U.S. Social spending programs rank last in developed nations

pigraphia, I agree that people should be more charitable and helpful with others, but the reality is a different story.

I'll say it again, social security has historically been one of the most successful government programs in US history. It's a fact. Government can and should be partially about social programs.

Why? For a lot of reasons, besides the success of social security, I believe (as is stated in the Constitution), the government is "We The People", ie, the government is us or is a direct representation of the people. While that isn't the case now, it should be. And since the people is the government, it is our responsibility to look out for each other (which is basically what you're saying about people being more charitable). I think doing the opposite is bad and regressive for society. And that doesn't bode well for the future of our country or for the evolution of it.

It seems like you want a very restricted and reduced government like a lot of Republican politicians today. I'm not a fan of how some government programs are run or some government policy, but the answer isn't to simply strip away government, it's to make the programs run better or even get rid of some of them if absolutely necessary. We basically need a reform of government, not a reduction, IMO. If we do that (a drastic reduction), the people will be even more at the mercy of corporations and the wealthy and things are already bad enough as it is in that department.

Originally posted by origamiandurbanism
pigraphia, I agree that people should be more charitable and helpful with others, but the reality is a different story.

I'll say it again, social security has historically been one of the most successful government programs in US history. It's a fact. Government can and should be partially about social programs.

edit on 22-4-2011 by origamiandurbanism because: (no reason given)

If you look at trends, people become less charitable the more government does.
Every time the government steps in people tend to donate less or do less.

Not to mention every study left and right that shows government dependence, which now is actually crossing generation gaps which in the past it hasn't.
I can't count how many conversations I have had with people who actually choose to say on government aid because it's easier, or there is still time left.
I have even been told to my face things along the lines of "I am gonna get mine while I can because I deserve to relax and get paid by the government"

Sure there are people out there that use government aid and as soon as they can get off it, but for every 1 of them there are at least 2(that's being very generous) who choose to stay on government aid because it's easy.
When people are given things from a government it slowly erodes their self esteem even if it's minor and not seen right away.
Extending benefits over and over again doesn't help the person, charity would help them because it is a gift not an entitlement.
Hell NYC re starting the program that to receive unemployment you have to work 3 half days for the metro and transit doing whatever a non licensed person can do helps them.

As for Social Security being hugely successful?
The original program was intended to supplement retirement not replace it.
All of a sudden 1-2.5 generations started using it as a full retirement plan and wound up eating it.
Now the generations who are coming up are being told that they will have to use it as it was originally planned, a supplement and they are yelling and screaming.
The entitlement jumped a generational gap and made the generation that is yelling the loudest just slightly more dependent and weak than the 2 generations before them.
I would not at all call that a success.

Social security was/is a really failed experiment, and ever since social programs have been instituted people have given less and less to charity all while becoming more dependent.

Not to mention all the fraud that social programs are racked with, when the POTUS says "no IBM I/we don't want free software to find and eliminate fraud" all because the party doesn't want to upset voters the system really is in a full downward spiral.

reply to post by origamiandurbanism


What is the goal of the medley of social programs? Perhaps if we could all settle on what that is, we could measure current levels of social spending, and evaluate the gap between current and desired state in a quantitative manner. Upon objectively measuring, to the extent that there was a gap, we could look at alternatives to fix that.

So what is the goal? Is it measured in literacy? Health? Stable families? Employment? Some level of material wealth, independant of outcome? First lets come up with what we think the programs are for in the first place in a manner which enables us to evaluate the efficacy of those we current provide in a quantitative manner.

Lets then look at the gap, to the extent that there is one and evaluate, in the same manner that a private firm does, how best to distribute and administer those services that are needed to be strengthened to fill in the gap. Lets also agree that once the gap has been closed there is no reason for an expansion of these programs. The programs may need to be adjusted and will certainly need to be administered, but once the objective criteria reached, there will be no expansion.

Of course, there would be no programs that could not objectively and measurably linked to the achievement of those standards. The standards need to be crisp, well defined and there should be no mystery about our achieving them.

The challenge is that today, we don't talk about outcomes. We don't talk about why, despite the fact that we spend inordinant amounts of money on these programs, the recipients of those programs do not seem to be materially better off after receiving them for a while. We only want to talk about the disparity between those folks receiving those programs and those paying for it. The claim of the statists is that the way to fix these problems within our society is to simply narrow that gap between rich and poor, when in fact the facts would show that narrowing the gap has absolutely no material impact on the lives of the poor and middle class. Those facts obviously supported by historical trends in spending evaluated against objective measurements such as literacy, mortality rates, substance abuse rates, employment, criminal behavior, stable families, etc. The more we spend the worse the lives of the recipients of the largess of these programs seem to be.

The left needs to be honest. The primary goal is to reduce the gap between rich and poor, regardless of what that reduction does to the lives of the poor. The irony is that the primary focus of the left is not on the poor at all, it is on the rich and the basis of their world view is to take from them. If confronted with two choices, considering them in philosiphical not economic basis:

1. tax rates for the top 10% of Americans were reduced by half. The literacy, mortality, health, employment, family stability, criminality, substance abuse measures all dramatically improve for the poor and middle classes. They are the best they have been history. The gap between the rich and poor increases dramatically as well.

2. tax rates for the top 10% of Americans are raised considerably, say, up to 80%. All the items above worsen dramatically and the lives of the poor and middle class significantly deteriorate. The gap between the rich and poor decreases dramatically.

The professional left would opt for number 2 every time. That is why objective measures of the goals of these social programs can never be quantified nor measured, because there is only one goal and that is an egalitarian society, where every is equally miserable. The only goal of the statists is that these programs get larger and that there are more of them. To the extent that the poor are benefited by this world view is an ancilliary benefit. The intellectual basis of all of the egalitarian movements in history are the same. The basis at the core is not socio-economic. The basis is power. Power that can be used indiscriminately and in every case in history, brutally with the poor taking the brunt of the brutality.

Originally posted by Pigraphia


If you look at trends, people become less charitable the more government does.
Every time the government steps in people tend to donate less or do less.

Are you basing that on data you have seen? I'd be interested to see the sources.

Social security was/is a really failed experiment, and ever since social programs have been instituted people have given less and less to charity all while becoming more dependent.

Again, sources for these studies?

Originally posted by Emeraldprophet
reply to post by Skerrako

 

It seems you are talking about the spending habits of our federal government. I think the big difference between the U.S. and other countries is our confederation of smaller states. Could you make your case to me why you believe that I, a person who lives in Atlanta, should have a federal gun put to my head and be robbed to pay for the retirement, or food stamps, medicine, or health insurance of someone living in Seattle?

Lol, actually it's the other way around. It's Georgia that's taking from Washington...and the rest of the traditionally Conservative/Red states that are mooching off the Liberal/Blue states. So this should just provide further proof of what the OP is talking about.

Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

Actually I have posted this on several threads because it is almost inevitable that someone claiming to be "conservative" starts complaining about how they have to pay for all these "evil commie socialistic" programs and support some "unemployed bum" up in those "big liberal cities"... Interesting how perception can be vastly different from reality. That's what happens when you watch too much 24 hour news networks, I suppose.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


If I could remember the books, and various essays/studies I had to read in AP Hist, Gov, and Econ I would get them to you.
As it is I can only remember the premise and the thesis of them, which I have stated.
There is also google and you could just as easily enter the right search terms yourself.
You won't do that though because you really don't want to be convinced otherwise.

That aside, it's easily observable, communities that receive more social measures have less external charitable donations.
Which is sad, because the communities receiving less donations are often the ones that need them the most.

It's also easy to observe.
Group A and B are both groups that need help, the same amount of help, similar issues etc...
A charitable person is looking to donate to help anyone because they have a good nature.
Looking for a cause to donate to C-person finds out group B is receiving some form of government aid, but group A is not.
Okay now both groups have money/help, but it continues the next person sees that B is receiving money so they give to A.
A is doing even better, but B is doing worse because they only had the government help the one time, but since all things are equal the charitable people keep donating to A because they think B will be fine.
Next thing you know, B can no longer help their existing group members because their funds have decreased.
Group A goes to absorb B and try to help them, but soon A has all the A and B members and the donations they receive are not enough.
Oh and what's this it's not an election cycle so the people in office don't need to look good so the larger group with A and B isn't going to get government funding, and the charitable people need time to save up before they can donate again.
Now both groups as one suffer.

It happens all the time, for the most part it is an unconsciousness act on the part of people to donate less when the government is involved.

If you can't see that, well there is nothing I can do because you are choosing to pretend it doesn't happen.

The government never fixes things they only make it worse.
The same goes for social security, if you can't see that it has failed, there is nothing I can do to convince you.
No amount of links I could provide you.
You're willingly remaining blind

Originally posted by meeneecat
Lol, actually it's the other way around. It's Georgia that's taking from Washington...and the rest of the traditionally Conservative/Red states that are mooching off the Liberal/Blue states. So this should just provide further proof of what the OP is talking about.


Actually I have posted this on several threads because it is almost inevitable that someone claiming to be "conservative" starts complaining about how they have to pay for all these "evil commie socialistic" programs and support some "unemployed bum" up in those "big liberal cities"... Interesting how perception can be vastly different from reality. That's what happens when you watch too much 24 hour news networks, I suppose.

I can see where you are going with this, but it's a bit off.

The person complaining about having their money taken can't control where it goes.
It doesn't matter if their dollar is taken and given to someone 2 blocks away, or 3 states away it is still taken from them for programs they don't agree with.
Not to mention the people complaining can't control how much money those around them accept through such measures.
From your link, 1 dollar is taken from a person in California, and 81% of it goes back to California while 19% goes to someone in another state.
1 dollar is taken from someone in New Mexico, and that dollar goes to someone or some whatever in their state, plus 89 more cents.
The dollar was still taken from the person complaining and given somewhere else in both cases.

So while yes it is interesting that "red" states receive more federal funding than "blue" states, it has no bearing on whether or not someone is complaining about the social measures.
Not to mention that a "red" or "blue" state really doesn't mean anything
So the state voted Rep, or Dem, or their senator has a R or D next to their name.
People vote for who they think best aligned with what they want accomplished, that doesn't mean they agree with everything the person does.
It doesn't even make the voter of the same party as the candidate, breaking down politics into such simple terms as D&R Red&Blue is a gross under assessment of political dynamics.

So saying someone can't complain because his or her state receives more than other states isn't valid.
Nor is saying they can't complain that their dollars go to measures across the country, because in the end the money gets thrown into a pot, spun around and shot back.
Each dollar isn't marked as a Florida dollar so when the government sends money to Florida they start with Fl money first...

reply to post by Emeraldprophet


Bullseys and a star for you. You delivered that one right on target! How hard is it to figure out, really? But you know, When they say the US they try make you think that they aren't saying "us". I don't feel bad. I like my country. Try going and living someplace else for a while and then tell me how bad the USA is. Go ahead. If it's so bad here, why do people lock themselves in shipping containers and live in they're own S**t for anywhere from 10 to 20 days just to have a "chance" to stay in the USA? Why? What makes us such a terrible country as compared to say oh I don't know, how about Saudi Arbia? How about oh I don't know, Venezuela, How about, oh I don't know, China? Yep. The USA. What a teriible place to live. Riiighhhttttt!

Originally posted by Pigraphia
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

If I could remember the books, and various essays/studies I had to read in AP Hist, Gov, and Econ I would get them to you.
As it is I can only remember the premise and the thesis of them, which I have stated.
There is also google and you could just as easily enter the right search terms yourself.
You won't do that though because you really don't want to be convinced otherwise.

So, in other words, you don't have even a shred of evidence or sources for the information you posted earlier as fact.

Noted.

I DID enjoy how the paragraphs following the one I just quoted were full of personal attacks and accusation. That certainly was more productive than taking the time to seek out the sources you claim to have.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

I DID enjoy how the paragraphs following the one I just quoted were full of personal attacks and accusation. That certainly was more productive than taking the time to seek out the sources you claim to have.

First, I never claimed to have the sources.
I came right out and said I don't have them any more they were various sources I read in high school.
I even said if I could get them I would, the truth of the matter is both my AP history teacher, and the teacher for AP econ, and AP gov are no longer at my old high school and I have no idea where they are.
How is this a claim of having them?

If I could remember the books, and various essays/studies I had to read in AP Hist, Gov, and Econ I would get them to you. As it is I can only remember the premise and the thesis of them, which I have stated.

As for personal attacks and accusation, first I find it interesting that you don't point them out directly.
The majority of the following text was me trying to explain the rational for my argument.

For the sake of discussion I will break down my post that you found so attack oriented to see just where you think I was attacking you.
After all, you felt attacked.

Though I think you were deflecting the bulk of my text because you had no reply, but that is just my opinion. Was that accusing you? Because I was just trying to point out why I think you ignored the bulk of my text and accused me of attacking you.
Lets start the play by play as it were.

There is also google and you could just as easily enter the right search terms yourself.

I don't see how saying you could use google is a personal attack, unless you don't like google and that offended you.

You won't do that though because you really don't want to be convinced otherwise.

Again I don't see that as a personal attack, I was just stating an opinion that I formed of you based on your posts. I simply suggested that you could have used google, but I doubt that you would from the tone of your posts. I guess maybe this sounds like me accusing you of something, but it is merely speculation and opinion based on what I have observed.

That aside, it's easily observable, communities that receive more social measures have less external charitable donations.
Which is sad, because the communities receiving less donations are often the ones that need them the most.

Maybe I wasn't too clear here, but I was putting aside my above statements and moving on. I really don't see an attack to you there at all. In fact I am not even speaking directly to you. I put aside the previous statement and move on to say something is easily observable yadda yadda yadda, and how I think the situation is sad.

Next is the bulk of my text giving an example to explain my reasoning. I am not even speaking directly to you, more I am addressing anyone saying. The following example is easy to observe (I have an example). So since that wasn't directed at you I don't quite see how I attacked you there.

It happens all the time, for the most part it is an unconsciousness act on the part of people to donate less when the government is involved.

Just stating my observation there, again not directed straight at you.

If you can't see that, well there is nothing I can do because you are choosing to pretend it doesn't happen.

This was directed at you, I am not attacking you. I am just stating my frustration that there is nothing I can do to convince you of my point. I could have been more clear saying the "that" was my example and if you can't follow my example there is nothing I can do, because that is the best way I can explain my side of it. I shouldn't have to put a giant disclaimer by my posts though. I felt the quoted sentence was enough.

The government never fixes things they only make it worse.
The same goes for social security, if you can't see that it has failed, there is nothing I can do to convince you.
No amount of links I could provide you.
You're willingly remaining blind

Sentence 1-3 is not an attack. The first sentence is again an opinion. The second is again somewhat of a frustrated sentence saying there is nothing I can do to change your mind. The third and fourth are giving my opinion that there is nothing I can to change your mind as such I believe you are choosing to ignore anything I was of an opinion against yours.

Now that I have gone through my post I and see no attacks upon your person, just a few of my opinions and some frustration. As well as the bulk of the post being an example which you ignored I will tell you what I infer from you and your posts.
You deflect and dodge the bulk of a post by nit picking one part in order not to address the issue. You imply that since I cannot give my references my posts are not vaild. You ignore a sentence in plain English and spin the discussion around to make it appear I am attacking you. Since you make yourself appear to be some victim, it is supposed to somehow give creditability to your views while diminishing mine. You say I have to post my references, though you cite no reference as to how I am wrong.

References aside a discussion can be had on a topic without quoting sources. One side explains how they think the issue works, the other explains how their side works and possible holes in the logic of the other. You don't do this because you are not looking for a discussion, you just want to say "you're wrong" and "I'm the victim that mean man attacked me". That is why I posted frustrated sentences because to me it appears you don't want a discussion. I am alwayse open to a change in ideas, but you haven't tried to do that, you just say "your wrong" then "I've been attacked".

I stated my opinion on the matter as best I could. I said I formed this opinion from my studies in the past. A proper discussion or debate would be to point out how I am wrong, and how you are right, this can be done without a list of references.

The above was just what I have observed from your posting style, it isn't meant as an attack just how I see the way you are posting.

All that aside, I do enjoy actual discussions.
So have a discussion on the actual topic and stop deflecting or don't.

Give your own examples. If you choose to give references or not it doesn't matter because I will be looking at your example to see if it makes sense to me.

It's up to you if you want a discussion or not. If you want one fine, if you just want to keep playing a victim, or simply saying my examples and opinions are wrong just because, well I'm done with that.

reply to post by meeneecat


Those statistics you site are irrelevant and purposefully misleading.

First, they are massively heavy toward the major oil producing states of Texas, Alaska, Mississippi and Louisiana. The next group of outliers are the tiny states, which on a per-capita basis have a naturally high rate.

You need to look at the normalized rates, by individual sectors of the federal government

www.census.gov...

If you review that material, you will discover that once you normalize for the items above, the states are pretty much treated the same. The pork ebbs and flows depending on the power of the congressional representatives of the state, but the basic federal subsidies are pretty close. California receives a hair more in per-capita receipts from the government than in what they make up as a percentage of national population.

reply to post by Pigraphia

Oh, and I may have missed it if so my bad. I haven't seen where the OP or others said the last time they saw their neighbors or themselves volunteered to help people. Passing the buck to a government that should not be taking care of people isn't good. More change can be done by actually helping than passing the buck.

No you didn't miss it, my account was suspended and I have been dying to give my rebuttal.

I didn't know I had to state on a thread about the gov't weather I volunteer to help people. But if you must know, I do. I help battered women, and I also constantly donate food to shelters.

My purpose for posting this thread was not to discuss whether a government should spend money on it's citizens, but more to show that the U.S. does not spend near what other nations do, even though many in our country perceive that we do. Many who call themselves "right-wing" are quick to demonize those on welfare/unemployment/foodstamps as the source of our fiscal problems, when in fact other countries who spend MORE on social programs than we do are NOT in the fiscal trouble we are. That simple fact totally trashes the argument for those who believe that is true.

Moving on, I do believe that government should have some kind of safety net for it's most vulnerable citizens. But these programs need much much more oversight and tighter regulations. Basically, I think being on Government benefits should be so regulated, no one will even want to be on it unless they truly need to be. A re-emplyment system instead of paying people not to work. A helpfare system to replace welfare. Classes and personal guidance that must be heeded and abided by or benefits are cut. Yes, I believe the government should be an extension of the people, and we the people have a duty to take care of those less fortunate.

Hope this clears things up

reply to post by Skerrako


The Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to spend a dime of taxpayer money on social programs.

They all need to be eradicated.

reply to post by ViperChili


The constitution leaves it up to the states (which have their own employment programs ect.), which is still government spending, which is the kind I support.

reply to post by Skerrako


So you are ok with eliminating all federal involvement in any form of social program along with federal involvement in education?

If thats the case, then we are in agreement.

reply to post by ViperChili


Yes I am. Ever cent given to the federal government could be much more efficiently used by State governments. The Federal government should help states link to eachother, and work out common problems than be a monstrous entity of it's own.

Originally posted by Skerrako

My purpose for posting this thread was not to discuss whether a government should spend money on it's citizens, but more to show that the U.S. does not spend near what other nations do, even though many in our country perceive that we do. Many who call themselves "right-wing" are quick to demonize those on welfare/unemployment/foodstamps as the source of our fiscal problems, when in fact other countries who spend MORE on social programs than we do are NOT in the fiscal trouble we are. That simple fact totally trashes the argument for those who believe that is true.

The reason why I mentioned the volunteering is kind of similar to your sentiment of "right-wing" persons.
I have mostly noticed that among people who say we don't offer enough services either just write a check to charity without really caring how much good it does.
Or, those who complain the country doesn't help our own people enough volunteer what little time they do to causes that don't help people, or help people in other countries.
I think all charity is great, I have just noticed the people saying America should do more, hardly help other Americans much.

Just what I have observed from HS, church, college and life.

I just don't think that Americans help each other enough and expect other people to help them or the government to do the job.
Both "sides" of the political spectrum do that in my observation and I find it kind of sad.

Originally posted by ViperChili


The Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to spend a dime of taxpayer money on social programs.

They all need to be eradicated.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

Article 1 Section 8 United States Constitution

You may not like it, but the general welfare clause has been legally interpreted to include federal social programs such as social security. You can find the case information here

Also, the Post Office and Roads clause is a fairly clear-cut example of a social program being (in this case specifically) enumerated to the federal government by the US Constitution.

Based on the 1937 supreme court's interpretation of the general welfare clause, all federal social programs which serve the 'general welfare' of the US population are indeed constitutional.