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

$3 trillion in welfare was given to millionaires and just added to the national debt, for future generations to pay off. Now that's redistribution of wealth!

 

Yea that welfare need to end Johnny on the spot!!!

 

I think that is something that we can all agree on!

 

Are we now calling money not taken by government, welfare?

 

Thank you letlovin

That is a point I’ve made many times on this forum, many make pronouncements on issues or subjects but they haven’t asked why the issue is such often they don’t even seem to want to find out. To me if there is a problem the best way to find a solution is to ask why it exists.

 

Wrong

In what way am I ‘mincing words’ I’m just trying to get clarification.

I think if you think it was a ‘simple concept’ then I don’t think you have really though about what you are actually saying and what you seemed to be implying. So I’ll ask again – are you saying that you would not take a job that offered a living wage and with the prospects of improving your life if you were uneducated and unskilled while implying that you would because you are educated and skilled?

Can you back up the statement - Some people are, many people aren't (my bold).

For example if you want say manufacturing to remain stable or improve in an economic down turn it might be a good thing to give it assistance. Just as it might be good to sustain or improve a workforce in a similar situation.

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

Again if you think economics is simple then I think you need to do a bit more reading. There are many economic groupings and within them many divergent views.

Again I ask – why are they unemployed, why are they ‘unfit’? And what would be your solution to those that are hungry, let them starve? Are you proposing to ‘get rid’ of the disabled? You seem to be expressing rather Social Darwinist ideas.

Why are they not willing?

Why are they dropping out? How are they inflated? Why is the value decreased?

 

Wrong

I don’t claim to be anything other than a leftie, I don’t try to hide it or claim otherwise, however I find that many of the right do seem to want to claim that they haven’t got that right wing bias often claiming that their ideas are just ‘common sense’ or ‘natural’ or simply a ‘fact’ but when looked at they turn out to be plainly right wing views.

Again you seem to be claiming a non-political bias while pushing a political bias. All you are doing is trying to suggest that your right wing views are ‘natural’ while alternatives are ‘political’ so we get -

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

The thing is that people and workers fought for their wages and social benefits in a long, bitter and often dangerous struggle.

(For an American perspective on that struggle try – Who built America (two volumes) by the American Social History Project)

Wage rates and social programmes are part economic but they are also political, the actions of workers and people have forced systems to be more distributive and equal. Made them tax the rich, pay decent wages and protect people from exploitation.

Try Reading - Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=353336&f=36


For why I think a ‘natural’ free market system has never and will never exist, it also explains why I think wealth has gained such a hold in US society and o much power globally.

 

Before Shrub gave that $3 trillion to the millionaires the annual budget was balanced and there was a $300 billion annual surplus. After the tax cut, it destroyed the balanced budget and added $3 trillion to the $5.5 trillion national debt, making the national debt $8.5 trillion. That debt will be paid off by future generations instead of the millionaires that got the $3 trillion tax cut. The rich are the ones that run up the national debt, not the poor. There are no poor in Congress.

 

I was under the impression he was referring to the bailouts.

 

What grouping doesn't hold that by subsidizing something, you get more of it? Classical, Austrian, the Chicago school, and Keynesians all will tell you this, so I think calling it a simple economic fact is pretty accurate. Hell, the basest, most primitive economic thinkers of Mercantilism knew of this. (As evidenced by trade bounties and other subsidies) You yourself affirm the principle by saying:

Which, by the way, is a horrid policy. A manufacturing subsidy will indeed improve manufacturing, however you must look at both sides of the coin. You've committed the classic economic fallacy of looking at the visible effects of a policy, and not the effects that are not visible. The money that goes to aide manufacturing is funded by other sectors of the economy (via taxation or inflation)... so artificially bolstering one industry can only be done at the expense of others. Not to mention that the subsidy is doled out arbitrarily by politicians, and not according to the combined voluntary choices of consumers (As would have occurred in the absence of redistribution). Also, the money must inevitably be filtered through bureaucracy, which just adds to already present inefficiencies. This is called "The Broken Window Fallacy", and is the one of many pitfalls of the Keynesian paradigm. Government spending has never, and never will, create prosperity. (See Economics in One Lession, by Henry Hazlitt)

Can you quote where I've claimed a non-political bias, ever? Saying something is "natural" does not claim that my views aren't bias. Political means, "concerned with government: relating to civil administration or government". I simply was saying that the struggle you referred to is a natural product of the market, and is only "political" when the government becomes involved. All I did was point out that your critique of my link being a bias source was made in the face of you linking solely to yourself, and recommending nothing but socialist literature (which obviously has a bias of it's own). I will say this though, I don't consider myself lock-step with "right" or "left" wing views, and I try to look at information as objectively as possible (regardless of the ideological beliefs of the presenter). I'd hope that you took EVERYTHING you read and hear with a "grain of salt", as well you should. However the fact that (by your own admission), you took my link "with a grain of salt", solely because you discovered it was from a right wing publication, and for no other reason stated, speaks volumes of your open mindedness when hearing alternative ideas.

But I wasn't trying to get ugly with you before, and I apologize for coming across that way. I'd much rather keep the focus on what we've been talking about, namely..the merits of wealth redistribution, subsidies, etc.



This chart is from the Washington Post, not exactly a right-wing source. It shows the disparity between the rise in tuition prices and the price of living. The reason for this is simple, and goes back to what we agreed on up there about whatever you subsidize, increases. Anytime the government introduces easy-money into an industry (in this case sub-prime student loans), it artificially rises the demand of that industry, the end result being an increase in prices. (See..Economics 101, a supply and demand chart). This is what we call "a bubble", and is completely unsustainable. Bubble's create an artificial increase in capital goods, as well as speculative buying. The speculative buying of the education bubble is a bit more subtle than that of the housing market though, and can be seen in the form of institutions like "Everest" and similar schools that have recently sprung up. They specifically target low-income people without factoring in their abilities or their chances to graduate, and solely because of the money they receive after helping them qualify for government aide. The continuous rise in tuition prices has fallen mostly on the middle class families who might not qualify for aide, and yet still has to pay the higher prices. But even people who do qualify for the cheap loans are still being screwed because they end up with a degree that's worth less than the debt they accumulated earning it. Not only because the high tuition prices, but also because the increase of supply in college degrees make them worth less to prospective employers. This is going to collapse when the unsustainable government money fueling it stops flowing. Demand will plummet, prices will have to come down, the faculty wages, as well as the extravagant capital goods purchased will have to be reduced, sold off, or just closed down all together.... I think you get the idea (A BUST)

Can you really not see why or are you just fucking with me? Have you heard of "opportunity cost"? This is like asking, "Why is everyone not willing to exercise?" Although it's universally thought to be beneficial, and people would likely universally say they'd want it, not everyone actually ends up doing it, because to them the benefits of exercising are less than the cost of not-doing whatever their alternative is. (Time plays a role as well, because generally the benefits of things like school, or exercise are delayed, while alternative behaviors potentially have more immediate benefits, which in turn increase their utility). Please don't ask me another question like that. I'd much prefer you directly attack my claims with claims of your own, than have you endlessly ask me to elaborate.

 

"Government spending has never and never will create prosperity".
Tell that to the auto workers and the attendant companies that make products for them.

 

Even though you obviously don't agree, the fact that you took the time to read all of my post makes me happy. I was worried it was too long winded and was thinking of deleting much of it lol.

The idea is that, while the auto workers might have benefited from government spending, it did so inevitably at the expense of other industries (that were taxed to fund the spending). If you admit that giving money to a company helps it, you must also admit the reverse, that taking money away from a company hurts it (tax).

Also, the very fact that the auto industry was failing, shows that it was a misallocation of resources, and didn't produce cars that were valued by consumers. Propping up an unwanted business may temporarily "save" those specific jobs, however, in the absence of a change in business plans, it will remain unwanted and simply fail again at a later date. (As GM will fail again at a later date) All the government does when it bails someone out, is essentially steal resources from a profitable, valued business, and use it to sustain an unprofitable, unvalued business... This is not the key to prosperity. To see the results of this kind of economics, look at the policies of the Mercantilist era, and the 2 class system that it created. (The economic jargon, as well as the economic policies of this time are exactly like the ones you see today from modern Keynesians)

It would have been much more beneficial to the economy as a whole if GM had been allowed to go through bankruptcy and their capital had been reallocated to more efficient owners. The American auto industry would not have disappeared, their plants would not have been demolished, new owners would simply have taken over and either produced a more competitive product, or went out of business the same way the prior owner did.

 

Does the American economy exist for the American worker?

Does the American worker exist for the global economy?

Whose economy is it?

Is the economy natural or by design?

 

I totally agree with this one.

 

No.

Giving a company money CAN help it's workers and customers, taking money CAN hurt them. It obviously depends on the state of the company.

I do not care about helping or hurting the company, only the people who depend on it to eat.

 

There is a difference between giving and taking.

The budget was balanced?
Federal debt (1993-2012)
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38 Last Bush Budget
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32 1st Clinton Budget
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39 2nd Clinton Budget
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73 3rd Clinton Budget
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34 4th Clinton Budget
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62 5th Clinton Budget
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43 6th Clinton Budget
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86 7th Clinton Budget
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 8th Clinton Budget
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16 1st Bush Budget
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62 2nd Bush Budget
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32 3rd Bush Budget
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50 4th Bush Budget
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23 5th Bush Budget
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48 6th Bush Budget
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.50 7th Bush Budget
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.80 8th Bush Budget
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.80 1st Obama no Budget
09/30/2011 14,790,340,000,000.00 2nd Obama no Budget
09/21/2012 16,018,161,956,391.17 3rd Obama no Budget

And that's just the figures. You can spin them any number of ways, but neither Democrats nor Republicans seem intent on bringing down the debt.

The rich are the ones paying the Most $$$, the poor are the ones paying nothing except with what has first been taken from those who are productive.

 

Look at the budget deficits for those years....Especially 10/1999-9/2000 ...and then look at what the republicans did during the Bush years. R&D represent who was in charge of the Oval office, Senate and House.

10/2008-9/2009RDDD$878,684
10/2007-9/2008RDD$472,390
10/2006-9/2007RRDRD$241,475
10/2005-9/2006RRR$284,853
10/2004-9/2005RRR$283,490
10/2003-9/2004RRR$315,416
10/2002-9/2003RDRR$301,627
10/2001-9/2002RDR$233,892
10/2000-9/2001DRRDR$75,259
10/1999-9/2000DRR$10,399
10/1998-9/1999DRR$78,077
10/1997-9/1998DRR$69,353
10/1996-9/1997DRR$117,342
10/1995-9/1996DRR$159,864
10/1994-9/1995DDRDR$184,536
10/1993-9/1994DDD$189,784
10/1992-9/1993RDDD$240,047
10/1991-9/1992RDD$284,616
10/1990-9/1991RDD$317,173
10/1989-9/1990RDD$287,591
10/1988-9/1989RDD$205,720
10/1987-9/1988RDD$213,069
10/1986-9/1987RRDD$198,040
10/1985-9/1986RRD$283,489
10/1984-9/1985RRD$233,119
10/1983-9/1984RRD$187,734
10/1982-9/1983RRD$236,120
10/1981-9/1982RRD$149,408
10/1980-9/1981DRDRD$99,179
10/1979-9/1980DDD$98,521
10/1978-9/1979DDD$75,723
10/1977-9/1978DDD$111,509
7/1976-9/1977RDDD$103,507
7/1975-6/1976RDD$153,328

 

rj:

So it doesn't matter which party is in power, government continues to spend beyond its means. And why did you drop the Obama years and add the Carter and Reagan years?
The Carter years were really some of the worst for inflation, although that was advantageous to some of us who lived within our means and invested carefully.

Often the consequences of government activities don't appear immediately, but it is easy to place the blame on the current administration when it is a Republican one, and inherited when a Democrat administration.

Government is currently spending about $1,000 per man, woman, and child per month. How many of the population are paying their fair share of that? And the very few who are paying that much or more, are they really getting their monies worth?

 

The Obama years weren't posted. Besides, the deficits for the past four years are because of the mess Obama was left with, that he's been trying to dig us out of. And the obstructionist republicans in congress have been filibustering all his efforts to clean up the mess. It's the republicans stated strategy to make Obama look bad, and they figure a bad economy is the way to do it. It really is low of them to make America suffer in order to make Obama look bad. Just shows the lengths the cons are willing to stoop to.

 

More likely the GOP filibustering is only keeping Obama from looking worse. How about a budget for at least one of the four years Obama has been president?
You are also misusing the term 'cons' if it meant to refer to Conservatives as there are few members of either the Democrat or the Republican party who could be claimed to be Conservative, and that is the primary problem needing immediate attention.