What do you think your ideaology's end game is?

[G.T.]

Please, if you're right wing, don't answer for the left. If you're left wing, don't answer for the right.

Right-wing, Poverty has gone down, as a percentage, from about 23% to 13.2 percent since Welfare. Is nearly 1/4 of the population back into poverty an acceptable trade-off for lowering your taxes? If the welfare state is growing, how come poverty as a percentage has decreased? http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2008/pov08fig03.pdf

Also, Social Security. Since 1959, the poverty rate of persons aged 65 and older has gone from 35% down to 9.7 percent. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2008/pov08fig04.pdf

What do you think the cause/effect of your ideaology would be?

I think the left, for me, needs to address where they think spending will be ok to reign in? Like, firstly, where are your studies that actually show that infrastructure projects and the like are (in 2010) going to create future Deficit reductions? Do you think the deficit can go up forever? What's your "end game" strategy for the deficit? <--that's a specific question. I don't ever see it addressed, really, in specifics. This site's a lot of hot air, , where are the actual people who study these things before forming their opinions?

 

[washamericom]

Please, if you're right wing, don't answer for the left. If you're left wing, don't answer for the right.

Right-wing, Poverty has gone down, as a percentage, from about 23% to 13.2 percent since Welfare. Is nearly 1/4 of the population back into poverty an acceptable trade-off for lowering your taxes? If the welfare state is growing, how come poverty as a percentage has decreased? http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2008/pov08fig03.pdf

Also, Social Security. Since 1959, the poverty rate of persons aged 65 and older has gone from 35% down to 9.7 percent. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2008/pov08fig04.pdf

What do you think the cause/effect of your ideaology would be?

I think the left, for me, needs to address where they think spending will be ok to reign in? Like, firstly, where are your studies that actually show that infrastructure projects and the like are (in 2010) going to create future Deficit reductions? Do you think the deficit can go up forever? What's your "end game" strategy for the deficit? <--that's a specific question. I don't ever see it addressed, really, in specifics. This site's a lot of hot air, , where are the actual people who study these things before forming their opinions?

this is complicated, but i'll say smaller government, everything else will take care of it'self. set commerce at perfect liberty, secure the border, eliminate the irs and the u.n.

 

[blastoff]

To crush the liberal progressive movement.

 

[goldcatt]

I don't follow any one ideology, but I think it's fair to say from a policy perspective none of them have one. That would require thinking beyond the next election.

 

[bodecea]

Always a moving target.

 

[G.T.]

To crush the liberal progressive movement.

It sounds as though you've studied on this subject heavily. Congratulations.

 

[G.T.]

Please, if you're right wing, don't answer for the left. If you're left wing, don't answer for the right.

Right-wing, Poverty has gone down, as a percentage, from about 23% to 13.2 percent since Welfare. Is nearly 1/4 of the population back into poverty an acceptable trade-off for lowering your taxes? If the welfare state is growing, how come poverty as a percentage has decreased? http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2008/pov08fig03.pdf

Also, Social Security. Since 1959, the poverty rate of persons aged 65 and older has gone from 35% down to 9.7 percent. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2008/pov08fig04.pdf

What do you think the cause/effect of your ideaology would be?

I think the left, for me, needs to address where they think spending will be ok to reign in? Like, firstly, where are your studies that actually show that infrastructure projects and the like are (in 2010) going to create future Deficit reductions? Do you think the deficit can go up forever? What's your "end game" strategy for the deficit? <--that's a specific question. I don't ever see it addressed, really, in specifics. This site's a lot of hot air, , where are the actual people who study these things before forming their opinions?

this is complicated, but i'll say smaller government, everything else will take care of it'self. set commerce at perfect liberty, secure the border, eliminate the irs and the u.n.

But everything else doesn't always take care of itself. Saying that is nice, but over 1/3 of 64+ year olds below poverty rate doesn't sound too good to me, and close to 1/4 of the regular population.

 

[kwc57]

To have a small constitutional government that levies the smallest taxes possible and leaves people alone to live their life as they see fit. Obviously my ideaology isn't Democrat or Republican.

 

[G.T.]

I don't follow any one ideology, but I think it's fair to say from a policy perspective none of them have one. That would require thinking beyond the next election.

I think that this is either

A: correct, and everything is as stupid as it seems.

B: we've had the same small group of leaders behind the curtains for years, ala the Wizard of Oz, pulling all the strings and nothing is an accident.

 

[G.T.]

To have a small constitutional government that levies the smallest taxes possible and leaves people alone to live their life as they see fit. Obviously my ideaology isn't Democrat or Republican.

This is easy to say but then playing everything out...... you'd have to weigh the consequences of every act or non act vs. the overall Health of the Union.

 

[goldcatt]

I don't follow any one ideology, but I think it's fair to say from a policy perspective none of them have one. That would require thinking beyond the next election.

I think that this is either

A: correct, and everything is as stupid as it seems.

B: we've had the same small group of leaders behind the curtains for years, ala the Wizard of Oz, pulling all the strings and nothing is an accident.

B is more likely, IMO. But I never discount the possibility of A.

 

[Barb]

Please, if you're right wing, don't answer for the left. If you're left wing, don't answer for the right.

Right-wing, Poverty has gone down, as a percentage, from about 23% to 13.2 percent since Welfare. Is nearly 1/4 of the population back into poverty an acceptable trade-off for lowering your taxes? If the welfare state is growing, how come poverty as a percentage has decreased? http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2008/pov08fig03.pdf

Also, Social Security. Since 1959, the poverty rate of persons aged 65 and older has gone from 35% down to 9.7 percent. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2008/pov08fig04.pdf

What do you think the cause/effect of your ideaology would be?


I think the left, for me, needs to address where they think spending will be ok to reign in? Like, firstly, where are your studies that actually show that infrastructure projects and the like are (in 2010) going to create future Deficit reductions? Do you think the deficit can go up forever? What's your "end game" strategy for the deficit? <--that's a specific question. I don't ever see it addressed, really, in specifics. This site's a lot of hot air, , where are the actual people who study these things before forming their opinions?

Schiller asks in the beginning of chapter 13 which programs would be more beneficial, welfare or work, sustenance or opportunity. I would have to say that both are needed, sustenance to fill the gaps that will always be present, and increased opportunity to make those gaps smaller.

Policy is crafted in between the three theories of “flawed character,” “big brother,” and “restricted opportunity.” Which theory dominated in past efforts to reform welfare are instructive to the thrust and results of those reforms, and here Schiller explained that welfare is “not so much a system,” but a “collage of overlapping activities.” Those activities range from the relatively small amount dedicated to needs tested programs known as welfare, and event based programs, known as social insurances, that make up a much greater percent of transfer programs.

When politicians and policy makers discuss the “welfare state,” especially in budget talks, they include all social spending, including education, which, because of the local nature of most of its funding, mainly benefits the middle classes and the wealthy. Additionally, the other social insurance programs of the welfare state dwarf what little is spent on needs tested programs, and they do not only benefit the poor. They do to a large extent prevent poverty for many, but countless others would not be poor without them.

In public, the numbers that policymakers come up with in budget negotiations implicate poverty-based welfare, as these differences in allocation are not discussed publicly. Not only are the poor blamed for their own condition, they foot the public perception bill for the entire welfare state. The reason why those on needs tested welfare not only receive less but also are blamed more has to do with their youth, their health, and overwhelmingly their race, gender, or marital status.

Schiller explains that while the rules for needs tested welfare in some ways support the “big brother” theory of disincentives regarding family unity or establishment, savings, investment, and employment, it does so imperfectly and incompletely. A larger problem is the conflicting goals of welfare policy. Schiller defines “Income provision,” “work incentives,” and “cost minimization” as “mutually exclusive goals.”

While I agree that they are conflicting, I do not think I agree that they have to be utterly mutually exclusive, but that they are made so by policymakers that do not take a more inclusive approach to the problems, who may only see and seek to “solve” one facet of the problems, and who seek short-term solutions to problems that require long term planning to overcome.

While the goal of “cost minimization” needs to be tempered by reality, lowering costs can be achieved over time by the increased opportunity offered by more and better paying jobs, and support for those making the transition. Another difficulty is the nature of the bureaucracy. A problem is much more likely to be solved if it can be done so within one bureau or department and by one policy measure, but as Schiller explained, that type of simplicity does not lend itself to the complex “quilt” of the welfare state.

Welfare reforms and incentives alone cannot produce the “more and better jobs,” more and better schools,” “more stable families,” and “fewer unwed births” that would help ease, but not eliminate, the problems of poverty.

Welfare and social programs can only alleviate poverty, but improved opportunity for economic activity would do much more. Reforms that mandate work at times of high unemployment make no sense, and employment must provide for a decent standard of living. There are many initiatives government can take to improve the number and pay scale of jobs through “public employment programs,” tax incentives for employers, mandating a higher minimum wage, tax structures such as the EITC that augment low wages, and family friendly policies to improve opportunity for single mothers by offering leave time for events that employers traditionally used to terminate their employment.

Government can also influence the supply of labor by offering training programs targeted to specific gaps in the labor force. As “macroeconomic” policies, these efforts should work in accord with others. Similar to other economic policies, past failures of any employment policy occurred because they were used as “alternatives” rather than “complements.”

Because “poverty is at its worst when unemployment is high,” and training programs that increase or improve the supply of labor do nothing to increase demand, “aggregate demand” policies have the greatest potential to lift many above poverty. Schiller dispatches many of the arguments made about the inflationary nature of high employment by explaining that initial inflation is temporary, and that carefully conducted and responsive policy can avoid long-term inflation without sacrificing high employment.

Employer incentives such as employment tax credits sometimes increased demand for low wage laborers, but did little to improve the availability of higher paid work. In the case of the 1978 summer jobs program, there was no rise in employment numbers, and so the credits became another corporate welfare subsidy, and the program abandoned. Conversely, the EITC increased the supply of labor by supplementing lower wages with direct payments from the government. While these credits are “cash transfers,” they are not “purely welfare,” as they are both means tested and event based.

This reminds me of Wal-Mart, and arguments made about how human resources gives their employees advice about applying for public assistance programs. EITC is similar to this, as while workers are made more economically secure with lower wages, the government is also effectively underwriting corporate profits by lowering the demand for higher wages, and thus business expenses. EITC may not be as politically unpopular as other programs simply because, quiet as its kept, it is also a corporate welfare program.

Schiller asks two questions in his closing chapter: “Why are so many Americans poor?” and “What policies will eliminate their poverty?” The most important answers concerning why people are poor are aggregate demand and discrimination. Policy must address both.

His conclusions to the theory of “flawed character” are that it is both “myopic” and “short sighted,” and that if demographics are to be used to study poverty at all, they should be done so to gauge “risk” rather than to infer “status.” Additionally, macroeconomic policies are highly important to the availability, location, and types of jobs available, and these are conditions no individual person has power to control on their own behalf, and no responsibility for their effects.

There will always be poor people, or people in danger of becoming poor, even in good economic times. People get sick, old, and disabled no matter how the economy performs. Couples also divorce, teenaged daughters fall in love and get pregnant with village idiots, and those idiots have to drop out of school to support their offspring, lowering their chances to succeed as well. Single motherhood is one of the greatest risks of becoming and remaining poor, unemployed, and underemployed. Additionally, it cuts short opportunity to attain higher education or in some cases to finish high school.

Although the theory of “big brother” has its place in rational argument, Discrimination in schools and the labor market makes a much better case for “restricted opportunity.” Discrimination deprives minorities, women, and those in the lower economic classes of the opportunity to develop human capital and to use it in the market, keeping poor people in poverty and adding to the generational pressure of their progeny. Even when the economy improves, discrimination keeps poor and minority people in low paid jobs, and prevents them from advancement.

The most important focus of antipoverty policies must be to increase the number of available jobs, and Government macroeconomic policies would be most useful to that end. While this will not address discrimination, times of high employment reduce economic pressures to discriminate, resentment of preference programs, and may increase simple fair play by the powerful and the privileged. Programs to improve the supply of labor have their place, but only when and where jobs are available, and equal opportunity must exist in conjunction with actual opportunity.

When given the choice, people prefer opportunity rather than maintenance, and this is a fact too few Americans in more advantageous economic positions understand. The misperceptions of what poor people desire for themselves and hope for their children drives policy crafted to address poverty, and with shifting political focus on what those desires are, it is little wonder that they have been inapt to need and inept at meeting even identified need by applying too few resources or too many in the wrong directions.

Bradley R. Schiller, The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination Tenth Ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, NJ, US, 2008

 

[Dick Tuck]

Economics:

A more perfect balance between free enterprise and public protection through regulation.

A more perfect balance between public and private investment.

Social:

A closer realization of our ideals of liberty and justice for all, more equal justice under the law.

A recognition and celebration of our diversity as a nation. A nation where no one is deprived of opportunity, in either the public or private sector because of race, creed, ethnicity, gender, age, or sexual orientation.

A commitment to providing opportunity in education that gives all Americans, rich or poor, a chance to succeed.

 

[JWBooth]

What do you think your ideology's end game is?

Quite simple.
In the words of P.J. O'Rourke in May of 1993
The Liberty Manifesto | P.J. O&#039;Rourke | Cato Institute: Speeches

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-your-ideaologys-end-game-is.html#post2706050

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
So we are here tonight in a kind of anti-matter protest -- an unpolitical undemonstration by deeply uncommitted inactivists. We are part of a huge invisible picket line that circles the White House twenty-four hours a day. We are participants in an enormous non-march on Washington -- millions and millions of Americans not descending upon the nation's capital in order to demand nothing from the United States government. To demand nothing, that is, except the one thing which no government in history has been able to do -- leave us alone.
There are just two rules of governance in a free society:

• Mind your own business.
• Keep your hands to yourself.

 

[Granny]

Please, if you're right wing, don't answer for the left. If you're left wing, don't answer for the right.

Right-wing, Poverty has gone down, as a percentage, from about 23% to 13.2 percent since Welfare. Is nearly 1/4 of the population back into poverty an acceptable trade-off for lowering your taxes? If the welfare state is growing, how come poverty as a percentage has decreased? http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2008/pov08fig03.pdf

Also, Social Security. Since 1959, the poverty rate of persons aged 65 and older has gone from 35% down to 9.7 percent. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2008/pov08fig04.pdf

What do you think the cause/effect of your ideaology would be?

I think the left, for me, needs to address where they think spending will be ok to reign in? Like, firstly, where are your studies that actually show that infrastructure projects and the like are (in 2010) going to create future Deficit reductions? Do you think the deficit can go up forever? What's your "end game" strategy for the deficit? <--that's a specific question. I don't ever see it addressed, really, in specifics. This site's a lot of hot air, , where are the actual people who study these things before forming their opinions?

this is complicated, but i'll say smaller government, everything else will take care of it'self. set commerce at perfect liberty, secure the border, eliminate the irs and the u.n.

I'm very much in agreement with this. We may not be able to get rid of the IRS, but we could sure as hell cut out the monstrosity that is the current IRS Code. Taxes should not be as complicated as they are - also, it might be a great test case for putting the "Paperwork Reduction Act" to real use. The UN should be disbanded altogether - it's a "poster child" for worldwide political corruption and proof of man being unable to rule himself. Failing that, the US should pull out of the UN. Much smaller government is a must, securing our borders and deporting everybody (regardless of race, color or creed) who should not be here in the first place. It would also give some government employees an opportunity to actually do some work. Social Security (and I receive Social Security) should be phased out - there are better ways to plan for retirement. Welfare should be phased out - it does absolutely nothing to encourage people to become educated, self-reliant or anything else. Welfare recipients are in fact enslaved because they have to sell their souls to the government - which is really where welfare was intended to keep them. The existence of Freddie/Fanny should be killed immediately - it's a total failure. There's a whole laundry list of things that should be done to take America back to being a free country.

 

[G.T.]

Thanks for the post, Barb! That's a lot to take-in and cross reference. I will do the leg-work.

 

[Barb]

I don't follow any one ideology, but I think it's fair to say from a policy perspective none of them have one. That would require thinking beyond the next election.

I think that this is either

A: correct, and everything is as stupid as it seems.

B: we've had the same small group of leaders behind the curtains for years, ala the Wizard of Oz, pulling all the strings and nothing is an accident.

I pick b, sort of.

We have had the same small group in control, and they are utterly divorced from the reality of the people they craft policy to address.

 

[Barb]

Thanks for the post, Barb! That's a lot to take-in and cross reference. I will do the leg-work.

I'm sorry it was so long, but you asked for someone who studied it. That one paper I took it from is almost 30 pages, and only covers the second half of the book. It really is too complicated for a short post, and my long (winded ) one only scratches the surface.

 

[Barb]

What do you think your ideology's end game is?

Quite simple.
In the words of P.J. O'Rourke in May of 1993
The Liberty Manifesto | P.J. O'Rourke | Cato Institute: Speeches

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-your-ideaologys-end-game-is.html#post2706050

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
So we are here tonight in a kind of anti-matter protest -- an unpolitical undemonstration by deeply uncommitted inactivists. We are part of a huge invisible picket line that circles the White House twenty-four hours a day. We are participants in an enormous non-march on Washington -- millions and millions of Americans not descending upon the nation's capital in order to demand nothing from the United States government. To demand nothing, that is, except the one thing which no government in history has been able to do -- leave us alone.
There are just two rules of governance in a free society:

• Mind your own business.
• Keep your hands to yourself.

Honestly, I love P.J., he has a way of communicating that is very endearing, and he bases his conclusions on solid sociopolitical knowledge, even if one doesn't agree with his conclusions. Clearly, I don't, but he is the shit anyway.