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

As promised -- update of an old fable -- unfortunately, too true of the times:

The ant works hard, in the withering heat, all summer long. He builds his house and stores supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks that the ant is a fool. He laughs, dances and plays the summer away, preparing nothing for the coming winter.

Winter comes, the ant is safe and warm.

The shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and fed, while others are cold and starving! CBS, NBC, ABC & CNN show up to provide pictures of shivering grasshoppers, next to a video of an ant in his comfortable home, with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast! How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer this way?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah, with the grasshopper. Everyone cries when they sing "It's Not Easy Being Green". Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house, where the news stations film the group singing "We Shall Overcome". Jesse then has the group pray for the grasshopper's sake, and reminds the group to contribute to his group, so that he can "continue the fight" for grasshoppers, everywhere!

Harry Reid and John Kerry exclaim, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, that the ant has gotten rich, off the back of the poor grasshopper! Both call for an immediate tax hike, to make the ant pay "his fair share"!

Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity For Grasshoppers Act", retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire the proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his house is confiscated by the government.

Hillary Clinton gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper, in a defamation suit against the ant. The case is tried in federal court, with a jury comprised of unemployed welfare recipients. Surprise! The ant loses the case!

The story ends, as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food, while the government house he lives in (which happens to be the ant's old house) crumbles around him, due to lack of maintenance!

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found, dead, in a drug-related incident.

The house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders, who terrorize this once-peaceful neighborhood.

 

They (?)

The welfare system itself encourages dependence -- even former recipients state as much.

 

Which is somehow unlike so many of the arguments of this thread -- attempting to show how the welfare system should work, rather than the real results? Hahahaha

Even if you did know me, your personal opinion of me is irelevant -- just show us how the welfare system has been successful in reducing poverty.

 

No it doesn't. To me, unless it says..."Welfare, anything you want. Without even trying"..it isn't encouraging dependence.

Former recipients? You mean people who no longer take part in the program? :| C'mon man. Do I really need to spell this out?

 

"anything you want" -- no. "without even trying" -- too often.

That would make them "former" recipients. No?

Please.

 

Which is one thing you overlook and accept as fact. How have you ruled out the lousy economy being a factor in the 15.1% poverty rate? (which is the "real" result according to your infallible source, the Cato Institute)

 

I just feel as though welfare isn't suggesting anything. We all know why it was created, and what it's purpose is.

What I meant by what might have seemed like redundancy. Is that by naming the fact that there are former recipients says that there ARE people who manage to get off of it, and back into the world as the rest of us know it.

Besides the very nature of welfare suggests being depended on. Its supposed to be a net that will catch you until you rebound. Someone who has been on it for years and has been obviously taking advantage of it isn't something that I support.

But if I'm down, out, and need something to depend on in my time of desperate need...I'm hardly thinking of taking advantage of it. It kind of feels like your saying that people will purposely fail because they know its there to support them. Which I'm sure they do, but that's them taking advantage of it. The system didn't force that to happen just by existing.

 

"Why" it was created is irrelevant, the results are what matters... the road to hell is paved by good intentions.

No policy is going to effect all people to the same degree, as all people are different. The important thing is to look at the incentives that it gives.

And for every "Former Recipient", there's likely a corresponding chronic dependent. Look at the more advanced welfare states, like the UK, and you'll find families that have been on welfare for GENERATIONS. 1 in 6 children grow up in "workless households"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgkVSRs8ADM"]Welfare Addiction in handout hungry UK

 

These, if anything, are proposed policies, nothing that's been anything close to being actually implemented.

Balbus said:

So if "what's happened in the US" is that we've resorted to right-wing policies and purged the left-wing from the system... what policies in particular are we talking about? Because like I said, Welfare spending, Deficit Spending, Large Regulatory Burden, all of which are at an all time high, are all Left-Wing suggestions, not the other way around.

 

Its not the programs that are being taken advantage of's fault, its the people who are taking advantage of them. A moral problem which cannot be fixed as easy as ridding the system of the option as a whole. Which is why I feel as though people don't want to believe it.

 

The poverty rate has fluctuated (from about 12% to about 15%) with the economy for roughly the last 50 years. The point is that if the system were working, the rate would be steadily declining with periods of little change or possibly slight increases during economic downturns. Such has not been the case.

 

Exactly!!

 

People do whats in their best interests. The government shouldn't have policies that make it in people's best interests not to work / contribute to society.

I agree, it's not very noble for people to take advantage, and live off other people's work... however, there are people who will do it, and the system is set up in a way that permits it to happen. What's easier to change, Government policy or Human nature?

 

Are you saying that if the system was working, the poverty rate would steadily decline to zero? If not, where do you suppose it should bottom out?

 

Is the criteria for the system "working" yours or the Cato Institute's?

Please state differences (if any) between your criteria for the system "working" and the Cato Institute's.

 

We both know the answer to that. I agree with the claim that welfare is counter productive in the overall success spread sheet of a nation. That I am not denying. It does and has helped people though, regardless of who is or has been taking advantage of it. This is something no one can deny.

Do you purpose changing the existing law, or doing away with it and anything that could compare to it? I'm curious

 

Of course "zero" would be preferable. However, given the fact that some are apparently well satisfied with living below the "poverty line", I strongly doubt that could ever happen. There are those, believe it or not, that live on almost no income and receive no government benefit or assistance. Even though perfection can never be attained, that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to strive for it.

Attribution of the "criteria" is irrelevant. Is there some criteria, other than a reduction of the poverty rate, that should and can logically be used in judging the success of the overall welfare system?

While many (probably most) of the government agencies administering the various forms of assistance will tout the "success" of their respective program by citing the amount of money distributed or the number of recipients/participants in their program, none (that I've seen) provide any evidence of reducing poverty. Pick one -- they all have websites.

Understand, if you will, that my opinion of the welfare system was not formed based on the report of the OP nor completely on statistics (regardless of the source). I'm a firm believer in the old adage regarding three basic types of lies: 1) lies, 2) damn lies, and 3) statistics. My opinion was formed with that in mind and in consideration of personal knowledge and experience.

At this point I'm wondering how anyone is able to claim (without grinning) that the system is working.

If the intent of the numerous programs isn't/wasn't to eliminate or substantially reduce poverty, then what is/was the intent.

What is/was the criteria used in your reaching the illogical conclusion that the system is successful while all available data indicates no reduction in the poverty rate?

 

I'm sure it has helped, and is helping people.. that I'm not denying either. In the aggregate though, I'm fairly certain that it's done much more harm than good, and the people who it helps, I'm fairly certain they would receive AT LEAST the same, if not better help in it's absence. I would abolish the entire system, preferably in a gradual and responsible way... so that those who are currently relying on it for survival can at least be given warning / be weaned off.

Another problem, that I'm not sure anyone has mentioned yet... is that the government doesn't have an incentive to reduce poverty. In fact, they have incentives to do the opposite. In addition to the loyal voting constituency that welfare creates for the government, What happens to a bureaucrats job if there is no more poor people in need of welfare? They'd lose it. The more people who are in need, the higher demand their jobs are.

Private charities on the other hand, are donating their own money, and their own time... so they have a vested interest in the people they help. If a private charity doesn't successfully help people, their donators will flock elsewhere and it will fail. Where as if a government run program is unsuccessful, they just throw more of other people's money at it.

 

Wrong

Ok so you are saying that to you a ‘buy in’ or nationalisation or any government investment in such things as infrastructure is in your opinion a ‘bail-out’? So any type of loan or investment that is done to bring a return to the investor is in your view a ‘bail-out’? Personally I’d call it investment.

*
Again I come up against this either/or mentality that so often seems to cloud the minds of people unable or unwilling to get out of it.

You seem to think that a company or business is either viable or a failure that should be allowed to crash and burn, or bought up in some kind of fire sale.
But it is well known that businesses can get into short term problems in an economic crisis or downturn, when banks are unable or unwilling to help out (those needing help might even be the banks).

You seem to think that otherwise viable businesses should be allowed to go to the wall with the very strong possibility that they would never return or be replaced (or at least on in the short term) or sold off for a fraction of it true worth.
Why is that better for the businesses, its employees and the economy than the government stepping in as bank of last resort and investing in it or into the wider economy through infrastructure spending?

And yes I know about ‘moral hazard’ and it is one of the reasons why I talk of nationalisation. I mean if a business or its shareholders could have the possibility of the government ‘seizing control of it’ as you put it with little or no compensation it might just curb their enthusiasm for risk. Also I’d also want an investigation and if the company problem is due to questionable behaviour on some peoples part then there would be heavy fines and/or the possibly of imprisonment involved.

 

Wrong

Why? To me it should be a possibility, if it is needed in some serious cases. Basically public ownership can be if handled properly very little different than private ownership. It could be short term or longer.

As I’ve posted before - if a company is profitable and nationalised then why shouldn’t the public benefit from the profits directly?

If a company is making money and the profits go into government coffers meaning it can keep taxes down why shouldn’t it?

The French car company Renault was nationalised after WWII (and partly privatised in 1996) it was and still is a successful company (incidentally owning the American Motors Corporation between 1979-87 during the time when it was a completely nationalised company, which means the French people actually owned a slice of the US car industry).

The thing is that nationalisation and public ownership can be a useful tool; it can protect industries and business that are fundamentally viable but have got into financial difficulties or when a sudden collapse (rather than a later controlled wind up) could have a domino effect on the larger economy.

To me public ownership can be useful just as private ownership can be useful the problem is that some people seem to be so driven by dogmatic ideology that to them private is always good and public is always bad.