Author Topic: Where would you cut spending to reduce the defecit?  (Read 99799 times)

Groundpounder

  • Legend
  • ******
  • Posts: 5118
  • If you can't Dodge it, Ram it!
    • View Profile
Re: Where would you cut spending to reduce the defecit?
« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2010, 09:34:30 AM »
There is NO compassion in a government program.  There IS compassion in private charity.

Here is an editorial for all you misguided liberals by a black female who has been a recipient of government programs.  Hopefully it will wake you all up before it's too late.


Back on Uncle Sam's Plantation
By Star Parker
2/9/2009

Six years ago I wrote a book called "Uncle Sam's Plantation." I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas. A poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960's, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems. The kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

Through God's grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by a Democrat president. A few years after enactment, welfare roles were down fifty percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."

Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending-it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care, and education."

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability."

Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty."

Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single parent homes and out of wedlock births.

It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?




Star Parker
Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.
"Crate engines are to racing what Tofurkey is to Thanksgiving" - Karl Fredrickson
Distrust all men in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. - Friedrich Nietzsche
We are descended in spirit from revolutionaries and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. - D. Eisenhower


BigBadBob

  • Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 230
  • http://buildingwhat.org/
    • View Profile
Re: Where would you cut spending to reduce the defecit?
« Reply #16 on: November 30, 2010, 05:52:23 PM »
I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, but I thought I’d reply in any case.

It seems to me that a significant portion of your posts are bellicose in nature containing only opinionated rhetoric “substantiating” your claims but lacking in quantitative truth. In particular, your previous response was antagonistic and petulant, more akin to political posturing than an actual attempt to have a rational discussion, in my opinion.

Your choice to use Ms. Parker’s statement in your most current reply is an interesting one considering that she’s living proof that the welfare system can and does work as intended... she received welfare during her teen and early adult years and has gone on to become a productive citizen.

A brief search of the literature debunks your misguided (to echo your belligerence) opinion “...all that government assistance of that type does is create a dependent class that knows nothing but getting government handouts for generation after generation.”

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ515742&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ515742
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WX8-4R172KM-1&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1562118549&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a98bc668ff63c2209c8a6e563007c27b&searchtype=a


Three-quarters of welfare recipients do not grow up in households that received welfare. Parent economic background, not welfare use per se, explains dynamic of intergenerational welfare use.

We find some support for the intergenerational transmission of welfare but not through values; we find no evidence that under the TANF system, values inhibit work.


These are academic studies based on empirical data, not opinions. Equally important they are NOT political statements.

Since this thread was begun as a discussion about U.S. spending lets look at what the welfare system costs Americans.

http://polecolaw.newsvine.com/_news/2008/01/08/1212663-how-much-does-welfare-cost

In sum, “...if you made $50,000 and paid $6,225.00 in Federal income tax, approximately $465.00 went to all of these programs x-healthcare and veterans pensions.” Yes the welfare system is not perfect. Yes there are abuses of the system. But your wholesale condemnation of the system is based on politics not on facts. It smacks of the adage that a lie told told often enough becomes truth.

I don’t have a problem with the hypothetical $465.00. It seems to me that $9.00 per week for adoption assistance services, children’s nutrition programs, veterans pensions and health services and food for people that can’t afford them is money well spent.

uticamike

  • Racing Genius
  • *****
  • Posts: 4808
    • View Profile
Re: Where would you cut spending to reduce the defecit?
« Reply #17 on: November 30, 2010, 10:34:10 PM »

You can tell Bob isn't a modern Liberal. Not once in his eloquent and lucid writing did he blame anything on George Bush. That is almost axiomatic for the

present day Leftist. I'm not a fan of Welfare of any kind including corporate and the leaches on Wall St. Welfare from Big Gov to Big Biz is just as insidious

as the checks going to all the "queen's" as is often sited. When I say I'm not fan of Welfare, I'm talking about a Welfare System that demands nothing of

substance from the recipient.  It would be called W O R K fare if I were in charge. No able bodied man or woman would get a dime without putting some sweat

equity into our general welfare. Paint curbs, pick litter, cut brush, white wash graffiti in the Hood' etc etc.... You want to see some good welfare?

Habitant for Humanity  REQUIRES the home recipeant to put in some sweat equity along with a nominal amount of cash. I live across the street from one

and Rose is no longer on Welfare but was for a time. Putting time limits on it IS a good thing as generational "wards" of the State are definitely a bad thing.

Bob... I'd rather my $465.00 be given to H4H than to propelgate the misery and loathing that is the current Welfare System. Certainly there are some who

escape the System but those that have been swallowed by it are too many in number.
"do I look nervous?" (no) " There's your answer."


BigBadBob

  • Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 230
  • http://buildingwhat.org/
    • View Profile
Re: Where would you cut spending to reduce the defecit?
« Reply #18 on: December 01, 2010, 06:30:43 AM »
Oh sure you’re reasonable now but when you end up in the V.P. chair you’ll probably turn into a dirty rat like most of the other politicians in Congress... both Republicans and Democrats. Your Workfare idea is a good one. Maybe if we all focus our immense mental powers on that thought we can alter reality and bring it into being. Ready? Begin..........poof! We did it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workfare

I agree with your statement that too many have been swallowed by the system. It needs to be tweaked even more than it has been. Not discarded. But reality being what it is, the system will never be perfect. There will always be those who abuse and flaunt, such as the woman in the youtube video. As irritating as that video is, it is not representative of the system as a whole. To base an overall opinion upon it is a deception, both of self and of others, whether intentional or not.

I suppose that’s how politics game is played though. It’s either right or wrong, left or right. I think the truth and the best decision is usually somewhere in the middle ground. That’s why I’m so irate about you calling me a Liberal. How dare you! Yes, I’m left leaning regarding welfare but I’m right leaning in other areas. “From my cold, dead hands” comes easily to mind. Did you just call me a Conservative? How dare you!


uticamike

  • Racing Genius
  • *****
  • Posts: 4808
    • View Profile
Re: Where would you cut spending to reduce the defecit?
« Reply #19 on: December 01, 2010, 08:55:32 PM »
I agree with you on this point Bob, throwing names and labels around as is done in the modern lexicon is mostly useless. Today's Conservative ( a proud one I)
is really a direct descendant of the 19Th Century Classical Liberal.  The Founders were Liberals.  Modern Liberalism was born during Wilson administration but
really took off under FDR, continued unabated during the LBJ Admin and has left us with what we call a Liberal today.  One that believes a central Government
is better suited to direct peoples lives for the common "good" than individuals themselves. It has never worked (examples please) and NEVER will. It must be resisted and never appeased. That fight continues in America to this day. We fight with words and ideas. Rue the day the fight stops.

In my previous post I used the word propelgate for the correct promulgate.   I can spell  proof read....be nice if I did it once in awhile.   Eye stoopid.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2010, 09:02:00 PM by uticamike »
"do I look nervous?" (no) " There's your answer."

Groundpounder

  • Legend
  • ******
  • Posts: 5118
  • If you can't Dodge it, Ram it!
    • View Profile
Re: Where would you cut spending to reduce the defecit?
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2010, 04:28:22 PM »
I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, but I thought I’d reply in any case.

It seems to me that a significant portion of your posts are bellicose in nature containing only opinionated rhetoric “substantiating” your claims but lacking in quantitative truth. In particular, your previous response was antagonistic and petulant, more akin to political posturing than an actual attempt to have a rational discussion, in my opinion.

Your choice to use Ms. Parker’s statement in your most current reply is an interesting one considering that she’s living proof that the welfare system can and does work as intended... she received welfare during her teen and early adult years and has gone on to become a productive citizen.

A brief search of the literature debunks your misguided (to echo your belligerence) opinion “...all that government assistance of that type does is create a dependent class that knows nothing but getting government handouts for generation after generation.”

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ515742&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ515742
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WX8-4R172KM-1&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1562118549&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a98bc668ff63c2209c8a6e563007c27b&searchtype=a


Three-quarters of welfare recipients do not grow up in households that received welfare. Parent economic background, not welfare use per se, explains dynamic of intergenerational welfare use.

We find some support for the intergenerational transmission of welfare but not through values; we find no evidence that under the TANF system, values inhibit work.


These are academic studies based on empirical data, not opinions. Equally important they are NOT political statements.

Since this thread was begun as a discussion about U.S. spending lets look at what the welfare system costs Americans.

http://polecolaw.newsvine.com/_news/2008/01/08/1212663-how-much-does-welfare-cost

In sum, “...if you made $50,000 and paid $6,225.00 in Federal income tax, approximately $465.00 went to all of these programs x-healthcare and veterans pensions.” Yes the welfare system is not perfect. Yes there are abuses of the system. But your wholesale condemnation of the system is based on politics not on facts. It smacks of the adage that a lie told told often enough becomes truth.

I don’t have a problem with the hypothetical $465.00. It seems to me that $9.00 per week for adoption assistance services, children’s nutrition programs, veterans pensions and health services and food for people that can’t afford them is money well spent.

I suppose that post could have done without the "misguided liberals" comment, but Travis really pizzed me off with his false notion that anyone who doesn't support the welfare state must be devoid of compassion.  It's a commonly expressed belief among liberals.

As far as the $465 goes, there are many reasons against the government taking it from one person and giving it to another.  For one thing, it would be much more effective in the hands of private charities such as Habitat for Humanity.  As it is now, you have the overhead at the federal level that administers the block grants to the states, then you have a ton of overhead at the state level required to distribute the benefits.  Does it really seem efficient to you to take $465 from Utica Mike, send it to Washington through the IRS, then to HHS, then to Albany, which after much paper shuffling, sends it to his neighbor across the street?  How much of that $465 actually reached his neighbor?

Another reason is that it's unconstitutional plain and simple.  James Madison, regarded as the "Father of the Constitution", had this to say, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”  The Supreme Court has lacked the testicular fortitude to properly defend the Constitution ever since FDR threatened to stack the court because they rightly considered his "New Deal" proposals unconstitutional.  Ever since then, the court has stood by while all manners of unconstitutional government expansion have taken place - the kind of expansion that I'm sure has the founding fathers turning in their graves.  "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson

And not to pick on liberal policies alone, how did the court not strike down the civil forfeiture law that allows the government to seize your property if you are even suspected of a crime (a clear violation of the 4th Amendment)?  I believe these two cases are good examples of what Jefferson meant when he said, "Government can do something for the people only in proportion as it can do something to the people." 

This country has been slowly heading down the road to ruin for the past 50 years or so.  When Obama took office, he hit the nitrous button.  It's time to stop the madness and return the country to the constitutionally limited federal government that the founding fathers put in place 200 years ago.
"Crate engines are to racing what Tofurkey is to Thanksgiving" - Karl Fredrickson
Distrust all men in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. - Friedrich Nietzsche
We are descended in spirit from revolutionaries and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. - D. Eisenhower


BigBadBob

  • Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 230
  • http://buildingwhat.org/
    • View Profile
Re: Where would you cut spending to reduce the defecit?
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2010, 05:56:53 PM »

This country has been slowly heading down the road to ruin for the past 50 years or so.  When Obama took office, he hit the nitrous button.  It's time to stop the madness and return the country to the constitutionally limited federal government that the founding fathers put in place 200 years ago.

Sounds good. I emphatically agree, the country is mad, insane. Since it’s been occurring for 50 years as you say (I don't know the significance of 50 years so I won't argue that time period), spanning both Democratic and Republican presidents, could you explain how to go about accomplishing this... without mentioning the words Obama, Bush, liberal, conservative, Republican or Democrat.


Groundpounder

  • Legend
  • ******
  • Posts: 5118
  • If you can't Dodge it, Ram it!
    • View Profile
Re: Where would you cut spending to reduce the defecit?
« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2010, 06:54:49 PM »

This country has been slowly heading down the road to ruin for the past 50 years or so.  When Obama took office, he hit the nitrous button.  It's time to stop the madness and return the country to the constitutionally limited federal government that the founding fathers put in place 200 years ago.

Sounds good. I emphatically agree, the country is mad, insane. Since it’s been occurring for 50 years as you say (I don't know the significance of 50 years so I won't argue that time period), spanning both Democratic and Republican presidents, could you explain how to go about accomplishing this... without mentioning the words Obama, Bush, liberal, conservative, Republican or Democrat.

Approximately 50 years ago was when LBJ's "great society" initiative began a great expansion in the size and scope of the federal government.  FDR's New Deal also caused an expansion of the federal government, but it didn't continue growing after that at the rate that it has since the 60's.

To restore a limited constitutional federal government (in no particular order):

repeal that new healthcare legislation recently passed (can't call it by its common name since you don't want me to use the O-word)

Reclaim any "stimulus" money not already spent

privatize social security - this worked wonders for the economy when they did it in Chile back around 1980

Abolish the departments of education and energy along with the other cuts that I listed in my original reply in this thread

repeal most all federal criminal statutes, first and foremost the "Patriot Act" (the ONLY provision of the Patriot Act that should be retained is the one allowing intelligence sharing among the various agencies).  Most of them shouldn't exist at all, and the ones that do rightly belong at the state or local level.  In a free society, one should be free to do whatever he pleases as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of others.  Or as Jefferson put it, "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."  For more on this, I recommend the book Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything. (ISBN:  1-930865-63-5)

Abolish the Federal Reserve and put the dollar back on the gold standard

There may be places to trim the military budget, but I'm not in favor of big cuts there.  For one thing, the national defense is one of the few functions the constitution authorizes the federal government to take on.  In addition, I'm a strong believer in peace through superior firepower. 

Real healthcare reform starts with reforming the FDA.  As it is right now, the FDA is a tool of the pharmaceutical industry.  There needs to be a strict prohibition for anyone working for the FDA having any connection with the pharmaceutical or food industries during and for 10 years after the time they work there.  There are many food additives and drugs that never should have been allowed on the market.  Also, the FDA should have no power over vitamins and supplements other than to ensure that what the label says is actually what is in the bottle.  The FDA is constantly attacking the supplement industry to protect the profits of the drug companies.  There are supplements out there that work much better than drugs for certain conditions and cost much much less.

Abolish the national labor relations board  - this is not a legitimate function of the federal government, it should be left up to the states.

Eliminate all appointed "Czar" positions in the federal government



That's all I got right now, I'm sure I'll think of more later...



"Crate engines are to racing what Tofurkey is to Thanksgiving" - Karl Fredrickson
Distrust all men in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. - Friedrich Nietzsche
We are descended in spirit from revolutionaries and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. - D. Eisenhower


Rod Bolt

  • Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 127
    • View Profile
Re: Where would you cut spending to reduce the defecit?
« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2010, 07:36:23 PM »
Trav if you're asking if I agree with extending the Bush era tax cuts to everyone yes.

If you are asking should we let those tax cuts expire no.

If you are saying we should let them expire for a part of society and not the rest then I disagree.

If you want the cuts to expire for the upper tax bracket them let them expire for all. Otrherwise let them continue.

You're post mentions "tax breaks" witch infers that the upper level of taxpayers that pay the largest portion of taxes in this country are getting a "break" the rest of the legitimate tax payers are not enjoying. This is not at all true as you know.

I am in favor if they loose it so should you and I



Bob it would  help your arguemnet if you you used material that wasn't dated in the Reagan/Bush era. Or I did not have to pay to view such data.

ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ515742&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ515742
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WX8-4R172KM-1&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1562118549&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a98bc668ff63c2209c8a6e563007c27b&searchtype=a



« Last Edit: December 02, 2010, 07:55:02 PM by Rod Bolt »
The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.
-Joseph A. Schumpeter-

The quality of ideas seems to play a minor role in mass movement leadership. What counts is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world.
-Eric Hoffer-


uticamike

  • Racing Genius
  • *****
  • Posts: 4808
    • View Profile
Re: Where would you cut spending to reduce the defecit?
« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2010, 09:47:51 PM »
To hell with me... It should be PALIN/POUNDER' 2012.  Rich, your last post gave me one of those Chris Matthew's leg tingles.......ouououoo. 

Bob don't be afraid to use the names.  Obama, Bush, Republican, Democrat = Bad for the country. Me.. I'm acquiring a taste for Tea...as in party.

It's time to go to the mattresses as they say or maybe this song will inspire you. 
"do I look nervous?" (no) " There's your answer."


BigBadBob

  • Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 230
  • http://buildingwhat.org/
    • View Profile
Re: Where would you cut spending to reduce the defecit?
« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2010, 10:38:36 PM »
Nope. If we go to partisan oriented discussions I'll be backing out...nighty night.

Groundpounder

  • Legend
  • ******
  • Posts: 5118
  • If you can't Dodge it, Ram it!
    • View Profile
Re: Where would you cut spending to reduce the defecit?
« Reply #26 on: December 03, 2010, 07:47:20 AM »
To hell with me... It should be PALIN/POUNDER' 2012. 
Sorry, if I was going to be anyone's running mate, it would have to be Ron Paul.
"Crate engines are to racing what Tofurkey is to Thanksgiving" - Karl Fredrickson
Distrust all men in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. - Friedrich Nietzsche
We are descended in spirit from revolutionaries and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. - D. Eisenhower


Groundpounder

  • Legend
  • ******
  • Posts: 5118
  • If you can't Dodge it, Ram it!
    • View Profile
Re: Where would you cut spending to reduce the defecit?
« Reply #27 on: December 03, 2010, 08:28:36 AM »

That's all I got right now, I'm sure I'll think of more later...

Add to that:

A balanced budget amendment

outlaw any so-called "affirmative action" programs - aa doesn't fight discrimination, it IS discrimination.  It does more harm than good as far as race relations go.  Furthermore, it could be argued that if anyone is racist, it's the affirmative action supporters since they seem to think that minorities can't achieve the same level of success on their own as the "majority".  It also sets the bar lower for minorities so that there is less incentive to achieve the same performance.  Then the aa supporters use that lower level of performance to justify the need for the program.  Anyone see a vicious cycle here?

Abolish the post office - the private sector can do the job much more efficiently.

Amend the Constitution to prevent eminent domain from being used to grab property for private development. 
« Last Edit: December 03, 2010, 09:25:29 AM by Groundpounder »
"Crate engines are to racing what Tofurkey is to Thanksgiving" - Karl Fredrickson
Distrust all men in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. - Friedrich Nietzsche
We are descended in spirit from revolutionaries and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. - D. Eisenhower

BigBadBob

  • Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 230
  • http://buildingwhat.org/
    • View Profile
Re: Where would you cut spending to reduce the defecit?
« Reply #28 on: December 03, 2010, 09:35:49 AM »
Rod Bolt

Again, good call on sources. Both the previous links were abstracts only. One of those links seems to be dead now, curiously.

New links... I didn’t read them other than the intros...hopefully they meet your approval as to availability and publication date. If not... I’ll bet you could find more current ones... you... lol.

http://www.pscinc.com/Portals/0/Publications/PSR/Adv/1987/1187.pdf    Nov. ‘87

There  is  wide  agreement that  the  welfare system
(means-tested  cash  and  in-kind  assistance  programs,
chiefly Aid  to  Families  with  Dependent  Children)  is
replete with problems.' Mainstream periodicals -  such as
Time, Newsweek, Business Week,  the New Republic, and
The Atlantic Monthly  -  routinely refer to the problems
of "welfare dependency,"  the "culture of poverty," or  the
"culture  of  welfare  dependency."  The  subject  of  this
paper is the commonly held assumption that a large per-
centage  of  welfare  recipients  become dependent  on
public assistance. Related assumptions are that welfare
recipients are seduced by the system into a self-perpetu-
ating culture of dependence, and that  the system  inad-
vertantly increases poverty by swelling the ranks of  the
idle  and  fostering  families  headed  by  single  women
unable  to  provide  for  their children.  A review  of
research on welfare dependency and related questions,
however, finds little support for these contentions.


http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mepage/w-corrapr02.pdf        April, 2002

It is widely believed that welfare participation in one generation stimulates
welfare participation in the next generation.  This perception helped motivate the 1996
overhaul of the U.S. welfare system: it was hoped that the combination of time-limits and
work requirements that were imposed as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act would reduce mothers’ participation in (and children’s
exposure to) welfare programs.  Limiting the length of time that children experience
welfare is expected to reduce the likelihood that they participate as adults.
   
 Policymakers’ convictions aside, evidence on the intergenerational transmission
of welfare dependency is limited to only a handful of studies (Rainwater, 1987; Duncan,
Hill and Hoffman, 1988; McLanahan, 1988; Solon, Corcoran, Gordon and Laren, 1988;
Antel, 1992; Gottschalk, 1990, 1992, 1996; An, Haveman and Wolfe, 1993; Levine and
Zimmerman, 1996; and Borjas and Sueyoshi, 1997).  Many of these analyses are based
on small samples, outdated data and/or measures of welfare participation that could result
in biased estimates.

BigBadBob

  • Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 230
  • http://buildingwhat.org/
    • View Profile
Re: Where would you cut spending to reduce the defecit?
« Reply #29 on: December 03, 2010, 09:36:32 AM »
Rich-

Eek! No more that’s plenty. Is Mike implying that what you posted is a tea-party platform? I’m still scratching my head on how to reply to you. On a point by point basis there’s enough there for the whole rest of the winter, not necessarily a bad thing.