Failure of the Welfare State

[starcraftzzz]

There is so much room to start

Let's see,,,,,
-We spend about 13 times the amount today on welfare then in the 1960's
-Papa Obama increased Federal Spending on anti-poverty programs 41% (668 billion)
combined with state/local expenditures to 284 billion
Why that is more than even defense spending

-Under Papa Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than Bush spent on the war in Iraq during his entire presidency. Congressional Research Service, the cost of the Iraq war through the end of the Bush was around $622 billion. By contrast, annual federal and state means-tested welfare spending will reach $888 billion in FY 2010. Federal welfare spending alone will equal $697 billion in that year.


--------------------------------------

Sure, No room to cut anything....

Is is sad how soon the Left wanted to "throw in the towel" on the Iraq war
after a few years and call it a failure

yet

Almost 50 years on the Great Society's "war on poverty" has failed
but they still won't "throw in the towel"

It almost seems like the Left and the Democrats have a vested interest
in keeping the status quo

funny how that works

Once again no answer.

Your claim is that cutting poverty programs will reduce poverty. Now make some semblance of a case for it.

Again

in your opinion but since you think
Papa Obama is doing a good job
it means little

Unlike you. I'm just stating facts like
that before the Great Society

Blacks had a lower divorce rate and lower illegitimate rate than whites


Truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is their worst enemy

When its illegal to get a divorce its going to be hard to get a divorce

 

[Neotrotsky]

In the 1950's
More Difficult - sure
illegal- doubtful

But all parties are acting under the same parameters
and the large divergence between the groups still took place and exists today

 

[francoHFW]

Actually, this is the failure of Reaganism....obviously....

 

[Clementine]

It is the oldest lesson in the human experience. If you teach someone to do something for themselves then you engender self-reliance. If you give them everything that they need, you breed reliance and dependency. The left only has to look to the American Indians and the reservations to see what their entitlement mind set brings. But no, let's continue to 'give' and hope for a different outcome.

The south side of Chicago is a war zone. Hundreds of millions of dollars has done nothing to stem the tide of poverty, out-of-wedlock births and crime. Yet, we hear the same things today we have heard since LBJ... We must provide for those who do not have. What we must do is to provide a means to work your way out of the cycle of poverty... if you do not take the way out, then you're on your own.

Another EXCELLENT thread by Political Chic!

If the real goal of the libs was to get people out of poverty, it would have happened. We could have achieved this for the majority years ago. However, their goal is to keep people dependent and keep the votes coming. People don't bite the hand that feeds them. Studies have shown that the more self-sufficient and prosperous people become, the more conservative they become. Funny how people take pride in what they earn and have a dislike for having their earnings confiscated and given to those who don't earn it.

There are disabled and elderly people who simply cannot fend for themselves and no one has ever wanted to deny them anything. It is just disgusting to see these young, able bodied people scamming to see what they can get for nothing. The left has encouraged sloth and bad decisions by rewarding people for quitting school, getting into trouble, doing drugs and having babies with no means to support them. They know they don't need to practice self discipline or work hard to get by because it will be handed to them regardless.

Where is the incentive to leave welfare when it would be difficult to make enough money to cover what they receive on welfare.

 

[francoHFW]

Total Pubcrappe. Of course in a PUB Depression, more people need assistance. So dumb. Time to educate, train, and have some GD jobs bills. Pubs are a disgrace, the dupes silly.

 

[p kirkes]

Todays news reports that world wide joblessness is alarming and not going to get better.

With the pressure on resources, such as food, expertise, and housing, what is the human race's near term future (5-10 yrs) going to look like, survival of the fittest?

America is caught up in the welfare/debt trap as more citizens falling off the edge between self sufficiency and dependency.

Implements of war are the best sellers, doesn't seem to be a world wide shortage of explosives or AK-47's, (even my neighbors and co-workers have them).

There seems to be more unsolvable problems for human survival, witness Africa, Central and South America, Indian subcontinent, even Europe than not. Far east is coping, I think. Don't read much about hunger in China, Indo-china, Japan, Korea, and Malaysia. Maybe it doesn't make the news as much. North Korea is a self inflicted wound, Philippines are hungry, but don't really know why.

America wastes at lot from my observation. Driving in my geographical area which has both manufacturing and farming and energy sectors isn't bad, no pools of people standing around doing nothing. Plenty of Latinos working, many old people living longer but harsh conditions.

My states unemployment rate is less than 7%.

Could be a lot better but welfare for single mothers is the better option, don't like it but there it is. Priced day care and availability lately, nearly $300 for two, per week, and that means you have to have transportation and insurance and the waiting list is years long. (we can take your kids, Mrs. Smith but they will be 16).

I see 85+ year old great grandmothers baby sitting toddlers and new-Born's. But unemployed parents always seem to have cigarettes and beer.

It's late, sorry for the rant, just frustrated with humankind.

I know your going to ask what am I doing to help......well, I deliver food, volunteer, to the elderly shut-in's, work with the Sheriff's department in neighborhood security patrols, this really has cut down on burglaries, and work with my church to help with aid to families that have suffered natural disasters (fire, tornado s's) and/or financial loss (unemployment).

 

[Taylee]

With the leftist elitists, it's not about hoping for a different outcome. They know exactly what they've done and what they're still doing.

It's all about power. Getting it and retaining it by buying the entitlement-minded dependents' votes every election. And it's worked splendidly so far. Let's hope it doesn't work this time....or we're toast as a free nation.

It is the oldest lesson in the human experience. If you teach someone to do something for themselves then you engender self-reliance. If you give them everything that they need, you breed reliance and dependency. The left only has to look to the American Indians and the reservations to see what their entitlement mind set brings. But no, let's continue to 'give' and hope for a different outcome.

The south side of Chicago is a war zone. Hundreds of millions of dollars has done nothing to stem the tide of poverty, out-of-wedlock births and crime. Yet, we hear the same things today we have heard since LBJ... We must provide for those who do not have. What we must do is to provide a means to work your way out of the cycle of poverty... if you do not take the way out, then you're on your own.

Another EXCELLENT thread by Political Chic!

 

[Taylee]

Exactly!

Progressives keep the poor poor so they can throw them a bone and brainwash them to believe that they're doing everything possible to help them - and they do this in exchange for their vote...

Every issue progressives fight for is manufactured by progressives and they manufacture these issues because its job security for them.

Would there even be a democrat party if it wasn't for "poverty" and "racism??" hell no - so what incentive is it for them to put an end to poverty and racism???

Democrats are the ones who create and continue these problems just so they can swoop in and pretend to be the loving and caring hero...

Meanwhile those who just want to live normal lives are degraded by progressives because we have a few bucks in our pocket and work hard for it - and we want to be left alone

 

[Taylee]

Try this....

Link

Can you provide stats to back your claims about crime, birthrates and poverty?

 

[Taylee]

Ok...I'll ask. And who, exactly, is "some of us"?

Yeah, it's the nerve that gets annoyed when butt-kissers justify their butt-kissing.

Oooo....gettin' nasty.

No greater proof of the inadequacy of your worldview is necessary.

Nope, just pointing out the obvious.

The status quo wouldn't exist without people like you licking the boots...

There really are more of us than them, it's only a problem when some of us side with them.

 

[Bfgrn]

Actually you would have to prove me false
Sorry you are making the accusation

But honestly, you don't' t have much of a case here
I will help but this is the last handout I am giving to you

Considering that the liberal "holy grail" of Census stats
shows Poverty rate around 22 percent in 1959 and falling to about 19 percent
in 1964, before the Great Society, you don't have much of a case

So over that 4 year period they fell around .75 percent per year
So from period in question 8 percent over a 10 year period is quite reasonable
More so, when you consider the early 60 actually had a recession so the drop in
the poverty rate we could assume to be even less than in a growth economy.

What are you go to do, argue - that poverty was even higher
-that doesn't help you

Are you going to argue that it was lower and somehow popped up to
22 percent in 1959
- considering that the 50's was one of the greatest growth periods for the US
that isn't gong to work

Perhaps, the best you could is argue it stayed constant
but even that falls short
- because the poverty rate still fell from 22 percent to around 15 in 1964
without the Great Society
----------------------------

Really, if you are looking for some "Achilles heel"
keep looking. You are barking up the wrong tree

Let's recap:

You made a statement using absolute figures that you tried to pass off as factual: "From 1950 to 1960 poverty fell from 30% to 22%-"

When in reality you have no proof.

When I asked for proof, instead of admitting you were merely speculating and emoting, you decided to attack: "Can't you do your own work
Liberals are so lazy"

So NOW that you have been caught lying, you are trying to justify and rationalize you lies and emotional outbursts.

It gets worse for you:

Although the government began tracking the percentage of the population living in poverty in 1959, for the 18-64 and 65 and over age groups, no formal data exists between the years 1959-1966.


Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Yes let us recap
Obviously you are a slow reader
Perhaps you should have someone read it to you

• Actually you would have to prove me false
• Sorry you are making the accusation
  
• But honestly, you don't' t have much of a case here
• I will help but this is the last handout I am giving to you
  
• Considering that the liberal "holy grail" of Census stats
• shows Poverty rate around 22 percent in 1959 and falling to about 19 percent
• in 1964, before the Great Society, you don't have much of a case
  
• So over that 4 year period they fell around .75 percent per year
• So from period in question 8 percent over a 10 year period is quite reasonable
• More so, when you consider the early 60 actually had a recession so the drop in
• the poverty rate we could assume to be even less than in a growth economy.
  
• What are you go to do, argue - that poverty was even higher
• -that doesn't help you
  
• Are you going to argue that it was lower and somehow popped up to
• 22 percent in 1959
• - considering that the 50's was one of the greatest growth periods for the US
• that isn't gong to work
  
• Perhaps, the best you could is argue it stayed constant
• but even that falls short
• - because the poverty rate still fell from 22 percent to around 19 in 1964
• without the Great Society
• ----------------------------
  
• Really, if you are looking for some "Achilles heel"
• keep looking. You are barking up the wrong tree
• -----------------------------------------------
  
  
  
• Sorry but my points are still valid
• The Great Society has failed to deliver in its promises

Keep trying
Speculating - not at all, it is easily found in many sources

Lying, emotional outburst
Funny, considering you were the only one using profanity while I
remained totally professional
Caught lying - you have proved nothing

Really I know the Left likes to live off the work of others
Believe me it would be much more satisfying to you to do the work yourself


Sorry pal, if you claim I am wrong or lying - the burden is on you
More so, since your claim is totally moot to the posting. Indeed you are stuck
on the tree but do not see the whole forest

Again, please try to prove me wrong
good luck with that,,,,,

Maybe you will get lucky and show it fell from 28 or 29 % to 22%
or better yet from 32% to 22%
Oh boy, that will crack the case wide open

When you give absolute figures that you try to pass off as factual: "From 1950 to 1960 poverty fell from 30% to 22%-" the burden of proof is on YOU to provide a source. Those are not my rules, they are the rules of any debate.

The fact that government began tracking the percentage of the population living in poverty in 1959, there are no absolute figures prior to that. And the accuracy of those early figures would be the least reliable. The methodology used to measure poverty was not fully developed until the mid-1960's.

Here is your name for the day: Mollie Orshansky

I suggest you educate yourself. I know that is a liberal thing, but you might try it for once in your life. Maybe your tiny little brain can grow beyond it's current size...a pea.

Remembering Mollie Orshansky—The Developer of the Poverty Thresholds

Notice I take the personal responsibility of providing a link.

 

[JoeB131]

WHERE did you get your "From 1950 to 1960
poverty fell from 30% to 22%-"

Provide a LINK.

Can't you do your own work
Liberals are so lazy

Please if you have something else show me

Do you think it was less or more

So you made that number up.

...this is my shocked face...

He's about half right. There was a decline in Poverty between 1950 and 1960... but what he fails to acknowledge is why.

Poverty in United States during 1950s

The economy of United States during 1950s recorded a high level of prosperity due to consumer demand and high government spending. The middle class were highly benefited from the rising income and they began to move towards suburbs. The general prosperity in United States did not touch all sections of society. As the middle class whites moved from the cities, they left behind poor people and deteriorated infrastructure.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Speaking of half right


Sure right after it fell greatly

But even if we support that the "manna" from the gov't is the all powerful force,
it still does not add support or make the "Great Society" a success

or take away from my point

 

[JoeB131]

Speaking of half right




But even if we support that the "manna" from the gov't is the all powerful force,
it still does add support or make the "Great Society" a success

or take away from my point

Since you don't offer any figures from the 1960's, who can tell. Now why is that?

I think the thing is, you act as though government spending is the only factor involved. You don't take into account issues like trade balances, demographics, etc.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Actually the fister from before was talking about the 1950's
and the figures were provided. He just wanted links for a moot point
which he is too lazy to get himself.

Indeed, it is the "Achilles heel" that will bring it all
down

 

[JoeB131]

Actually the fister from before was talking about the 1950's

But again, you are trying to isolate without looking at teh big picture.

Now, here's the thing. There was a vast growth of the middle class and poverty reduction in the 1950's. Part of that was because the New Deal Reforms and Unionization improved wages for working folks. (Again, something the GOP has foolishly tried to undo since 1980). Part of it was that after WWII, we were in a unique economic position of being the only major power with an intact industrial infrastructure. While the rest of the world was rebuilding from the rubble while losing their empires, we were going full tilt.

But the final thing was, you had HUGE Keynesian spending under Eisenhower. From the INterstate Highway System to the large Cold War era military buildup, Government was spending like mad, and producing a lot of jobs in the process.

The problem, was of course, that there were large swaths whose boats were not lifted by the rising tide, hense why a lot of people felt the Great Society was needed.

Now, I actually think the problem with the welfare state is that the safety net has become a hammock for too many. There are more people riding in the wagon than pulling it today. But the converse to that is those who run business want it that way.

You think big business would have been happier than pigs in shit in the 1990's. Unemployment was low, they were making record profits. But they weren't. Because with 3% unemployment, they had to make real offers to get even mediocre talent, and they hated it.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Just as a side note

Gov't spending dropped significantly after the war

The really point is
it has changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.
The left likes it like that....

 

[JoeB131]

Just as a side note

Gov't spending dropped significantly after the war

The really point is
it has changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.
The left likes it like that....

Yes, they do.

And what is the right doing to counter that?

Oh, that's right, they are letting the Mitt Romney's of the world downsize, bust unions, send good paying manufacturing jobs overseas so a few douchebags can enjoy big profits.

The Democrats may be offering dependency, but the Republicans are forcing it.

A strong middle class was the firewall against the kind of European Socialism you abhor, but somewhere, the GOP decided it was blocking their view to greater profits in the board room.

 

[usmcstinger]

What new programs have the NAACP and Obama introduced to provide a vehicle that could take people out of poverty?

There appears to be a need by Democrats to keep success from poor and uneducated groups whose income is the Government. They have a vested interest in keeping them just where they are.
The democrats exploit poor people as part of their political agenda.

 

[JoeB131]

What new programs have the NAACP and Obama introduced to provide a vehicle that could take people out of poverty?

There appears to be a need by Democrats to keep success from poor and uneducated groups whose income is the Government.
This group is nothing but a democratic tool that exploits poor people as part of a political agenda.

I agree, but it's not like the GOP is offereing alternatives. Those aren't their voters, they don't care.

The fact they are pushing more people into the poor is what their problem is.