Deficit Denial?

[eflatminor]

US Poverty rate in 2011 15.1 percent and entitlements have increased big time since 1991

Correct. It would appear the more we spend on entitlements, the worse the rate of poverty gets. Unfortunately, for some, it's not about actual results but about what feels right.

Except you have that backward.

Answer us this: If more entitlement spending means a lower rate of poverty, how is that the rate of poverty is higher today than when we began spending on entitlements around 1970?

You keep ducking the obvious:
1) The poverty rate was headed down before the entitlement spending
2) Once we started entitlement spending, the downward trend ceased and leveled off
3) Since spending TRILLIONS over the last 43 years, the rate of poverty is up, over 2%.

How do you square that with your claim that I "have it backward"?

 

[eflatminor]

Over time, the majority have wanted many things that later generations realized were downright immoral. I suggest you'll be on the wrong side of history.

Maybe you should try to spell out what you think is "immoral" about helping your countrymen.

Forcing charity with the threat of incarceration is immoral, no matter how just you think the cause. For example, if I rob you of your wallet, but give your money to a homeless guy, I've still stolen from you. Theft is immoral.

Then move to some country where you arnt subjected to this tyranny.

I could say the same thing to you. But then, I try not to make ridiculous over-the-top statements that in no way contribute to the conversation at hand.

Good luck with that.

Fraud on wallstreet caused the crash,

Yes, cronyism on Wall Street, which requires politicians willing to meddling in markets and to pass laws that benefit their big businesses, caused an economic slump. No doubt. So, do you vote for those same politicians or the few that stand against central planning?

Remind us, Wall Street is in Chuck Schumer's (D) district, isn't it?

not people being given the medical help they need or offering them the opportunity to pay for a home.

Again, you're free to start a charity for those that need medical help. If you're actually saying people have a right to own a home (!), then by all means, start a charity for that too.

Otherwise, you're epitomizing the old saying about progressive policy: Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

Pass...

 

[ReallyMeow]

If more entitlement spending means a lower rate of poverty, how is that the rate of poverty is higher today than when we began spending on entitlements around 1970?

Why should we ignore the great depression? No cherry picking.

The poverty rate was headed down before the entitlement spending

Since spending TRILLIONS over the last 43 years, the rate of poverty is up, over 2%.
How do you square that with your claim that I "have it backward"?

This is as absurd as declaring that because you get wet when it rains, you getting wet will cause it to rain. Or that fire extinguishers caused your belongings to become singed. Republicans crashed the economy and the boomers are retiring for no longer being able to work, despite being robbed of their retirements; in response to this, "entitlements" have shot up.

Once we started entitlement spending, the downward trend ceased and leveled off

Again, new deal, look it up. The prosperity you are referring to is largely on account of the rest of the industrialized world was reduced to rubble after ww2. Keep in mind that we were able to save the world and ourselves with it with big govt spending and a 94% tax rate to back it (on the equivalent of a million dollars), let that roll around in your mouth a little before you start on about how 35% is too high.

Over time, the majority have wanted many things that later generations realized were downright immoral. I suggest you'll be on the wrong side of history.

Maybe you should try to spell out what you think is "immoral" about helping your countrymen.

Forcing charity with the threat of incarceration is immoral, no matter how just you think the cause. For example, if I rob you of your wallet, but give your money to a homeless guy, I've still stolen from you. Theft is immoral.

You have a choice; live in a country where people are obligated to help eachother, or live in one where you arnt. You may think that you were born in a log cabin you made with your own two hands, but you're simply taking everything your country does for you for granted.

"ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country." -JFK

Fraud on wallstreet caused the crash

Yes, cronyism on Wall Street, which requires politicians willing to meddling in markets and to pass laws that benefit their big businesses, caused an economic slump. No doubt. So, do you vote for those same politicians or the few that stand against central planning?

No, outright fraud. all that politicians had to do was roll back regulation and human nature took over. You going to keep stepping on the same rake or learn to watch where you step; some things need regulation.

Remind us, Wall Street is in Chuck Schumer's (D) district, isn't it?

Oh boy, here comes a conspiracy theory.

not people being given the medical help they need or offering them the opportunity to pay for a home.

Again, you're free to start a charity for those that need medical help.

Im not sure why you hate Americans so much that you want to watch them die in front of hospitals for lack of medical care: get help.

If you're actually saying people have a right to own a home (!), then by all means, start a charity for that too.
Otherwise, you're epitomizing the old saying about progressive policy: Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
Pass...

The housing market crash was not caused by homes being "given out". The only thing remotely similar to that is that bush started a program where the govt would cover part of the down payment or closing costs.

Here is how the market crashed:
The Subprime Mortgage Primer

 

[eflatminor]

If more entitlement spending means a lower rate of poverty, how is that the rate of poverty is higher today than when we began spending on entitlements around 1970?

Why should we ignore the great depression? No cherry picking.

The poverty rate was headed down before the entitlement spending

This is as absurd as declaring that because you get wet when it rains, you getting wet will cause it to rain. Or that fire extinguishers caused your belongings to become singed. Republicans crashed the economy and the boomers are retiring for no longer being able to work, despite being robbed of their retirements; in response to this, "entitlements" have shot up.

Again, new deal, look it up. The prosperity you are referring to is largely on account of the rest of the industrialized world was reduced to rubble after ww2. Keep in mind that we were able to save the world and ourselves with it with big govt spending and a 94% tax rate to back it (on the equivalent of a million dollars), let that roll around in your mouth a little before you start on about how 35% is too high.



You have a choice; live in a country where people are obligated to help eachother, or live in one where you arnt. You may think that you were born in a log cabin you made with your own two hands, but you're simply taking everything your country does for you for granted.

"ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country." -JFK



No, outright fraud. all that politicians had to do was roll back regulation and human nature took over. You going to keep stepping on the same rake or learn to watch where you step; some things need regulation.



Oh boy, here comes a conspiracy theory.

Again, you're free to start a charity for those that need medical help.

Im not sure why you hate Americans so much that you want to watch them die in front of hospitals for lack of medical care: get help.

If you're actually saying people have a right to own a home (!), then by all means, start a charity for that too.
Otherwise, you're epitomizing the old saying about progressive policy: Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
Pass...

The housing market crash was not caused by homes being "given out". The only thing remotely similar to that is that bush started a program where the govt would cover part of the down payment or closing costs.

Here is how the market crashed:
The Subprime Mortgage Primer

You keep harping on about the new deal while IGNORING the period of heavy entitlement spending (1970-today), during which poverty has increased. But hey, you want to go back to the level of entitlement spending in the 1930s? Deal!

And when you talk about "obligations", you're really taking about force; the involuntary confiscation of wealth from working people. We used to have a term for when government forced some people to labor on the behalf of others. But hey, if it's for a good cause, what's a little theft between friends, eh?

I also love just how badly you've misinterpreted JFK's quote. Only a true nanny stater would think he was referring to involuntary confiscation. Hint: He was not. He was talking about VOLUNTARY actions for the good of one's country. Exactly the opposite of what the central planners brought us with the so called 'great society'...forced charity with ever worsening results to the rate of poverty. Bravo...

Your other comments are so biased and lacking of historical evidence they're laughable.

Collectivism is evil. Theft is immoral. You do NOT know what's best for everyone else and history proves you're doing more harm than good.

But again, if it feels right...

 

[ReallyMeow]

So you're saying that you're a parasite, a feral animal, if you were to succeed in procreating, you would certainly abandon your wife and child. I get it, no need to drive the point home, you have made your lack of character quite clear. You are not morally superior for being a freeloading, irresponsible deadbeat. The govt does things for you, those things cost money, which you are obligated to assist in covering the burden for. You get to live in the land of opportunity, opportunity is not the default state of the world, it is provided through meticulous govt intervention.

What you are ignoring in the decay of America over the last few decades is the rights systematic efforts to destroy the middle class. Lower taxes on the rich paid for with tax and fee hikes on the working class/"everyone" is class warfare. The restrictions put on peoples ability unionize is class warfare. The outright fraud we saw in the housing crash where the working class had their retirements outright stolen is class warfare. The discrepancy in treatment received by those with money and those without is class warfare. edit, lets not forget about the postal service under siege by congresses insane demands that the retirement funding must be met for the next 75 years. or how the cost of education is ten times higher than it was in the 50's with inflation accounted for.

Survival is predicated upon acting as a group, thats why we even have nations, because all of the places that are just alot of people who happen to live together but with no obligation to each other get conquered. The age of nations is not over.

 

[Underhill]

Correct. It would appear the more we spend on entitlements, the worse the rate of poverty gets. Unfortunately, for some, it's not about actual results but about what feels right.

Except you have that backward.

Answer us this: If more entitlement spending means a lower rate of poverty, how is that the rate of poverty is higher today than when we began spending on entitlements around 1970?

You keep ducking the obvious:
1) The poverty rate was headed down before the entitlement spending
2) Once we started entitlement spending, the downward trend ceased and leveled off
3) Since spending TRILLIONS over the last 43 years, the rate of poverty is up, over 2%.

How do you square that with your claim that I "have it backward"?

I just gave the numbers. Your claim isn't accurate. Even using the latest numbers of 15.1% the rate is lower than it was in 1960. Using 1970 as a start date is inaccurate as the programs passed congress in 1965.

1960 Poverty Rate - 21%

1991 Poverty Rate - 11.7%

And 2012, even in the midst of the worst recession in recent history it is still 15.1%.

From 1960-1968 we increased spending on social services by 3000%. 30X.

So I have no doubt your numbers from 1970 - present show it leveling off. That was after the programs started.

 

[editec]

Are you concerned about never-ending trillion dollar deficits? If so, what can or should be done about them? Given our demographic trends, the current debates about taxes and spending reforms are almost laughably inadequate to address the enormity of our impending liabilities. In coming years, we may look back at a deficit of only a trillion dollars with nostalgic fondness.

So what are we to do, if anything? It seems to me that economic growth (jobs) can only take us so far, and rest will result in a massive (30-50%) reduction in our purchasing power. Any thoughts?

Yes I have a radical POV about the national debt.

These DEBTS are AS FAKE AS THE MONEY that the DEBT that is counted in.

Either the Banksters will be forced to take enormous haircuts, or their AUSTERITY plans are going to force people to topple their governments all over the world.

Social disintegration is coming to a nation near you, kiddies.

Be prepared for things to fall apart rather quickly when this entirely CONTRIVED DEBT situation reaches its tipping point.

What that tipping point will be, I cannot say, but the first symptom of it will manifest in the TOO BIG TO FAIL banks, first.

 

[eflatminor]

Except you have that backward.

Answer us this: If more entitlement spending means a lower rate of poverty, how is that the rate of poverty is higher today than when we began spending on entitlements around 1970?

You keep ducking the obvious:
1) The poverty rate was headed down before the entitlement spending
2) Once we started entitlement spending, the downward trend ceased and leveled off
3) Since spending TRILLIONS over the last 43 years, the rate of poverty is up, over 2%.

How do you square that with your claim that I "have it backward"?

I just gave the numbers. Your claim isn't accurate. Even using the latest numbers of 15.1% the rate is lower than it was in 1960. Using 1970 as a start date is inaccurate as the programs passed congress in 1965.

1960 Poverty Rate - 21%

1991 Poverty Rate - 11.7%

And 2012, even in the midst of the worst recession in recent history it is still 15.1%.

From 1960-1968 we increased spending on social services by 3000%. 30X.

So I have no doubt your numbers from 1970 - present show it leveling off. That was after the programs started.

Of course, the MOST dis-ingeniousness way possible to look at it would be to take a starting year BEFORE we began entitlement spending, say 1960, and an ending year during a recession, say 1991. Wow, how transparently dishonest. You get to live with than kind of deception. Good luck with that.

But fine, let's take 1964/5 as the starting point, when the first 'great society' laws were passed (however minuscule the funding). You still can't show anything but a leveling off of the poverty rate DESPITE the trillions spent. You still can't deny that poverty rates where headed down in the prior decades. All you have is that continued decline from 1965 until 1969, before the rates leveled off as entitlement spending skyrocketed. And you call that a victory? Pathetic!

By your logic, we should go back to the level of entitlement spending the produced the halcyon days of 1965 to 1970. Deal!

Look, the bottom line is you cannot seem to grasp that there might be an alternative to forced charity through government central planning. Why is it so impossible for you to think that real charity would have seen to the needs of the truly needy, without making them depending on the dole?

 

[eflatminor]

So you're saying that you're a parasite, a feral animal...

 

[Underhill]

Of course, the MOST dis-ingeniousness way possible to look at it would be to take a starting year BEFORE we began entitlement spending, say 1960, and an ending year during a recession, say 1991. Wow, how transparently dishonest. You get to live with than kind of deception. Good luck with that.

So better to start after the entitlements started and use the depths of recession as your control?

But fine, let's take 1964/5 as the starting point, when the first 'great society' laws were passed (however minuscule the funding). You still can't show anything but a leveling off of the poverty rate DESPITE the trillions spent. You still can't deny that poverty rates where headed down in the prior decades. All you have is that continued decline from 1965 until 1969, before the rates leveled off as entitlement spending skyrocketed. And you call that a victory? Pathetic!

Entitlements did not start in 1965. That is simply when the largest changes took place. But the social security act was in 1935. Unemployment compensation and the AFDC also started around the same time. But they certainly had an impact as time went on and their funding increased.

So it makes perfect sense that poverty was on the decline from 1935-1960.

By your logic, we should go back to the level of entitlement spending the produced the halcyon days of 1965 to 1970. Deal!

We have other issues that have caused things to stagnate. The fall of manufacturing and the rise of the service economy in this country being top of my list. But it would have to be a long list.

It's foolish to take one fact and try to blame the entirety of our countries issues on that one thing.

Look, the bottom line is you cannot seem to grasp that there might be an alternative to forced charity through government central planning.

Of course there are alternatives. They just do a lousy job of it. They are always underfunded. The intent is good, but when giving is optional, many, if not most, opt out.

Why is it so impossible for you to think that real charity would have seen to the needs of the truly needy, without making them depending on the dole?

Who on earth thinks any different? Do you honestly believe that I think we should create a society of welfare dependent people? Do you think anyone does? That's complete nonsense.

But you made a fraudulent claim. I have shown it as such.

This revisionist history you seem intent on spouting is garbage.

If you don't want to pay for social services there are plenty of places around the globe which can accommodate you. I would suggest visiting before you move to one of them.

 

[eflatminor]

Of course, the MOST dis-ingeniousness way possible to look at it would be to take a starting year BEFORE we began entitlement spending, say 1960, and an ending year during a recession, say 1991. Wow, how transparently dishonest. You get to live with than kind of deception. Good luck with that.

So better to start after the entitlements started and use the depths of recession as your control?

Nope, just looking at the long term trend. Before any significant entitlement spending, poverty was headed down. As the spending took off, no more downward trend, and in fact, poverty increased. Slice and dice all you like, that's a fact.

But fine, let's take 1964/5 as the starting point, when the first 'great society' laws were passed (however minuscule the funding). You still can't show anything but a leveling off of the poverty rate DESPITE the trillions spent. You still can't deny that poverty rates where headed down in the prior decades. All you have is that continued decline from 1965 until 1969, before the rates leveled off as entitlement spending skyrocketed. And you call that a victory? Pathetic!

Entitlements did not start in 1965. That is simply when the largest changes took place. But the social security act was in 1935. Unemployment compensation and the AFDC also started around the same time. But they certainly had an impact as time went on and their funding increased.

So it makes perfect sense that poverty was on the decline from 1935-1960.

Great, let's go back that level of entitlement spending.

We have other issues that have caused things to stagnate. The fall of manufacturing and the rise of the service economy in this country being top of my list. But it would have to be a long list.

It's foolish to take one fact and try to blame the entirety of our countries issues on that one thing.

So, your central planners screwed with manufacturing in America, so now those same guys should be given the right to redistribute wealth? Pass.

Look, the bottom line is you cannot seem to grasp that there might be an alternative to forced charity through government central planning.

Of course there are alternatives. They just do a lousy job of it. They are always underfunded. The intent is good, but when giving is optional, many, if not most, opt out.

Not when the people aren't forcibly taxed for charity. Of course, we all remember the people starving in the streets in the early 60s...

Why is it so impossible for you to think that real charity would have seen to the needs of the truly needy, without making them depending on the dole?

Who on earth thinks any different? Do you honestly believe that I think we should create a society of welfare dependent people? That's the result of the policies you advocate. Do you think anyone does? That's complete nonsense.

But you made a fraudulent claim. I have shown it as such. Not even close.

This revisionist history you seem intent on spouting is garbage. Becasue you say so?

If you don't want to pay for social services there are plenty of places around the globe which can accommodate you. I would suggest visiting before you move to one of them.

If you want to live in a country that supports theft and economic slavery, feel free to move. See how silly that was?

Ah well, maybe if take another 50 years an spend even more trillions of dollars, we can begin to see the decrease in poverty rates we saw before the so called 'great society'. Maybe not.

 

[Underhill]

Nope, just looking at the long term trend. Before any significant entitlement spending, poverty was headed down. As the spending took off, no more downward trend, and in fact, poverty increased. Slice and dice all you like, that's a fact.

Except that isn't true. And I showed how it isn't true.

Great, let's go back that level of entitlement spending.

Brilliant idea.

So, your central planners screwed with manufacturing in America, so now those same guys should be given the right to redistribute wealth? Pass.

Um, no. It was the relaxing of trade barriers that sent manufacturing overseas. You know, deregulation.

Becasue you say so?

No, because I have shown my evidence. You have failed to do so.

If you want to live in a country that supports theft and economic slavery, feel free to move. See how silly that was?

I'm not the one complaining. I like our social programs in this country. They could certainly use some tweaking, but by and large, they work.

Ah well, maybe if take another 50 years an spend even more trillions of dollars, we can begin to see the decrease in poverty rates we saw before the so called 'great society'. Maybe not.

The decrease to 21% from 15.1%? You really need to work on your math skills.

 

[eflatminor]

Nope, just looking at the long term trend. Before any significant entitlement spending, poverty was headed down. As the spending took off, no more downward trend, and in fact, poverty increased. Slice and dice all you like, that's a fact.

Except that isn't true. And I showed how it isn't true.

Great, let's go back that level of entitlement spending.

Brilliant idea.



Um, no. It was the relaxing of trade barriers that sent manufacturing overseas. You know, deregulation.



No, because I have shown my evidence. You have failed to do so.

If you want to live in a country that supports theft and economic slavery, feel free to move. See how silly that was?

I'm not the one complaining. I like our social programs in this country. They could certainly use some tweaking, but by and large, they work.

Ah well, maybe if take another 50 years an spend even more trillions of dollars, we can begin to see the decrease in poverty rates we saw before the so called 'great society'. Maybe not.

The decrease to 21% from 15.1%? You really need to work on your math skills.

You go with that. Rational people can see the long term decline in poverty before the so called great society and the increase in poverty afterwards.

But hey, maybe just a few more trillion will fix it...

 

[Underhill]

You go with that. Rational people can see the long term decline in poverty before the so called great society and the increase in poverty afterwards.

But hey, maybe just a few more trillion will fix it...

1935 we enact social security, AFDC and unemployment. We see decreases in poverty starting marginally and increasing over time until 1965 when we dramatically increase spending.

The rate drops another 5% in 5 years.

Since then our manufacturing sector has tanked, our work force has almost doubled (with 90% of women in the workplace), and wages have been stagnant.

But poverty has hovered around 11% (+/-4% variations for recessions and boom cycles).

You have claimed that social services hurt our poverty rate. You were wrong.

It's that simple.

You could make the argument that they haven't been cost effective. You might even have a point. But you were wrong to claim it made the situation worse.

 

[eflatminor]

You could make the argument that they haven't been cost effective.

History's biggest understatement.

 

[ReallyMeow]

So the argument goes, because nothing is perfect all effort is futile, its the thinking of the sheltered and the lazy.

 

[Underhill]

So the argument goes, because nothing is perfect all effort is futile, its the thinking of the sheltered and the lazy.

Agreed.

And, like anything, there is only so much you can do. The law of diminishing returns takes hold.

This is true of all spending. The military and education are other big examples. Just throwing more money at them isn't the solution beyond a certain point.

The big question has always been, where is that sweet spot? Is 10% poverty acceptable? Or a 20% high school drop out rate? Do we need our military in a position to take on Korea? Or China? Or all comers?

It would be nice to see a cost benefit analysis of all of these programs. Difficult perhaps, but these programs have all been around long enough, at different funding levels... It should be possible.

 

[ReallyMeow]

education is a hard target to mark, but when it comes to basics there is no excuse. like having reasonable class sizes (~15 as opposed to ~30) or paying a competitive salary so that any teacher who doesnt want to retire to poverty has to escape their profession, and the only ones who remain are those that cant.

 

[Underhill]

education is a hard target to mark, but when it comes to basics there is no excuse. like having reasonable class sizes (~15 as opposed to ~30) or paying a competitive salary so that any teacher who doesnt want to retire to poverty has to escape their profession, and the only ones who remain are those that cant.

Actually I think in some ways education is easier to quantify. We can see the results of any change in scores. (on the macro level anyway).

But you are right. There are fundamentals that are beyond question.

 

[eflatminor]

So the argument goes, because nothing is perfect all effort is futile, its the thinking of the sheltered and the lazy.

Nope. All effort is not futile. What is futile is the lingering hope that central planners will produce superior results to free people making voluntary choices in free markets. It's the thinking of the arrogant and the envious.

When you spend trillions over decades and can't show appreciable improvement, that's not an imperfect effort, it's a unmitigated disaster.