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

Indie

Oh come on Indie, my post are full of me seeking clarification or trying to get you to explain your thinking which more often than not you refuse to do, so if I have misunderstood anything that’s your fault not mine.

As I’ve said if you were an honest debater who actually answered questions or addressed criticisms rather than constantly evading doing so then we could have a real debate, as it is I can only go on what you do say and you know I have read that (quoting it at will) and seem to understand it better than you would seem to like.

Yes I know your viewpoint I thing everyone whose read you knows your viewpoint BUT restating it does not - repeat does not - address the many outstanding criticisms of it that you seem unable to address.

And yet more evasion – first you try to imply that those who want to limit the power and influence of wealth on US society and politics are only doing it out of ‘envy’ not because they feel it would be good for the society and politics of the US. Second you then seem to defend wealth’s power and influence as not being illegal, maybe it isn’t but as many people have argued maybe it should be curtailed or stopped through regulation, something it seems that you would not want.

Again I ask – if you can’t defend your ideas from criticism in any rational or reasonable way why do you still hold on to them?

 

Bal,

What do you feel we are debating? This thread is titled "Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect'ed'".

Do you disagree with that?

Basically we appear to disagree on the function of government in relation to society.

In what way do you feel what you quoted from my post as being evasive? I think most every post you've made to me has provided a view that you have an intense focus on what others undeservedly (in your opinion) have, and that government has a right to share their wealth, by force (higher taxes). You seem to on one hand complain about the influence wealth has on government, yet on the other hand you seem to feel we should allow government even greater power to fix the problems. You also seem to argue for a one size fits all solution to problems, which is what we get from a centralized source of power, while I am much more supportive of allowing each of the 50 individual States to resolve many, if not most of the problems more locally, where a democratic process involving not just elected politicians, but the people as well in producing solutions. There can be many ways of achieving solutions to problems by much different means with none being better than the other, but simply based upon properly addressing the relevant unique facts causing the problem.

Do you really feel you're being rational and reasonable in promoting government as the means of producing a society of equals?

 

Isn't it true you speak for wealth?

 

I could only answer that if you were to more clearly and concisely define what you mean by "speak for wealth".

 

Indie

Oh man I covered that in the first few pages by going to look at the actual study and finding it wanting (posts 82 and before).

I believe your first contribution to this thread was to suggest bringing in forced labour. An argument I’ve tried to debate with you but which you don’t seem able to defend from criticism.

But as has become very clear over the last two years of us talking I seem able to address the criticisms you have of my views while you seem totally incapable of addressing my criticisms of yours.

As I pointed out it just restates your views it does not address any of the many, many outstanding criticisms of it.

We have been through this many, many times – it’s a matter of goals I’d like everyone to have the opportunity of having a good quality of life while you only seem interested in promoting the interests of wealth.

Can you point to where I’ve said this? To me it’s not a matter of greater or lower government power, its about good governance, for pity sake, we have been through this many, many times, you don’t seem to want good governance you seem to just want ‘small’ government (that would be in the interests of wealth), don’t you remember the thread ‘Question About Operation of Small Government’.

As I’ve explained to you numerous times to me good governance should be about balance, in a well functioning society the influence of wealth should be balanced by the votes of the majority. You on the other hand have argued against democracy and even suggested that wealth be given more voting rights so it can block the wishes of the majority.

Can you point to where I’ve said this? In fact as we have discussed at length many times I’ve actually said the opposite for example this from ten months ago - Actually I don’t think I’ve ever advocated a ‘one size fits all solution’, I‘m not even sure what a ‘one size fits all solution’ is. In fact I often explain that things are complicated and that’s why things need to be understood rather than having ideas based on assertion that can’t be back up or defended, like you do.

As I’ve said many times it is about balancing what is best for individuals and society.

And we have been through this at length on several occasions, as I’ve said I’m not against localism but it needs to be balanced so that resources go to where they are needed most.

But you have often argued against democracy and have suggested a system where the interests of wealth would dominate.

Yes you’ve expressed this idea a number of times but as became clear on all of those other occasions you have nothing with which to fill the rhetoric. What many ways – what different means – why are none better than the others - in what way are problems properly addressed - again and again I’ve tried to get you to explain and you seem incapable of doing so.

In the past you have just shrugged and said you don’t know - only then to go on and promote the ideas that would only promote the interests of wealth.

Again we have been through this hundreds of times and at length – I don’t think a totally equal society is possible but I think the goal of a society and its government should be to produce societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places were people are more likely to realise their potential
This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a society where things were more unfair and many people’s lives were worse.

Your goals then seem very irrational and deeply unreasonable to me because you do seem to want a more unfair society where the potential of the disadvantaged are stifled a place where you would happily to see wealth dominant and let people who have fallen into hardship through no fault of their own to suffer or even die from want.

I’m not sure you "speak for wealth" but as has become clear in the time you have been on the forum you do seem to want to promote the interests of wealth.

 

Good point. I am really getting that impression.

 

Rak

Why is it good and what is that impression based on?

 

Bal,

I don't recall ever promoting 'forced labour', or using any variation of the word 'force'. The application of ones efforts to acquire their needs is something that most reasonable and rationale thinking persons accept as a natural requirement for sustaining ones life.

How do you feel that you have addressed my criticisms of your views, yet I still disagree with your views?

Yes, my views have remained unchanged.

I too, would like for everyone to have a good quality of life, but it is not governments responsibility to provide it.

I think if you read my posts more carefully you would understand that I am not against democracy per se.

Do you not look at the U.S. as a society? I see it as many many societies, which is more in line with how the U.S. Constitution was taught when I was schooled.

Your inference of balancing needs implies imposing the force of a central government empowered to redistribute wealth which is a primary reason the U.S. national debt is now more than $16,000,000,000,000 and the current years federal deficit has surpassed $1,000,000,000,000 with yet a month of spending to go.

There's no way that elected representatives in the Federal government can give attention to each and every constituent; that can only be accomplished partially even at the most local level of government.

The implementation of different solutions to similar problems allows for each to be evaluated and the best one(s) put to use.

You simply won't let go of "the interests of wealth" will you. Everyone is interested in acquiring wealth, and I've never felt that those who have much of it have impeded my acquisition of some.

Bal, I don't see the unfairness you speak of. Obviously inequalities exist and always will, and it's not a function of government to assure more equality in individual outcomes, but a responsibility of the individuals and the societies they live within without government force.

I think you're attempting to imply 'the wealthy' when you use the word wealth, are you not? Where can wealth be exercised most effectively in achieving desired results in a Nation made up of 50 States, and a vast number of smaller communities, the Federal, the State, or local governments?

 

No but they do need to stop letting unelected bureaucrats write the laws and policies.

 

Indie

Oh hell we’ve been through this why not just go back (it only just above) and address the many outstanding criticisms of your forced labour idea?

“requiring able bodied persons put in an 8 hour work day” – require – to impose in other words force.

I’ve told you on numerous occasions I don’t care if you agree with me or not although I’m still curious why you still hold onto ideas you seem unable to defend from criticism? A question that I’ve asked many times now and which you have yet to give a rational or reasonable reply.

Well I think this is hypocritical at best or down right lying at worst as has been shown many times the policies you seem to promote would make a lot of people’s lives worse. A criticism of your ideas that you still seem unable to address in anything like a rational or reasonable way.

I have read your post that’s why I can quote them so easily – and you have argued against democracy and have even suggested that wealth be given more voting rights so it can block the wishes of the majority.

We have been through this many times, this is basically an evasion you are promoting a doctrine that would involve the local as well as the federal.

We have been through this at length and in detail many times - the reason why the US has such a huge national debt is down to bad policies especially the adoption of neoliberal ideas over the past thirty odd years. A criticism of your outlook that you still seem unable to address in anything like a rational or reasonable way.

And we have been through this at length on several occasions, as I’ve said I’m not against localism but it needs to be balanced so that resources go to where they are needed most.

Yes you’ve expressed this idea a number of times but as became clear on all of those other occasions you have nothing with which to fill the rhetoric. What many ways – what different means – why are none better than the others - in what way are problems properly addressed - again and again I’ve tried to get you to explain and you seem incapable of doing so.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then it is probably a duck.

Sorry but it depends on your definition of wealth, many people are happy with a reasonable quality of life.

Well when brought aware of it in the Small Government thread back in September 2010 your reply was -

- So as i pointed out many times since you do see the unfairness you just didn’t seem to want to do anything about it.

Yes I know your viewpoint the problem is that you seem totally incapable of addressing the many, many outstanding criticisms of it.

No I don’t - Oh hell we have been through this many, many times do you ever take notice of anything anyone else says?

Good governance means involving all levels.

*

Again another post of evasion, as I’ve said many times can you stop just restating things and start addressing the many criticisms of those views. And if you can’t address those criticisms then why do you still hold onto those views?

 

Those "bad policies" and "neoliberal ideas" include the 185 means tested assistance programs of the welfare system/war on poverty that has, as a whole, failed so miserably to reduce the poverty rate but has been quite successful in creating a government (taxpayer) dependent subculture.

Your position seems to be that such a "neoliberal idea" (as the US welfare system) should be continued and/or expanded while, at the same time, continuing to vilify and denegrate those you accuse of favoring that which you label as the same.

Is there any example of the overall poverty rate being reduced in the last "thirty odd years" as a result of the US welfare system/war on poverty?

 

The war on poverty
The war on drugs
The war on hunger
The war on porn
The war on hate
The war on bullies
The war on Terror
The war on war
The war on crime
The war on racism
The war on pollution
The war on ______


Time for a war on bullshit.

Everything the Government touches turns to shit. Even the things that start out great and change the world for the better all fall to corruption and become a way to exploit the public for personal gain. E.g., The EPA. The use of "The war on ___" is just a way to trick the sheeple into putting more trust into the establishment. "They are at war fighting for us. Let's give them all the power they need to rid us all of the bad things."

 

From my experience as a receiver of scholarships that cover my living expences and those of family members on welfare, free money from the state makes you used to not working for your money, but to begging for it to state authourities.

So it is clear that the welfare system rarely gets rid of poverty, but increases the control of the state over the lives of their citizens.

It is debatable whether this control is intended by the state, but hard working rich people who used to be dependant on wefare must be the exception. Most people naturally say "fuck it I want life to stay as it is. an keep asking for more money."

 

yea buddy you could not be more right.

 

That government is best which governs least. Can you point to any powerful centralized states that created rich and prosperous societies using the "good governance" you speak of?

That's a good point ><. Every cause the government has fought a "war" against, and further every industry the government has gotten involved in has typically ended either unchanged, or much much worse than it was originally.

 

You rank among the world's biggest bitches.

You believe this, but keep taking the aid that you're talking about.

It would be fine if you did one or the other, but not both.

 

^ at least Rak is honest about it. The point we need to realize is that he/she is not alone. Whether intended or not, it's become a way to place more control over the people. We can reform the system to be more efficient, and still help those that need it.

 

Exactly. I could hardly be honest about what free money does to us If I did not sort of get it myself and if people I know did not get it totally free. I am not saying it is bad. It is fantistic, but so is crystal meth some people say and both get you hooked so much.

I was also disgusted as my mom, who used to work until eleven in the night sometimes, said it is common sense that welfare systems are not the answer to unemployment because even she would not bother working if she had that option.

Only as a grown up I realised she was not saying that for political reasons, but out of experience with how hard the working envoronment is compared to how easy it must be to receive money for doing little or nothing.

 

From the OMB for the 2012 fiscal year:

Entitlements (Mandatory Social Program spending)
Social security.....$733B
Medicare............$478B
Medicaid............$255B
TARP...................$35B
Other Mandatory..$711B
Sub Total...........$2252B

Debt Interest......$225B

Social Programs + Debt Interest $2477B

Revenue Collection total $2500B

Doesn't leave but $23B to run the government on

 

Please just let this stinking swill of a thread die...