|
|
Post by Leo on Nov 4, 2013 13:51:41 GMT
Thank you for that analysis of the systems and problems devolving about poverty in your society. I know it is a complex issue, but my reaction to the 'rorting' of social services is that there will always be those who want to game the system, but they will always be a very small percentage. The cost of such fraud is best regarded as an overhead of the system - much like staff, premises, etc. As you quite rightly point out, the cost of eliminating fraud (almost an impossibility,) is disproportionate to the benefits realised.
This is a discussion I often have with the conservative in my society, who complain about the many areas of social assistance available here. I remind them of the societal cost of not having those social safety nets in place. My advice to any penny-pinching conservative is to go and live in Africa, or elsewhere in the third world, for a little while. I suspect they would return as a full card-carrying member of the local socialist club.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 4, 2013 14:52:08 GMT
Thank you for that analysis of the systems and problems devolving about poverty in your society. I know it is a complex issue......
I like to use the analogy of our government using aspirin, a mild pain reliever (imposing initially low costs) to mitigate the pain caused by a brain tumor. The tumor isn't addressed so it get worse creating more pain and so we end up requiring morphine (resulting in high costs) to mitigate the pain caused by the tumor because the tumor itself has never been addressed. Eventually the tumor kills the person just like the ever upward spiraling costs of welfare assistance to mitigate the effects of poverty will continue until we can no longer afford it.
I posted a chart previously that showed the "Bottom 99%" lost about 10% of "real income" between 2007-2009 but we need to understand that the top tier of this group didn't lose 10% as many didn't lose any real income. Others closer to the bottom of this group lost up to about 25% of their "real income" during just these three years..... and there has been zero real income growth for them since 2007-2009. That means they're still up to 25% below where they were before the recession. We had an expanding economy for over 50 months since 2009 and the bottom percentiles are still up to 25% worse off than they were before the recession.
They were living "hand to mouth" barely getting by and today the "hand" is all but empty. Where can they cut living expenses? They're already living in the lowest rent places, they can't save much if anything on energy and prices keep going up, they can't cut transportation expenses because they "need the car" to get to work, they can't reduce child care expenses. One of the first things that is cut is the food budget and there isn't much to cut there either. A person can only eat so much macaroni and cheese. They can't even cut "hamburger" because they could rarely afford it before. Still, that is one of the first places where they cut expenditures. They have to pay the light bill, the have to pay to maintain a car if they have one so they can get to work, they have to pay the rent. Perhaps 80% of their expenditures can't logically be reduced so the cut where they can and going without eating is something they get used to real fast. That's just wrong.
I saw an interview with a woman that was waiting for SNAP benefits to begin. Her and her husband alternated eating days so they could feed their child everyday of the week. One ate on Monday, Wednesday and Friday while the other would eat on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. The only time the whole family ate on the same day was on Sunday. That was their solution to not enough money to feed the family.
When you take a family with marginal income to begin with and cut 10% to 25% from that income they're going to end up in poverty and that poverty increases the "pain" so we've gone from aspirin to morphine in treating the effects of poverty that dramatically increased.
Too many "conservatives" are addressing the use of "morphine" today because they're ignoring the "tumor" that keeps getting worse requiring "stronger and stronger pain killers" to deal with. What really "scares" them, although they won't admit it, is that "treating the tumor" can initially cost a lot more money than just providing the pain killer. From my perspective I'd rather spend more today to "treat the tumor" so that the need for the pain killer is dramatically diminished.
Even identifying the reasons behind the poverty is easy. It's a combination of economic discrimination and crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is inherent in our tax codes that favors corporations and investors over sole proprietors and workers. Our tax codes are the primary reason why, after over 50 months of economic expansion, the only one's benefiting are corporations and investors. The other problem is discrimination based upon race, ethnic heritage, and gender that denies equality of economic opportunity. It is very well documented but is also something that our government can't really address. Ending invidious economic discrimination is a responsibility of the People and not the government.
Conservatives don't want to address either of these fundamental problems that are creating poverty and generally deny that the problems even exist. The think the problem is the spending that is only a symptom of the problem while living in denial of the problem that drives the necessity for the spending.
For the most part I'm the only one addressing the problems although I've gained limited support for my proposals. Conservatives aren't offering any solutions to the problems and continue to focus on the symptoms of the problems instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 4, 2013 23:55:56 GMT
Thank you for that analysis of the systems and problems devolving about poverty in your society. I know it is a complex issue, but my reaction to the 'rorting' of social services is that there will always be those who want to game the system, but they will always be a very small percentage. The cost of such fraud is best regarded as an overhead of the system - much like staff, premises, etc. As you quite rightly point out, the cost of eliminating fraud (almost an impossibility,) is disproportionate to the benefits realised.
This is a discussion I often have with the conservative in my society, who complain about the many areas of social assistance available here. I remind them of the societal cost of not having those social safety nets in place. My advice to any penny-pinching conservative is to go and live in Africa, or elsewhere in the third world, for a little while. I suspect they would return as a full card-carrying member of the local socialist club.
Penny-Pinching? So, you don't think that a program that has ballooned 368% in 10 years and middle-class people who aren't hungry are using it....isn't a problem? Well, I guess for Socialists......it's not a problem.....since most believe money grows on trees somewhere. They don't seem to know anything about fiscal responsibility, the problems of over-spending, and the problems it can all lead to. But even if they do; they simply don't care. They just want to be taken care of..... |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 4, 2013 23:59:55 GMT
BTW, most real Libertarians are FOR fiscal responsibility. They would never be supportive of abuse of taxpayer money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Nov 5, 2013 1:08:01 GMT
Penny-Pinching? So, you don't think that a program that has ballooned 368% in 10 years and middle-class people who aren't hungry are using it....isn't a problem? Well, I guess for Socialists......it's not a problem.....since most believe money grows on trees somewhere. They don't seem to know anything about fiscal responsibility, the problems of over-spending, and the problems it can all lead to. But even if they do; they simply don't care. They just want to be taken care of.....
I realise that you also may be speaking in general, but if, by implication, you are classifying me as a socialist in the political sense, please be advised that I am basically apolitical as far as party politics is concerned. Thus far, I have not been old enough to vote in British elections (I will be at the next election) but when I vote it will be based upon the policies proposed, not the political party concerned.
And if we are denigrating the socialistically inclined parties upon their fiscal mismanagement, allow me to remind you what 'fiscal responsibility' under Margaret Thatcher did to the land of my birth.
First - the good news. GDP rose by 0.6% per quarter.
Followed by -
Unemployment (which up to that point had been 3-4%) skyrocketed to 12% in the last years of the Thatcher regime.
Manufacturing as a percentage of GDP, dropped from nearly 18% in 1979 to 15% during her last years.
Days lost to manufacturing due to industrial action rose from roughly 4,000 to 12,000.
Inflation peaked at over 20%.
The number of people living in poverty increased from 13% to 22%.
The Gini coefficient (measure of inequality) rose roughly 30%.
This then was the legacy of the most conservative and capitalistic government Great Britain has ever suffered - unemployment, poverty, and inequality. The Iron Lady did not save Britain’s economy, but she certainly made Britain a more comfortable place for those who were already more than comfortable at the expense of those who could least afford it. That is not a world in which I wish to live, or bring up children (when I have them).
A society is not a corporate entity, and the methods by which corporations become dominant, are not those by which a just, humane, safe, and socially successful society are created.
|
|
|
|
Post by dangermouse on Nov 5, 2013 1:34:49 GMT
Total abuse is perhaps excessive as a descriptor. Even in backwoods Amurka there's a "deserving poor".
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 5, 2013 1:39:20 GMT
Penny-Pinching? So, you don't think that a program that has ballooned 368% in 10 years and middle-class people who aren't hungry are using it....isn't a problem? Well, I guess for Socialists......it's not a problem.....since most believe money grows on trees somewhere. They don't seem to know anything about fiscal responsibility, the problems of over-spending, and the problems it can all lead to. But even if they do; they simply don't care. They just want to be taken care of.....
I realise that you also may be speaking in general, but if, by implication, you are classifying me as a socialist in the political sense, please be advised that I am basically apolitical as far as party politics is concerned. Thus far, I have not been old enough to vote in British elections (I will be at the next election) but when I vote it will be based upon the policies proposed, not the political party concerned.
And if we are denigrating the socialistically inclined parties upon their fiscal mismanagement, allow me to remind you what 'fiscal responsibility' under Margaret Thatcher did to the land of my birth.
First - the good news. GDP rose by 0.6% per quarter.
Followed by -
Unemployment (which up to that point had been 3-4%) skyrocketed to 12% in the last years of the Thatcher regime.
Manufacturing as a percentage of GDP, dropped from nearly 18% in 1979 to 15% during her last years.
Days lost to manufacturing due to industrial action rose from roughly 4,000 to 12,000.
Inflation peaked at over 20%.
The number of people living in poverty increased from 13% to 22%.
The Gini coefficient (measure of inequality) rose roughly 30%.
This then was the legacy of the most conservative and capitalistic government Great Britain has ever suffered - unemployment, poverty, and inequality. The Iron Lady did not save Britain’s economy, but she certainly made Britain a more comfortable place for those who were already more than comfortable at the expense of those who could least afford it. That is not a world in which I wish to live, or bring up children (when I have them).
A society is not a corporate entity, and the methods by which corporations become dominant, are not those by which a just, humane, safe, and socially successful society are created.
I, too, speak on principle. And even when I was poor.....I never blamed the rich; nor did I demonize them as liberals here do. Well, I take that back, they demonize only conservative rich people; they LOVE liberal rich people. Mind you....I am NOT against "safety nets" for people who fall on hard times and need it. I am AGAINST those who abuse the system and simply want to sponge and be taken care of by other hard-working people. You say you are not political; but the system a country operates under IS political. Capitalist versus Socialist IS political......and that's what it comes down to. Capitalism says you can start with little or nothing and aspire and work to be anything you want to be. Socialism says, "I want to be taken care of" by the Nanny government who knows better than I do about making decisions that effect me." We have something over here called achieving "the American Dream." And one cannot achieve it through Socialism. But they can....and do achieve it through Capitalism. I know because I did just that. And I don't want that opportunity to be lost for all my fellow citizens and generations who follow me....... |
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Nov 5, 2013 1:59:25 GMT
LOL, all this happened long before I was born, and I am not an economist, nor have I the time to research each Thatcherite policy, its effects, and its implications, but 11 years of the most conservative government the UK has ever had, resulted in the effects I described (all of which are a matter of record). The proof of the pudding tends to be in the eating, and people much older (and wiser) than me - tell me that Great Britain was a more gentle, more decent, and more compassionate place, before the reign of Thatcher the Milk Snatcher. 
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 5, 2013 2:13:38 GMT
LOL, all this happened long before I was born, and I am not an economist, nor have I the time to research each Thatcherite policy, its effects, and its implications, but 11 years of the most conservative government the UK has ever had, resulted in the effects I described (all of which are a matter of record). The proof of the pudding tends to be in the eating, and people much older (and wiser) than me - tell me that Great Britain was a more gentle, more decent, and more compassionate place, before the reign of Thatcher the Milk Snatcher.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Nov 5, 2013 2:33:16 GMT
I, too, speak on principle. And even when I was poor.....I never blamed the rich; nor did I demonize them as liberals here do. Well, I take that back, they demonize only conservative rich people; they LOVE liberal rich people. Mind you....I am NOT against "safety nets" for people who fall on hard times and need it. I am AGAINST those who abuse the system and simply want to sponge and be taken care of by other hard-working people. You say you are not political; but the system a country operates under IS political. Capitalist versus Socialist IS political......and that's what it comes down to. Capitalism says you can start with little or nothing and aspire and work to be anything you want to be. Socialism says, "I want to be taken care of" by the Nanny government who knows better than I do about making decisions that effect me." We have something over here called achieving "the American Dream." And one cannot achieve it through Socialism. But they can....and do achieve it through Capitalism. I know because I did just that. And I don't want that opportunity to be lost for all my fellow citizens and generations who follow me....... , whose political beliefs are sincere. None of my comments should be taken personally, and I am not even sure we should be discussing capitalism versus socialism on a simplistic basis. Extremes of both philosophies can be harmful if abused to the point where they turn into something else (as occurred in Soviet Russia and Pinochet's Chile), and it's not a zero sum issue.
We are all, irrespective of philosophy, against people abusing any system intended for the public good. But the point I made in an earlier post was that, human nature being what it is, there will always be a percentage of people who will take unfair advantage of systems of social justice. The alternative to not accepting this as an overhead cost, is doing away with the systems concerned. My position being that the social cost of doing away with social justice is incomparably higher than the fiscal cost of coping with the abuse.
As for capitalism, it is merely the time-honoured practice of private ownership of the means of production. It guarantees nothing - the social infrastructure and systems of the society concerned are what enable the proverbial 'rags to riches' scenario. The age of Kings and tribal Chieftans was as capitalistic as any modern democracy, and social and material advancement was by means of marriage or violence - hard work had nothing to do with it. The wheelwright or blacksmith owned his means of production and worked from dawn to dusk, but never approached the wealth or status of the Lord of the Manor.
The answer to a maiden's prayer lies not in uncontrolled capitalism or poorly managed socialism, but may seen in Northern European and Scandinavian societies, which employ a judicious balance of free enterprise and social justice, to create the most successful societies on earth (at the cost, of course, of high taxation - but it was an American - Oliver Wendell-Holmes, who said "I like paying taxes, with them I buy civilisation".
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 5, 2013 11:29:11 GMT
BTW, most real Libertarians are FOR fiscal responsibility. They would never be supportive of abuse of taxpayer money.
Fiscal Responsibility: I'm the one that posted a proposal that would balance the US budget in it's first year of implementation. It would pay ALL of the government's bills and "paying the bills regardless of the reason behind the bills" is the first step of Fiscal Responsibility. Not a single "Republican" has made any proposal I'm aware of that would balance the budget in a single year by paying all of the bills and that wouldn't adversely affect anyone's "standard of living" to accomplish that. I did but Republicans didn't. So who's "fiscally responsible" in this? I pay the bills and Republicans borrow more money.
Abuse in spending taxpayer money: I'm the one that posted the information of fraud related to the SNAP program. Up to about $750 million is either obtained by those that don't actually qualify for the assistance or that use the SNAP benefits for purposes other than the purchase of food for the household. I hold the USDA ultimately responsible for addressing the abuse in spending the taxpayers money related to SNAP but I also expect them to pragmatic in doing so. For example it would be silly to spend $10 billion to reduce $750 million of abuse.
So we're spending $80 billion today on the SNAP program and approximately $750 million of that represents abuse in spending of the taxpayers money but the rest is justifiable because that's how much it costs to provide the assistance necessary, based upon a criteria that hasn't been objected to and hasn't changed since 2002, to provide up to but not exceeding 2/3rds of a household's food budget.
The reason more households need the assistance is because their "real income" in many cases has dropped by up to 25% since 2007. In rare cases even more. I know individuals that are only earning about 1/2 of what they did in 2007.
We always had the "poor people" working at "burger-flipping" wages and the problem today is that almost four-times as many are now working at "burger-flipping" wages. As "Republicans" often note we've had job creation for several years but the vast majority of it is in the "service industries" that pay "burger-flipping" wages. There has been no increase in the real wages of Americans in the last ten years and the recession resulted in many low middle class income households losing up to 25% of their real income and now they're trying to get by on "burger-flipping" wages and now qualify for SNAP assistance.
It is ironic because I don't endorse a federal minimum wage but if it was increased then fewer people would be eligible for SNAP assistance. That is just a matter of running the math. Because employers pay so little it requires the taxpayers to help provide food for their employees. Very ironic.
|
|
