Reply With Quote
thanks for clarifying where you agree with ElNono. a minute ago you were twisting his words.
Yes. Smaller in percentage only.
thanks for clarifying where you agree with ElNono. a minute ago you were twisting his words.
I don't see how. I have not budged from my original assessment.
I kept saying today's spending was more in constant dollars per capita, he kept arguing it was less.
per capita? don't think so.he kept insisting it was less
That's certainly a valid concern... but let's track back to where this started: The contention that government would save huge amounts by implementing eugenics/sterilization. Reality indicates that the amount spent on children's welfare is, as a portion of the over spending, fairly small.
To compound the silliness, he has advocated going back to the 50's as far as spending goes... yet back then the government spent at a rate twice as big on children's welfare.
you misrepresented his. You said El Nono thinks 20% of X is always greater than 11% of Y.
You were incorrect. He said nothing of the sort.
Did I? where? I do advocate reducing the spending. I mentioned the 50's responsibility values. I don't recall the 50's for cost comparisons. It was you that brought up the link referring to 1960 vs. 2009, so I stuck with that, rather than change the goalpost.
Any money we can save in any program, even if you think it's small, is a step in the right direction.
If that's true, then why didn't he correct me?
The point of using percentages is so the size of the budget doesn't matter. Welfare spending at any given time is a certain percentage of the overall spending, regardless of the size of the budget. The budget is the constant = 100%.
Sure. And half a century ago the US took 20% of their entire allocated spending and used it on children's welfare.
In order to be spending at the same rate today, they would need to take 20% of their entire allocated spending as use it on children's welfare. But they don't. They only use 11%.
It might be more money, but it's a fact that government today spends (proportionally) less on children's welfare that it did in 1960.
If you want to go back to 1960's levels of children's welfare, then the government would need to increase child welfare spending, not cut it.
Your whole premise for this idea was to cut spending. I have to assume that your "responsibility values" from the 1950 are tied there somewhere, right?
Then we're doing good... we decreased spending on child-welfare 9% since 1960... that should be progress, right?
On the other hand, what has grown since then is adult-welfare. Not sure where eugenics/sterilization helps on that. Care to elaborate?
More correctly, you refused to acknowledge we were spending more per child today than the past. Every time I said so, you argued the smaller percentage vs. the larger one. If you were playing word games, shame on you for not participating in an honest debate.
Are we or are we not, spending more money per child, in constant dollars?
If you say no. You are wrong. that's the point all along that you refuse to acknowledge.
This is where you are wrong. If overnight, I double what I place in a budget, the pie is now twice as large. To maintain equal spending in existing line items, they all are now half the percentage they previously were.
It matters.
That's because the pie is 3.09 times larger per capita now, in constant dollars. Your 11% is 70% more spending per capita than before in constant dollars.
Proportions doesn't matter when so many more programs have been added, increasing government over these last 50 years. It's too long of a time frame to apply proportion with any integrity.
No, it would be less.
Except that 9.5% of 1960 to ~3.5% of 2009 isn't less. Only in percentage. As I showed earlier, that 3.5% is about 14% larger in constant dollars per capita because the budget is so much more bloated.
As for total Health and Human Services programs, does this help:
Note how it is 8 times more in percentage value than in 2010 than in 1962. Now considering the spending has grown by 3 times per capita in constant dollars, this department now spend 24 times as much than back then, in constant dollars, per capita.
Explained so many times already. It appears you are incapable of understanding other people's views. Why should I beat a dead horse?
They're a percentage of the whole. They are effectively the exact same percentage.
Let me know when you wrap your head around that basic concept. There's no point in going further until you understand the difference between percentages and amounts.
Government dedicate less of it's spending to children now than in the past.
Fact.
Let me throw a graph here too for good measure:
How does preventing children from being born attacks spending on adult-welfare?
Let's start by looking at the savings. How much?
Do you seriously not understand what I'm saying? Un ingbeliveable.
They're a percentage of the whole. They are effectively the exact same percentage.
Let me know when you wrap your head around that basic concept. There's no point in going further until you understand the difference between percentages and amounts.
You should know I mean if I add more things to spend on, as I have been saying that about added government programs. If I stick to the same percentage, I cannot add more programs. If I double the number of programs that will consume as much money as the other existing programs, I have to double the spending.
I'll try this again....
To maintain equal spending on previous programs, their percentage will be half of what they were before... with a total budget double the size.
Do you understand the difference between proportional and non-proportional yet? Let me know when you do.
Who said government can't or won't change the percentages?
Stop moving the goalposts.
Government dedicate less of it's spending to children now than in the past. That's a fact.
I completely understand the difference. I'm saying you can't compare by percentage, yet that's where you keep your focus.
Bull . Maybe less in percentage, but still more money in constant dollars per capita.
Let me know when you understand.
Sure you can. Why not?
Fact.
To sum up, WC should just admit that, proportionally, we are spending less as a percentage of the budget than we used to. That is progress, because it means we now have 89% of our budget to spend on other items, rather than 81%.
WC, you've noted that we are spending on more per child than we used to, but have you asked whether or not the amount we spent per child in 1960 was a good figure or not? Or are you just assuming it's good because it's less?
(We could go into the "How much will your projected program save?" hypothetical, but I'm kicking that can down the road for now. Especially since your program would seemingly require quite a few extra actors to ensure it was carried out effectively.)
I have.
The budget is already 3 times per capita what it used to be in constant dollars.
I'm going by ElDodo's figures.
I'm not going to try to quantify a number. Just that when people are typically having two or more children requiring government aide for 18 years each and possibly their lifetime too, this is reduced from two or more, to one. I see no way possible how it wouldn't save money in the long run.
You've been complaining that the amount of money spent per child has gone up, have you not? One would think that if you were against the amount per child going up, you could at least back up why you think the lower number is correct and why children don't need more money spent on them nowadays.
(And yes, I understand it's a tangent, but one you readily argued.)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
