War on Poverty: Worth it or not?

[shrubnose]

Is giving a starving person a slice of bread 'worth it'?

Give us a frickin' break here.

 

[shrubnose]

We have forgotten FDR's comments in his 1935 State of the Union Address:


Poverty is a human condition, not simply some economic problem. It is "easy" to fix the economic problem and almost everyone has sufficient food, housing, and medical care but we retain poverty in spirit.

Can't fix that with handouts-only with self respect. We simply killed the human spirit.

I'm going to keep giving money to hungry people that I see on the streets no matter what you say.

 

[Eric7216]

I'm going to keep giving money to hungry people that I see on the streets no matter what you say.

Completely missed my point. It is not the role of a secular government to give money to people on the street. It is your role if you choose. The role of government is to provide the greatest good for the greatest numbers for the longest period of time which may or may not include giving anything to any specific person.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Bill Gates has billions. According to you, he won't spend a large chunk of it. Does that money disintegrate over time, or does someone eventually spend it? Because if someone eventually spends it, then the argument that the rich hold on to their money isn't relevant.

The national debt is available to be spent - China can always cash in her bonds and go on a buying spree - but unless you notice our national debt decreasing, that means there are always more dollars going into treasuries than are being cashed in and spent. So that is one net leakage of demand.

The other measurement is just dollars in accounts. If they get spent fast, like they will when someone is spending their whole paycheck just to get by, the velocity is high and money is moving. If, like Gates' billions, they just sit there and accumulate for long periods, then velocity goes down and demand suffers.

Money doesn't disintegrate over time, but if you don't buy your economy's production, your economy will wither away. So when China saves dollars, and Bill Gates saves dollars, somebody else has to come in and make up for the lost demand. That is normally federal deficit spending.

 

[Absentglare]

Completely missed my point. It is not the role of a secular government to give money to people on the street. It is your role if you choose. The role of government is to provide the greatest good for the greatest numbers for the longest period of time which may or may not include giving anything to any specific person.

You're making an argument by definition, where your definition of government is one that does not have a specific policy that you like.

It is a TERRIBLE argument, and its premises are flawed to boot :

"These claims about the American past are either untrue or misleading. America has always had laws providing for the poor. The real difference between the Founders’ welfare policies and today’s is over how, not whether, government should help those in need. Neither approach has a monopoly on compassion. The question is: What policies help the poor, and what policies harm them?"

Poverty and Welfare in the American Founding

 

[JC Callender]

The national debt is available to be spent - China can always cash in her bonds and go on a buying spree - but unless you notice our national debt decreasing, that means there are always more dollars going into treasuries than are being cashed in and spent. So that is one net leakage of demand.

The other measurement is just dollars in accounts. If they get spent fast, like they will when someone is spending their whole paycheck just to get by, the velocity is high and money is moving. If, like Gates' billions, they just sit there and accumulate for long periods, then velocity goes down and demand suffers.

Money doesn't disintegrate over time, but if you don't buy your economy's production, your economy will wither away. So when China saves dollars, and Bill Gates saves dollars, somebody else has to come in and make up for the lost demand. That is normally federal deficit spending.

If Gates money will eventually be spent, like everyone else's money throughout history, then what's the problem? Money always eventually gets spent.

 

[Eric7216]

You're making an argument by definition, where your definition of government is one that does not have a specific policy that you like.

It is a TERRIBLE argument, and its premises are flawed to boot :

"These claims about the American past are either untrue or misleading. America has always had laws providing for the poor. The real difference between the Founders’ welfare policies and today’s is over how, not whether, government should help those in need. Neither approach has a monopoly on compassion. The question is: What policies help the poor, and what policies harm them?"

Poverty and Welfare in the American Founding

Not sure what fallacy in logic is most predominate in your response. Perhaps strawman.
I am in favor of any government program which adds to the general welfare. It makes sense to educate people to ensure a skilled labor force. It makes sense to spend on communication and transportation infrastructure. It makes sense to provide law and order as well as national defense. Those are wholesale expenses that aid the general welfare. And clearly listed in the Constitution.

What I am opposed to is retail aid that goes directly to people who seem to be permanently unwilling to become a productive member of society. Justify programs based on expected return on investments, not on appeal to emotions or Bible based morality about the evils of wealth or the need for charity.

Clearly the Founding Fathers were imbued with Biblical morality and there is probably numerous examples that, yeah, those religious types supported government charity. Hopefully we have dropped that 240 years later. Germany has an outstanding higher education system with c. 25% going to higher education. Why spend resources on people who lack the academic skills to benefit? Finland has the best primary and secondary education system in the world. It starts prior to age 7 and is only 10 years or so. Why add years of boring teaching that seems to add nothing? Why cut spending on Consumer Product testing, NIH, CDC, etc. because we are spending so much on retail health insurance that we can't afford to spend on things like Obama's Cancer cure program. Wholesale spending versus retail spending. When government sponsored research into toddler walkers results in 30,000 less hospital visits we are doing proper spending. But if we can't afford it because we are buying insurance (which is a financial instrument, not health) for individuals.
Yeah, I know. People vote and direct spending on retail welfare means votes.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

If Gates money will eventually be spent, like everyone else's money throughout history, then what's the problem? Money always eventually gets spent.

First of all, not all money eventually gets spent. Second, like I said before, if you hold on to your money too long, the economy suffers for lack of demand.

(This is a simplification.) Production = income. If your economy produces $15 trillion, then the national income will be $15 trillion. If everybody spends all of their income, then all production gets purchased, and businesses continue to produce at that level.

If $500 billion of that is lost to a trade deficit with China, then only $14.5 trillion of our production will be bought, and businesses will contract to meet the lowered demand. So total income goes down to $14.5 trillion, and the economy starts to contract.

If everybody saves 5% of their income every year, and retirees spend their savings in the same amount, then there is no net savings, and demand is level. But if everybody saves 6% and retirees only spend an amount equal to 5%, then some production will not get purchased, and the economy will contract.

The argument for taxing the rich and redistributing those dollars to the lower end is all about their marginal propensity to spend (lower in the rich, very high in the poor) and demand leakage. If we ran a trade surplus, savings wouldn't be a problem, but we don't. So to make up for the trade deficit and our normal habit of net saving, the government has to run a deficit.

As for money "eventually being spent, so no problem," you have to have a working economy to spend that money in. If we all saved all of our income, our economy would disintegrate, and there would be nothing produced in the coming years to spend our savings on.

 

[shrubnose]

Completely missed my point. It is not the role of a secular government to give money to people on the street. It is your role if you choose.

The role of government is to provide the greatest good for the greatest numbers for the longest period of time which may or may not include giving anything to any specific person.

Wrong.

"Government exists to protect us from each other.Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~ Ronald Reagan

I don't agree with everything that Reagan said but I believe that he nailed that one.

 

[JC Callender]

First of all, not all money eventually gets spent. Second, like I said before, if you hold on to your money too long, the economy suffers for lack of demand.

(This is a simplification.) Production = income. If your economy produces $15 trillion, then the national income will be $15 trillion. If everybody spends all of their income, then all production gets purchased, and businesses continue to produce at that level.

If $500 billion of that is lost to a trade deficit with China, then only $14.5 trillion of our production will be bought, and businesses will contract to meet the lowered demand. So total income goes down to $14.5 trillion, and the economy starts to contract.

If everybody saves 5% of their income every year, and retirees spend their savings in the same amount, then there is no net savings, and demand is level. But if everybody saves 6% and retirees only spend an amount equal to 5%, then some production will not get purchased, and the economy will contract.

The argument for taxing the rich and redistributing those dollars to the lower end is all about their marginal propensity to spend (lower in the rich, very high in the poor) and demand leakage. If we ran a trade surplus, savings wouldn't be a problem, but we don't. So to make up for the trade deficit and our normal habit of net saving, the government has to run a deficit.

As for money "eventually being spent, so no problem," you have to have a working economy to spend that money in. If we all saved all of our income, our economy would disintegrate, and there would be nothing produced in the coming years to spend our savings on.

If Gates is holding onto his money now, someone is spending the previous generation Gate's money right now, that's accrued with interest and investments. That money doesn't disappear. You talk about having to have "a working economy to spend that money in", what does that mean? Are you saying there aren't enough options for people to spend their money in certain economies. You also talk about trade deficits, but if everyone is spending their money, and everyone is eventually one way or another, then those deficits effect people the same way.

 

[Absentglare]

Not sure what fallacy in logic is most predominate in your response. Perhaps strawman.
I am in favor of any government program which adds to the general welfare. It makes sense to educate people to ensure a skilled labor force. It makes sense to spend on communication and transportation infrastructure. It makes sense to provide law and order as well as national defense. Those are wholesale expenses that aid the general welfare. And clearly listed in the Constitution.

What I am opposed to is retail aid that goes directly to people who seem to be permanently unwilling to become a productive member of society. Justify programs based on expected return on investments, not on appeal to emotions or Bible based morality about the evils of wealth or the need for charity.

Clearly the Founding Fathers were imbued with Biblical morality and there is probably numerous examples that, yeah, those religious types supported government charity. Hopefully we have dropped that 240 years later. Germany has an outstanding higher education system with c. 25% going to higher education. Why spend resources on people who lack the academic skills to benefit? Finland has the best primary and secondary education system in the world. It starts prior to age 7 and is only 10 years or so. Why add years of boring teaching that seems to add nothing? Why cut spending on Consumer Product testing, NIH, CDC, etc. because we are spending so much on retail health insurance that we can't afford to spend on things like Obama's Cancer cure program. Wholesale spending versus retail spending. When government sponsored research into toddler walkers results in 30,000 less hospital visits we are doing proper spending. But if we can't afford it because we are buying insurance (which is a financial instrument, not health) for individuals.
Yeah, I know. People vote and direct spending on retail welfare means votes.

Based on bold above, it sounds like you want to get rid of SS and medicare ??

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

If Gates is holding onto his money now, someone is spending the previous generation Gate's money right now, that's accrued with interest and investments. That money doesn't disappear. You talk about having to have "a working economy to spend that money in", what does that mean? Are you saying there aren't enough options for people to spend their money in certain economies. You also talk about trade deficits, but if everyone is spending their money, and everyone is eventually one way or another, then those deficits effect people the same way.

JC, I really feel like I'm starting from scratch here. If you are open to learning, I'll explain it all, but if you are just arguing to continue your argument, I'm just not up for another protracted battle on the subject.

 

[Eric7216]

Wrong.

"Government exists to protect us from each other.Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~ Ronald Reagan

I don't agree with everything that Reagan said but I believe that he nailed that one.

Wrong.
I don't believe that Reagan would be supportive of government giving a person on the street some money. I don't think that is what he considers protecting us from each other. Giving money to someone on the street would be closer to the category of government protecting us from ourselves. Giving money to a person on the street is what started this discussion.
I don't agree with much that Reagan said. He was not a fiscal conservative.

 

[Moderate Right]

I'm going to keep giving money to hungry people that I see on the streets no matter what you say.

Boy are you delusional. I have witnessed many of these "poor" panhandlers walk away from their posts at the end of the day and get in a nice car that was stashed nearby and drive away. Our local newspaper did a story once where the owner of a business offered one of these street panhandlers a full time job paying $15 per hour plus benefits and was told no thanks because he could make a lot more money holding up a sign all day long.

 

[Moderate Right]

JC, I really feel like I'm starting from scratch here. If you are open to learning, I'll explain it all, but if you are just arguing to continue your argument, I'm just not up for another protracted battle on the subject.

Do you ever learn from anybody? I haven't seen a case yet here on DP because you have attained the highest level of knowing everything. Everyone else is just JV.

 

[Absentglare]

Boy are you delusional. I have witnessed many of these "poor" panhandlers walk away from their posts at the end of the day and get in a nice car that was stashed nearby and drive away. Our local newspaper did a story once where the owner of a business offered one of these street panhandlers a full time job paying $15 per hour plus benefits and was told no thanks because he could make a lot more money holding up a sign all day long.

One fake panhandler = all homeless people are faking it ?

Yeah that doesn't sound like his problem.

Do you ever learn from anybody? I haven't seen a case yet here on DP because you have attained the highest level of knowing everything. Everyone else is just JV.

Irrelevant.

 

[Moderate Right]

One fake panhandler = all homeless people are faking it ?

Yeah that doesn't sound like his problem.



Irrelevant.

I guess you missed my second line:

"I have witnessed many of these "poor" panhandlers walk away from their posts at the end of the day and get in a nice car that was stashed nearby and drive away"

 

[Moderate Right]

Irrelevant.

It's hypocritical and arrogant to suggest to someone that they could learn from him when he has no intention of learning from someone else because he knows it all. He is very condescending to anyone who has a different point of view than him. Common sense dictates that no one knows it all.

 

[Absentglare]

I guess you missed my second line:

"I have witnessed many of these "poor" panhandlers walk away from their posts at the end of the day and get in a nice car that was stashed nearby and drive away"

"Many" panhandlers having cars STILL does not demonstrate that all homeless people have cars (or whatever...)

It's hypocritical and arrogant to suggest to someone that they could learn from him when he has no intention of learning from someone else because he knows it all. He is very condescending to anyone who has a different point of view than him. Common sense dictates that no one knows it all.

Whether or not he has learned anything is not relevant to whether or not what he says is accurate. If doesn't appeal to his personal authority, then your concern is irrelevant.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Do you ever learn from anybody? I haven't seen a case yet here on DP because you have attained the highest level of knowing everything. Everyone else is just JV.

I told you before that there are about a dozen people on DP that I listen to very closely. But that's because they demonstrated a level of competence that commands respect.

 

[Moderate Right]

"Many" panhandlers having cars STILL does not demonstrate that all homeless people have cars (or whatever...)

Boy. I can tell that you really are a liberal because liberals only hear what they want to hear, see what they want to see, and read what they want to read. I never once said anywhere that all homeless people have cars. That's just a plain stupid interpretation of what I said. Just to be clear, I was talking about people standing at street intersections holding signs, not downtown homeless people sleeping on cardboard boxes in alleys. I have seen many street sign holders getting into NICE cars. I'm sure that there are many more around the country who do so. What the percentage is, I don't know, but there are many.

 

[Absentglare]

Boy. I can tell that you really are a liberal because liberals only hear what they want to hear, see what they want to see, and read what they want to read. I never once said anywhere that all homeless people have cars. That's just a plain stupid interpretation of what I said. Just to be clear, I was talking about people standing at street intersections holding signs, not downtown homeless people sleeping on cardboard boxes in alleys. I have seen many street sign holders getting into NICE cars. I'm sure that there are many more around the country who do so. What the percentage is, I don't know, but there are many.

I don't recognize the applicability of anti-liberal prejudice.

Sure, fine, guys with cardboard signs aren't all homeless. Okay. You still can't stop anyone else from handing them money, correct ?

 

[Moderate Right]

I told you before that there are about a dozen people on DP that I listen to very closely. But that's because they demonstrated a level of competence that commands respect.

I didn't ask you if you listen. I asked you if you have learned anything from any of them and I doubt that you have because you know everything already.

 

[Moderate Right]

I don't recognize the applicability of anti-liberal prejudice.

Sure, fine, guys with cardboard signs aren't all homeless. Okay. You still can't stop anyone else from handing them money, correct ?

Correct. I agree with that. There are more gullible people in this world than there are homeless. It's your money to do with as you wish. I give money to people in need myself, but only when I know the circumstances and that I'm not being conned. I just recently gave money to a family whose house burned down and I gave money to my next door neighbor, who's house had been broken into and had many items stolen. Many other cases as well, but they were all legit and I knew it. No guessing involved.

 

[Northern Light]

As long as we keep framing things as "wars", there will be problems.