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

To repeat –

It is said that “out of families with children suffering from food insecurity and hunger, 68 percent contained at least one adult working full-time, 10 percent had at least one adult working part-time, seven percent had an unemployed adult actively looking for work, and eight percent were headed by an adult with a disability. The main problem is low wages and few jobs, not laziness.”

So if people were being paid a real living wage those 68% of people seeking some assistance wouldn’t need that help?

As late as the 1960’s, teams of doctors were able to find pockets of Third World-style hunger and malnutrition in America, which generated significant media reaction and political attention. In response, Presidents and Congresses worked together in a bipartisan fashion to expand the Food Stamp Program and federal summer meals programs for children from relatively small pilot projects into the large-scale programs we know today, and also created the National School Breakfast Program, as well as the WIC Program that provides nutrition supplements to low-income pregnant woman and their small children. These expansions succeeded remarkably in achieving their main goal: ending starvation conditions in America. In 1979, when investigators returned to many of the same parts of the U.S. in which they had previously found high rates of hunger, they found dramatic reductions in hunger and malnutrition, concluding: "This change does not appear to be due to an overall improvement in living standards or to a decrease in joblessness in these areas.... The Food Stamp Program, the nutritional components of Head Start, school lunch and breakfast programs, and... WIC have made the difference."
http://www.nyccah.org/learn-about-hu...od-stamp-facts

As I said ‘poverty’ is complicated people can be statistically poor and hungry or statistically poor and not so hungry, their quality of life has improved but they remain poor, ‘poverty’ has not being ‘reduced’ statistically but ‘poverty’ that is in its effect has been reduced.

What some here seemed to be suggesting is that poor people should feel the full blast of ‘poverty’ because they seem to think that will ‘force’ those in ‘poverty’ to be less lazy.

But again many are working and others are actively looking for work.

 

I shall now refer to you as precious.

 

Like most Federal assistance programs they just grow in numbers, cost to working taxpayers, and employed bureaucrats, and if any positive results were being accomplished the number of programs, spending (cost to working taxpayers), and employed bureaucrats would be reducing as the number of persons being provided assistance would be lessening as they became productive and capable of providing more and/or all their own means of support.

It's not so much a matter of statistical data, but the actual government confirmed and reported expenditures and funding increases as dicumented by the government from year to year, unlike a poll which samples a small portion of society asking carefully worded questions in which the agenda is to assure the desired results in the outcome.

 

Are we talking about welfare or entitlements? It's becoming confusing when the two are constantly being intermingled.

If entitlements were the thread topic, the title should have been more appropriately worded to indicate such.

 

From the perspective of the Cato Institute (wealth) there is no difference between the two. They are government funded programs to be torn down.

 

Indie


BUT – to repeat once again many are working and others are actively looking for work.


So many are already productive it is just that the money they get isn’t sufficient and so they need assistance.

We have been through this many times.

 

Indie

The top three things in the Cato list give in the piece are -

Medicaid,
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),
Earned Income Tax Credit

I believe all three can be give to those that are working

PS the full list a gave on page 3

 

Of course that would depend on your definition of working.

 

When I lived in OHIO I was told to get food stamps and I assume cash you had to do a certain amount of community service. I find this fair because atleast until a full time job comes in the person is putting something out there and can atlest feel like they are earning what they need help with.

I believe this also deters lay abouts but can't say for sure.

I also started a petition to stop people that owe over a certain amount of court ordered money (child support, large fines and things of this nature) not be eligable for any benefits unless they are making a real effort to make these payments.

I know some people that get food and medical because ex's refuse to help support their children even though they are ordered by court. They usually just jump state after a warrent for non payment is issued and apply for benefits.

I find it disturbing. I know one guy that has 6+ kids he doesn't pay a dime for even though he owes thousands in support but he gets cash, food and medical assistance. THIS IS JUST WRONG. Sad thing is most of the girls he gets pregnant don't even know he has any kids until they have been together for a while and she ends up pregnant.

This case above should be justification for sterilization, but I was told it's a human rights issue to not force them into it.

Of course I've seen lots abuse this system and on the other side seen some people bring themselves up and get back on their own feet without starving to death.
Personally I wish we lived for each other like we HAD to before all of this, but without a strong community we cannot survive without these programs.

 

Individual:

I have already addressed this, but:

The level of poverty cannot be expected to decline, that requires something other than welfare, the welfare is meant to keep those in poverty fed and sheltered. If the jobs don't exist, even as people move out of poverty, more move into it. They need the help, and there's no other option for them.

This is not a type of program that you can simply end, and expect it to be dealt with because people will need to work. There is no work, or they are working as much as can be expected, there are children in the mix, and there ARE NOT private individuals or organizations taking up the slack -- you can't cut it and say that they will, that's like saying that money will trickle down.... yeah, it might, one day, a little bit.

When there is enough work and/or private entities actually removing burden from welfare, then we talk about cutting welfare. If you don't like welfare, go and start fighting the reasons we need welfare.

 

Regardless of any "bias" of "agenda" of the Cato Institute, the question remains:

Of course complete certainty is the goal! But, we are seldom, if ever, capable of achieving that goal – as with any human endeavor, true perfection is never actually possible. What we can and should do is base our opinions on available facts. Unless you can disagree with that, as I’m almost sure you will (more likely simply evade the issue), simply provide some evidence that information included in the Cato analysis is incorrect.

Make it easy on yourself: pick the parts you accept as “data” (rather than opinion) and provide some evidence of the erroneous nature of that data – evidence such as the “real” facts and figures. Since, in a previous post you used the phrase, “..mixing fact with opinion…”, you obviously accept some information provided by Cato as factual. Separate fact from opinion, as you say (and as I agree) should be done, then demonstrate why Cato’s conclusion is flawed.

Being as near completely certain as I can possibly be at this point in time, based on information widely accepted as factual, that the overall welfare system has failed to reduce poverty, I remain completely open to the consideration of any evidence to the contrary. So far, no one has provided such evidence.

I find no pleasure in the fact that the government of the country of which I am a citizen has, for decades, enacted programs and policies of such an ineffective nature as that of the current welfare system. Even more distressing is the indication that so many seem now content with whatever the government will provide and are willing to accept the inevitable consequences of dependency and loss of freedom that will result in expanding and continuing those failed programs.

Such unfounded speculation only detracts from an already suffering level of credibility.

And, btw, it was CNSN that applied the "study" label -- it seems Cato didn't present it that way at all.

 

:smilielol5:

Why, thank you, outhouse.

 

If, as you claim, the level of poverty cannot be expected to decline, then you're accepting it as being something similar to a terminal disease infecting society collectively, allowing only the reduction of pain until the time of the societies collective demise.

While I have never denied the need of providing assistance to those who are in need, I still maintain that it should never have been shifted to become a perpetual responsibility of government, especially the Federal government.

 

Yes, while poverty fluctuates, and obviously it would be best if we can get it to subside to much lower rates, welfare will not fix poverty, because the problem there is employment, wages, education, earning power, purchase power/cost of living, etc. The place of welfare is to prevent those things from hurting people in a perminant sense, especially young people who need things like nutrition and education.

As soon as the private sector or whatever/whoever waves and says "here we are", we can start unloading welfare from the government to them..... where are they? You can't dump the people on welfare while there is no private alternative, in the faith that there will be a charitable surge overnight to take care of them. I agree it would be better if the government did not need to provide welfare, but if the need is there, then it must be done. If charity can fill the need, great--let's see them start.

 

Indie

OH hell indie once more with the simplistic thinking - to repeat – you still have not explained what you mean by poverty and its decline – it’s a complex issue as I’ve explained to you more than once, there can be for example such things as absolute poverty, relative poverty and statistical poverty.

I have given the example of plumbing

A lot of people in 1950’s America (some 50% in rural areas) had no plumbing or flushing toilets while today only a few go without those things. Now this is a great improvement in many peoples quality of life (and health) and could be seen as a movement away from an ‘existence of poverty’ but it also comes with a utility bill that would not have been there before, an extra cost that is not taken into account by the US definition of ‘poverty’.

So public money, government spending, has improved peoples lives, meaning that relative poverty has declined, while at the same time statistical poverty has fluctuated between 11-15%


Now what I’d warn against is that due to American decline, much of it explained is down to neoliberal ideas, a lot of US infrastructure has declined, that could have a declining impact on relative poverty.

YES I know your opinion the problem as we have seen time and again is that you seem unable to defend it from criticism.

Please stop just restating your ideas and actually address the criticisms of them.

Also you are on record as saying that in your model of society you would be happy to allow people that have got into hardship through no fault of there own to suffer and even die from that hardship.

As I’ve said you seem to be suggesting that those receiving assistance should feel the full blast of ‘poverty’ because you seem to think that will ‘force’ those in ‘poverty’ to be less lazy.

The problem is that many on assistance are working or wanting to work.

As to assistance been given by governance as I’ve explained earlier this seems to have always been the case following the lines of the English Elizabethan poor laws, which the colonists had brought with them when they came to the Americas.

 

Indie

As pointed out many times it seems to be a matter of goals - My goal is to make societies fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places were people are more likely to realise their potential.

This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a society where things were more unfair and many people’s lives were worse.

Your goals then seem very irrational and deeply unreasonable to me because you do seem to want a more unfair society where the potential of the disadvantaged are stifled a place where you would happily let people who have fallen into hardship through no fault of their own suffer or even die from want

 

Lion

What service? I mean if it was needed and helped the community then why was someone not being employed to do it?

So this policy was more about punishment a means to deter, than to help people get real work?

Again this seems more about retribution than an effort to help. I mean my first question is why are they not paying, I mean if they are on assistance then they may not have spare cash to pay, if they do then in the UK the government has the ability to take the money at source (directly from unemployment benefits). And if they didn’t pay would they be put in prison which would cost even more?

It would seem to me that the best thing would be to try and get them into a living wage job (and then possibly dock at source directly from the paycheque).

Then you need federal laws (and then implement above).

Again this seems to be about education.

Again this seems more about retribution than an effort to help. I’m a great believer in carrot and stick but you seem all about stick and no carrot.

Why is the abuse being allowed? Some people may need assistance and some may not, but are you suggesting that because some may not then all assistance should be stopped?

Before all this what? But wouldn’t a strong and inclusive community want such programmes in place?

 

Good one! :rofl:

Since I have to go to work to support you, I don't have time to give a response but I'll be back later.

 

Don't complain, it's what you're promoting, and has 56olddog claimed he is receiving government benefits in some form, or are you sending him money directly?

 

It's not a complaint.

I gladly do it for oldog (if he's retired and on social security). I said the same thing to scratcho in post 962. I have no problem paying taxes for your wellbeing while I'm able to work. The old deserve a time to rest.

That oldog is collecting social security is pure speculation and I admit it... (you and oldog seem unwilling to admit any speculation in Cato's "study"). I guessed that because of his username.

If I'm wrong I'll retract my statement: