Failure of the Welfare State

[PoliticalChic]

It's not an entitlement attitude, it's the SECOND Pub Great Depression. Costs money to avert the abyss and save the victims, dunces. Another Pub term of cut taxes on the bloated rich and ruin Medicare/Aid/SS should get us back to "the good old days- they were TERRIBLE" (Read that book, chumps) and the world's biggest banana republic. Pub dupes!!

Welcome to USMB 'Conflict Resolution' theatre: Today we'll learn about precision in language.

1. Rights are God-given, and unalienable. The use of rights by an individual do not require any loss by another individual

2. Entitlements are awarded by government, and require investment by another...usually at a cost borne by taxation.



....unless you are known as 'franco,' you will be expected to absorb the above.

Have a good day.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's not an entitlement attitude, it's the SECOND Pub Great Depression. Costs money to avert the abyss and save the victims, dunces. Another Pub term of cut taxes on the bloated rich and ruin Medicare/Aid/SS should get us back to "the good old days- they were TERRIBLE" (Read that book, chumps) and the world's biggest banana republic. Pub dupes!!

Speaking of Depressions, there is a great deal of scholarly work that concludes that FDR actually prolonged the depression, turning it into 'The Great Depression,' extending it by some seven years....

Even the Brookings....

In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.” The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI


FDR.....he wasn't a Republican, was he?

FDR was a raging Socialist/Progressive...Wilsonian type.

(Pssssttttt.......I'm just toying with this dope....keep it down!)

 

[Katzndogz]

Corporations are obviously better for the economy than the government!

When a corporation grows, it hires more people, increases employment, increases the availability of products and lowers their cost.

When government wants to increase taxes to help the poor, it doesn't do that. It increases the number of poor. It creates another layer of bureacracy to deal with the newly poor. It grows. When the government has grown so much that it cannot be challenged, it will stop "helping" the poor. Not needing their power or votes, but being so large that it is entirely self-sustaining, the poor become expendable.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pubcrappe- Public college costs doubled just under Boooosh, AND this is a Pub Great Depression- this is a failure of Pub economic policy- pandering to the rich, deregulation cronyism, fake boom bubble and bust AGAIN- and you dittoheads blame the solvers and victims and want to do it again! Memorize my sig, chumps...

Change the channel, dupes.

I know- Cut taxes on the bloated rich and destroy Medicare. LOL!

"Pub Great Depression-"

I'm sure you agree that the housing/mortgage meltdown was the result of Democrat policy...
from that Republican FDR's GSE's and then that other Republican Jimmy Carter's CRA...forcing the private sector to enforce social engineering....
...then Clinton and Cuomo in HUD, and Dodd, Frank......

Them Republicans almost ruined this nation......right?

Sure. Dems ended discrimination against the worthy poor in 1978. Pubs and Booosh and their greedy cronies allowed Private banks (80-85% all of a sudden) to give loans to ANYONE, no "worthy" involved. Then insure bundles of crappe and sell them around the world with bogus ratings.

You're absolutely brainwashed by greedy Pubs who want to do more BS AGAIN. Absolute idiocy. Pubs (and blue dogs along for the ride) ran the economy after 1994...

Amd you say out of power Dems forced them to do it. What a prize idiot.

But didn't Liberal Democrats work with groups like ACORN to make sure that banks had to give loans that weakened good business practices????

Geee....it looks like government cared more about minority votes than about the health of the economy....

....see:
"CRA regulations give community groups the right to comment on or protest about banks' non-compliance with CRA.[7] Such comments could help or hinder banks' planned expansions. Groups at first only slowly took advantage of these rights.[45] Regulatory changes during President Bill Clinton's administration allowed these community groups better access to CRA information and enabled them to increase their activities.[4][40][100]

In an article for the New York Post, economist Stan Liebowitz wrote that community activists intervention at yearly bank reviews resulted in their obtaining large amounts of money from banks, since poor reviews could lead to frustrated merger plans and even legal challenges by the Justice Department.[101] Michelle Minton noted that Chase Manhattan and J.P. Morgan donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to ACORN at about the same time they were to apply for permission to merge and needed to comply with CRA regulations.[85]

According to the New York Times, some of these housing advocacy groups provided early warnings about the potential impact of lowered credit standards and the resulting unsupportable increase in real estate values they were causing in low to moderate income communities. Ballooning mortgages on rental properties threatened to require large rent increases from low and moderate income tenants that could ill afford them.[102]"
Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So....was this a good idea?
I mean, if the Democrats caused the housing meltdown......gee......

 

[NYcarbineer]

I couldn't agree more. Accepting public assistance should impart a deep feeling of shame and personal failure. The kind of shame that encourages the recipients to resolve to see that they improve their situation and never, ever fall so low as to need the accept coerced charity again.

So what's your plan? End the social safety net so we can have poverty like Africa, or India, or a few other places around the world?

Where is poverty disappearing because the government refuses to help anyone?

no, but making a permanent underclass who have no incentive to get out? Yeah that's working well. I mean how manypoverty programs have the liberals had since the 60s and they still need more? how about letting people know there is a limit and then you have to perform and lets get rid of the beauracries and get the money to the people that need it, is that ok with you?

So countries without poverty programs/a social safety net...

...they don't have 'permanent underclasses'?

Where is that, exactly?

 

[PoliticalChic]

No no and no.

Here's a look at the U.S. unemployment rate for selected years from 1920 to 2010.

Year Rate
1920 5.2 %
1928 4.2
1930 8.7
1932 23.6
1934 21.7
1936 16.9


Read more: United States Unemployment Rate 1920–2010 — Infoplease.com United States Unemployment Rate 1920–2010 — Infoplease.com

Only you would think Brookins and Keynes were leftists LOL

PolitiFact, in an August, 2009 story, spoke to a range of experts from the left-leaning Brookings Institute to the conservative Heritage Foundation, who said they found Kronick’s results credible.
PolitiFact | Do people without health insurance die sooner?
That 1 percent increase in domestic spending represents an ongoing problem, according to former Congress member and budget analyst Bill Frenzel of the left-leaning Brookings Institute.
: What Congress Brought To Queens


For Washington Insiders, the coming together of the left leaning Brookings Institute and the right leaning Heritage Foundation to discuss an issue, any issue, over the course of a year registers as something like a minor miracle.
http://www.jamestownproject.org/index.php?option=com_lyftenbloggie&category=economics&Itemid=100002

As the left-leaning Brookings Institute pointed out in March, Ohio is important because President Obama Can’t Win the 2012 Election Without It. Not because of the Buckeye state’s 20 electoral votes, but because
http://hillbuzz.org/2011/05/26/gop-working-hard-to-lose-ohio-in-2012-say-tea-party-activists/
...Government is not a right-wing activist group. Its board includes two representatives from the left-leaning Brookings Institute and one from Harvard University. Clinton himself is an honorary co-chair. Add to that a study by Media Research...
MEDIA: The spinsters | Jacksonville.com

"Looking at the (liberal) Brookings Institute figures actually makes the situation look quite good, by historical standards. "http://cactus.dixie.edu/green/A_American%20Government/1100%20readings.htm


Heck, look likes lots of us got it wrong, tugs........



And
1932 23.6
1934 21.7
1936 16.9


Sure looks like that guy FDR blew it big time.....glad you pointed that out!


Are you sure he wasn't a Republican??

 

[NYcarbineer]

To make a proper case for proclaiming the failure of the welfare state, one would have to prove (or at least present ample evidence for) the counterfactual, i.e.,

that had the US not implemented any of the poverty programs of the past 50 or more years,

then there would now be less poverty than we have.

No one even attempts to make that case, oddly enough.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To make a proper case for proclaiming the failure of the welfare state, one would have to prove (or at least present ample evidence for) the counterfactual, i.e.,

that had the US not implemented any of the poverty programs of the past 50 or more years,

then there would now be less poverty than we have.

No one even attempts to make that case, oddly enough.

You don't recall reading this in the OP?
". … the poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising
welfare spending. In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage
of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of
1996)."


Remember, you shouldn’t drink on an empty head.

 

[Lovebears65]

I think Lefty would rather talk about Romney's dog.

And the dog probably enjoyed the ride on the roof!

I see no difference then this and a dog in the back of the pick up truck. In fact, it is probably safer.

 

[The T]

Speaking of Depressions, there is a great deal of scholarly work that concludes that FDR actually prolonged the depression, turning it into 'The Great Depression,' extending it by some seven years....

Even the Brookings....

In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.” The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI


FDR.....he wasn't a Republican, was he?

FDR was a raging Socialist/Progressive...Wilsonian type.

(Pssssttttt.......I'm just toying with this dope....keep it down!)

*Mea culpa*

 

[Ava]

A worthy OP, as always, PoliticalChic and regarding # 7, I would agree with Thomas Jefferson, who knew even in his day:

"The best way to help the poor is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty."

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is moronic to suggest that Republicans and more specifically conservatives, do not want to provide for those who are struggling, and more specifically those who are handicapped or unable to provide for themselves. That is not and has NEVER been the case. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans and conservatives believe that if you can, then you should work for what you receive. If you are able, then whatever you can do to repay that assistance, you should do it. Further, we also believe that you do not have either a RIGHT or an EXPECTATION of receiving assistance if you are physically healthy.

If that were true then why do economic plans like Romney's and Paul Ryan's include outright cuts to such things as food stamps and Medicaid,

and not even for deficit reduction, but to pay for huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?

Explain that in the context of your above contention.

its not worth the effort when you burp this idiocy..;

to pay for huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?

Oh, no!
Don't you remember Rumpelstiltskin??

He had a secret name....
""I brew my beer, I bake my loaves
And soon the queen's own son I'll claim.
O lucky me! For no one knows
That Rumpelstiltskin is my name!"

When the secret name was revealed, "in his rage drove his right foot so far into the ground that it sank in up to his waist; then in a passion he seized the left foot with both hands and tore himself in two."
Rumpelstiltskin

Now, you revealed carby's secret name: " idiocy..."


You know what's gonna happpen now!!

 

[gallantwarrior]

So what's your plan? End the social safety net so we can have poverty like Africa, or India, or a few other places around the world?

Where is poverty disappearing because the government refuses to help anyone?

no, but making a permanent underclass who have no incentive to get out? Yeah that's working well. I mean how manypoverty programs have the liberals had since the 60s and they still need more? how about letting people know there is a limit and then you have to perform and lets get rid of the beauracries and get the money to the people that need it, is that ok with you?

So countries without poverty programs/a social safety net...

...they don't have 'permanent underclasses'?

Where is that, exactly?

The point is, what you refer to as social safety nets do far less to "help" your preferred groups of "underprivileged", and far more to create the permanent underclass you rail about. Government give-away programs of the type you champion actually create a de facto occupation of being an "underclass" by paying people to stay that way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

no, but making a permanent underclass who have no incentive to get out? Yeah that's working well. I mean how manypoverty programs have the liberals had since the 60s and they still need more? how about letting people know there is a limit and then you have to perform and lets get rid of the beauracries and get the money to the people that need it, is that ok with you?

So countries without poverty programs/a social safety net...

...they don't have 'permanent underclasses'?

Where is that, exactly?

The point is, what you refer to as social safety nets do far less to "help" your preferred groups of "underprivileged", and far more to create the permanent underclass you rail about. Government give-away programs of the type you champion actually create a de facto occupation of being an "underclass" by paying people to stay that way.

In fact, they are clearly designed to keep the poor in the program:


Our Liberal friends have made certain that their ‘client base’ cannot escape! There is no way out of the ‘Poverty Trap’- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!

a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.
From chapter five of Peter Ferrara’s “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb.”

b. “…but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)”
The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap

 

[The T]

So countries without poverty programs/a social safety net...

...they don't have 'permanent underclasses'?

Where is that, exactly?

The point is, what you refer to as social safety nets do far less to "help" your preferred groups of "underprivileged", and far more to create the permanent underclass you rail about. Government give-away programs of the type you champion actually create a de facto occupation of being an "underclass" by paying people to stay that way.

In fact, they are clearly designed to keep the poor in the program:


Our Liberal friends have made certain that their ‘client base’ cannot escape! There is no way out of the ‘Poverty Trap’- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!

a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.
From chapter five of Peter Ferrara’s “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb.”

b. “…but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)”
The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap

Control of the masses...all there is to it. The best way to fight this is hard work and exercise your liberty and make sure it doesn't happen in the first place.

 

[ilia25]

Of course its a failure.

Once folks get on Welfare they have no incentive to get off.

Why should they?? Someone else is paying their bills, putting food on the table and pretty much taking over their responsibilities.

Most of them have no reason to make a change.

Again. Why would they??

Because, among other reasons, it is impossible to receive welfare while sitting on the couch all day. They require the recipient to either work, or attend some school or training.

 

[Rozman]

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!

"Give a man a fish, you have fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you have fed him for a lifetime" -Someone who isn't me

Teach a man to fish, you have fed him for a lifetime" -Someone who isn't me

Or you can direct him to the nearest shelter where he can get a rescue dog....

Dog.....the other white meat.
I hear it taste like chicken.

Am I right....Mr.President?

 

[ilia25]

2. In fact, since
President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more
than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty.

Tell me this -- have you EVER heard of the Great Recession? Do you think it could be the reason for more people having to rely on food stamps and other forms government assistance?

 

[gallantwarrior]

2. In fact, since
President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more
than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty.

Tell me this -- have you EVER heard of the Great Recession? Do you think it could be the reason for more people having to rely on food stamps and other forms government assistance?

Wait a minute! The liberal/socialist lord-n-savior, Obama, has repeatedly informed the public that there is no recession!
Now who am I supposed to believe, you, or him?

 

[PoliticalChic]

2. In fact, since
President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more
than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty.

Tell me this -- have you EVER heard of the Great Recession? Do you think it could be the reason for more people having to rely on food stamps and other forms government assistance?

Politicians in general, and Liberals specifically, function as though life is static, while, in reality, life is dynamic.

Sentient individuals respond to changes....that is why every project has cost over-runs, and why tax increases don't bring in what is anticipated.

Food stamps....you probably think people would starve without them. For many, they are simple income enhancement:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) -- A criminal swindle of the nation's $64.7 billion food stamp program is playing out at small neighborhood stores around the country, where thousands of retailers are suspected of trading deals with customers, exchanging lesser amounts of cash for their stamps.

Authorities say the stamps are then redeemed as usual by the unscrupulous merchants at face value, netting them huge profits and diverting as much as $330 million in taxpayer funds annually. But the transactions are electronically recorded and federal investigators, wise to the practice, are closely monitoring thousands of convenience stories and mom-and-pop groceries in a push to halt the fraud.

Known as food stamp trafficking, the illegal buying or selling of food stamps is a federal offense that has resulted in 597 convictions nationwide and $197.4 million in fines, restitution and forfeiture orders, over the past three years, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Office of the Inspector General. The USDA last month awarded a 10-year contract worth up to $25 million to Fairfax, Va.-based SRA International, Inc., to step up the technology used to combat fraud.

"It's misuse of the program. It's a misuse of taxpayer dollars at a tough time. Not only the people who need the program are having a tough time, but the people who are paying for the program are having a tough time, too," said Kevin Concannon, USDA Undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services.

The fraud is almost always found among the 199,000 smaller stores that process 15 percent of the nation's total food stamp transactions, Concannon said.
USDA Cracks Down On Food Stamp Trafficking



You have so much to learn.