Government fails Oher, Rich Christian family saves him

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

Actually, at the time I posted the graph -- and you were the one who introduced it into the discussion -- my comment was that LBJ did a better job than Republicans or Democrats who tried to appease Republicans. My message was not Democrats good; Republican bad. If anything, my message is Democrats bad; Republicans even worse. I might have done better to criticize the Blue Dogs by name, despite the fact that it would have been partly anachronistic, just to make my position absolutely clear.

So, now we are completely ignoring Kennedy's tax cuts? LBJ is credited for creating a government-dependent system of welfare that needed to be reformed by Republicans in 1996. And Medicare and Medicaid are on pace to bankrupt us. Other than that though...

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

It depends what you're looking at -- how you're measuring the economy. Profits went up, but jobs went down - the U.S. had a substantial net loss of jobs in the decade following NAFTA, and the jobs we had didn't pay as well or offer as many benefits. What benefits business does not necessarily benefit the people.

Then why didn't the unemployment rate increase?

 

[Smoke]

So, now we are completely ignoring Kennedy's tax cuts?

Well, I was at the time, and you were right to correct that omission. But your general approach seems to be to eliminate social spending, institute massive tax cuts (although how you manage that with your party's profligate military spending is beyond me), and let the Magical, Mystical Market solve all our problems. With all the good Christians taking care of the poor, of course.

I haven't seen any evidence yet that the market works the way true believers in the market seem to think it does. And nobody has been stopping all those tax-exempt churches from taking care of the poor up till now, yet you tell me that our inner city poor are still in desperate circumstances. If private charity has the potential to straighten things out, let's see private charity get with it.

Obviously, our social welfare system isn't perfect in either efficiency or effectiveness. There's always room for improvement and even for significant reform. But the flaws in our system don't mean we shouldn't have a system at all -- and if you really thought that any imperfect system should be abandoned completely, you wouldn't be a Catholic.

 

[Smoke]

Then why didn't the unemployment rate increase?

I'm not sure, but I already suggested that the decrease in employment may have been related to economic factors other than NAFTA.

It seems to me we need better criteria for determining what events do and don't have an effect on poverty, and even clearer criteria about how we measure criteria. I am, frankly, not up to the job.

I am capable, though, of seeing both that it is obvious that our social welfare system is flawed, and that the fact that it is flawed is not a convincing reason to eliminate it.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball,
In pretty much every conversation about reducing poverty that I have had with a liberal if you mention how wasteful and inefficient government is you get the retort that poor people will either starve to death or resort to eating dog food. You either have two possibilities; keep the same failed system or massive starvation. Implicit in this is that government is the only proper vehicle to reduce poverty (this despite its horrible track record).

Let's try this again:

Can you point out to me one place where you've seen this assertion made?

Hint: The answer isn't "Well, I've heard people say it before".

And many here have been admitting that the system isn't perfect. Obviously, it's not. The problem is you equate "imperfect" with "useless and completely ineffective". That's just plain wrong.

Where? Come with me to 1st and Center in Milwaukee and we'll see how government is alleviating poverty. For that matter go to every inner-city and see how Democrats have had multiple decades to alleviate poverty and have failed to do so.

So, in response to a comment by me that the system hasn't eliminated poverty, you ask me to come with you to see that the system hasn't eliminated poverty? Well done.

As I said, the system hasn't eliminated poverty. It has, however, alleviated it. Just so you know, that means that there is still some poverty but not nearly as much as there would be without the current system in place. Just wanted to make sure you actually knew what that meant.

Smoke and I are starting to discuss actual policies and not some silly color-coded graph. You are free to join us.

I see. So, you don't want to discuss some silly color-coded graph. I might be mistaken, but wasn't it you who posted the table in the first place? So, when you post it, it's just good evidence of something. When someone else color codes it to point something out, it's silly. No, really, that makes sense...

Once again, come with me to the inner-city of Milwaukee or any other inner-city. Millions are failed by the government every single day.

So, then, nothing to back it up, huh? Well, I didn't really expect anything better. Thanks, anyway.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi Quagmire,
Oh, no, evil 'self-interest.' Yeah, it would be nice to have less of my money flushed down the toilet and more money for me to donate to charities of my choice (that pesky freedom you guys don't like) and maybe to pay some of my bills. After all, I think I'm the one working and earning the money in the first place. Cue the 'selfish' talking point.

How do you know those charities don't flush a bunch of money down the toilet? For all you know, they could be just as bad or worse at using their money.

And, yeah, we sure hate freedoms. You got us there. You're right. We should just abolish all taxes (because everyone knows taxes=bad) and let everyone put their money into the companies and agencies they want to. That'll solve everything. :sarcastic

Yes, you're the one earning the money. You're also living in a society called America. that society only exists through taxes and people working together. So, you earn money and get things like roads, schools, water, sewage systems, police and fire departments and many other things. However, those things aren't free. If you want to be truly free, just go live in the woods. Hunt your own food, make your own log cabin and clothes. Then you won't have to pay any taxes at all. You can keep everything you work so hard for. What? Not up for that? Then, I guess you'll have to keep paying taxes if you want to live in society.

 

[McBell]

Like I said to mball, let's take a walk around 1st and Center in Milwaukee. Let's go to any inner-city and see the millions of poor people well-served by their welfare bureaucracy.

*yawn*
I am not saying that the government system has not failed people.
I want to know the actual numbers of those failed compared to the number of those helped.

You do not seem to have these numbers.
Or perhaps you do have these numbers and they show just how big of a liar you really are?

That you can look at inner-city poverty and not think that our welfare system should be scrapped makes me think your head is in the sand.

Now you are just being an arse.
That you cannot/willnot present anything other than you own opinions, "common sense", appeal to dramatics, appeal to numbers (which you do not cite), etc shows that you know little to nothing about the facts of the matter.

Perhaps if you were to actually live to the expectations that you hold everyone else to you would not have lost all your credibility.

Let's be more dramatic.

Please don't be.
You are being plenty enough dramatic and dishonest for this and your next two or three threads....

 

[Reverend Rick]

Yes, you're the one earning the money. You're also living in a society called America. that society only exists through taxes and people working together. So, you earn money and get things like roads, schools, water, sewage systems, police and fire departments and many other things. However, those things aren't free. If you want to be truly free, just go live in the woods. Hunt your own food, make your own log cabin and clothes. Then you won't have to pay any taxes at all. You can keep everything you work so hard for. What? Not up for that? Then, I guess you'll have to keep paying taxes if you want to live in society.

Interesting comments to say the least. Myself, I don't have a problem with taxes, I have a problem with the unfair way they are collected. Take roads for instance. Those who use the roads the most should pay the lions share of taxes. Same for schools. A normal family has children going to school for a 20 year period, but they may school taxes for 60 years of their life. Taxing the elderly for schools is draconian. If you have paid school tax for say, 40 years don't you believe that is enough? My problem is not about taxes, it is about how they are collected and from whom.

I have a question for you. Do you believe that people who are exempt from paying taxes should be able to vote that others pay more?

 

[Magic Man]

Interesting comments to say the least. Myself, I don't have a problem with taxes, I have a problem with the unfair way they are collected. Take roads for instance. Those who use the roads the most should pay the lions share of taxes. Same for schools. A normal family has children going to school for a 20 year period, but they may school taxes for 60 years of their life. Taxing the elderly for schools is draconian. If you have paid school tax for say, 40 years don't you believe that is enough? My problem is not about taxes, it is about how they are collected and from whom.

Blah, blah, blah. Yeah, we've heard it all before.

I have a question for you. Do you believe that people who are exempt from paying taxes should be able to vote that others pay more?

Depends on what you mean. Are we talking about the person living in the woods gathering their own food and not using any of society's resources? Or are we talking about someone who doesn't make much money, but lives in society?

I'm guessing you're talking about the latter. In that case, yes, everyone who participates in society gets to vote on everything that's up for vote. Just because you make $20,000 rather than $200,000 means nothing. This isn't the old days where you had to be a white male landowner. That's the beauty of the system.

 

[Smoke]

Interesting comments to say the least. Myself, I don't have a problem with taxes, I have a problem with the unfair way they are collected. Take roads for instance. Those who use the roads the most should pay the lions share of taxes. Same for schools. A normal family has children going to school for a 20 year period, but they may school taxes for 60 years of their life. Taxing the elderly for schools is draconian. If you have paid school tax for say, 40 years don't you believe that is enough? My problem is not about taxes, it is about how they are collected and from whom.

Big deal. I've been paying school taxes all my adult life, and I've never had a child in the school system, and I've never complained about paying the taxes. An educated populace benefits everybody. People who have children in the system for 20 years and then whine about paying school taxes because their kids are out of school need to grow up.

 

[Alceste]

Hi Alceste,
Is it your assessment that Michael was well-served by his extensive connections with various government agencies as he walked to school in the cold wearing a t-shirt and shorts?

Let's see - he had a school to go to, for one. He had various stays with foster families (hint: fostering = government assistance), which I am assuming covered particularly bad patches at home. And finally, he was adopted as an adult (I left home at 17, he was adopted at 16) when some wealthy Christians realized they had a cash cow on their hands.

If you hate the idea of people not having a jacket, it is society that has failed them, not the government.

American conservatives are so transparently simple-minded. If you don't like it, blame the government. If you like it, take the credit for your church, or for "free enterprise".

 

[Dunemeister]

Rick, your comment about the 'fairness' of taxes makes me wonder if you understand what the point of taxes really is. To take your logic, few to no Americans should be paying taxes for a military because, arguably, since the US/Mexican war, the American military has not been involved in the actual protection of Americans.

Hmm, actually I kind of like that argument, come to think of it....

 

[Quagmire]

Hi Quagmire,



Oh, no, evil 'self-interest.

Obviously you think there's something's wrong with self-interest or you wouldn't be trying so hard to dress yours up as concern for the poor

' Yeah, it would be nice to have less of my money flushed down the toilet and more money for me to donate to charities of my choice (that pesky freedom you guys don't like)

Who is "you guys"? Here's a tip Joe; just because someone disagrees with you doesn't automatically mean they're a Liberal. It may mean you're wrong.

and maybe to pay some of my bills. After all, I think I'm the one working and earning the money in the first place. Cue the 'selfish' talking point.

Already covered that.

Looks like you can't give an honest answer.

That was an honest answer.

A simple yes or no question (of course you are free to elaborate), would you increase the size of our current welfare system bureaucracy?

A simple yes or no, OFF TOPIC question designed to take the spotlight off of you and the fact that you haven't managed to support your point. What the heck, I'll answer it anyway; Of course not.

LOL! The state that does a good job at alleviating poverty will get more poor people. This would be bad how?

OK, in the simplest terms; if each state was equipped to handle and provide for 10 poor people, and 1 of those states was actually providing for them, but 9 choose not too, the state with an operational service system would wind up with 100 poor people, which is 10 times as many as they can handle. See the problem?

If the state is good at something, it wouldn't get punished for its good work.

It most likely wouldn't get much help from it's neighbors either. Case in point from real life; Santa Cruz County, Ca.

When homelessness first began to be a high-profile problem in Central Coast Ca., this one county implemented an extensive an effective network of social service agencies to take care of it's homeless.

For decades the surrounding counties policies merely consisted of giving their homeless a bus ticket to Santa Cruz.

That's it.

Naturally, the agencies and resources in Santa Cruz were (and are) swamped,

Second, you ignore mimicry. As state A devises a good policy in alleviating poverty, political leaders in state B will want to copy the policy of state A.

Unless they had a cheaper alternative, like "here's a bus ticket...."

There most likely would not be this mass migration of poor people to a handful of states.

Hungry people go where the food is.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

Well, I was at the time, and you were right to correct that omission. But your general approach seems to be to eliminate social spending, institute massive tax cuts (although how you manage that with your party's profligate military spending is beyond me), and let the Magical, Mystical Market solve all our problems. With all the good Christians taking care of the poor, of course.

I would say that Kennedy's tax cuts had a more beneficial impact at alleviating poverty than LBJ's billion (and now trillion) dollar entitlement programs of the Great Society. After the Kennedy tax cut was passed the economy grew and unemployment fell. I would say that is reducing poverty. And it was done by government getting out of the way instead of 'solving' our poverty problem. That market-thing actually did work.

I haven't seen any evidence yet that the market works the way true believers in the market seem to think it does.

Well, creating the most prosperous society the world has ever seen. That is pretty good evidence.

And nobody has been stopping all those tax-exempt churches from taking care of the poor up till now, yet you tell me that our inner city poor are still in desperate circumstances. If private charity has the potential to straighten things out, let's see private charity get with it.

It's what is called the 'crowding out' factor in libertarian political thought. The billions of dollars spent on our welfare bureaucracy displace the resources of private charities. Not only that, but the psychological effect it has a number of people. Many people have a default position that our generous safety net programs will catch the poor as they fall. But they don't.

Obviously, our social welfare system isn't perfect in either efficiency or effectiveness. There's always room for improvement and even for significant reform. But the flaws in our system don't mean we shouldn't have a system at all -- and if you really thought that any imperfect system should be abandoned completely, you wouldn't be a Catholic.

Then here are a couple of things we should be able to agree on: we should reduce the size of our welfare bureaucracy. We should put strict limits on who can receive assistance and how long they can be on the dole.

I'm not sure, but I already suggested that the decrease in employment may have been related to economic factors other than NAFTA.

Of which you can point to zero.

It seems to me we need better criteria for determining what events do and don't have an effect on poverty, and even clearer criteria about how we measure criteria. I am, frankly, not up to the job.

One criteria is more jobs (As VP Biden would say, it's about that three letter word JOBS). The more jobs we create the less the unemployment rate is. As the unemployment rate is reduced most likely poverty is reduced.

And let us not forget you are the one who highlighted the Clinton presidency as a one where poverty was reduced. It looks like NAFTA played a pretty big role. I mean, after its implementation our unemployment rate continued to go down, Canada's unemployment rate want down and Mexico added jobs (of course they have other problems). You seem sure there are negative economic consequences of NAFTA, but you cannot come up with any.

You seem to be caught in between a rock and a hard place. You highlighted the Clinton presidency as one that did a better job than Republicans at reducing poverty. But to do that is to defend NAFTA which you clearly don't want to do. And if you argue NAFTA was bad for us and made us on net poorer, then you are going back on your original claim that that Clinton presidency did good job at reducing poverty. But you can't get away from that pesky graph that I originally posted. During the Clinton years, poverty slightly decreased. And it looks like NAFTA probably played a role in that. And that undermines your political philosophy.

It's actually quite comical.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

And many here have been admitting that the system isn't perfect. Obviously, it's not. The problem is you equate "imperfect" with "useless and completely ineffective". That's just plain wrong.

I think this is an understatement. For millions the welfare system isn't flawed it is useless and completely ineffective.

So, in response to a comment by me that the system hasn't eliminated poverty, you ask me to come with you to see that the system hasn't eliminated poverty? Well done.

As I said, the system hasn't eliminated poverty. It has, however, alleviated it. Just so you know, that means that there is still some poverty but not nearly as much as there would be without the current system in place. Just wanted to make sure you actually knew what that meant.

No, I'm pointing you to places where the system is useless and completely ineffective. It is not just flawed in these locales, it is failing. And your response (like others here) is to shrug your shoulders and say that the system is flawed. It is not flawed, it is broken. In places where it is needed the most it is broken.

I see. So, you don't want to discuss some silly color-coded graph. I might be mistaken, but wasn't it you who posted the table in the first place? So, when you post it, it's just good evidence of something. When someone else color codes it to point something out, it's silly. No, really, that makes sense...

LOL! The graph itself is not silly. The ploy of color-coding it in a completely partisan fashion was the silly part. If you have any insight on the tax cuts of 1964, NAFTA, and the 1996 Welfare Reform bill you are more than welcome to share them with us.

How do you know those charities don't flush a bunch of money down the toilet? For all you know, they could be just as bad or worse at using their money.

What's the one thing I can do if I find out that a charity I'm donating to is wasting my money and not serving the poor? I can stop giving my money to them. I can't stop giving my money to a welfare system that fails its most vulnerable members. I can punish bad charities. I cannot punish a failed welfare system.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mestemia,

I am not saying that the government system has not failed people.
I want to know the actual numbers of those failed compared to the number of those helped.

You do not seem to have these numbers.
Or perhaps you do have these numbers and they show just how big of a liar you really are?

Nice rhetorical move. The answer to your question is most likely impossible to ascertain (you win, yippy!). Pose a question that nobody can answer and then take the high road. I did post the poverty rates for the past 50 years. Smoke and I are discussing the actual policies that may or may not have reduced poverty. You are free to join that substantive discussion.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Alceste,

Let's see - he had a school to go to, for one.

I think his grandmother had more to do with that.

If you hate the idea of people not having a jacket, it is society that has failed them, not the government.

American conservatives are so transparently simple-minded. If you don't like it, blame the government. If you like it, take the credit for your church, or for "free enterprise".

I am wondering if you ever look at the results of government welfare programs. Since you brought up single-mindedness.

Conservatives and libertarians can never point out the results of these programs. When we do, our opponents never look at the record; they just make attacks on our intelligence. Cute.

 

[McBell]

Nice rhetorical move. The answer to your question is most likely impossible to ascertain (you win, yippy!). Pose a question that nobody can answer and then take the high road. I did post the poverty rates for the past 50 years. Smoke and I are discussing the actual policies that may or may not have reduced poverty. You are free to join that substantive discussion.

Now you are merely attempting to save your own face.
No worries, though.
I knew when I first asked you about it that you did not have that which you implied you had.

I knew back then you were being dishonest.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Quagmire,

Obviously you think there's something's wrong with self-interest or you wouldn't be trying so hard to dress yours up as concern for the poor

You would be wrong. I believe there is nothing wrong with self-interest. You are the one who took the cheap shot and got personal as we were discussing the effectiveness or lack thereof of our welfare system.

You couldn't or wouldn't discuss the merits and demerits of our current welfare system and accused me of making my argument for personal monetary enrichment. Can't say that I am that surprised.

A simple yes or no, OFF TOPIC question designed to take the spotlight off of you and the fact that you haven't managed to support your point. What the heck, I'll answer it anyway; Of course not.

LOL! In a discussion about how well the government reduces poverty a question about the size of our welfare system is off-topic. That's creative. But it's good to see we have found common ground here. We both believe we should reduce the size of our welfare system.

It most likely wouldn't get much help from it's neighbors either. Case in point from real life; Santa Cruz County, Ca.

When homelessness first began to be a high-profile problem in Central Coast Ca., this one county implemented an extensive an effective network of social service agencies to take care of it's homeless.

For decades the surrounding counties policies merely consisted of giving their homeless a bus ticket to Santa Cruz.

That's it.

Naturally, the agencies and resources in Santa Cruz were (and are) swamped,

This is a very good point. We have found two ways that governments don't help the poor: the federal government takes a large share of the responsibility and giving them bus tickets (or plane tickets for Bloomberg in NYC).

I do know that when Tommy Thompson was governor of Wisconsin he implemented some reforms of welfare and I believe some of his principles were put to work in the 1996 Welfare Reform bill. I wish other states would have been more proactive in embracing these reforms (I don't recall a massive influx of poor into Wisconsin either).

It looks like it comes down to the political will of each community in dealing with poverty.

Hungry people go where the food is.

Like I said before when Wisconsin was reforming its welfare system I don't recall the poor coming here in droves.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mestemia,

Now you are merely attempting to save your own face.
No worries, though.
I knew when I first asked you about it that you did not have that which you implied you had.

I knew back then you were being dishonest.

No, I think you are posing a silly question that impossible to find out on an epistemological level. That is why I posted the poverty rates. Poverty is something we can measure. Finding out who has been 'helped' and 'not helped' by our current welfare system is question close to impossible to quantify.

This is why Smoke and I are going into the actual meat and potatoes of actual policies. Something it looks like you don't want to do.

Go ahead and claim victory. But your unwillingness to discuss specifics is pretty telling.