Welfare's Effect on Poverty

[Blart]

Capitalists reasoned that welfare is wrong, because they thought it would increase poverty. They believed welfare would encourage people to live off the state rather than work, which would end with more moochers than workers.

Socialists agreed with capitalists. They said welfare is wrong, because it would increase poverty. The bourgeoisie would have little incentive to invest and the proletariat would have little incentive to work.


Therefore, we shouldn't even attempt welfare, right? Nobody thinks it has a chance. That's why the Broncos didn't play the Steelers... oh wait.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare's_effect_on_poverty

Studies show that in welfare states poverty decreases after countries adopt welfare programs. Empirical evidence suggests that taxes and transfers considerably reduce poverty in most countries whose welfare states commonly constitute at least a fifth of GDP.



In practice, welfare has proven to be the best deterrent to poverty history has known.

Evidence shows that most people do not turn to welfare because they are pathologically dependent on handouts or unusually reluctant to work, rather, they do so because they cannot get jobs that pay better than welfare. As soon as such a job becomes available, they leave welfare.

[Garcia Bronco]

"In practice, welfare has proven to be the best deterrent to poverty history has known."

Yes...if you give people free food....they do not go hungry. But it does nothing to cure the conditions that put people into poverty and actually encourages more poverty,

[Blart]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

But it does nothing to cure the conditions that put people into poverty and actually encourages more poverty,

How does reducing poverty encourage more poverty?

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Blart

How does reducing poverty encourage more poverty?

Learned Behavior. Moms and Dads on the county checks have the potential to raise children to be future county check recipients. Its a cycle. Welfare treats the symptoms, but does not affect the cause.

[Rigs11]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Learned Behavior. Moms and Dads on the county checks have the potential to raise children to be future county check recipients. Its a cycle. Welfare treats the symptoms, but does not affect the cause.

So what does affect the cause?education?because you righties are against spending money on that too.

[Blart]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Learned Behavior. Moms and Dads on the county checks have the potential to raise children to be future county check recipients. Its a cycle. Welfare treats the symptoms, but does not affect the cause.

This seems to be a rehash the common-sense argument that capitalists and socialists believe.

The data doesn't back this up, however. The evidence shows Moms and Dads use welfare for a short time to get through a bad patch.

[alkemical]

The problem is - people want to take the douchebags as the whole - and that's not how it works.

[Pony Boy]

People do more of something when the reward increases. When you subsidize something, you get more of it.

According to an old story, a small town in the south was having a problem with snakes. So the town council established a "snake bounty" to pay people for bringing in dead snakes. The result was that people started breeding snakes in their basements.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

People do more of something when the reward increases. When you subsidize something, you get more of it.
e reward part of it , it is the securit
According to an old story, a small town in the south was having a problem with snakes. So the town council established a "snake bounty" to pay people for bringing in dead snakes. The result was that people started breeding snakes in their basements.

it isnt the reward , it is the security of the program.....layoffs r a biatch

[Blart]

The evidence suggests quite the opposite: Welfare doesn't reduce the desire to work, because payments don't cover the basic necessities. There is no "being lazy" when you're struggling to survive.

The average family on AFDC lived several thousand dollars below the poverty line. Not exactly a lifestyle they want to base their life on, so they didn't:


Percent of Time on AFDC | % of Recipients
-------------------------------
Less than 7 months 19.0%
7 to 12 months 15.2
One to two years 19.3
Two to five years 26.9
Over five years 19.6


This program was shut down by Bill Clinton and replaced with a program that limits people to 60 months (80% of recipients were already self-limiting.)

Don't forget that poverty is expensive for taxpayers. Crime, drugs, disease, all of which are directly correlated with poverty. Anything we can do to reduce poverty is saving money in other ways.

[alkemical]

That's what we actually need more of Blart:

Don't forget that poverty is expensive for taxpayers. Crime, drugs, disease, all of which is directly correlated with poverty. Anything we can do to reduce poverty is saving money in other ways.

We need to understand the real/true cost more.

[Blart]

I know! Unfortunately I couldn't find any studies on that cost - perhaps it's too broad.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Blart

I know! Unfortunately I couldn't find any studies on that cost - perhaps it's too broad.

the complexity is for sure, one of the issues - it would be a really deep issue to dig in and evaluate social programs. I personally think it's needed - if we can find where waste & abuse are - we'd go a long way to providing a real safety net - with programs that work.

Another issue - is sometimes i think the "real cost" is neglected due to the fact that some people don't want the "waste" exposed.

I think sometimes people forget - that - some of these elected officials treat their job "as business" - and growing business is what some of them due (increase in budgets, dept's, staff, etc).

I hope you follow what i mean - i'm leaving this a little short - and i hope it's clear enough.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

So what does affect the cause?education?because you righties are against spending money on that too.

I am not against spending money on Education. Helll...in a way...I work for the DOE. I think education dollars are the best investment we can make outside of infrastructure.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Blart

This seems to be a rehash the common-sense argument that capitalists and socialists believe.

The data doesn't back this up, however. The evidence shows Moms and Dads use welfare for a short time to get through a bad patch.

So you would say generational poverty doesn't exist in this country?

[alkemical]

Blart,

I was thinking about this:

If "welfare" helps remove poverty for the lower spectrum of citizens (on the economic scale) - what or how does "welfare" help, or encourage business?

I wonder if the effect is as "positive", or if the opposite is true...

[Blart]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

So you would say generational poverty doesn't exist in this country?

Nice catch

Of course it exists. Economic mobility in the USA is frighteningly low compared to countries with more welfare.

Originally Posted by alkemical

If "welfare" helps remove poverty for the lower spectrum of citizens (on the economic scale) - what or how does "welfare" help, or encourage business?

I wonder if the effect is as "positive", or if the opposite is true...

If it turns out to have a verifiable positive effect on business (I haven't looked this up yet, a study probably already exists) as well as cost-saving benefits over jail cells and drug wars, then you're building a good argument for fiscal conservatives.

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

So what does affect the cause?education?because you righties are against spending money on that too.

We should judge the DOE on results instead of intentions. It's only made the quality of education worse since it was created. Neocons like Bush expanded the failed DOE. I know you count Bush as a "rightie." Anyway, true conservatives are not against spending money, they're against wasting money. Big difference. I would much rather spend money at the local level where teachers and parents are in charge instead of wasting it on a group of federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

[orinjkrush]

umm, how do you define "poverty"? if Poverty $ < Welfare $ then, duh!

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

"In practice, welfare has proven to be the best deterrent to poverty history has known."

Yes...if you give people free food....they do not go hungry. But it does nothing to cure the conditions that put people into poverty and actually encourages more poverty,

I have been a professional in the social service field for many years -- many systems are set up with the hope to create indpendence, but their structure ends up fostering dependence. Frankly it take much more energy, and discernment to help foster indpendence, so the vocational rehabiltation counselor for example will more often place someone in a job without teaching any skills to that person, so the next time they find themselves unemployed, they are just as helpless as the first time they sought government assistance. Short term Band-aids, for much more serious problems.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Bob

without teaching any skills to that person, so the next time they find themselves unemployed, they are just as helpless as the first time they sought government assistance. Short term Band-aids, for much more serious problems.

I agree with this , I am facing the same thing , The Doc wont renew my D.O.T. medical card until I get the AC1 test done ( for my beetus) So now Iam working with Cattle
Point is , have the means to do something different , other people are not so fortunate .... Teach em a skill .......

[Garcia Bronco]

I am just saying the you can heal the symptoms and not effect the cause.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Anticipated response from the right-wingnuts:

"Empirical evidence? What's that?"

[gunns]

Originally Posted by Blart

The evidence suggests quite the opposite: Welfare doesn't reduce the desire to work, because payments don't cover the basic necessities. There is no "being lazy" when you're struggling to survive.

The average family on AFDC lived several thousand dollars below the poverty line. Not exactly a lifestyle they want to base their life on, so they didn't:


Percent of Time on AFDC | % of Recipients
-------------------------------
Less than 7 months 19.0%
7 to 12 months 15.2
One to two years 19.3
Two to five years 26.9
Over five years 19.6


This program was shut down by Bill Clinton and replaced with a program that limits people to 60 months (80% of recipients were already self-limiting.)

Don't forget that poverty is expensive for taxpayers. Crime, drugs, disease, all of which are directly correlated with poverty. Anything we can do to reduce poverty is saving money in other ways.

Unfortunately Bush came back and provided "barriers" and what are called extensions for those that are ill and guess what the prevalent illness is...oh yeah, the easily diagnosed depression. Those on AFDC will tell you it's not easy living on that small amount of money but you learn to.

Oh and let's not forget the #1 barrier Bush provided to the food stamp recipients. With welfare reform parents had to participate in employment and training to continue receiving them. But alas now if they have a child under 6 one parent can use that child as an excuse not to participate and if they have two under 6 they are both exempt. Heavens knows that parents with young children shouldn't have to work! Welfare and the reason for having welfare isn't wrong, the way it's run is.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by gunns

Unfortunately Bush came back and provided "barriers" and what are called extensions for those that are ill and guess what the prevalent illness is...oh yeah, the easily diagnosed depression. Those on AFDC will tell you it's not easy living on that small amount of money but you learn to.

Oh and let's not forget the #1 barrier Bush provided to the food stamp recipients. With welfare reform parents had to participate in employment and training to continue receiving them. But alas now if they have a child under 6 one parent can use that child as an excuse not to participate and if they have two under 6 they are both exempt. Heavens knows that parents with young children shouldn't have to work! Welfare and the reason for having welfare isn't wrong, the way it's run is.

Welfare is nothing more than a political football for the average right-wingnut.

Clinton took a chainsaw to welfare, and these idiots still hated him.