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

How so? If we look at the full text:

Where is the leap in logic?

 

Individual:

What is your position?

 

outthere2,

And would you please name the University referred to in your unbiased, agenda free, cartoon?

 

^ I'll gladly answer your question after you answer mine (since I've been asking you for a while now).

 

That's the game Balbus plays, and for that matter a great number of my questions are totally ignored by you, and I just re-ask them if I really would like an answer rather than use a vague implication that can only be responded to by another question.

 

Ok. You answer my question first (since I've been asking for quite some time now) then I'll answer your question. We can continue like that until you have no more questions.

So:

What is your position?

 

I gave you my position, but to directly answer your question relating to Cato, my position is that perpetually complaining about their agenda in relation to the thread topic as well as other areas in no way provides a solution to the problem of poverty and welfare spending. Remove Cato entirely from the picture and the problem remains, and at best is simply ignored. Therefore, my position on Cato is that regardless of any agenda they may have they have presented an issue that is increasingly costing the American taxpayers and needs attention. Funding poverty programs with greater sums of money, while it does reduce the effects of poverty, does nothing to reduce the causation in a way that reduces the cost to the taxpayers.

I think you have more than made it clear what you think 'about' Cato, and while I can't say that I agree with them and/or their agenda entirely, neither does it seem that I disagree. Each issue has to be looked at separately.

Now which University is it?

 

Well, at least you admit that my statements about Cato are "in relation to the thread topic." So, do you agree that the people behind Cato are just as relevant to this thread as the words they write?

But Cato is the problem.

Before I answer that I'd like to comment that corporate meddling into state institutions of higher learning should be of no surprise to you. It is the direct result of policies that you and the Cato Institute endorse like this.

Here is a portion from Cato website just linked above:

The Cato propaganda is complaining that "the federal government funds more than $30 billion of research at the nation's universities through various departments."

Cato wants to cut $30 billion of research at the nation's universities.

So what does this have to do with the cartoon?

As a result of the DOE policies that you and the Cato Institute endorse, corporations are now filling the higher education cash void they created with corporate- agenda driven money. As a result for example, corporate funding steers agricultural research toward the goals of industry. It discourages independent analyses that might be critical of the many hormones used in industrial meat and poultry production, and genetically engineered crops that are now widely grown.

With the health and safety of our families and our communities hanging in the balance, it's time to demand more transparency and less corporate influence from our research universities. [source]

Now let's try giving each other direct answers like this:

Ok, that went well. We had a successful question and answer volley. Let's see if we can keep it going:

At least you admit that my statements about Cato are "in relation to the thread topic." So, do you agree that the people behind Cato are just as relevant to this thread as the words they write?

 

I think you must have misread what I posted.

I've yet to see any proof of that.

What does the cartoon have to do with welfare spending and poverty?

But I'm not asking questions related to the answers you keep providing as they detract from the issue of poverty and welfare spending.

Going nowhere, you mean?

I've not admitted anything of the kind, and I still feel that the people behind the Cato Institute are relevant only to the degree that the facts they present can be verified as true, which they can.

So if you wish to continue a temper tantrum display over the Cato Institute, its founders, employees, etc. go right ahead but I'll sit it out and wait to see if you ever care to address the issue of poverty and welfare spending.

Suppose this thread had begun by someone posting that they found the same information as provided by Cato directly from a government web site, would you then be griping about government instead of Cato or the Koch bros.? The information does exist on the governments web site, so Cato and the Koch bros. need not be involved at all, and how would you describe the governments agenda by providing such info on their own web site?.

 

Looking at the campus map of State University of New York at Buffalo, I fail to see the buildings mentioned in the cartoon, although I did find a MacDonalds Hall, named after Lillias MacDonald (1885-1961), who was The University of Buffalo's first dean of women from 1922 to 1952.
I didn't bother to look into the other two, assuming you would point out which one is the correct one in lieu of your error.

 

outthere2

I did say any financial lobbying is 'meddling' - but I also asked how much influence that has and how much 'meddling' is done on the other side. You argument seems to suggest that only one side has any effect and that only one side is 'meddling'...and that side always gets their way (buys off the government).

'And there is also the issue of a non-elected private entity directing public policy.'

Isn't that suggesting the Cato institute/Koch brothers are directing public policy?

If you take the e.g given - proposition 23' that was a mandatory referendum, and that came down to the public vote. Yes, 'non-elected private entities' can throw money at the Tea party (and others can throw money at the opposing side) - but you can't say one side is directing public policy and always gets their way.

If you are saying financial political meddling should be outlawed - I'd agree with you. If that is what you think it is a little bizzarre to sit on one side of the fence and suggest the side you don't agree with always gets their way and/or are the only people that are 'meddling'.

Are you saying the side that you do not agree with have a unequal representation? And to use the e.g given are winning the battle to deny climate change? Sorry, but that battle was won by those that accept climate change. The EPA are not denying climate change. So regardless of the hot air blown from such entities as the Cato institute/Koch brothers - that position is unlikely to change. It then boils down to the finer details (such as proposition 23).

'It sounds a like like: "Well, obviously they are going to try and gut the EPA - but we can't show you how"'

'you don't have to dig very deep to know that the EPA is on Cato's hit list. '

I was referring to that particular article. And that particular e.g. Regarding those two particular people.

 

Indie

But as has been already established the news article of the OP was based on a piece of Cato propaganda, you cannot remove that fact.

I mean as has been pointed out they are basically creating the supposed ‘problem’, through spin and misrepresentation a charge you have been unable so far to address let alone refute.

But as pointed out before, I and others are not saying that the ‘issue’ shouldn’t be looked at - BUT I and others for reasons stated many times now think that the Cato contribution is unhelpful – criticisms that yet again you seem unable to address let alone refute.

Hell indie we have been through causation just above can you please address the criticisms raised then?

 

Bal,

But Cato was just repeating government produced propaganda, if you wish to call it that, openly provided by the government but seldom looked at by the people.

 

Bal,

No Cato was interpreting some statistics (and remember in the past you have said to me that you ignore statistics) and then spinning them to produce a biased opinion.

Cato’s interpretation and conclusions have been heavily criticized, criticism you seem unable to address let alone refute.

 

Ignore the statistic, and look only at the fact, the spending which continues to increase. Are not all opinions biased? Yours included.

 

Indie

But which ‘facts’ are you talking about, we have been through this time and again you really need to explain yourself rather than just waving vaguely to a mirage and calling it fact.

Oh and again for what seems like the millionth and one time – yes my views are just opinions but while I’m happy to defend my ideas you seem totally incapable of defending yours.

 

What is the CAUSE of poverty?

Read what I wrote.

"Ignore the statistic, and look only at the fact, the spending which continues to increase. Are not all opinions biased? Yours included. "

 

Policies endorsed by the Cato Institute cause poverty.

 

I am not arguing for "a side." I am arguing against the kind of crony capitalism that results from the policy agenda(s) of the Cato Institute: Cato wants to tear down those government entities that do not serve them.

But why would Cato abstain from attempting to influence the leaner form of government that their policies help to bring about?

Yes. Cato directs in direct proportion to their ability to influence public policy.

I don't remember making that claim.

That's what I'm saying.

In my view, the economic left (which I am) is not really politically represented here in the US (unless you count lip-service). The social left is represented by the Democratic Party; but the Democrats are right-wing on economic issues (not as far right as Republicans though). Since I'm not economically represented, I don't identify with "a side" so you might be beating at a straw man there.

I'm saying that Cato has unequal legislative representation that should be illegal.

It may be premature to conclude the battle being "won;" the battle has not concluded. Cato still denies climate change and they have a strong motive (being heavily invested in energy and all), huge cash reserves and all the influence money can buy.

I'm also not so certian about things not changing with respect to the struggle between the energy producing, environment polluting, profit motive and the environment.

The environment is out$pent.

 

Allow me to rephrase the question I asked of Balbus, "What is the root cause of poverty?".