billvon 2,467
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
kallend 1,673
lawrocket[Reply]Here in the US the lowest quintile isn't seeing any improvement, and hasn't for decades. That's the biggest problem we have to work on. If this continues, expect trouble
BINGO! Not for decades. Probably not since the early 60s. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson started with his Great Society programs. Ostensibly to defeat poverty, provide opportunity, etc. It made things worse. The War on Poverty ended up strengthening poverty. Poverty became a government institution. And all government institutions seeks to expand.
I personally think that if we stoped working on trying to end poverty and instead tried to expand wealth we'd do better. You can't cure poverty by throing money at it. You can't bring a person up by tearing another person down.
So suggest something.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon>I personally think that if we stoped working on trying to end poverty and instead tried
>to expand wealth we'd do better. You can't cure poverty by throing money at it.
That's somewhat nonsensical. [\quote]
I'd use "counterintuitive." But not really. If you subsidize something you get more of it. Poverty has been subsidized.
How many trillions of dollars have been spent the last 50 years on welfare programs? Medicare. Social security. Food stamps. AFDC. Now Obamacare.
Here's the key. That money was seized from people who either would have spent it themselves on what they needed or wanted (good for economy) or saved it/invested it (good for economy). That means manufacturing and services to satisfy demand. And means more employers.Quote
If you agree that the lack of progress with the poor is a problem that has to be solved, saying "so let's stop trying to solve it" is something of an oxymoron.
Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that what we've done to solve it has not only not worked but has made it even worse. For some reason, this is being defended because in politics dogma overrides fact every time.
***There are a lot of potential solutions. Education has a pretty good track record but it is far from a complete solution.
Educational achievement in the US has gone down since the creation of the federal Dept. of Education. It has been operating since only 1980. It provides a lot of funding for underperforming schools.
Quote"Throwing money at it" can help but has a _lot_ of side effects, some of which negate the benefit of getting money to the poor.
Throwing money CAN help. Providing subsistence helps provide subsistence. But what is the long term?
A cigarette CAN help. Many find it soothes the nerves. One cigarette won't hurt you. Fifty years of no single cigarette will hurt you becomes a big problem.
What we've done has failed in its goals. Failed. Proposed solution? End welfare as we know it. Put that money into the hands of the people and let them spend it. Government workers will get laid off. The recession will be steep and severe. I'd compare it to detox. Short term pain. Long term gain.
Too bad politicians have no interest in that.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 2,467
>If you subsidize something you get more of it.
So if you pay your mortgage you get more of it? The only way to reduce it is to stop paying?
Again, that doesn't even make sense.
>How many trillions of dollars have been spent the last 50 years on welfare programs?
>Medicare. Social security. Food stamps. AFDC. Now Obamacare.
Trillions. Now, how many people have been saved from malnutrition, homelessness, disease and death as a result? That's the figure of merit.
>Here's the key. That money was seized from people who either would have spent it
>themselves on what they needed or wanted (good for economy) or saved it/invested it
>(good for economy). That means manufacturing and services to satisfy demand. And
>means more employers.
And instead it went to the poor. Who used it to buy more food, clothing, liquor, beer, toys, furniture, blankets etc. And THAT means more manufacturing to supply that demand, and more jobs in retail catering to that demand, and more employers providing those services.
(Note that "economic stimulus" is, by itself, an insufficient reason to justify the use of government money. But our government does have an obligation to provide for the general welfare of the United States - and something that both benefits the poor and our economy in general is a strong argument for such spending.)
>Educational achievement in the US has gone down since the creation of the federal
>Dept. of Education.
I agree. It's been declining for several reasons - and that's something we have to reverse.
>What we've done has failed in its goals. Failed. Proposed solution? End welfare as we
>know it.
OK. What does that mean? End food stamps? SNAP? Medicare? Medicaid? Social Security? Unemployment?
(I have the strong feeling that you would see even people like RonD going nuts - "stop spending on the poor - but keep my money flowing! I am entitled to it.")
>Put that money into the hands of the people and let them spend it. Government
>workers will get laid off. The recession will be steep and severe. I'd compare it to
>detox. Short term pain. Long term gain.
You claim above that such spending is a drain on the economy. Now you are claiming that ending such spending will cause a recession. I think you have inadvertently demonstrated the problem, which is that there are no easy answers.
So if you pay your mortgage you get more of it? The only way to reduce it is to stop paying?
Again, that doesn't even make sense.
>How many trillions of dollars have been spent the last 50 years on welfare programs?
>Medicare. Social security. Food stamps. AFDC. Now Obamacare.
Trillions. Now, how many people have been saved from malnutrition, homelessness, disease and death as a result? That's the figure of merit.
>Here's the key. That money was seized from people who either would have spent it
>themselves on what they needed or wanted (good for economy) or saved it/invested it
>(good for economy). That means manufacturing and services to satisfy demand. And
>means more employers.
And instead it went to the poor. Who used it to buy more food, clothing, liquor, beer, toys, furniture, blankets etc. And THAT means more manufacturing to supply that demand, and more jobs in retail catering to that demand, and more employers providing those services.
(Note that "economic stimulus" is, by itself, an insufficient reason to justify the use of government money. But our government does have an obligation to provide for the general welfare of the United States - and something that both benefits the poor and our economy in general is a strong argument for such spending.)
>Educational achievement in the US has gone down since the creation of the federal
>Dept. of Education.
I agree. It's been declining for several reasons - and that's something we have to reverse.
>What we've done has failed in its goals. Failed. Proposed solution? End welfare as we
>know it.
OK. What does that mean? End food stamps? SNAP? Medicare? Medicaid? Social Security? Unemployment?
(I have the strong feeling that you would see even people like RonD going nuts - "stop spending on the poor - but keep my money flowing! I am entitled to it.")
>Put that money into the hands of the people and let them spend it. Government
>workers will get laid off. The recession will be steep and severe. I'd compare it to
>detox. Short term pain. Long term gain.
You claim above that such spending is a drain on the economy. Now you are claiming that ending such spending will cause a recession. I think you have inadvertently demonstrated the problem, which is that there are no easy answers.
Quote
And instead it went to the poor. Who used it to buy more food, clothing, liquor, beer, toys, furniture, blankets etc. And THAT means more manufacturing to supply that demand, and more jobs in retail catering to that demand, and more employers providing those services.
And it is inefficient. We've got the government spending other people's money on other people. Then those other people spend other people's money on themselves.
The F-35 is a great example, ain't it? Look at all the people working! A production line involving half the states in the country. That money (your money) is being used for something that we are told by the experts is needed by all of us. The leaders have deemed it necessary to spend you money on something for your benefit. Maybe it's even spending your money on you-for all I know you are working on the program.
It's costs are a couple hundred billion bucks higher than initially budgeted. It's about a decade behind schedule. Of course, this is politically wonderful! Because the Senators from 50% of the states in the nation (think of that number politically) can continue the money coming in AND block efforts to cut funding.
I can say, "at least these people are working for the money" but it's STILL pretty much a pork barrel project. Proxmire was successful in getting funding for NASA slashes because the NASA production facilities were in limited locations. Can't do that with this program. Too widely dispersed.
Just like welfare. As more people receive and fewer people pay, there is a loss of power by the payers.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 2,467
>And it is inefficient. We've got the government spending other people's money on other
>people. Then those other people spend other people's money on themselves.
I agree, which is why that part alone is insufficient justification to spend the money.
>The F-35 is a great example, ain't it?
Yep. Lots of jobs, but what do we _also_ get in addition to the jobs? A fighter that is already inferior to the fighters of other countries.
Now, compare that to the Apollo program. What did we get from that? Some nearly invaluable scientific research, a big leap forward in engineering capabilities and some achievements that rank among mankind's most notable.
That's why you have to figure out the total good done by the program vs the total cost. Saving people from starvation? Scientific achievements? Superior weapons? Good things. Jobs? Also good. Are all those good things worth the investment - and the bad things that always come with the good? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
>people. Then those other people spend other people's money on themselves.
I agree, which is why that part alone is insufficient justification to spend the money.
>The F-35 is a great example, ain't it?
Yep. Lots of jobs, but what do we _also_ get in addition to the jobs? A fighter that is already inferior to the fighters of other countries.
Now, compare that to the Apollo program. What did we get from that? Some nearly invaluable scientific research, a big leap forward in engineering capabilities and some achievements that rank among mankind's most notable.
That's why you have to figure out the total good done by the program vs the total cost. Saving people from starvation? Scientific achievements? Superior weapons? Good things. Jobs? Also good. Are all those good things worth the investment - and the bad things that always come with the good? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
billvon
Now, compare that to the Apollo program. What did we get from that? Some nearly invaluable scientific research, a big leap forward in engineering capabilities and some achievements that rank among mankind's most notable.
I fully agree. I believe that government's role is important in the realm of basic science. There was no profit motive i going to the moon. And the science was spectacular.
Turned out it wasn't enough. "Why throw money at the moon when there are problems here on earth?" The welfare state was as responsible for canceling 18, 19 and 20 as anything. And the science lost is indeed saddening.
Turns put science isn't enough. Achievement lost its importance. Social experiments and the like took precedence. It has been 42 years since we had a human on the moon. I think it's pretty astounding.
Social welfare is the priority. Second priority is corporate welfare. Saving from starvation? Obesity is the health problem with the poor tp
today. Perhaps malnutrition is a better word. The US could make a huge dent in public health problems by eliminating corn subsidies, but that would be eliminating a form of welfare. It would also be a problem for the drug companies who rely on a sick populace that look to the taxpayer for help.
But that would cause problems. Improving public health while cutting spending is anathema to government. It means less control.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 1,673
The biggest waste of the past 13 years has been two wars, off budget, neither of which achieved their strategic objectives, and which between them cost $TRILLIONS and thousands of lives. When the indirect costs are added in, Bush's wars amount to over 20% of the national debt.
We might as well have burned the money for all the good it did.
We might as well have burned the money for all the good it did.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 18
kallend
The biggest waste of the past 13 years has been two wars, off budget, neither of which achieved their strategic objectives, and which between them cost $TRILLIONS and thousands of lives. When the indirect costs are added in, Bush's wars amount to over 20% of the national debt.
We might as well have burned the money for all the good it did.
Actually, the biggest waste has been the 40 year war on poverty
Trillions spent and still the same number in poverty
But then, the war on poverty has nothing to do with helping anyone except those in politics
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
SkyDekker 1,150
rushmc***
The biggest waste of the past 13 years has been two wars, off budget, neither of which achieved their strategic objectives, and which between them cost $TRILLIONS and thousands of lives. When the indirect costs are added in, Bush's wars amount to over 20% of the national debt.
We might as well have burned the money for all the good it did.
Actually, the biggest waste has been the 40 year war on poverty
Trillions spent and still the same number in poverty
But then, the war on poverty has nothing to do with helping anyone except those in politics
Can't make that claim without some level of understanding how many more people would have been in poverty without those programs.
SkyDekker******
The biggest waste of the past 13 years has been two wars, off budget, neither of which achieved their strategic objectives, and which between them cost $TRILLIONS and thousands of lives. When the indirect costs are added in, Bush's wars amount to over 20% of the national debt.
We might as well have burned the money for all the good it did.
Actually, the biggest waste has been the 40 year war on poverty
Trillions spent and still the same number in poverty
But then, the war on poverty has nothing to do with helping anyone except those in politics
Can't make that claim without some level of understanding how many more people would have been in poverty without those programs.
That's like saying that the War on Drugs can't be deemed a failure unless you gauge how many more would be in prison without it. Or how many mkre would be dead in Iraq had Americans not invaded.
The War on Poverty failed. It institutionalized poverty, made more people poor, contributed to the shrinking of the middle class, and the great diminution of the family unit (remember when families used to take care of family members? Now the village does.)
I'd personally welcome a government "War on Prosperity." I'm thinking that it's the only way that a government can ensure it,
My wife is hotter than your wife.
SkyDekker 1,150
QuoteThat's like saying that the War on Drugs can't be deemed a failure
You keep switching between waste and failure. Those aren't the same thing.
You said it was the biggest waste. Then you qualified that by "Trillions spent and still the same number in poverty".
Clearly it wouldn't be the biggest waste if trillions were spent and without that spending 200 million more people would love in poverty.
As far as determining failure, you would have to state the objective for each program first.
(never mind that trillions spent on trying to fight poverty in the US is better money spent than billions invading other countries on false pretenses, IMHO. Which negates your claim of it being the biggest waste)
billvon 2,467
>Trillions spent and still the same number in poverty
But they are alive. And we have made such progress on poverty that today, obesity is one of the biggest health problems among the poor. And that's certainly not ideal - but it's better than the alternative.
But they are alive. And we have made such progress on poverty that today, obesity is one of the biggest health problems among the poor. And that's certainly not ideal - but it's better than the alternative.
rehmwa 2
billvon>obesity is one of the biggest health problems among the poor. And that's certainly not ideal - but it's better than the alternative.
not if you are riding coach on an airline flight
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
[Reply]You keep switching between waste and failure. Those aren't the same thing.
You are correct. I'll try to knock it off.
[Reply]You said it was the biggest waste. Then you qualified that by "Trillions spent and still the same number in poverty".
You are correct. There are more in poverty now. (By the way, I've avoided what "poverty" means in the US. First world problems...)
[Reply]Clearly it wouldn't be the biggest waste if trillions were spent and without that spending 200 million more people would love in poverty.
Correct. 200 million is a big number. Assuming, however, 200 million would be in poverty and 20 trillion dollars has been spent. That's $100k per person. Not chump change.
Would $100k take a person out of poverty? No. It wouldn't. If that $100k is given out over ten years, it's subsistence. It KEEPS a person in poverty.
[Reply]As far as determining failure, you would have to state the objective for each program first.
War on Poverty. Objective: end poverty. Result? Fail.
[Reply](never mind that trillions spent on trying to fight poverty in the US is better money spent than billions invading other countries on false pretenses,
That's like saying gonorrhea is better than chlamidia. My opinion is that neither is a good thing. I don't like to compare bullshit with horseshit. They are both shit.
[Reply]Which negates your claim of it being the biggest waste)
"Biggest" is argumentative. In terms of amounts spent, I'd venture to say that welfare dwarfs war spending over the last 50 years. I'll include Vietnam, cold war, middle east...
When saying "war is worse" then it's not exactly a compelling defense. Point: trillions (TENS of trillions) have been spent on social programs. Take a look at the future of Medicare and Social Security. Federal underfunded liabilities through 2100? Over $125 trillion. Not total liabilities. UNDERFUNDED.
This is due to welfare state. Dependency. By 2030, there will be two payees for every one beneficiary under current laws. It's been suggested that to pay it, income taxes need to increase 20%, payroll taxes need to increase 25%, federal discretionary spending drops 25%, and Social Security and Medicare spending must drop 11%. This to break even. This is JUST Medicare and Social Security.
I call this "recipe for government collapse." No need for war to destroy America as we have known it. Just wait.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
>to expand wealth we'd do better. You can't cure poverty by throing money at it.
That's somewhat nonsensical. If you agree that the lack of progress with the poor is a problem that has to be solved, saying "so let's stop trying to solve it" is something of an oxymoron.
There are a lot of potential solutions. Education has a pretty good track record but it is far from a complete solution. "Throwing money at it" can help but has a _lot_ of side effects, some of which negate the benefit of getting money to the poor.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites