Fox had an interesting article regarding an economist that has shown that increased welfare is causing poverty to increase. Of course many disagree and say that it is correlated because increased poverty actually causes an increased use of benefits, what do you think?
FOX News Benefits Fuel Poverty
Kaiser Poll Poverty in America
Fee Does Welfare Diminish Poverty?
Please study this if you are confused regarding causation and correlation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Ooh, I really like that third one. A chart would have been helpful, because it would readily show that "you get more of what you pay for." As more money is poured into caring for the poor, we get more poor people. I doubt we could go cold turkey, but at some point we have to start doing what makes sense. Welfare reform was a good start, but it was essentially gutted by liberals wanting to continue the poor in a state of dependency.
J. Ewing
I thought you would appreciate this post...
Well, we have cut back drastically on welfare and have not gotten wealthier as a society. For those who argue that welfare contributes to poverty, the notion that correlation doesn't prove causality must be comforting.
--Hiram
What makes you think we have "cut back on" welfare? If you look at real spending, I think you'll find the opposite.
J.
I am always puzzled how liberals seem to believe that cuts have occurred... Especially when the 2007 spend was $2.6 trillion and now we are spending $3.6 trillion...
What makes you think we have "cut back on" welfare?
Depends on how you define it, of course. I include things like Medicare and Medicaid in the category of welfare, and if you do, then I think it's fair enough to say that we aren't cutting back.
--Hiram
Medicare is still self funded for now.
I agree that Medicaid is welfare, along with extended unemployment benefits.
Really? Medicare is self funded? Then why are we pulling money out of the fictional "trust fund"? It is SUPPOSED to be self-funding, but like all entitlements, that is a fiction because promises of benefits will always exceed the reality of resources to deliver. Do away with Medicare completely and the health care of seniors would soon even out and be self-sustaining. Probably with better quality of care.
J. Ewing
Contributions and the trust fund expenditures keep it self funded until ~2024. After that it will require real subsidies from the general fund. Right now the general fund is just paying off its debt when the trust redeems it's bonds.
So if something does not change (higher paroll taxes or lower benefits), it will become more welfare like in 2025.
OK, you're saying that when Medicare pays out more than it takes in it isn't "operating in the red" because there is this obligation on the part of Congress to repay all of the trust fund monies that have long ago been spent. But that's just bookkeeping. In order to redeem the trust fund bonds, Congress has to raise taxes or increase the deficit. As a whole, then, the federal government "welfare" system is spending more and delivering less.
J.
It is pretty important book keeping.
Many people who would be ashamed to have others know that they are on "welfare" stand up and demand their monthly checks and/or free healthcare from the government because they paid into the trust fund.
I wonder what they will do when it becomes publicly known in 2016, 2024 & 2034 that they are officially on the dole. And that these "earned" programs are funded just like TANFF, Medicaid, etc.
Will these proud "Conservative" citizens still demand the government take care of them or will they seek to not be seen as one of the needy on governmental assistance?
I am guessing they will rationalize that they are owed it... Just like the other folks who are dependent on the system. Even though it will be mostly funded by the wealthy, since they have the money...
I think killing the systems may be the right answer... Then the folks who need it will get the assistance and those who don't won't be on the dole. Of course it may be hard to get the "savers" to want to keep paying those payroll/welfare taxes.
I am thinking the true "Conservatives" would support it because it reduce government spending immediately.
And the "Liberals" should support it since the wealthier would need to spend their funds first and pay more taxes, and the needy would be cared for.
Just end the "ponzi" scheme instead of propogating it... Just like we do when they are identified in the private sector.
Many people who would be ashamed to have others know that they are on "welfare" stand up and demand their monthly checks and/or free healthcare from the government because they paid into the trust fund.
It's an extremely common phenomenon to run into people who claim to be self reliant, who complain about welfare, who are in fact Republicans who are also totally dependent on it. People lack self awareness, in that regard.
--Hiram
I have always argued AGAINST immediately "killing" SS and MCare, the two biggest drivers of our debt. It isn't necessary. All we have to do is phase out the programs so that the promises that were made (what people think they are owed) get kept for those already receiving those benefits, while those younger will receive only what they have "earned" to date and be allowed/required to "buy" a private equivalent for the rest of time until retirement. As the old folks die, and they will, the government payout decreases and the private payout increases.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment