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

I think all Bakers should have barred windows.

Problem solved.

 

Wrong

Sorry but that makes you sound like a petulant child that going to take away the ball if he’s not allowed to score a goal.

Thing is that you have presented an idea and we are seeing if it stands up to scrutiny, but so far you don’t seem to be addressing the criticisms of it but just demanding that everyone has to look at it in the rather narrow and illogical way you see it.

Sorry I’m not that blinkered and don’t want to be.

As I’ve said you go so far then seem to stop, I mean you only have to look at the parable with a bit more depth to see the problems with it.

The thing is that the accident happens, saying it would be better if it didn’t happen doesn’t work because it did happen.

And since it did happen then yes it is going to give work to the glazier, but it is a big and rather illogical step from there to claiming that it would be a good thing to smash all of the bakers’ other windows on purpose, which you seem to be demanding must be the ‘logical’ next step.

Keynesian ideas work perfectly ok without accidents they don’t need accidents BUT it is an economic system that prepares for bad things happening rather than just hoping they will not and telling people to spend the money that could be used to be prepared (causing them great hardship when the inevitable bad then does happen).

But if the baker is prepared, he has budgeted in the insurance payments and separately saved up for the coat so when the accident happens the assurance pays for the window and he still has the money for the coat. Unless you are saying (as you seem to) that the baker shouldn’t be prepared and not spend his money on insurance but on other things?

Are you claiming that if you had insurance you’d really like your windows to be broken or even purposely break them yourself?

Having insurance doesn’t make the breaking of the glass more or less likely to happen it just means ‘if’ it breaks the Baker is covered.

You seemed to argue above that it would be better for the economy to have the Baker to spend the money he would spend on insurance on something else and so seemingly just hope nothing bad happened.

I’m saying it would be better to pay into something that can help when help is needed.

 

Indie

Oh no not more bile, what are you trying to suggest now - that lefties would be rubbing their hands and chuckling gleefully at the prospect of all the died from a pandemic?

I mean is this it – unable to actually address the critics of your views your only recourse is lashing out with stupid and irrational insinuations?

To repeat – Keynesian ideas are about being prepared for the possibility of bad things happening (and there aftermath), they don’t wish for them to happen, they don’t need them to happen and they don’t just hope they will not happen.

 

Thing is, you don't seem capable of understanding or properly characterizing any of the ideas that I present. I at least fully understand the Keynesian paradigm and attack it on positions that it actually holds.
You said, for example, this: "Now you might say that under the Austrian model crashes are factored in and so wouldn’t be so bad"
what? lol... You've "been there done that" but clearly have missed just about everything along the way. Austrian business cycle theory explains WHY these large scale crashes happen in the first place. Not simply what to do to make them not "so bad", but how to prevent them in the first place. Crashes, recessions, depressions (on a systemic level, not just supply shocks) .. result from malinvestment caused by credit expansion. Further expanding credit cannot solve these imbalances. It's only when the missallocated resources are allowed to liquidate and readjust that an economy recovers. That's the Austrian position.

Or this, "You seemed to argue above that it would be better for the economy to have the Baker to spend the money he would spend on insurance on something else and so seemingly just hope nothing bad happened."
Quote where I argued this? Copy + Paste for me please... what in gods name are you talking about? I'm arguing that subsidies don't help the economy, because the resources they provide to failing businesses are invariably extracted from other, profitable businesses. THAT is my argument.
Also.. this was my question: Are you arguing that if the baker has insurance that it would make breaking the window a boon for the economy? Yes or no?
Now.. how in the fuck did you draw this conclusion from the above question:
"Are you claiming that if you had insurance you’d really like your windows to be broken or even purposely break them yourself? "
To answer you though, I'm claiming that I wouldn't want anybodies window broken under ANY circumstance, whether they had insurance or not. The ONLY beneficiary of the broken window is the glazier. The baker loses, the economy loses. PERIOD. The ONLY beneficiary of your manufacturing subsidy, is the manufacturing company. The tax payer loses, the economy loses. PERIOD. I seriously don't know how else I can break this down for you. If you're going to try and refute my positions, you should at least try to properly represent them in your arguments.

 

http://libertariantee.com/I/user.php?nameFix=2
These graphs make me laugh... so all this across the board increase and expansion in welfare (and other) government spending is the result of "free market ideology hijacking the system" ?

 

Bal:

Where we seem to differ most greatly is the function of government, which you seem to promote as both the protector and provider of the society, while I view it only as the protector, and the members of the society themselves being the providers of goods, services, and charity. For government to assume the role of providing, when it possesses nothing of its own it must first take from those who have what it wishes to provide in order to function. Ultimately, that means all property belongs to government and can be appropriated from whoever possesses it at some point in time.

 

It's very simple:

To protect those who do not have enough, one must provide.


Back to: it must be done, and it would be EXCELLENT if it was being done by private individuals and groups, as you promote -- but they're simply not doing it. You can't say that if you don't give people enough to live, eventually maybe some charity will throw them a bone -- if someone wanted to take the burden of all charity from the government, with a bargan that required them to spend as much and forbade government from charitable spending, government would jump at the chance and buy a bunch of tanks instead. So, break out your checkbook......

 

Simple? Yes, but does nothing to relieve the problem, and only worsens it. Those who you claim do not have enough are most in need of a productive, income producing job. The real burden doesn't fall on government, but instead on those who both work to earn a living and pay taxes, including those yet born who will do the same.

 

What worthless waste of food would whine about paying so that others would not starve?

I mean, there's lots more to it than that, and there are obviously things that can be done, but if you simply say that government should not do that, I say that until those people are able to provide for their basic needs in some other way, simply removing the help is not an option.

And anyone paying US taxes who would rather that others starve than they have to pay taxes, is a waste of food.

 

In order to end welfare here,there has to be jobs. Here. In order for there to be jobs here ,there has to be people that create jobs. Here. In order to create jobs here,there has to be leaders that care about creating jobs. Here. In order for this to happen,there has to be leaders that understand that PEOPLE NEED WATCHING AT ALL TIMES,when it comes to money. Had we had those types of leaders, the economy would have been strong and would have remained strong.
The above is a general statement and does not take into account the myriad other problems with rampant capitalism,and I am cognicent of them. I believe in socialism with a reasonable amount of capitalism to obtain extras for oneself.
I am also damn tired of seeing homeless vets begging around here for small amounts of money to get food or beer or whatever. There should not be one homeless vet in this country,regardless of what has to happen to fix this.

Off topic? Fuck it.

 

And to add: this particular period in history will be looked at as humans going absolutely crazy when they look back and see that some humans have billions or millions and others,many of them children of the earth,(30,000 a day) are starving in the midst of plenty. It's sick and morally wrong.

 

So, now you admit it is not so simple. I didn't say remove help, only remove government from providing what it does not own, and allow the people to help one another as they have done in the past.

Income producing jobs are the solution to the problem, and even a low paying job is better than no job at all.

 

I'm just curious, RooR. How much (US) Federal Income Tax did you pay last year? No need to be exacting -- just a ballpark figure, if you please.

 

Comment #1: Everyone's gotta eat.

Comment #2: Poverty levels are unaffected, but we've also had a bit of a financial crisis. It wasn't caused by poor people.

Comment #3: Joblessness is up, but crime hasn't followed it this time. Because people aren't as desperate as they were without a social safety net. You can shell out for welfare, or for elevated crime levels in recessions. Choose.

 

You mean the way the churches "helped" people with all that money they got from Bush's "Faith Based Initiative"? imp:

 

Oh, yeah. Or "care in the community". That worked out well.

 

Hey! If it wasn't for stuff like that, we wouldn't have face eating zombies to entertain us.

 

Yep. Reagan fixed EVERYTHING. To death.

Now you have crazy people living under bridges, when they really ought to be hospitalized. But the community was gonna care for them, right? Yeah, they cared for them so much, they die after a few years, crusted in their own filth.

Well done, America. Be proud.

 

There are a few businesses that help the homeless. Dunkin Donuts used to donate their stale stuff to soup kitchens. THAT fixes everything.

 

"Here, sir, eat this before we give it to an animal."

Oh, yeah, and giving a homeless crazy person $2 is better than mental health facilities.