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

Lots of good points and arguments on here. Glad to see there are some intelligent people here.

One thing I'd like to add is that money doesn't circulate in this country the way it used to. The poor spend every penny they have, they really have no choice. However, no one else spends money in their neighborhoods but them. The money leaves and there is no investment back into their community. Same with the middle class. The places they shop, most of that money leaves and is not returned to their community for reinvestment. Local stores have given way to corporate connected businesses, and they take the money from our communities and spend it elsewhere, or stick it in banks, etc. and the cycle is disrupted and we end up with this trickle down wealth that doesn't happen. Welfare actually helps drive this economy, because cent they get is put right back into the economy.

Things are broken like hell, and there are some very complex answers to fix things, but it isn't as simple as many think, wish, or will admit. The system is flawed. The wealthy are sitting on record amounts of cash, but are waiting for people to start spending before they'll hire and/ or expand. The way out is to figure out how to put money into the hands of those that will spend, which the stimulus was supposed to do, however it seems as if it either wasn't enough, or all of the places that made a profit off of it did just that, made a profit and didn't keep the wheels turning. You know the saying, " the buck stops here". It does, with the wealthy.

Also, having been raised in a poor area, a little insight from the inside. Many would rather be on welfare than get a job. One reason- minimum wage. You bust your ass all week to earn a little more than someone getting benefits. You can only afford to live in the same neighborhoods as them. You have no more than they do. You have a HS diploma that isn't worth crap because the school you graduated from didn't prepare you for college. Drugs, gangs, violence and all over. It's tuff to escape that. For most that haven't lived that life, they don't understand. They think you just go do it ( college or trade schools). There are examples like myself that do escape the madness, but most can't and never will. The whole system is broken.

 

You are misplacing the blame when you attack wealth, corporations, or private interests. When competition is allowed to function like it's supposed to, those interests only survive by serving us, the consumer. A company doesn't force you to buy it's product. Minus the coercive arm of government, a corporation or person only becomes wealthy in proportion to the degree it offers a valuable service. When it stops benefiting consumers, it fails. That is how the market works. Consumers are in control, not corporations. By themselves, wealthy people and corporations are truly a good and beneficial thing for society. It's only when corporations or wealthy interests are allowed to wield the power of government and pervert this process that consumers are harmed. Which will continue to happen as long as the government continues to have the power to do it. The solution isn't further government intervention and control of wealthy people or corporations, it's to take that exact power away from government all together.
The whole idea of government regulation creates a false sense of security in the minds of consumers. In the absence of regulation, there would be a very strong incentive for people to be careful. For example, people wouldn't just give their money to a bank, unless they had some information about the safety and management of that bank. People wouldn't buy securities relying on some assurance that a federal commission has looked them over and given them a seal of approval. Anytime the government regulates something, it gives people a false sense of security and leads people to neglect the care that they should be giving to the management of their own affairs.

Given that the amount and scope of regulations have increased more than 200,000 fold in the last 100 years, I think it's time to conclude that they do not provide the safety that we all hoped. The best regulator is the individual, making wise and informed decisions, not bureaucrats in Washington. (Which all sides agree are in the pockets of corporations anyway)
Like I said, malignant businesses that do not benefit consumers can only survive if permitted by the government. Take the banking industry for example. The way banks conduct business today (namely fractional reserve banking) is fraudulent, dishonest, and would never survive if not propped up by the government (through bailouts, regulations, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and all other forms of government oversight). During the 1800s, in the absence of regulation, the banking industry had several catastrophic failures (much like the failures it still has today). However, it was repeatably bailed out and permitted to continue conducting business the same way by the federal government. This was done either through direct bailouts (which we still see today), or delay of species payments (which means banks were given holidays where they were no longer obligated to meet their commitments). If they were allowed to fail, like the market had decided, these institutions would be long gone, and a more honest and beneficial system would have inevitably emerged (if they had any hope of success).
What needs to happen is the downsizing of government, and the power given back into the hands of the people. These "stimulus packages", bailouts, regulations and redistributing incomes that the government has been doing the last 50-60 years is not the solution to our problems, they are the cause. They are based on a fallacious and elementary view on economics that has long been disproved by history, and only still remains afloat because it justifies further governmental profligacy. Everyone agrees that wealthy interests are in complete control of the government, and yet your solutions to that is to give the government more power?

That really depends on how stringent a definition you put on "free market". Which just means one which is free of government intervention. There are certainly markets that exist today that are more free than others. Hong Kong is probably the closest thing to a free market in today's world. The United States used to be the freest market on the planet, from it's founding all the way to the beginning of the 20th century, when the progressive movement gained traction (and the improvement in peoples lives was momentous). So although I agree while a completely free market might have never existed, there certainly have been times when the market was allowed to function more freely than others, and that is what people who talk about the "free market" are advocating for.

 

I find it funny when people say companies don't force you to buy there product. If you wish to live and enjoy life, you are forced to buy many products. If you want to go to school, you have to buy books, and supplies. If you wish to eat, at a minimum a you have to have seeds and water and land to plant them. The list goes on and on. You cannot live without money or some interaction with someone that does.

 

That doesn't make any sense, and I fear you lack the necissary understanding for me to reach you. I never said anything about not needing money in order to live. I'd simply like to give you the freedom of choosing to spend the money you earn where and with whom you'd like.

 

Nice insult.... remind me to use it on you some day. Okay?

 

You're right. That comment was in bad taste. My apologies LivinAFantasy <3

 

The desire to live forces us to buy their products because necessities for life are comodities in the world of capitalism.

 

Yes it does! You are not forced to choose which company you purchase said necessities from though. If you prefer to buy your apples from Walmart instead of Kroger, you have that choice. Walmart doesn't force you to buy their apples. Or, if you'd like to grow your own apples, you have that choice as well. This is what gives the incentive to these companies to offer you the best possible good at the lowest possible price (because ultimately the choice to buy them is up to you). So to say in order to enjoy life you're FORCED to purchase many products from companies doesn't really make sense. This implies that the firm that supplies you apples at the best price has somehow gained power of you (which is absurd). You're free to acquire products to enjoy your life with from wherever you can best find them (or at least you should be).

I will say that when oligopolies or monopolies are permitted to form, than peoples choices become more limited, however this can only occur through government, and has never worked in a unhampered market place. An economy that is absent of government intervention is the one that offers the consumer the greatest variety of sources to acquire products for their enjoyment.

 

Actually, no... that's not true either. Lets say it costs me the equivalent of $1,000 a month (of labor and resources) to grow my own food to survive. If companies decided to charge $2,000 for the same amount of food, there is nothing FORCING me to buy it from them. I'd grow my own food because it's cheaper. In capitalism, you're free to pursue whichever method best supplies you with your wants and needs. The power to FORCE you to do something, lies in the hands of the government. I mean, what would scare you more, a phone call from the IRS, or one from Taco Bell?

 

Thanx for the compliment. However, I was only referring to your post with my first sentence, that is why I did not quote you.
My point was that you are forced to buy lots of things, and they vary with where you may live. While there may be competition for my dollars, the point is I have to buy those items, and even though you may shop around, the prices are set and raised or lowered at the business's whim. Oh, a storm came, so we have to rise our prices, no matter we've already been gouging you. And in the end, it hardly matters where I spend my money if in the end it all ends up in the hand of the big banks.
The wealthy still end up with the money in the end.

 

It looks like I'm being forced to buy a $45 bottle of scotch in order to deal with reading the last couple of pages of posts.

 

yes things like shelter, water, electricity, and food but we are especially forced to buy insurance I think insurance is the biggest scam ever perpetrated upon the citizens of the world.

 

I wonder how the Jehovas Witness and Amish are going to buy Obamas mandated Insurance plan? Insurance is against their religion.
And Insuarnce market. Thats a closed market. Try to open a insurance agency. Not a branch of say 'State Farm' but your own, backed by your own money or investors money. Its practically impossible. SO MANY regularions and laws. Got to protect the consumer. LOL. Got to protect the rich and the lawmakwers getting their cut.
Almost every other commercial on TV is for insurance. That just shows how much money they are making on us.

 

Who's applying the force you're referring to?

 

If you're referring to health insurance, Obamacare is the force. Either buy an "acceptable" insurance plan or pay the penalty for not having it. Those are the options.

 

Actually I was referring to "YoMama's" post "yes things like shelter, water, electricity, and food but we are especially forced to buy insurance I think insurance is the biggest scam ever perpetrated upon the citizens of the world.", which spoke of "citizens of the world" and didn't mention "obamacare" specifically.

Aside from government, I've never found myself forced to buy anything that I didn't want to buy, and I've always chosen the things I want or need to buy based upon the means available to me to buy them.

 

You might say it's the internal drive to live of the individual; so the individual himself is applying the force.

But looking at the bigger picture I see it as the force of Capitalism. When necessities for life such as food and water are treated as commodities, the force is built into the human derived system; it is a force to live driven by hunger and thirst.

The system I'm referring to is an economic system made by humans; since it is a human construct it's not necessarily the way it should be.

 

Wtf, you are forced to buy auto liability insurance UNDER PENALTY OF LAW...
I don't see anyone protesting that as 'unconstitutional'...sheesh!

Insurance companys are a scourge of modern civilization.

 

The amish have their own insurance thru their people. They pay like 5.00 a yr for fire insurance around here. They are also immune from the obama health care act