Printable View
Oh, and I was in the Vatican this summer; the Catholic Church is actually a great example of ANOTHER organization that is too damn top heavy for its own good. Maybe less gilding in St. Peter's and a few more mouths COULD be fed.....Actually reminded me a lot of Washington D.C. - you know, the richest city in the country.
There is a fundamental flaw in this methodology. It strikes most napkin analysis of Fed programs. Conventional wisdom states that Medicare's efficiency is massively better than private insurers. It is more efficient, just not so massively when you take the administrative processes that are performed by other govt. agencies as their order of business.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Of course, the counter argument can be made for synergistic gains in the public model.
But it's still an apples to parachute pants comparison.
Dylan Matthews has already taken a look at the claim that millions moved off of welfare’s rolls and poverty was reduced. As he writes, the program’s numbers have steadily fallen since 1996: “Since reform, the rolls have shrunk from 12.6 million to 4.6 million.” The number of people in poverty “fell by 6.4 million people under Clinton, whereas the number of people in poverty increased by 7.4 million between 1981 and 1993 (and the rate went from 14 percent to 15.1 percent).” There is a catch, though. “But it’s worth noting that welfare reform led to a huge spike in extreme poverty, as defined as the number of households making under $2 a day,” Matthews adds.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has done excellent work to track TANF’s failures. “While the official poverty rate among families declined in the early years of welfare reform, when the economy was booming and unemployment was extremely low, it started increasing in 2000 and now exceeds its 1996 level,” it reports. “Over the last 16 years, the national TANF caseload has declined by 60 percent, even as poverty and deep poverty have worsened.” In fact, nearly 70 percent of poor families with children received cash assistance in 1996; in 2009, less than 30 percent did. And the families who are able to access benefits aren’t getting much. Their purchasing power is below 1996 levels, adjusting for inflation, in every state but two. They fall below 50 percent of the poverty line in every state.
The rolls may be going down, but the need is not. The early employment gains among welfare recipients were tied to the strong economy. As the CBPP puts it, “The data suggest that a strong labor market is central to the success of a work-based assistance system.” When the labor market went into free fall, those gains were lost. But rather than low-income individuals finding themselves cushioned by TANF’s safety net, there was nothing to stop the fall.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169788...how-it-failed#
The failure of Clinton's welfare reform is a huge reason why Repugs love to point to Clinton as better than Barry.
'
getting people off welfare into jobs is wonderful, but not so when there are no jobs. Millions of shitty jobs were created 1992-2000, but millions of those jobs are now gone. The needy just get screwed in the Banksters' Great (Jobs) Depression.
That threat is part of why it costs relatively little for the IRS to collect money, hence its overall efficiency.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
As for positive outcomes and so forth:
If you want to go down that road, you/we need to start defining an awful lot of terms.
I will accede a certain amount of inefficiency, as one would expect from any large-scale human endeavor. I would be willing to put forth it isn't quite as "inefficient" as you probably think it is.
Indeed. I think such analysis is somewhat limited in value. It is still fun to do though, because most people don't really think about such things. Once one dives into the details, dogmatically held beliefs get hard to sustain, and ones pre-held simplifications get just as hard to justify. My kinda fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
Money spent at levels unprecedented in human history (trillions upon trillions on the war on poverty).Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Poverty level in U.S. in August of 1964 - ~15%
Poverty level in U.S. today - ~15%
...and down the road we go.
The war on cancer has been going on since 1971. We still do not have a cure for cancer. Should we stop investing in cancer research?Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I looked it up, and was surprised how little the money you donate goes to the people you want to give it to, even for the "good" charities.
There have been great strides in cancer treatments. What used to be death sentences (Breast, Colon) now have survivability rates over 90%. Sure, there is quite a ways to go, but progress is being made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Th'Pusher
On the other hand:
15% = 15%
$Ts? really, got a link?Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
dubya's tax cuts for the wealthy are well over $1T now. You don't mind that, do ya?
... and there is yet another problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
What would it have been without the efforts we have made?
I would not have thought that unchallenged dogma was your thing. I know you are trying to make an argument, but this has been done before, here and elsewhere. We need something a bit more than regurgitated talking points, IMO.
I give to two organizations (actually raffle off a smoked brisket up here in Pa each year at my New Years party to support):Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
ICCAP
also give to:
American Red Cross
have been giving less and less to my church; not happy with how they've been spending money as of late - instead been sending that money as well as advice to a guy I met on a plane trip one time down to SA - he is starting churches in Maldova; and trying to teach people to (as he says) "do the business".
If you are careful, there are plenty of worthy places doing good work to give your money to.
dogma?
I am making this up as I go along; no dogma involved, or "regurgitated talking points" for that matter. Looked up the 15% number since we began this discussion on a hunch - the hunch turned out to be correct. The argument is simplistic, sure, but why should we complicate it any more? Do you think Johnson's bill would have been passed if the Congress at the time could have seen 50 years into the future? The answer has to be "no", doesn't it?
What would the poverty rate be if we hadn't done anything? I'm betting around 15% - just a hunch.
No idea the source; just Googled it:Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/11864-the-war-on-poverty-$15-trillion-and-nothing-to-show-for-it
and yes, I wouldn't mind the tax cuts expiring (all of them); we can't afford them.
"the conclusions of a recent Cato Institute" :lol
Tell 45 years of Medicare and Medicaid recipients that "there's nothing to show for it".
lol alternet.
Thanks for not playing, loserQuote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
I already bitch slapped alternet on pg. 5, bot.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=204139&page=5
http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/...s/facepalm.gif
The irony of you lol cato while posting 1000 links to alternet and thinkprogress.borg is not lost on anyone, simpleton.
We have the CFC here in the military, which I give at least a $100 to each year, split up between four or five charities that look interesting. Last year I gave some to KaBoom playgrounds, a group dedicated to saving coral reefs, a Hispanic lawyer fund, and one or two other groups. I love going through the book and finding unique charities.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
breast cancer is at 88% at stage 1 but drops to 41 %at stage III B, colon at stage I is at 74% and 37% at stage II C; cancer overall is still the 2nd leading cause of death. there is no official cure for any form cancer, just some forms of treatment that have been substantially succesful.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
also, every one is on board for finding a cure for cancer. there has never been a downward trend and the methodology has been consistent. comparing the paradigms of strategies on poverty v strategies on cancer research is like comparing economics to applied physics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjv
Great. But I didn't erect that particular Straw Man; I just responded to it; you might want to direct you complaint to Th' Pusher.
what about free trade and capital flow ?Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
TB :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
IRONY! :lol
CATO! :lol
http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/...s/facepalm.gif :lol such chagrin, such anguish! :lol
What about them?Quote:
Originally Posted by rjv
As they relate to letting the tax cuts expire?