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

Wrong

Not for the first time I would wish people would read my posts.

For a start try reading –

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

Kicking global wealth out of the driving seat.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353922

The Decline and Fall of the America Empire: Part One 1945-2011
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=435209&f=36

The problem with effective tax rate comparisons is that they are very much open to interpretation and manipulation as pointed out in the Wiki description of them –

The popular press, Congressional Budget Office, and various think tanks have used the term to mean varying measures of tax divided by varying measures of income, with little consistency in definition. An effective tax rate may incorporate econometric, estimated, or assumed adjustments to actual data, or may be based entirely on assumptions or simulations. (my bold).

However a great many studies have pointed out that the real term incomes of the lower and middle economic classes have either stagnated or fallen in the last thirty odd years while the wealth of the upper groups has ballooned. Are you disputing that?

I make no claim that the whole regulatory system has been dismantled, also as I’ve pointed out many times its not just about getting regulations lessened or removed it is also about stopping or blocking unwanted regulation, thing is that not all regulation is disliked by wealthy interests (or sections of it). It’s about having a system that works in the best interests of those with power and influence (which wealth can bring). It is often a matter of interests doing what they can in the areas that interest them. The slow deregulation of the financial sector is a case in point. The measures brought in to regulate banks were taken away (as mentioned the Glass-Steagall Act) and the successful blocking of the regulation of the derivatives market (look up Brooksley Born).

There are many wealth sponsored groups, individuals and think tanks out there pushing the idea of deregulation as some kind of panacea, they seem to want to convince the unwary that any deregulation or blocking of regulation is a triumph of the free market (and therefore of ‘freedom’) and these people don’t seem to care what regulation has been removed or understand why it was there or may have been proposed. As I’ve said many times I’m not adverse to reforms aimed at helping everyone in society.

Basically as often cited there never has been a free market and there never can be one – the neoliberal con trick is that it pushes for a ‘free market’ but all that does is give more power and influence to wealth which they use to manipulate the system in their own interests.

Again read – Kicking global wealth out of the driving seat.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353922

Much of this so often seems to be code -

unfair bargaining powers granted to unions - Cutting the wages of middle and lower classes (while boasting the wealth of those further up the chain)

increases in regulations – removing work place regulation, health and safety regulation, corporate oversight regulation etc that is a ‘burden’ on employers (limiting their ability to exploit) but is often there to protect wider society and those in it.

noncompetitive tax rates – cutting taxes that usually favour wealth.

The US had risen on a wave of previously untapped resources but by the 1940's resources had either been tapped, were becoming harder to extract or had been exhausted. I mean the material and mineral wealth of the old world has been exploited for some 5000 years (for example tin mining in Cornwall). Large areas of the US didn’t become exploited until the 19th century. For example in 1848 Europe was in turmoil as revolutions sprang up across the continent many based around resources and there distribution, while in the US you had the beginning of the California gold rush.

What you had was the spreading effects (from Europe) of the industrial revolution tied to previously unexploited material wealth, the result of course was economic growth.

Well the truth is many didn’t, many people died through the lack of proper regulation I mean for many workers wages were low, hours long and working conditions dangerous.

As late as the year 1900, the United States had the highest job-related fatality rate of any industrialized nation in the world. Most industrial workers still worked a 10-hour day (12 hours in the steel industry), yet earned from 20 to 40 percent less than the minimum deemed necessary for a decent life. The situation was only worse for children, whose numbers in the work force doubled between 1870 and 1900.
http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-82.htm

To repeat there never has been and never will be a free market, those that claim they can create one are just trying to con you.

 

Well, at least we seem to agree that some regulations can be done away with. At least the ones that benefit the wealthy incumbent businesses? As you said, "thing is that not all regulation is disliked by wealthy interests (or sections of it)", which are the exact kinds of (among others) regulations me and other "right wingers" would propose to deregulate. So maybe you're more right wing than you thought?

i wasn't saying that working conditions and people's lives during the 19th century weren't harsh. I'm not disputing that. My point was that they improved dramatically from the century before. GDP per capita rose 5 fold through the course of the century, life expentacies rose dramaticly, wages rose, over all health and economic growth increased, that was my point. And it did so in complete absence of governmental regulation, or wealth distribution. It was as you said, the industrial revolution. Which took place in both Europe and America. Which we owe entirely to capitalism, not to government oversight. GDP per capita in Europe had remained an average of about 400 for the previous 600 years. It was only during the rise of individualism, and "free market ideology" that a rise from squalor was made possible. Your argument would suggest that this progress and improvement of people's lives would have magically stopped in the 20th century unless progressives didn't come along and start managing the economy, and we didn't start taxing ourselves so our wise leaders can better decide how to spend our money. Which is absurd.

It wasn't resources, and it wasn't government that gave us prosperity. It was innovation, entrepreneurship, it was private property rights, and it was a level of freedom given to the individual that had not existed in previous centuries. What else is a "free market" if not free individuals interacting in voluntary exchanges of goods and services? You said yourself the "old world" had long been harvesting it's resources, why than did the average person still live in complete unchanged poverty for the preceding few thousand years? (If it's simply natural resources that brings the people wealth).

All of the things you're suggesting only serve to stifle the forces of innovation and individual freedoms that gave us the immense wealth we have today. The things you claim to be the cure to America's decline are actually the cause. I don't deny that real incomes have decreased, where we differ is what we think the cause is. I say it's not less regulation, tax cuts, and cuts in social spending, as you would suggest. I think you have to concede that all of those things have actually increased the last 30 years, as I supplied several sources in the above posts. I've shown that regulations have increased (apparently just not the right kind?), the tax burden has increased, and that social spending (or redistribution of wealth) has increased as well. It's these things that I attribute to the stagnation in peoples standards of living. Before we had this burdensome government, they'd been improving for over 150 consecutive years.

You say you're against forced labor right? What else is taxation if not forced labor. If I make $100,000 in a year, and the government takes $50,000, that's 50% of my labor that I did for free. I don't understand how anyone could be in favor of such a thing.
This is the cause of America's decline since world war 2.. A huge and bloated expansion of the federal government. Which is entirely contradictory to the countries original founding principles.

 

Do you mean the individual as in "person" or as in "corporate person?"

 

This is right because many are disabled or elderly or homeless and we are to be our brothers keepers here on earth. Build your riches in your heart that you can carry with you to the next world.

 

So many fortunes were made off of the govt giving away land, water and mineral rights. The govt. should finance itself instead of the hardworking middle class. The govt. gives business loans. They can make money on interest. Put tolls on interstates. Rent out the army. There are so many ways the govt. can generate income for social welfare benefits that they don’t need to tax us 50%. The more they tax us the more federal jobs they create. Govt. is like an insatiable monster...ever growing!

 

I find it ugly that a person would attempt to justify what basically amounts to stealing using a religious or spiritual argument. Perhaps your heart is in the right place, but if so, your mistaking what the government does with voluntary charity, which no one has argued against. In fact, if you want to take the spiritual angle, if more of my wealth is taxed, it becomes less likely I'm to make a richeous choice of helping the needy, because I have less to give/live on. How does it build riches in heaven for me, if another person steals my belongings and goes and does a good deed with it, (not that I think the government does good deeds, but for the sake of argument let's pretend they do). You'll notice in the real version of the story you gave, Jesus tells the rich man what he SHOULD do with his wealth, he doesn't force him to do anything.
Anyway, contrary to what you may believe, we didn't have throngs of senior citizens and disabled people dying on the streets before this massive influx of "social" spending. In fact, as I've said in other posts, poverty was declining rapidly long before those programs gained popularity, and has actually been stuck at the same level ever since. (as the title of this thread will tell you), so you have to ask, are these programs really helping? And is it worth stealing from people via taxation to fund them? I think not. It has actually robbed the poor and disadvantaged of their upward mobility, by making them more dependent on hand outs and less on their own abilities. It's also robbed the wealthy of the incentive to build those "riches in their hearts" via them making the voluntary choice of donating. I think Jesus, or whatever other spiritual leader you subscribe to would agree with me. Those programs may not benefit the poor, but they certainly benefit the state. By creating a population of loyal subjects who are devoted to the government, if for no other reason because they depend on it for survival.
Poor people used to flock to this country from all over the globe throughout the entire 19th and the first half of the20th century, often carrying little or no belongings. They didn't do so because there was a government here that would dole out stipens in order to permit bare subsistence, they did so because of the economic freedom and opportunity this country gave to people to better their lot via hard work and determination.

 

It appears that simple arithmetic is no longer being taught. In 1913, the year of the Federal Reserve act, and passage of the 16th and 17th amendments, the Money Base, relative to Gold was $1,474,729,025.94, and the National debt was $2,916,204,913.66 or about 1.98 time the Money base.

Rather than pick a number here and there that appears supportive of an agenda you want to promote, look at all the figures before and after 1913, and you can only conclude that the path we are following is not one that will be solved by Democrat or Republican majority government.

In 2008 the Money Base was $847,641,000,000.00, and the National debt was $10,024,724,896,912.50 or 11.83 times the Money Base. Currently, as of 31 August 2012, the Money Base is $2,648,644,000,000.00, (think looming inflation certain), and the National debt is $15,983,668,996,817.23 or 6.03 times the Money Base.

Try examining the consequences of what occurs relative to what our government is doing without trying to apply a party line spin on it and only then might we unite as a people to demand government by and for the people.

Inflation harms the poor as their cost of living increases, and while may have some minor benefit to some of the working middle class who have large debts to repay, it benefits most the rich as investments adjust revaluing to a less valuable dollar and government who can show economic growth as a result of higher prices, and a debt decrease relative to GDP.

I maintain that Ronald Reagan was absolutely correct when he said "Government is not the solution to our problem, Government is the problem." And that has been true since the Progressive movement began taking control of our government under Wilson in 1913.

Poverty is unlikely to ever be totally eliminated, but income producing work is the most effective means of reducing it. As an example, in the early 60's I lived one week in abject poverty unemployed, and the following week I found a job paying $0.75 per hour which while it did not eliminate my poverty, greatly reduced it.

For Balbus, we are each unable to choose the prosperity or lack of, to which we are born, but are entitled only to earn or retain that which we are capable of. Anything above that is charity, and that is an action which is exercised not by government mandate or a democratic process, but by free choice of free individuals in a more unified society. Central control does more to divide us one against the other than it does to unite us in achieving goals that we should share in common.

 

1. Because the regulations, wages, and costs of manufacture abroad is much less costly than in the U.S. and able to compete very easily price wise to the same products if made in the U.S.

2. Obamanomics appears to be producing much less positive results than Reagan did.

 

Reagan lived up to his own slogan since he increased the national debt when he was in office.

He also talked of smaller government but increased it while in office with his military spending.

 

Reagan might have done much different if he had control of both houses of Congress, and Clinton did quite well with both houses controlled by the Republicans who held his feet to the fire.

A smaller and less intrusive Federal government would go a long way towards helping resolve many of our problems. Problems, while they may appear to be lessened by a central authority, can only be solved at their source.

Government remains the problem, and the solution, like it or not, is the people, with each and every individual taking some personal responsibility for their own lives.

 

Wrong

I’m not sure where you are getting your history from but I think you need a bit of balance to temper your rather lopsided viewpoint, I’d suggest reading –

Who Built America? Working People and the Nation's History - by the American Social History Project

Peoples History of the United States – by Howard Zinn

*

Now I’m not saying that there were never any good employers but many in the were not interested in the living conditions of their workers and others had particularly Social Darwinist viewpoints.

One of the main reasons for improvements in people’s lives (and the decrease of death from disease) was water and waste management. In the main driven by legislation (rules and regulation) and publically financed projects (taxes and government).

Also a lot of the rules and regulations that improved the working conditions and pay of the workers came from the actions of workers such as strikes and campaigns to bring about reform (such as working hours and stopping child labour).

Thing was that such improvements were often fought for in opposition to the employers.

Actually the textile industry that was the founding of the British industrial revolution only came about through government legislation aimed at keeping the cheaper and better quality Indian fabrics out of British markets and it was the same with the early US steel industry.

The fact is that when looked at the idea of ‘entirely to capitalism’ usually falls down at some point with ‘capitalism’ normally having help from ‘government’ somewhere along the line. As I’ve said their never has been a ‘free market’ and their never will be.

Again when looked at this doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny. As I’ve pointed out a lot of the move from mass ‘squalor’ was due to legislation brought in by ‘organised labour’ or other mass movements agitation that forced some form of governance to act and often continues through mainly publically funded bodies.

Then I think you really need to re-read my arguments. As I’ve said much of the progress and improvement in people's lives are down to people banding together and demanding progress and improvement in their lives. One of the main ways of doing this was through the expansion of voting rights; this can allow the power and influence of elites to be countered by the votes of the people.

To me the problem with the US is that the power and influence of wealth has come to dominate and a dysfunctional political system means the votes of the people do not seem to be able to counter it.

 

Wrong

Where are getting this from or basing it on?

I’m not putting down the role of innovation or entrepreneurship, I’m just pointing out the role of untapped resources, such as gold, silver, etc etc

For example the first ironworks was set up in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1621. Well in Europe there have been large scale ironworks since pre-Roman times.

Also a lot of the technology of the Industrial Revolution was already established by the time the US Industrial Revolution commenced, for example the steam engine that did so much to open up the western US had been around for over a hundred years before 1869 (last spike of the first transpacific railroad).

And of course invention is good but it often needs the protection of the law (regulations) such as Patent Acts, passed by some form of governance. Also private property rights are protected my laws (regulations) and as for ‘individual freedoms’ a lot of the ‘prosperity’ of the US in the eighteen and nineteenth century was based on slavery and the often ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the Indian wars.

But such transactions do not take place in a vacuum, for example the very idea of a ‘free individual’ - there are usually rules and regulations that allow such ‘freedom’ and without such rules people can be and have been enslaved. I mean I could go on and on – the medium of exchange – the rules governing contracts – the regulation of weights and measures – quality assurance etc.

I think you view expressed in that statement is rather simplistic.

Again what are you basing these ideas on?

I mean are you saying that nothing changed in European history for ‘thousands of years’?

And I’m not saying that ‘simply natural resources that brings the people wealth’ I’m saying resources can help bring a nation prosperity, it doesn’t necessarily mean all benefit from such prosperity. The US was able to tap previously untouched resources that contributed to its prosperity.

Again what are you basing your ideas on?

What are the ‘things’ I’m suggesting? If you mean rules and regulations well only with good rules and regulations brought in by some form of governance will you get a society with ‘individual freedoms’ or the protection of ‘private property rights’. I mean a lot of the wealth of some parts of the US was based on a slave economy, were rules and regulations were more about private property rights (allowing the ownership of people as private property) than they were about the freedom of the individual.

 

Indie

As I’ve told you many times I agree, a job paying a decent living wages is the best thing - but as I’ve explained many, many times that doesn’t seem to be what you are aiming for.

Oh hell Indie you know this is just more evasion – I already know your viewpoint I think any one whose read you knows your viewpoint - we’ve been through these things many, many times so can you please stop restating you viewpoint and begin addressing the many outstanding criticisms of them.

 

Obviously a job paying a "living wage", whatever that might be depending on the needs and wants of the individual(s) is the "best" thing, however a job paying a wage is the next best thing, and it's not a matter of what "I'm" aiming for, but what the individual who is unemployed or under-employed should be aiming for that matters.

 

You've straw manned me so much that I'm going to have a hard time knocking them all down. I guess I'll start with supplying you with a few sources where I'm getting my "lop sided" history.

No, that's nothing close to what I said. I said the average man lived in complete and abject poverty for thousands of years before capitalism emerged. Here's a quote from the Annales School of History. Which is a french school from the 20th century famous for investigating, in detail, the ordinary life of citizens. (feel free to check this),
"When we read that poor in towns and country side lived in almost complete deprivation, or that the average man's income was so low that even a poor man's diet absorbed 60-80% of that income, with bread being the largest part. After having bought their food, the mass of people had little left for their wants, no matter how elementary they were. In pre-Industrial Europe for example, the purchase of a garment or cloth to make one, remained a luxury the common people could afford only a few times in their lives. When we learn that even the cloths of plague victims were eagerly sought by their relatives, when we learn of the low expectation of life, the high infant mortality rates, the sickness which threatened their lives, the poor diet, and the few comforts they had to sustain themselves, than the gains of the industrial revolution, become more clear."

Standards of living, working conditions, wages, and people's lives were improving long before any of that legislation was ever enacted. Workers forming voluntary unions in order to bargain for higher wages has nothing to do with the government. In fact, it's another product of capitalism. Before the increase in production, and a flood of goods newly available for the common man, people EXPECTED horrid working conditions, and EXPECTED to have shit wages (I refer you again to my above quote). It was capitalism that brought the hope and possibility to workers of improving their lot. Federal labour laws weren't introduced until the very end of the 19th century. They weren't even successfully passed on the state level until the later half. "in accordance with reports of commissions and the address of Governor Bullock in 1866, and the general sentiment which then prevailed, the Massachusetts legislature passed an act regulating in a measure the conditions of the employment of children in manufacturing establishments; and this is one of the first laws of the kind in the United States" On top of the fact that it only one state's law, it was also extremely weak, and only affected children. Like I said, the FIRST federal regulation affecting ANY industry was the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (feel free to check that). So, once again, you cannot attribute the rise in wages, standards of living, or life expectancy's to federal government oversight, or regulation of any kind, because there was literally NONE.

This was my favorite... This is so completely wrong and made up, that I doubt even those socialist history books you recommended would have the gall of making such a claim. Here's another quote, "During the mid to late 1800s, scientists gained a greater understanding of the sources and effects of drinking water contaminants, especially those that were not visible to the naked eye. In 1855, epidemiologist Dr. John Snow proved that cholera was a waterborne disease by linking an outbreak of illness in London to a public well that was contaminated by sewage. In the late 1880s, Louis Pasteur demonstrated the “germ theory” of disease, which explained how microscopic organisms (microbes) could transmit disease through media like water."
Science didn't even understand what contaminated water, or how to better treat it until late in the 19th century. And these discoveries, once again, had NOTHING to do with regulations. In fact, you can also attribute these to capitalism, as the increase in standards of living brought on by the industrial revolution, allowed much more people to become intellectuals and scientists. Because less of peoples time and energy had to be spent meeting basic survival requirements, this freed up time and energy for furthering education and science. Capitalism, not government. Federal regulation of drinking water quality began in 1914, when the U.S. Public Health Service set standards for the bacteriological quality of drinking water. Federal regulation of waste management came MUCH later. It wasn't until 1965 that the first US federal solid waste management laws were enacted. (feel free to check those) Once again, you've failed to explain the DRAMATIC INCREASE of people's lives to the need for federal regulations and taxes.

Now for this part. This is the definition of a straw man argument. I never once argued for zero government of any kind, I agree with you that protecting people's property rights (intellectual and physical) is imperative in order for a capitalist society to thrive. A government that is limited to this function is what I'd prefer, and almost entirely at the state level. I'd like to go back to the Articles of the Confederation, as I believe that document properly curtailed the powers of federal government much better than our constitution has turned out doing (which was it's purpose). Also, the medium of exchange is a product of the market, not some government. Our government high jacked the medium of exchange and monopolized it (See indivudal's post and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913). I did what you said and re-read your original arguments, now I think you should take a peek.

I like how you originally argued that a high-jacking of deregulation, and tax cuts on the rich was causing the decline of the American Empire, and now you're simply trying to argue whether or not we should have regulation and taxes AT ALL. I think we're making progress! Anyway, do we agree about the 19the century now? The industrial revolution began globally during the late 18th century, and was firmly rooted in both America and Europe by the 1830s, and it offered a MUCH richer and more prosperous life than the one people had before (Both in America, and in that used-up "old world" Europe.) And it did so completely lacking the things you said we needed in order to prevent a decline (high taxes, and heavy regulatory burden).

 

When regulations are made by big corpo to take out the little guy and the government makes them laws it does seem very unfair.

When elected officials take money from lobbyist and make regulations that hurt the small business person we need to get rid of them.

 

That's a good point. I wonder why those who use the term speak as if there can be a 'free market' as an achievable goal?

That's kind of like the same bullshit Reagan gave us with his "rising tide floats all boats" talk, when in reality the rising tide rose for the wealthy:

Politicians say one thing aimed at getting the approval of the masses while at the same time they have a completely different agenda going on.

Before considering removing a regulation we should find out why it's there in the first place: workplace safety and child labor regulations came about because of children working in hazardous (sometimes deadly) working conditions.