know, like his oil company?

I guess he doesn't realize any of that - because if he did he wouldn't say something dumb like his own investments are better than the government's - because without government - and without taxpayer money - Charles Koch would have no investments.

And speaking of those so-called investments - are they REALLY more beneficial to the societal well-being?

Like the millions of dollars - as reported by the Wall Street Journal - that Charles Koch has funneled into the George Mason University think tank known as the Mercatus Center - that's filled to the brim with climate change deniers and faux scientists hell-bent on destroying as many environmental regulations as they can - you know - regulations that make sure that the air we breathe - the water we drink - and the food we eat is safe.

In fact - when George W. Bush came into office in 2001 - the Koch-funded Mercatus Center suggested more than half of the environmental regulations that Bush immediately put on the chopping block.

So when our kids get asthma thanks to this polluter agenda - we can thank Charles Koch for his so-called "investments" that benefit our "societal well-being".

Or maybe Koch was referring to the hundreds of millions of dollars he invests in universities across the nation - like the economics department at Florida State University - where - as the St. Petersburg Times noted - Charles Koch can veto the hiring of any new professors if they don't subscribe to his tax-cut and deregulation agenda.

Or - at Utah State University - where Koch's contribution happens to coincide with a requirement for students at the school of business to read his book.

There's also Charles Koch's investments into Tea Party and anti-tax think tanks and front groups like Americans for Prosperity - that have brainwashed millions of Americans into thinking that tax cuts for the rich will trickle down - when they won't - and that entitlement programs are going broke - which they aren't.

But their anti-tax efforts have yielded excellent added profits for his corporation and millions in extra cash for his personal bank account, and they make sure that, just like Warren Buffet, he pays far less of his income in payroll taxes than his secretary does.

From pushing to gut the EPA - to spending huge lobbying dollars to keep his corporate and personal income taxes at historic lows - the main group of people who benefit from the Kochs "investments" - are oligarchs who also have 9 zeroes in their Swiss bank accounts.

The rest of us are left to suffocate under more and more pollution and a growing wealth imbalance that's leading to civil unrest all around the world.

If that's Charles Koch's idea of investments that benefit the "societal well-being" - then, frankly, he can keep them - cuz' we don't want them.

It's simple - Billionaire oligarchs like the Koch brothers who don't want to pay their fair share to support what makes America great are leeches on our body politic.

 

sorry outthere but i wont watch any news videos that are so obviously biased to one side, and dont go assuming... because that goes to both sides for me. i was half way through as i type this so i did give it a try.

 

That's ok. But what's your opinion of Charles Koch? Do you believe you get as much representation from your congressman as he gets? And do you agree with his agenda for America?

 

Does any middle class working tax payer get as much representation from his/her congressperson as does any person who contributes larges sums of money to that congresspersons campaign? What about George Soros, Warren Buffett, and others who are wealthy but lean left?
By the way the tax increase Obama wants to impose on the rich, those earning over $250K, won't raise Buffetts taxes at all, he only receives an income of $100,000 each year.

 

Buffet and Soros happen to be among the 8 billionaires of 400 polled who said publicly they are willing to pay more taxes


http://www.newser.com/story/130613/8-out-of-400-billionaires-say-yes-to-higher-taxes.html

Salon sent queries to every single billionaire on the Forbes 400 asking whether they would be willing to pay more taxes. The results: Eight said yes (including Buffett), one said no (Charles Koch), and a few offered qualified answers somewhere in between. The other 390 or so—including Oprah, Mayor Bloomberg, and Steven Spielberg—didn't answer. Samples from those who did respond:

• Mark Cuban: "I have absolutely no problem paying more taxes. None. What I have a problem with is how the money is spent. If the incremental money could be directed to defined and deserved recipients, I would be thrilled to write the check."
• George Soros: "The rich hurt their own long term interests by their opposition to paying more taxes."
• Supermarket CEO John Catsimatidis: "All Americans should feel the pain equally; not be prejudiced only against a certain group."
• Charles Koch: "I believe my business and non-profit investments are much more beneficial to societal well-being than sending more money to Washington

BTW Koch=evil

nice work outtahere2 :2thumbsup: Tom Hartman rocks

 

The obvious answer is no. What's your point?

 

For Koch to say his business is more beneficial to societal well-being than Washington is actually saying nothing. Charles Koch believes Washington is not at all beneficial to societal well-being.

Yasha Levine's words are validated by the Koch quote above when she wrote of the Koch clan:

Notice the Koch snake oil of "societal well-being" (appealing to the common man) in his quote. But what is he really trying to sell us?

 

If welfare is meant to create dependency -- what system would help deal with people who cannot work or have gotten themselves into a level of debt that they can't get out of?

 

Is it not obvious? The more power those who govern are allowed to amass and wield, only provides a more effective source to those who can afford to purchase and shape the laws and rules under which we all must live to their benefit in the long run.

 

There is nothing at all stopping them from paying more taxes, it's not illegal to do so. Essentially they, as is each and every individual one of us, are currently 'free' to dispose of their wealth as they desire, but are unwilling to do so without government force imposed on all to do the same.

Besides, Buffett with an annual income of $100,000 would have to see tax increases on other than income in order to pay higher taxes, and those areas of tax increases would affect not just the wealthiest, but also those whose pensions and other benefits would be affected.

David Talbot=evil left wing revisionist historian