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

It seems to me that the problem is that right wingers don’t seem interested in debate, just in pushing there views.

The constant ticking in the background with nothing challenging it, no tock to counter the tick then it seeps in and takes over.

To me to one degree or another that’s what’s happened in the US, left wing political ideas were purged from the system, since then wealth financed lobbyists - like the Cato Institute - produce propaganda pamphlets full of spin and opinion and right wing news companies report them as if they were ‘fact’.

And even if the pamphlet is discredited then they just produce another pamphlet that basically says the same thing, tick, tick, tick

There are right wing posters here that do the same thing they make assertions that fall apart under criticism but they just move on to another thread and basically repeat the same assertion they were unable to defend in the last.

Basically the conclusions of the Cato report and the assertions made based on it by the ‘news’ company quoted in the OP don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Basically it is about trying to blame society wide social and economic problem on ‘personal responsibility.
But this is an old con trick it is just the old right wing argument of the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’.
This catch22 slight of hand said that the deserving are those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any and the undeserving are those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.
So it was plain - the argument went – that there was little or no need for the advantaged to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

This old confidence trick has been dressed up anew by such right wing lobby groups as the Cato Institute, the modern right wing argument been that if people are responsible work hard and make the right choices they wouldn’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make bad choices they’re obviously lazy and feckless and don’t deserve assistance.

So they argue with Social Darwinist zeal that social and welfare programmes rather than helping the disadvantaged only allows the irresponsible to wallow in their laziness the pamphlet complains that assistance given only has the effect of “making poverty more comfortable—giv*ing poor people more food, better shelter, health care” implying that they think only if such people feel the full blast of ‘poverty’ will it ‘force’ them to be less lazy.

So it hints that such things should be cut (or removed) those that need assistance should get less food, worse shelter, and no healthcare (unless they pay for it themselves) and the money saved be given in tax cuts to the advantaged because it seems to me that since they don’t need help and therefore must not be lazy and so deserve the money more.

But the amount of money someone has does not dictate a person’s character but it can have a great impact on opportunities and the amount of choices open to someone. It can also dictate how hard someone is affected by bad circumstances that are often beyond their control.

So those seen as deserving and undeserving were and are often as not the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

 

A bailout can come in the form of a grant or a loan. Most bailouts are loans. As you can see... Like I said, it’s been clear to me that you support Bailouts. Whether you like to call them that or not. What else could you possibly mean by a “buy in”?
The problem with these “loans” is that they are made by politicians, and with other people’s money. There is no incentive for them to make wise investments. In practice, companies who are well-connected politically are always the ones who receive the bailouts, and they are rarely paid back in full. If a company is “viable” and there is demand for its goods, then it would have no problem obtaining a loan via voluntary investment channels. If the company is NOT viable, then it’s a waste of resources, and NEEDS to fail, so that its capital can be allocated into more productive means.

Also, have you ever heard of MORAL HAZARD? If I can expect the government to come in and bail me out anytime my business gets into trouble, then I'm obviously going to be more likely to take risky business decisions.

Nationalizing is a different topic all together, and is even more absurd then your bailout idea. Are you really suggesting that anytime a business gets into trouble, the government seize control of it? First off, why do you think the government will somehow be able to run the business more efficiently then private owners? How well did nationalizing work out for the Soviet Union? They couldn't even make wearable shoes... Not to mention the uncertainty it would create in the business world. Why would anyone want to save capital to start a business, pour in sweat and dedication to get it off the ground and grow it, if anytime it gets into trouble the government is liable to swoop in and seize ownership of it?

 

Another definition for you, Staw man: A argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
So when you say things like, “But you have already said ‘boom and busts’ happened before ‘government intervention’” Something I’ve never said (a clear misrepresentation), and then proceed to attack this misrepresentation, it a text book example of a Straw Man.
Another example is when you say, “And are you trying to say that there were no ‘real’ economic problems in the US until the 1930’s?” Which is obviously nothing I’ve ever said, and so is a clear misrepresentation of my argument.
Here’s another example of a straw man… “Your idea seems to be that such viable industries that get into short term problems should be allowed to crash and burn, in the hope that something will come out of the ashes. It seems to me that you are sticking rigidly to a dogmatic ideology rather than wanting to help people.” Which is obviously NOT my idea… Neither is it my belief that because a business fails it “crashes and burns”. You’re belief that this is how the world works is laughably juvenile. Like I’ve already instructed you a few times already, a business failing does not mean it’s capital disappears. New owners buy it, and use it's in ways that better benefit consumers.

So again, you cannot seem to properly represent my position. I do not want to let things "crash and burn" and not "help people"... It's my belief that the best way to help people, in a recession, is for the government to NOT prop up failing business as you suggest, but to allow their resources to be once again allocated into profitable means. When the government props up failing businesses, it only prolongs the recession and worsens it.

 

There is no contradiction… “several depressions” does not mean “every depression in the 19th century”… I said I pointed you to SEVERAL DEPRESSIONS where the government did not intervene. If you want to be technical, there was some kind of government intervention during every depression, if you count state as well as federal policy… However what I meant by did not intervene was the type of Keynesian intervention that you’re advocating. Monetary or Fiscal stimulus. Also, we’re talking about the government’s response to a depression or recession…Not it’s cause. Let me clarify for you what I’ve claimed:
1. There was no federal regulation of the economy before 1887, and yet the increase of standards of living and economic growth were more than any other century.
2. There were several depressions during the 19th AND 20th century, where the government did not respond with fiscal or monetary intervention, and yet not only did we still recover, we often recovered faster.
3. Booms and Busts have NOT “always happened”, as you claim. The modern business cycle can be traced back to the advent of fractional reserve banking. The booms and busts of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries have been caused by bank credit expansion, encouraged and propped up by governments.

 

If you really want to learn the cause and cure of business cycles, you should watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhoFOyy7rbo"]Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle

It's by far the best, most detailed, and easiest to understand explanation I've found yet. (not that I really expect anyone to watch it, but you can if you're interested)

 

Balbus, what right wing policies in particular are you talking about?

Welfare spending per capita is at an all time high...
The amount, and scope of regulations are at an all time high...
Government spending as a percent of GDP is highest since ww2...

What exactly are the social Darwin right wing policies that are leaving the poor to suffer the wrath of their own personal responsibility?

 

Not when the source is a think tank. A think tank (or policy institute) is an organization that conducts research and engages in advocacy in areas such as social policy, political strategy and economics.

Since think tanks advocate for certain causes, they're inherently biased. The information from think tanks might be accurate but their conclusions and/or policy recommendations will always be biased. So the Cato Institute's conclusion that welfare is a failure says more about the Cato Institute's mission or agenda than it does about welfare.

Information accuracy and source credibility are equally important.

 

Abolishing welfare

Yeah, all those poor kids and handicaps need to be responsible and get a job.

 

56oldog,

Need we any further proof that the Department of Education should be renamed the Department of Inculcation?

 

Abolishing the Department of Education would be another one.

 

It's difficult to abolish something that doesn't exist, which is exactly why I suggested the renaming.

 

Yeah well we've spent OVER one trillion on wars since the 2001 and that number grows at the rate of $2,500 a second. That's at the cost of over 215,000 civilian casualties since the Gulf War as well. What's become better there...in any possible way of looking at it.

Half a trillion to keep some people who have lost their jobs from ending up on the street, so what? Sure there will be sponges, but that's anywhere that there is help to be taken advantage of. If anything welfare has saved lives, fed children, and helped at least a few people to get back on their feet.

If we're going to spend thousands per second on war supplies, I have no problem with assistance being given out to the people who's lives that spending ruins.

 

Finally, you post with some substance -- not altogether accurate -- but, at least, something substantive rather than the usual cheerleading.

What you're saying is that even though no evidence has been produced that welfare has been a success -- to the contrary, all evidence indicates its total failure -- information reported by any source "with an agenda" should be deemed inaccurate even though such is substantiated by overwhelming evidence.

The overwhelming evidence that welfare is and has been a total failure insofar as accomplishing the (alledged) goal of reducing poverty, indicates the conclusions of the Cato report are very credible and, thus, very logically seems to indicate that the Cato Institute's "mission or agenda" is one based on fact rather than fiction.

Regardless of the endless and circular aurguments seen in this thread as to why welfare SHOULD work, the plain and simple truth is that it has not -- the poverty rate has not been reduced. Even now, with government spending on social programs at an all time high and more being recipient of such programs than ever, is there any indication of the success of those programs other than successfully making more dependent on government?

While one might initially consider source, isn't accuracy the final factor? Hell, even a blind hog finds an acorn on occasion.

 

Excellent point.

 

Both are being accomplished on borrowed money -- therein lies the problem.

"Assistance" is one thing -- inciting and encouraging government dependence of much of the population is another.

 

They aren't encouraging it. In fact they have spoken against it. People can buy drugs and illegal weapons with the money they are paid, are their employers encouraging the black market?

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at...

Here's thier website: http://www.ed.gov/

 

"What exactly are the social Darwin right wing policies that are leaving the poor to suffer the wrath of their own personal responsibility?"

Your answer appears to advocate government responsibility rather than personal responsibility -- an aurgument for more government control over the lives of those governed and another step toward a totalitarian state. Does anyone understand the correlation of government responsibility and govenment control? The former has always led to the latter.

Here's a simple example: On a morning with outside temps below freezing, John leaves his home but forgets to take along a jacket. So that John will not suffer the effects of the weather, government provides one -- ' same the next day and the day after. Finally, government mandates that everyone will have in their possession, garments adequate for protecting them from weather conditions based on criteria developed by a newly created Federal agency.

Those found without such "adequate" protective garments will be provided such regardless of how many times they may have forgotten or lost them in the past.

Without incentive to remember or care for his jacket, John continually receives one from the Department of Clothing (another new Federal agency). Those who remember and care for their jackets are taxed to pay for those provided to others who have not.

There's also the 'ant and grasshopper' fable... appropriately updated...

For this comment, I'll employ your methodolgy and consider the source.

 

The answer lies in post #1149.

 

Substance is quality. What a think tank gives you is some substance mixed with their predetermined agenda as the outcome. Undiscerning people like you then act as mouthpieces, speaking their talking points as facts, not realizing they're just opinions of the Cato Institute.