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

If you look at the problem as one having both a causation and an effect, then you might then at least agree that while welfare has not been a total failure in reducing the effect of poverty, it has done little to eliminate or reduce the cause of poverty, which I believe the Cato Institute is attempting to draw attention to the fact that the cost of reducing the effect of poverty is becoming a very serious and increasingly burdensome problem.

How much debt and taxation does it take before you begin to recognize that spending money you don't have perpetually might be a sign that your actions are failing?

I'm unaware of any organization, including the Cato Institute that has a goal of dismantling ALL government programs, but it is quite likely that many Federal government programs could be eliminated totally, and made a responsibility of the individual States as they and their citizens feel necessary to continue.

I most certainly agree with the enforcement of property rights, and contract laws.

 

The problem of the very private Cato influence (presenting their opinions as facts) on public policy is a more serious and increasingly burdensome problem than the cost of poverty.

Politicians were not at all concerned about perpetually spending money we didn't have just a short time ago.

Wealth (the Cato Institute et al.) is now creating a debt crisis to justify removing welfare, social security and medicare.

I did not say (and you should know this) the Cato Institute has a goal of dismantling ALL government programs (stop). I said, "the goal of the Cato Institute (wealth) is to dismantle all government programs (including social security) that do not directly serve them."

The point was that one private Cato goal is to tear down the public safety-net, including social security. You objected, but have not been able to refute that point.

Do you most certainly agree with government enforcement of property rights, and contract laws?

 

Now that is an excellent example of presenting an opinion containing no verifiable facts. While the Cato Institute was indeed stating their opinion, they did so by including verifiable facts relating to how their opinion was derived.

I've not claimed that they were, and in fact I would be more likely to agree with that rather than waste time arguing over it for no practical purpose.

First of all, the Cato Institute, as you yourself have pointed out is privately funded by the "rich", as are many other similar organizations who produce views opposite of theirs. How much of the more than $16 trillion Federal debt can you provide conclusive evidence of having been created by the Cato Institute? You continue to try and delve into things I did not find mentioned in the "study" mentioned in the OP, social security and medicare, and even if you are correct in your claim they are irrelevant in the context of discussing the success/failure related to poverty and the Federal welfare programs that continually grow more costly with little or no effect in reducing, much less eliminating poverty.

I stand corrected, however "which" government programs are you claiming to be directly serving the Cato Institute, that by not being eliminated would directly serve the Cato Institute? And you should recognize the fact that government spending, even redistribution of wealth eventually ends up back in the pockets of the wealthy. After all, how many of the poor can you identify to have become wealthy as a result of Federal government funded welfare programs?

For the moment let's say you are correct and the goal of the Cato Institute "IS" to tear down what you are calling the "public safety net". We, or at least I am, and in every case of previous post on these forums, have been talking ONLY of Federal government programs. States and local governments are, and should continue to remain free to implement any and all forms of safety net programs that they and their citizens feel necessary and are willing to provide the means by which such programs can be adequately funded, or willingly accumulate debt as the means for which the State and it's citizens/inhabitants fully accept responsibility.

I agree that individuals are the most sovereign of all entities, and that their freedoms are founded on the rights of property. Government being a creation of society, and societies being made up of sovereign individuals exist on the basis of respecting the rights of one another, and contracts are nothing more than agreements which when entered into express the willingness of the parties to fulfill what they each have agreed upon. The courts are where contract disagreements are resolved, and the government is the means by which court decisions are enforced when and if necessary.

If the intent is to ignore the topic title entirely, there is little to be gained from this thread, and maybe you should create a new thread simply titled "The Cato Institute".

 

http://m.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/a-363663.html#spRedirectedFrom=www

I thought this was pretty good... An interview with an African economist talking about why foreign aid programs have perpetuated African poverty. All the exact same symptoms we see as a result of our domestic welfare programs. Including funding massive bureaucracies, destroying local businesses, stifling innovation, creating dependencies, etc.

 

Fact: the Cato institute is a public policy organization that is privately funded. Here is a list of some of their very private donors: The Koch Brothers' Million-Dollar Donor Club.

Fact: the Cato Institute mission is to change the US government to a form of its own choosing.

Any questions?

Where in the policy analysis did Cato delineate their opinions from facts?

If you "agree with that" then why are you mentioning it?

You seem to object to the claim but offer no argument against it.

My statement was that Cato (wealth) is now creating a "debt crisis." I did not say Cato created the debt.

(Although Cato's neoliberal policies do have a track record of creating public debt; but that was not my point in the context of my statement).

So is your position that we can only talk about what Cato says and not who they are? My position is that the people behind Cato are just as relevent to this thread as what Cato says.

The programs of government that serve as the enforcer (with much government coercion) of contracts and property rights directly serve the Cato Institute. Contrary to Cato's stated position of being against "government coercion" in the form of regulations and taxation, they embrace and encourage "government coercion" with respect to contracts and property rights.

Redistribution of wealth eventually ends up back in the pockets of the wealthy because the current economic system is designed that way.

What's your point?

But Social Security is a federal government program. Cato was behind George W's 2005 push for privatization of Social Security (remember before the crash).

You have not been able to refute the point that Cato is seeking to tear down not only Welfare but Social Security too.

This thread is about the Cato Institute's policy analysis which includes Social Security.

The private Cato institute wants to change US public policy through the influence of their private money to a form of its own choosing.

And how can government acquire the means of enforcement of property and contract rights without the enforcement of collecting taxes?

Since the "study" or policy analysis is a product of the Cato Institute, this thread could appropriately be titled "The Cato Institute."

 

These 'trillions' don’t disappear in a black hole. There are two sides to the welfare coin.

Are GI Bills and Fed. Grants for college considered welfare? Many move from the lower to middle class due to these grants.
Dept. of Ag. = Food Stamps. Have farmers gained wealth due to the Food Stamp Act? How about wealth built from steady payments for low income HUD rentals?
So, who really benefits economically from 'welfare'? The poor survive and others capitalize off the welfare programs.

 

outthere2,

Have you anything to say about welfare spending and poverty?

You can ignore the Cato "study" and get all the information relative to Federal spending on welfare and the effects on poverty from government sources, which are NOT funded by the Koch bros.

 

No, I'd rather we focus on the authors of the OP policy analysis.

For example:

Cato's libertarianism is a theory of government:

...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 (with which to f**k you and me).

 

outthere2,

Then why not create a thread topic for that purpose as I'm not that familiar with the Cato Institute and the issue of poverty and welfare spending remains an unresolved and costly issue even absent of a study by the Cato Institute.

 

The meddeling of the privately funded Cato Institute into US public policy is a more costly issue than poverty. Also of grave concern is their level of legislative representation relative to individual persons.

 

So it looks like the working middle class tax payers are the losers considering that the poor are getting enough to survive on and the rich are capitalizing on the spending.

 

^ As Balbus has said, you're not really here to discuss but rather to continually repost your stale point of view.

 

Outthere, If we're discounting every policy proposal that's "privately funded" by rich people, than we're discounting every proposal across the political spectrum. There is an equal number of left wing think tanks funded by million and billionaires as there is right wing... Center for American Prosperity is one I know off the top of my head, funded primarily by George Soros (a billionaire). So if your approach is to ignore any political information presented by wealthy interests, I'm afraid you've relegated yourself to ignoring pretty much all political information out there.

 

Where did I say that we should ignore any political information presented by wealthy interests?

I've been arguing that the appropriate scope of this thread should include the authors of the policy analysis. So I've been arguing for a broader scope.

As far as I remember, I didn't comment that anything should be excluded.

 

What did you mean by:
"Fact: the Cato institute is a very private organization. Here are a list of some of their very private donors.

Fact: the Cato institutes goal is to influence government policy

Any questions?"

Its very possible I took you out of context, as I haven't been keeping up with the thread, but I took it as you meaning that any information presented by the Cato institute should be disqualified because of their donors.

 

At least you have the good sense to distance yourself from them.

 

That was my response to Individual, who was questioning this:

 

Does anyone on the right care to comment on this on-topic statement?

 

Please explain why. Thanks.

 

The private Cato agenda encompasses more than the government program known as "welfare."

Click here to browse the scope of Cato's proposed cuts in government.

And there is also the issue of a non-elected private entity directing public policy.

And there is also the issue of unequal representation.

They're a cancer that needs to be cut out essentially.