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

The only way I see possible would be to gradually reduce and eventually eliminate government entitlement programs which should never have been taken from society created, operated and funded charitable organizations.

 

So, take away welfare, is that what you're saying?

You speak like a politician.

 

Yes, end government run welfare, and allow society to perform that function as it should.

I'm unaware of ANY politician from either party who has spoken the same. After all, welfare and all the various entitlement programs are a primary source used by politicians in both parties to purchase votes of not only the rich and the poor, but also the middle classes.

 

You must not be following politics. Both parties are spending an incredible amount of energy accusing the other of wanting to cut various social programs. I believe the narrative is that Democrats are trying to cut medicare by 716 billion to pay for Obama care, and Republicans are trying to turn Social Security into a voucher program, which would deny services for future seniors. No main stream politician says they want to get rid of any entitlement program.

 

When I speak of welfare and entitlement programs, I'm not referring to medicare and social security which are programs paid into by those who expect to benefit from them, although they too require some attention if they are to remain solvent.

 

"Protect the captians of industry" reminded me of your quote.

 

When I say you speak like a politician I mean the habit of using pretty words to hide true intentions.

"Elements of extremist groups may need to be dealt with urgently, to the point where we must accept that absolute accuracy is not a luxury we can afford."

Instead of

"we know we will kill innocent people trying to kill terrorists, but we're ok with that."

Anyway, taking away welfare is completely repugnant. It's a privileged, unrealistic sentiment that endorses a ridiculous us and them mentality that assumes that poverty is simply caused by laziness.

I've yet to meet anyone who wanted to take away welfare who wasn't completely disconnected from reality.

 

"The most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand -- to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency."

"The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system -- an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes."

"In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures."

 

Who are you responding to? I thought it was me, but I've not posted what you are calling "pretty words", and I don't recall seeing them posted by another.

If you are referring to my post related to welfare, you might note that I was suggesting moving it out of the hands of the Federal government and returning it to the people AND their States as they might desire.

You might try a little dose of reality, and recognize as fact that there are numerous causes for poverty, and laziness may be one of them, and the objective should be to reduce it through employment, and not just by taxing and borrowing which only allows it to become a greater problem as the thread title points out.

 

If you're going to appeal to authority with a block quote, please name the authority.

 

I'll quote what I was referring to in a moment.

Exactly what do you mean returning it to the people and the states? Is that code for 'force people to subsist on charity?'

Maybe you could indicate what percentage of poverty is 'caused by laziness'? Feel free to quote stats.

 

Pretty words;

Mentioned: Let's MOTIVATE people to find jobs! Woohoo!

Unmentioned: Let's strip away welfare, leaving people without jobs to find one or starve.

Politicians thrive on making the repugnant palatable through deception and omission. The above is a perfect example of this.

 

I'm sure Mississipi and Alabama would take real good care of their citizens without money or jobs.

 

Pretty sure Arizona would grind 'em up for pet food.

 

You may have noticed something that happened 4 years ago. Something to do with Goldman Sachs plundering the economy via AIG FP. That wasn't done by "lazy poor people", it was done by your capitalist heroes.

Unemployment seems to bottom out at about 4.5%. Those people can't or won't work. Currently, unemployment is between 7.9% and 13%, depending on who you believe. So there's about 13,000,000 people out of work who WOULD work if there were, you know, jobs.

Sorry if that doesn't fit your Ayn Rand view of the world, but it's simple fact. You drum up 13,000,000 jobs, and we'll talk about the remaining 4.5%.

 

The omission was intentional. It was, of course, JFK, who both Democrats and the Left appear to continue to hold in high esteem, while his views then are now closer to those of the Right today, speaking to the Economic Club of New York in the year 1962, about the advantages of the free enterprise system.

 

OK. Well, I'm more sure what the point is there but goodo.

 

Somehow I doubt that.

 

Ah. You should. It's a typo. I'm not sure what the point of the quote was.

 

Noted.