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

Poverty: Destitution of property; indigence; want of convenient means of subsistence. The consequence of poverty is dependence.

or

The state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor.

Which do you prefer? Or would you wish to define it differently?

 

can you really not see how this line of thinking parallels perfectly the logic that the towns people employ to purport the benefits of the window breaking? Where does the government get the money that causes this chain reaction?

 

Indie

This still doesn’t get past the point I was making of relativity that you were actually highlighting – I mean we are here talking about an American context so how should poverty be defined in that context.

I mean how much property is property? If I had rags to clothe me and a bowl to beg with I have property but am I not poor? Are you poor if you have a fridge, a television a car? What destitution of property would you class as enough lack of property to qualify a person as living in poverty?

And if I had rags to clothe me but others had not even that would I be wealthy?

What is a subsistence in a modern society, I mean should the subsistence of a Bombay slum be the definition of subsistence in New York?

Again what is little money in the context of the modern US should it be the same as defined by that Bombay slum?

 

Wrong

Enlighten me – you seem to be once again just demanding we see things the way you do while seemly totally incapable of addressing the criticisms of your views.

Where does the insurance company get the money to pay for the window?

 

Maybe the state should triple welfare benefits to lessen poverty :/

 

ok, I'll explain it... the insurance company pays for the window up front (out of savings or revenues collected from customers)

The insurance company than in turn increases the premiums of the baker and so the baker pays the insurance company back over time.

Do you agree on that?

 

I mean.. I understand the point your trying to make about "being prepared for bad times" and all that. Your idea being that during good times the government should bring in surpluses, and pay down the debt, and so when times turn bad or a recession occurs, they can run deficits and provide stimulus which pulls the economy out of the slump. There by making the these unavoidable cycles of the capitalist system less painful. (the main-stream Keynesian position)

Putting aside the fact that governments have never successfully budgeted in this manner, I'm trying to get you to at least understand the idea behind why deficit spending, and stimulus in general doesn't work.

So do you agree on how the insurance company pays for the window, and than collects reimbursement from the baker in the form of higher premiums?

 

That's essentially what is happening, although more gradually.

 

The funny thing is, tripling welfare benefits would actually massively increase poverty

 

Wrong

You call this an explanation? It seems to me that once again you really haven’t given this whole thing much thought.

Why would the premiums go up, maybe if he was breaking a window every month something only once and awhile, I’ve claimed on insurance and my premiums didn’t go up.

Again you seem to be suggesting that the baker shouldn’t bother with insurance and just hope nothing goes wrong.

By the way are you actually going to address the criticisms raised or just keep telling me I’m wrong because you think I’m wrong?

 

Rak

First - in the US context how do you define ‘poverty’?

Second - wouldn’t it be better if these people had jobs that paid a decent living wage with the prospects of bettering their position?

 

well I'm trying to explain it to you step by step since we're both here. But I mean really? you can't even agree on that? You yourself said this, "But with some type of insurance that doesn’t have to happen. He might have to pay higher premiums for a while but at least he has that livelihood."

But anyway, can we agree that the insurance company must pay for it somehow? Either by increasing the premiums of the baker, or by charging sufficient premiums to cover the damage in the first place?

 

Wrong

LOL - ok lets see where you are going with this – so the insurance company must pay for it somehow.

 

Bal, How would YOU define poverty in an American context? Since I haven't lived in the U.S.A for a couple of decades, maybe you should enlighten me how it should NOW be defined.

 

First, is there a single definition of poverty applicable and fitting in each and every case?

Second, Of course it would be better if 'these' people had jobs that paid a decent living wage, or even some wage until they could better their position whenever the prospects arise.

 

Indie

So in other words when you talk of poverty you haven’t a clue what you are talking about?

The reason why I’m asking is because as indicated by me putting ‘poverty’ with commas when I first mention it is that I’m not sure what the OP and the many others here mean when they say ‘poverty’.

I mean to me the definition of poverty is often relative and subjective in time and location. In the UK it is normal to have an inside flushing toilet and plumbed in water, but it was once normal not to but in many places in the world it is still normal not to have an inside toilet. As I asked you are you poor if you have a fridge, a television, a car? What destitution of property would you class as enough lack of property to qualify a person as living in poverty?

 

Ok.. so if the window hadn't broke, What would the insurance company have done with the extra profits? Expand their business? Pay their employes more? For sure they'd buy SOMETHING right? And whatever they bought, would potentially create the same amount of "stimulus" that was created via the glazier. Given that the amount of resources injected are still the same. Do you agree on that?

 

Wrong

BUT THE WINDOW BROKE – there is no point saying ‘oh if it hadn’t’ - it had.

 

well, if you want to go by the governments standards, it's an income below approximately $11,000 a year for a single person household: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml

As good a standard as any I suppose.

 

Right... the window broke.. that doesn't change whether or not the money WAS GOING TO BE spent in an equally as stimulating way to the economy. Do you agree that, even though yes it did break, that same amount of money COULD HAVE BEEN spent in an equally economicly beneficial way anyway?