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

Indie

But the ‘study’s’ conclusions have been heavily criticised in this thread, criticisms that you seem unable to address let alone refute.

Just repeating the title of the thread does not make it a ‘fact’.

Can you please start debating honestly by actually addressing the many outstanding criticisms?

And also it seems that if you look at welfare expenditure as a percentage GDP the US doesn’t spend that much for example Denmark in 2001 spent 29.2 of GDP (omitting education) while the US only spent 14.8 (omitting education).

 

Indie

The reason why I asked which programmes is because as I’ve said many times a lot of them seem aimed at assisting low income working people.

I have given in post 27 a full list of the programmes mentioned in the Cato piece.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7311735&postcount=27

Here are the top five (by cost) on that list are -

Medicaid
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Earned Income Tax Credit (Refundable Portion)
Supplemental Security Income
Federal Pell Grants

Lets look at them more closely


Medicaid

Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with limited income in the United States.

In other words it is used by low income working people.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

Again is used by low income working people.

Earned Income Tax Credit

Aimed at low income working people

Federal Pell Grants

Provides need-based grants to low-income undergraduate and certain postbaccalaureate students to promote access to postsecondary education.
(and the Cato piece seems to approve of the FPG)

 

Bal,

If it was a contest to see which countries government could spend a greater percentage of their GDP then I would gladly prefer to be the loser of such a contest.

 

Indie

To repeat - Can you please start debating honestly by actually addressing the many outstanding criticisms?

 

I agree, we the general public have little influence over public policy while the very private Cato Institute is issuing public policy analyses. And I also agree, those guys have too much money.

I have no reason to believe the boys who gave us the tea party are up to anything good for society. They sure do have the money and (apparently) desire to meddle in government as evidenced by the OP public policy analysis.

Cato's policies seek to remove Uni' government funding and replace it with private funding (i.e. their money). Do you think Cato's agenda stops there? If so, why?

"The United States Global Change Research Program or USGCRP coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society. The program began as a presidential initiative in 1989 and was codified by Congress through the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-606), which called for "a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change."

I hope you're right about the battle being won.

Maybe I'm being naive but an organization whose mission is "a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change" should be a little more altruistic than the Cato Institute's very private mission.

 

Produce something other that utter nonsense and it may be worth putting forth some effort to respond to. I've not been dishonest in anything I've put forth, so perhaps you should refrain from implying such and attempt to look at the issues in a more reasoned and rational way that might lead to accomplishing some goals which might at least begin to evolve in a way acceptable to all.

 

Indie

Ok I’m game what ‘utter nonsense’ have I presented?

If you are honest then you will produce them and your criticisms of them and we can debate.

If you are dishonest you’ll make another one of your excuses for not doing so.

 

Bal,

Whether or not you recognize it, we (American taxpayers) have a Federal government spending problem which only grows worse no matter which 'party' occupies office. Poverty as mentioned in this thread, remains a problem only becoming more costly for government to offset the effects of. THAT is what those of us who are fiscally conservative would like to find a solution to. Would you like to discuss rationally and reasonably ways in which we might be able to solve a problem or simply argue and waste time?

 

Indie

I notice you choose to take the dishonest route - you make claimed and accusation that you know to be untrue and so are never able to back up - frankly you are a liar and a cheat.

It is very hard to debate with someone who doesn’t want to debate in any honest way.

I’d love to debate in a rational and reasonable way but to me it doesn’t seem rational, reasonable or honest to constantly evade or make unsubstantiated accusations.

If you truly wish to debate honestly why not begin by addressing the many outstanding criticisms of your ideas in this thread.

Or will you take the dishonest route once more claiming you don’t know what they are where they and that anyway you can’t be bother to find out let alone answer them.

I ask again – why are you promoting ideas you seem unable to defend from criticism.

 

Bal,

For the umpteen millionth time, there is no meaningful way to communicate with you. You should pick up your toys and go home, or find someone else who has time to waste, or simply finds you entertaining.
Haven't you recognized that I pretty much ignore your posts, and simply skim over them to see if they contain any intelligence, and most often only respond tersely?

 

Indie

That still doesn’t explain why you seem totally unable to defend your ideas from criticism? Or why you continue to promote them even when it is so obvious you can’t defend them from criticism?

 

Bal,

About all that I promote is a return to government by the people as set forth in our Constitution, limiting the Federal governments powers over and spending of the peoples money. Fifty States are much more capable of making good decisions that benefit them and their citizens, and correcting bad decisions when made than is a Centralized Government incapable of giving attention to ALL the details which need attended to in making the best decisions.
Only fools think prosperity can be achieved by simply borrowing and spending.

 

Your dislike of federal government sounds like an advertisement for Cato's website.

 

Like Bal, you too respond to what I can only describe as an intentional false interpretation of the words you are responding to. I think even Bal will agree that may posts ago I stated that I find governments a necessity which cannot be eliminated from societies. The U.S. government was not founded in a way that created one large society, under one source of government, but instead a form of government where people would remain free to govern themselves as they determined necessary and proper in each unique society, beginning with local governments and the people, who in turn empowered their State governments with the powers they Democratically agreed to allow it, with a Centralized Federal government limited to the powers that the people by a super majority of the States, three fourths, would allow. Primarily the Federal government was empowered to ensure the safety of the people and the States from insurrection within and attack from abroad, to make treaties and trade agreements with other nations, regulate the commerce between Nations and States, create and coin a common currency for use in trade, and most importantly of all TAX the States in proportion to their population of the whole in order to fund the operation of the Federal government.
THAT, in my opinion allows the citizens of each State and locality the greatest freedom achievable by any form of government ever before or since created.
It does NOT allow wealth to exert control or power over the people of the Nation from a single source, and does not eliminate the use of a progressive tax to be imposed by the States, but does allow both the people and the States a much stronger voice and control of the Federal government. All laws should be written clearly and simply, with the fewest words necessary so that they can be understood by all the people.

If you look at all the variables, I think you cannot deny that we have allowed government to take power from the people gradually to the point that the people have very little power at all, and our freedoms are much less as a result. It should be obvious to all that the fewer hands money has to travel through from its source to the destination in which it is spent, the more of it reaches the destination to where it is to be used.

Problems are more easily solved nearest their source, and that would include the problem of poverty, and spending related to reducing it. And in my opinion it should never go beyond the State, with the only exception to that being the creation of debt owed by the State and its residents should it be necessary for the State to borrow temporarily from outside its borders.

 

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?

You have suggested that wealth should be given extra voting power so that it can veto or block the votes of the people.

This would be a return to how most of the US was ordered at the time of the new US constitution with the franchise limited by wealth and excluding many, slaves, blacks, native Americans, women, even I believe Catholics and Jews in some places (meaning that only about 10% of Americans had the vote) and with many places limiting office holding to the very wealthy.

Remember it was not until the 1850s that most economic barriers to voting had disappeared (women didn’t get the vote until 1920 (19 amendment) while many black people had to wait until 1965 (voting rights act).)

As has been established many times yours is an ideology for all your banging on about the federal government it covers all governance from the most local up.

As we have been through many times localism is fine but it has many drawbacks that you don’t seem able to address.

But as pointed out and explained to you many, many times - that is exactly how most businesses have been founded, run and gained prosperity, by borrowing and investing (spending).

 

Indie

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

 

Your first statement about the states and their decisions is totally unsubstantiated. With no substantiation, it seems obvious that it depends on the state and the situation, some would be better and some would be worse.

However, you attempt to make your last statement (which, on it's own, few would disagree with) appear as a substantiation, when in fact, it has nothing to do with power balance between the federal or state level. (bear in mind that many (all?) states have debt, and many cities and towns do as well)

There is no logical error, technically. But it is, nevertheless, dishonest. It seems clear that your intention was to say that the federal government is bad, because the federal government inherently thinks that prosperity is achieved by borrowing and spending, and works as such.

The point of a central government is to coordinate and support regional governments. Regional governments obviously handle (or as I said, mishandle, considering all the cities and states in debt) their own affairs in most ways.

 

Here is an idea someone said to me the other night (fuelled by a second bottle of wine)

The free market put great store on suing businesses, corporations etc as a means of keeping them in line.

Basically ‘bad’ companies get financially penalised for not doing their job properly.

Well said this person - you could see unemployment payments in the same way, the governments job is to bring about the economic and social conditions that allow people to gain employment, and they [the government] are financially penalised (through higher unemployment payments) for not doing that job.

Remove unemployment payments and there is less of an incentive for government to do that job.

Now I’m not sure about this but thought I’d put it up for comment.

 

Roo,

Read the Constitution, maybe then you might understand it better.

 

Bal,

I find there is no way to discuss the issues of different threads with you at all. Regardless of any agenda of the Cato Institute, the issue I see this thread looks to solve is how both poverty and spending could be reduced which would result in fewer people living in poverty and fewer people needing long term assistance.