What if there was no safety net? No welfare/food stamps/section 8 housing/etc

[highland145]

Don't you think we can pretty easily figure out what isn't helping them? Making "being poor" more comfortable to me isn't helping them.

Not my point, at all.



30 years ago, we had 3 generations of public assistance peeps on the books (consumer loans). It's worked so well that I'm probably into the 6th generation.

 

[buckshot24]

Not my point.

We can eliminate things that aren't helping them though.

 

[highland145]

We can eliminate things that aren't helping them though.

like obummer phones that might allow them to get a job?
like rent to house their kids?
like elec/water?
like food stamps to feed their chaps/get?
like EITC?
like subsidized ed so they can earn $$?
like shit poor examples of a family unit?
like baby daddy's that are proud of 14 kids at 20 y.o.?
like Burger King being the glass ceiling?
like people embracing/loving on the poor?


.
.

 

[buckshot24]

like obummer phones that might allow them to get a job?
like rent to house their kids?
like elec/water?
like food stamps to feed their chaps/get?
like EITC?
like subsidized ed so they can earn $$?
like shit poor examples of a family unit?
like baby daddy's that are proud of 14 kids at 20 y.o.?
like Burger King being the glass ceiling?
like people embracing/loving on the poor?


.
.

Are we getting more or less people needing this help? If what we are doing isn't helping them we're idiots to keep doing it. The "war on poverty" has been a disaster.

The family unit is interesting since it's gone to crap ever since the government became "daddy" to so many poor people. What we've done has made that situation worse.

 

[highland145]

Are we getting more or less people needing this help? If what we are doing isn't helping them we're idiots to keep doing it. The "war on poverty" has been a disaster.

The family unit is interesting since it's gone to crap ever since the government became "daddy" to so many poor people. What we've done has made that situation worse.

I wasn't done...




in the A.M.

 

[highland145]

And you still didn't get my point.

Too bad we can't get a true list of the $$/people/501 that actually helps the poor.

Do you have an agenda?

 

[buckshot24]

And you still didn't get my point.



Do you have an agenda?

What is your point?

 

[highland145]

What is your point?

Too bad we can't get a true list of the $$/people/501 that actually helps the poor.

..

 

[buckshot24]

..

I read that the first time.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Not my point, at all.



30 years ago, we had 3 generations of public assistance peeps on the books (consumer loans). It's worked so well that I'm probably into the 6th generation.

See, in this thread I see a lot of mythical, anecdotal, hypothetical example, assumptions, and so on.

As one seeks to quantify any abuses, generational dependency, scams and outrages, you could only raise the level of abstraction with statistical survey design, records review, and other means of getting data. Anecdotes and myths aren't data. News articles of an anecdotal nature may be "useful" in pointing out needed reform, but ancillary to a really scientific approach for getting at the truth.

I also don't understand so much why people dwell on welfare subsidies. So we look for summaries online. If there are tables easily had from Bureau of Census, HHS, Agriculture etc., they are meticulously compiled and checked for accuracy, but they don't address any particular research agenda. Yet the annual compilations would offer many opportunities for some analysis and conclusions.

Then there are other sources, with either a research agenda, or conclusions to support some view of it, whether tainted with ideology, or simply attempting to get at the truth.

I can't be 100% sure, for instance, about this article.

http://federalsafetynet.com/poverty-and-spending-over-the-years.html

But if the statistical table is honest and accurate, $662 M per capita-citizen would be in the order of maybe $2/American or taxpaying resident. That also translates to $X / family or household, or $Y / Tax-filer. Among tax-filers, you have corporations, and you have retirees, day-wage-earners, and so on.

Churches, dioceses, parishes aren't taxed, with the expectation that they do good work of a similar nature. That opens up a new can of worms, just including the church-state separation issue.

It seems there are all sorts of options coordinating with organizations like Red Cross etc.

What would begin to bother you? A $10-per-year slice of your annual federal (and don't forget state) tax payment? $20? $100? $1000?

It would all depend on your income, your annual tax payment. Your marginal propensity to spend or save. Or whether or not you choose to trade in your Sexus-Lexus every year or two. You might have a completely different outcome on that scale for some different qualified public good as opposed to these transfer payments.

 

[highland145]

So

too bad we

can't

get a list

of

the $$/people/501s

that actually

help the poor.

ie. who gave what and to whom. Who around here...that would be sweet. A futile effort, but sweet.

 

[highland145]

See, in this thread I see a lot of mythical, anecdotal, hypothetical example, assumptions, and so on.

As one seeks to quantify any abuses, generational dependency, scams and outrages, you could only raise the level of abstraction with statistical survey design, records review, and other means of getting data. Anecdotes and myths aren't data. News articles of an anecdotal nature may be "useful" in pointing out needed reform, but ancillary to a really scientific approach for getting at the truth.

I also don't understand so much why people dwell on welfare subsidies. So we look for summaries online. If there are tables easily had from Bureau of Census, HHS, Agriculture etc., they are meticulously compiled and checked for accuracy, but they don't address any particular research agenda. Yet the annual compilations would offer many opportunities for some analysis and conclusions.

Then there are other sources, with either a research agenda, or conclusions to support some view of it, whether tainted with ideology, or simply attempting to get at the truth.

I can't be 100% sure, for instance, about this article.

http://federalsafetynet.com/poverty-and-spending-over-the-years.html

But if the statistical table is honest and accurate, $662 M per capita-citizen would be in the order of maybe $2/American or taxpaying resident. That also translates to $X / family or household, or $Y / Tax-filer. Among tax-filers, you have corporations, and you have retirees, day-wage-earners, and so on.

Churches, dioceses, parishes aren't taxed, with the expectation that they do good work of a similar nature. That opens up a new can of worms, just including the church-state separation issue.

It seems there are all sorts of options coordinating with organizations like Red Cross etc.

What would begin to bother you? A $10-per-year slice of your annual federal (and don't forget state) tax payment? $20? $100? $1000?

It would all depend on your income, your annual tax payment. Your marginal propensity to spend or save. Or whether or not you choose to trade in your Sexus-Lexus every year or two. You might have a completely different outcome on that scale for some different qualified public good as opposed to these transfer payments.

Holy Fuck.....tldr.

 

[bshole]

Given that we spend 4 times as much on military spending than the non-working poor, it really isn't an issue for me. I am quite happy about the amount of human suffering relieved by a mere 5% of the nation budget. Not sure that we need to be spending 20% on the military, that seems a tad high.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

John Galt is the fiction of a disturbed narcissist and neurotic, whose only understanding of either economics or government came from a study of classic philosophy, languages and film-making. She was also a drug addict. When she contracted lung cancer in her penury -- Lord knows what she'd done with any book royalties -- she obtained social security and Medicare through her husband's name, with the shame of it adding to her misery.

Anyway, I could be wrong but I don't think it was "John" Galt, but rather "Joe" Galt. But even her heroine in that book was a means of living her fantasy to be a railroad heiress.

Lord knows what sort of ideas her parents put in her head by indulging her. The upheaval of Bolshevism simply offers a screen of superficial reasons as to why she was so totally f***ed up.

Lol. It's John Galt, not Joe Galt. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

It wasn't a contradiction for Ayn Rand to take social security and Medicare - she was merely recovering tax dollars she and her husband had paid previously. She wrote commentary all about that, addressing that very issue. I think one essay was titled, "On the Question of Scholarships".

Rand also believed in drug legalization, so again, no contradiction there.