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

Could you at least try and put some context into your post? I do feel the U.S. Constitution, when adhered to by our elected representatives and properly interpreted by the appointed Justices, to by far exceed any other attempt to govern a free people fairly and justly. That said, I must also say that those on the Left, call them Democrats, Socialists, Progressives, etc. have been quite successful over the last century or so in achieving some changes, the Federal Reserve Act, the 16th and 17th amendments primarily, which have led to a gradual but constant decay of freedom, and has transformed our government from one having powers granted from the bottom, the people, into one in which power originates from the top, claiming to be in the best interests of the society as a whole.

The world we live in is constantly changing, and adapting to the changes is necessary to survive. The majority of changes which occur are beyond control of each of us as individuals, and that is the reason I no longer live in the U.S., but instead where my means are sufficient to provide an acceptable life for myself and my family. In what way do you think I say one thing and do another?

Just how, in your mind, can you justify claiming that I capitalize off the misfortune of others? I earn nothing at all from the society I am living within, but only insert capital which I have saved or receive contractually from past employment, which would otherwise not exist here, and am unaware of anyone where I live who dislikes me.

 

Indie

Well as I’ve explained at length virtually everything about your views.

Anyway this is an old dodge of yours and I’ll repeat – ignoring criticism does not make it go away it just makes the criticism seem to have validity.

 

Indie

Again I do wish you’d read my posts

I think it should be quite clear that my view is that each one of us has to exert 'some' effort in sustaining our individual lives

And I’m pointing out that’s what virtually everyone does but as I’ve explained at length it seems good for the individual and wider society to help people in that endeavour when it is needed – my criticism, that I’ve explained at length, to your idea is that it doesn’t seem to be about helping people but more about hindering them and as to wider society you seem only interested in helping a few rather than the whole community.

it is NOT the purpose or responsibility of government to impose controls over society in an attempt to achieve greater equality

You mean helping people in your mind is ‘imposing control’? As to bringing about ‘greater equality’ why not, I mean we have been through that argument many times and the outstanding criticisms of your views is that while yes you don’t want ‘greater equality’ you don’t seem to have any rational or reasonable argument as to why it shouldn’t be done.

or eliminate individuals from taking responsibility for their own mistakes

Again we have been through this argument at length and there is the outstand problem of advantage and disadvantage – as explained to you at length – the advantaged is likely not to have to take so much responsibility for a mistake because their advantage can cushions them from the consequences of that mistake.

And as to mistakes we have been through that before as well I mean - if someone losses a job through no fault of their own how is that their mistake? It people find themselves in hardship through no fault of their own how is that their mistake?

I mean you are on record as saying in your model of society such people if no assistance was given should suffer or even die of want, even if they reached that position through no fault of their own, but how is that their mistake?

 

Indie

So you think government should subsidise low paying employers?

Are you saying they wouldn’t if you didn’t force them to? Again you seem to see these people as having a default of ‘lazy’.

Again try reading - Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353

You don’t think government should have much involvement at all in the labour force that is beyond having a massive army of forced labourers?

Also we have been through this at length - the ‘free market’ does not exist (and never will) and there can be ups and downs in an economy when demand for products and services slump and you don’t get job creation but the laying off of workers.

Again try reading - Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353

Oh as I’ve said I’m all for reform but I also realise that there is a need for rules, regulations and taxes so that businesses work in the interests of all society rather than just their own interests – the outstanding criticism of your views is that you seem not to care about interests of the wider society and only seem to want to help wealth.

We have been through this at length and I’ve explained to you just how simplistic that view is – it the flawed financial self interest premise of much free market thinking.

The thing is that in the real world the free market doesn’t exist (and never will) it was the con game of neoliberalism that said ‘businesses can only survive by making a profit’ then set up a system were failed businesses were bailed out by tax payers. A system were the profits go to wealth during the up and the losses are piled on everyone else during a down.

As pointed out here - Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353

Keynesian type systems are a lot more honest and much better for society at large. Again criticisms of your ideas that are still outstanding.

 

Indie

You mean you think make work jobs are real jobs for example employing someone to dig a hole and paying someone else to fill it in? Two people are getting paid but to me they are not real jobs.

And to me teaching ‘the skills’ to the unemployed would be a good way of improving their chances of being employed.

Well that’s why it was confusing you seemed to be implying that you thought that the government training people was a bad idea. From other comments of yours I still get that impression.

This seems to be contradicted by your statement that even college students lack some skills that might improve their chances of getting work. All I’m saying is if such people are unemployed why not try and teach them such skills.

Many state funded universities around the world teach people to be just that and in the UK the tax payer does train neurosurgeons through the NHS, many scientist throughout the world (including the US) are paid directly by the government or by grants given by the government and the US has NASA and Europe has ESA, both helping to train up astrophysicists.

I say why not - if you have unemployed with the potential why not train them up to be anything that potential will allow as I say it would be good for them and wider society.

But why do you say just those things why not more hands on stuff - why not plumbing, engineering, electronics, accountancy, machining, mechanics, painting and decorating, etc etc etc…

Your said they would be required to - “requiring able bodied persons put in an 8 hour work day”

“unemployed should be required to earn the support provided them”

 

Indie

That seems to be contradicted by your statement above - Yes, it would be much better to subsidize those who are working for low paying employers

If you subsidise one low pay employer then other employers that did pay a living wage will likely cut their wages (or let them slip in real terms) knowing that state will give assistance such as food stamps.

And cutting wages at the bottom allows for wage cuts (or slippages) further up the scale.

Then I’d ask why are you doing it? I mean I’ve explained at length why your ideas would have the result of furthering the interests of wealth, criticisms of your ideas you still refuse to address.

 

:2thumbsup: lol

 

According to the latest CBO report, the stimulus program cost which was originally projected to be $787B in 2009, which would have been the equivalent of 15,740,000 jobs paying $50,000 per year, has now risen to $833B, and may have been responsible for only 700,000 jobs or 3,500,000 jobs (the higher figure from the Obama administration).

In either case the cost was between $238,000 and $1,190,000 per job created, depending on which figure you agree with.

As long as the people allow government to operate beyond it's means, which is nothing more than the tax revenues collected and borrowing which is nothing but a tax increase deferred to the future, redistribution of current workers income, both the rich and the middles class, does not solve any problems, but only creates a situation where the problem grows and is put off on generations yet born.

Pay attention to the money supply, which is 1/6 of just the Federal debt alone, and that is after tripling it since Obama took office, which has consequences advantageous to some in both the short and the long run, while only temporarily so for others in the short term, and devastating in the long run. Wealth can only be created by increasing productivity, and redistribution only diminishes the ability of growth of the middle classes, while having little or no negative effect on those who already possess great wealth, and with their consent are presented only as an illusionary target.

 

The stimulus created less jobs than the money given because much of the money went into INFRASTRUCTURE SILLY .. i have seen the work that was done in my own county..

also the stimulus went to keep many from LOSING THEIR JOBS

The way you described it is as if they were just giving out checks to people... that would be welfare ... unlike the rich who get welfare in the form of lower taxes than what they use to pay when college was free to all..

 

how about that it can't be done? All attempts at equality of results has ended in abject poverty, and to a degree in direct relation to the amount of effort put into it. "Helping people" is a catastrophic misnomer for what you're doing when you redistribute wealth.

 

Parables Of The Not-So-Social Gospel
The Lazy Paralytic
1. When Jesus returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at his home. 2. So many gathered around that there was no longer room for them, not even in front of the door; and he was speaking the word to them. 3. Then some people came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. 4. And when they could not bring him to Jesus because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and after having dug through it, they let down the mat on which the paralytic lay. 5. When Jesus saw this he grew angry, "Why did you wreck my roof? Do you have any idea how much that cost to install? Do you know how many tables and chairs I had to make in my carpentry shop to pay for that roof? The reeds alone cost five talents. I had them carted in from Bethany." 6. The disciples had never seen Jesus so angry about his possessions. He continued, "This house is my life." The disciples fell silent. 7. "It's bad enough that you trash my private property, now you want me to heal you?" said Jesus, "And did you not see the stone walls around this house?" "Yes," said the man's friends. "Are these not the stone walls native to the Land of Galilee? 8. "No," Jesus answered. "This is a gated community. How did you get in?" The man's friends grew silent. 9. Then Jesus turned to the paralytic and said, "Besides, can't you take care of your own health problems? I'm sure that you're family can care for you, or maybe the synagogue." 10. "No, Lord," answered the man's friends. "There is no one. His injuries are too severe. To whom else can we go?" 11. "Well, not me," said Jesus. "What would happen if I provided free health care for everyone? That would mean that people would not only get lazy, but they would take advantage of the system. 12. Besides, look at me: I'm healthy. And you know why? Because I worked hard for my money." The paralyzed man then grew sad and he addressed Jesus. "But I did work, Lord," said the paralytic. "But an accident rendered me paralyzed." "Yes," said the man's friends. "He worked very hard." 13. "Well," said Jesus, "That's just part of life, isn't it?" "Then what am I to do, Lord?" said the paralytic. "I don't know. Why don't you sell your mat?" 14. All in the crowd then grew sad. "Actually, you know what you can do?" said Jesus. "You can reimburse me for my roof. Or I'll sue." And all were amazed. 15. "We have never seen anything like this," said the crowd.
The Very Poorly Prepared Crowd
1. The day was drawing to a close, and the twelve apostles came to Jesus and said, "Send the crowd away, so that they may go into the surrounding villages and countryside, to lodge and get provisions; for we are here in a deserted place." 2 But Jesus said to them, "Why not give them something to eat?" They said, 'We have no more than five loaves and two fish -- unless we are to go and buy food for all these people. 3 For there were about five thousand men. And Jesus said to his disciples, "You know what? You're right. Don't waste your time and shekels. It would be positively immoral for you to give away your hard-earned salaries for these people. They knew full well that they were coming to a deserted place, and should have relied on themselves to bring more food. As far as I'm concerned, it's every five thousand men for themselves." 4. The disciples were astonished by this teaching. "But Lord," said Thomas. "The crowd will go hungry." Jesus was amazed at his hard-headedness. "That's not my problem, Thomas. Better that their stomachs are empty than they become overly dependent on someone in authority to provide loaves and fishes for them. Where will it end? Will I have to feed them everyday?" "No, Lord," said Thomas, "Just today. When they are without food. When they have eaten their fill, they will be healthy, and so able to listen to your word and learn from you." Jesus was grieved at Thomas's answer. "It is written: There's no such thing as a free lunch." So taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and took one loaf and one fish for himself, and gave the rest to the twelve, based on their previously agreed-upon per diem. But he gave none to the very poorly prepared crowd because they needed to be taught a lesson. So Jesus ate and was filled. The disciples somewhat less so. What was left over was gathered up and saved for Jesus's next meal, should he grow hungry. The very poorly prepared crowd soon dispersed.
The Rich and Therefore Blessed Young Man
1. As Jesus was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to him and knelt before him, and asked, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 2. And Jesus said to him, "What have you done so far?" 3. And he said to Him, "Well I was born into a wealthy family, got into a good school in Galilee because my parents donated a few thousand talents, and have a high-paying job in the Roman treasury managing risk." 4. Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him, for the rich young man was blessed, and said to him, "One thing you lack: A bigger house in a gated community in Tiberias. Buy that and you'll be all set. And make sure you get a stone countertop for the kitchen. Those are really nice." The disciples were amazed. 5. Peter asked him, "Lord, shouldn't he sell all his possessions and give it to the poor?" Jesus grew angry. "Get behind me, Satan! He has earned it!" Peter protested, "Lord," he said, "Did this man not have an unjust advantage? What about those who are not born into wealthy families, or who do not have the benefit of a good education, or live in the poorer areas of Galilee, like Nazareth, your own home town?" 6. "Well," said Jesus, "first of all, that's why I left Nazareth. There were too many poor people always asking for charity. They were as numerous as the stars in the sky, and they annoyed me. Second, once people start spending again, like this rich young man, the Galilean economy will inevitably grow, and eventually it will all trickle down to the poor. Blessed are those who are patient! But giving the money away, especially if he can't write it off, is a big fat waste." The disciples' amazement knew no bounds. "But Lord, what about the Scriptures that tell us to care for the widow, for orphans, for the poor, for the sick, for the refugee? What about all the many passages about justice?" 7. "Those are metaphors," said Jesus. "Don't take everything so literally."

 

Indie

Once again you dodge rather than address. Once again you go back to restate something we have already discussed.

Here is something I’ve posted earlier, and reposted a few times for you.

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.”

In relation to employment neoliberal ideas don’t seem to be about the seeking of full employment and unemployment can be seen as a means of driving down wages (in the same way that many neoliberals see the cutting of welfare as also a means of cutting wage rates, as in work or starve).

[Suggested reading - A brief history of Neoliberalism by David Harvey]

And this seems to be about bringing down the wage rates of the lower and middle economic groups to the advantage of groups further up the economic scale.

This was also coupled with neoliberal ideas that advantage wealth over the interests of the lower and middle economic groups, such as wealth favouring tax cuts, the weakening of pro-worker labour laws, the elimination of international trade barriers, and the hollowing out of manufacturing in favour of a short termist and deregulated financial sector.

 

Wrong

You mean helping people in your mind is ‘imposing control’? As to bringing about ‘greater equality’ why not, I mean we have been through that argument many times and the outstanding criticisms of your views is that while yes you don’t want ‘greater equality’ you don’t seem to have any rational or reasonable argument as to why it shouldn’t be done.

There are many countries that have better equality levels than the US.
Map: U.S. Ranks Near Bottom on Income Inequality

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...anks-near-bottom-on-income-inequality/245315/

[Suggested reading - The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett]

I’ve never believed that ‘absolute’ equality is possible or even desirable but I do believe that societies should strife to be fairer and better places to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life, and where people are more likely to realise their potential

Can you explain?

 

Almost everything you said is entirely contrary to the facts. Firstly, if you look at EFFECTIVE TAX RATES (which is what people actually pay after loopholes, deductions, shelters, etc) since 1980, they've actually changed very little for top earners. In reality, the disparity between what the lowest quintile pays versus the top 1%, has actually risen several percentage points over the last 3 decades. (the lowest is now 7% BELOW ZERO, as in they get money back). So if anything, our tax code has become MORE progressive, not less, as your narrative would suggest.Source
I even took the time to make a cute little graph for you

Secondly, Where is the evidence of this "right wing ideology" that has hijacked the system? Because I have plenty to the contrary. Take the regulatory burden for example, which you claim has been widely dismantled correct? The reality:
Source 1 Source 2
Also, it's that ever increasing regulatory burden that is the actual main culprit behind manufacturing leaving this country, as it increases the cost of doing business. Less manufacturing domestically is what causes the trade deficits. Businesses leave the country not because they're taxed less, that doesn't even make sense. They leave because they can produce goods more cheaply elsewhere, which is caused by several factors, including unfair bargaining powers granted to unions, increases in regulations, and noncompetitive tax rates. This is just basic economics, not "right wing ideology" As Shown.
Also, social security, medicare, and other "safety net" spending, as a percentage of GDP, has risen exponentially since the 1950s, which, as I hope you know, is VERY contrary to "right wing ideology" As you can see... Also, you'll see in that graph that military spending as a percentage of GDP has also decreased dramatically since World War 2 (Another contradiction to what you said about "anti-communism military spending" increasing)

Your arguments are not only incredibly off base, they don't even adhere to the most rudimentary tenants of logic. Correlation does not imply causation. Even if your data was remotely accurate, your parallel between the "fall of the american empire" and the falling top tax bracket is still equally absurd. How than would you account for the economic growth of the 19th century (which I suppose you could call "the rise of the american empire"), which transpired almost entirely with a top tax bracket of 0%! The income tax wasn't even considered until the second half of the century, during the civil war, and even than it was less than 10% for top earners. Not to mention, there were NO REGULATIONS throughout the entire 19th century, oh lord! how did we ever survive? The first regulatory act was the Interstate commerce act passed in 1887, and they've been growing in number ever sense. No, the decline of america has nothing to do with a "free market" ideology that has hijacked the system. The country was founded on such an ideology. If anything, it's because it's been abandoned.

 

Glass-Steagal-gone.

 

Everyone knows the 1% do not get most of their money from INCOME.

They make it from capitol gains, equitys, stock dividends and so forth..

 

That's true, but it just further proves my point that the lowering of the top income tax bracket is completely irrelevant. The Capital Gains tax has gone up during the last century as well. (contrary to right-wing ideology), which would favor a capital gains tax of zero. You also have to remember, when it comes to capital gains, it's people risking money that they've already earned and that has been taxed at one point already. It's essentially gambling, and so must be treated differently than regular income.

 

My point is this, the entire premise of "free market ideology" is a small, nonintrusive government, and that is NOT what's happened over the last 30 years AT ALL, as Balbus would suggest. In fact, the complete opposite has occurred. The government has become bigger, and ever more pervasive. Weather it be regulating the economy, or waging pointless wars, both the right wing, and the left wing have contributed greatly to making our markets, and subsequently, it's people, LESS free.

 

Let's deregulate everything. We don't need no stinkin' regulations because people should be completly trusted,so what's the big problem? It's not like deregulation has caused any harm.

 

If free markets have been abondened why is everything made overseas and sold here (in america)?

That's Reagan snake oil.