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

Is it not obvious that welfare IS a government entitlement program, so YES I am saying that it should be gradually reduced and eventually eliminated. Is that clear enough now?

Essentially I am calling ANY government program which is not funded by those who receive the benefits to be how I define entitlement programs. Like I've said several times before, social security, medicare, and unemployment compensation, are programs in which the beneficiaries have paid into and are truly entitled to receive the benefits they provide, although they too are in need of attention to ensure they are funded adequately in order to provide the benefits they promise.

 

You said we should motivate people to get jobs.

I asked how and you said by reducing and eliminating government entitlement programs.

I've now checked to see what you mean by government entitlement programs and you include welfare.

When I asked If you meant that you would like to motivate people to get jobs by reducing welfare you seemed to have a problem with it. Can you explain how I am mischaracterising your views? Or am I understanding it well enough now?

 

You fail to recognize the fact that there's quite a difference between 'taking peoples money' and 'not giving other peoples money'. You can only take from those who possess something.

 

In what way did you feel I had a problem with that, when that is exactly what I was saying? Your response implied I was suggesting the immediate cessation of welfare when I said "gradually reducing and eventually eliminating it, allowing privately created and voluntarily funded charitable organizations to once again resume the function. People giving other people a helping hand, which is helpful in unifying a society, and not government taking responsibility for them, which is more useful in dividing a society.

 

Oh good. Semantic nitpicking.

 

Ok, well now we have something resembling a straight answer. If your problem with my comments was that you thought I was misrepresenting your view in that way you might have said as much.

Now, it sounds to be to be a terrible idea. People don't go on welfare because they've just decided they don't feel like taking on high paying jobs. It's a measure designed to stop people falling Into poverty. To be convinced otherwise, I'd have to see some pretty convincing documentation of a case where targeting welfare payments have had a beneficial effect on economy and society, but I can't imagine such documentation to be forthcoming.

Now maybe I'm cynical but I don't have enough faith in people to assume that the kindness of strangers is going to be enough to stop people from falling into poverty once the welfare is slowly reduced to zilch.

Im not especially well versed in economic theory, so it would be helpful if you could indicate any economic theorists that back up your ideas.

 

Since you appear to have much difficulty understanding the words I've posted it only stands to reason that you are probably lacking a clear understanding of the words you are posting.

Intelligent conversation is not possible if the words being used have different meaning to those engaged in conversation and it would be nitpicking ONLY if the meaning of the words was unimportant.

 

I'm talking about welfare payments being cut. So are you. Feel free to address the points I raised in response. Post 706.

 

I fail to see where you have raised any valid point. If you disagree, perhaps you should try restating it in a way that makes it recognizable.

 

Oh it's this game? I've objected to the lack of clarity in your posts so you claim the same in mine.

So my objections to your ideas.

1. Taking away welfare doesn't address the root issues of lack of education, skills or competences that would help people get jobs

2. People just aren't nice enough to be relied on to provide all the help needed by every person who has trouble getting a job. Not to the point of becoming a replacement for welfare.

3. Considering the points made by TIWYW regarding the number of unemployed looking for jobs and not succeeding, why would more people looking for jobs that are already hard to find, be a good thing?

What would convince me you are right;

1; Quoting cases where reduction in welfare payments, in the manner you're suggesting, has had positive economic impact.

2; Quoting economists who agree with your assessment.



Alternatively we can talk semantics more, your choice.

 

Look back to the Clinton years and the welfare reform imposed by Newt Gingrich and the Republican congress, that Clinton eventually signed.

Try reading Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Thomas Sowell, to name a few.

If you lack faith in the kindness of strangers it might be time to try and grow the number of friends you have.

 

Well, a name would have been useful. Luckily my Google Fu is strong; youre referring to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Though it may have had good results (not convinced on account of correlation =/= causation but it certainly seems possible) its not what I'm looking for because its not an attempt to begin entirely dismantling all forms of government assistance, which is what I object to.

Now, your string of economists is useless to me. I'm asking a specific question; who backs up your ideas on welfare. I'm up to part three of Smiths work (it's bloody slow) and I've yet to see a comment on welfare.

Maybe you could tell me a specific quote that backs up your ideas. I ask becaue I have firm suspicions such a thing doesn't exist, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

If I was unemployed, and unemployable (I'm not) I could rely on my friends. But not everyone can. Not everyone has friends who are themselves in stable situations, who are employed as employable, or are simply not assholes. The idea that humans, who are as a species, frequently responsible for being pretty unpleasant to each other can be relied on in every circumstance to provide support to every unemployed person equal to a living wage is going to need some extraordinary proof.

 

Clarity is necessary in any discussion, and semantics or the meaning of the words we use, is important in understanding what each of us is saying. So the only choice is between being semantically clear or semantically unclear. Would you choose the prior or the latter?

 

That would be true only if lack of education, skills, or competences were actually the 'root issues' keeping people from acquiring jobs.

And once again, like I have stated previously, reducing, not eliminating government assistance would be a good beginning. For example if the minimum wage is $7.25 per hour and government assistance programs tally to an amount higher than that, many available jobs remain unfilled that would otherwise be sought after by those unemployed.

 

Latter where possible, thought we're in glass houses here.

Anyway, regardless of if I say 'their money' or 'the governments money' or 'the money which by strict technical definition belongs to the government until it it received by the benificeree of the money and becomes their money' we're talking about welfare payments, and we both know that.

It usually amuses me when conversations drop into semantics because it means you've lost faith in your capacity to argue the fundamental point of your argument.

In case you forgot, it was that reducing then eliminating welfare is a good idea.

If you're having trouble planning your next post may I suggest

-picking out typos in my work
-name calling
-invoking Godwins law
-using all caps.
-complaints of Grammar

I believe it's traditional to resort to these when your argument has lost traction.

Alternatively we can go back to the key points and degrade into pointless semantics later.

 

Is that a fact? So if people won't willingly give what YOU feel they should then government should take it from them? Government welfare programs seem intent on not just relieving poverty but raising the living standard of the unemployed to equal that of many of those who are employed, and I would hope that private charities would not attempt to go that far.

 

Do you have an evidence that there's some cause other than the one I've listed? Or are we just taking the Welfare Queen argument as gospel?

Now, you've been saying that we should reduce welfare with an aim to eliminate it entirely. Is that no longer your position?

Less than eight dollars an hour sounds insanely low for a minimum wage. Is it possible that instead of reducing welfare, the solution could be INCREASING the minimum wage?

 

I'd do what I could, but I can't provide a living wage for someone else. BUT I'm a wealthy privileged white dude in a high socio economic area. Not everyone has friends that are as privileged as I am, and the idea that all unemployed people have plenty of friends that could and would substitute a living wage requires extraordinary proof. Feel free to provide it. Whenever.

 

The 1996 Welfare Reform act is one such example which over 3 years saw millions from government dependency to becoming self sufficient.

I've already gave you a list of names of some economists who I more closely agree with. Try reading from some of their writings. It would be a waste of time for me to post quotes from them when a full understanding could only be acquired by reading entire chapters or more.

 

Sounds like you're grasping at straws now, you state you would prefer to converse semantically unclear, thereby sustaining a lengthy but meaningless conversation. So essentially you only wish to waste time?

The source of the money is quite relevant in all discussion.

I'll leave you to make use of your suggestions as you appear more knowledgeable in ways to employ them.