That's where you are just fundamentally wrong, unemployment and welfare have not drastically reduced the degree of poverty, according to this:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/poverty-in-america-a-special-report
America is getting poorer. The U.S. government has just released a bunch of new statistics about poverty in America, and once again this year the news is not good. According to a special report from the U.S. Census Bureau, 46.2 million Americans are now living in poverty. The number of those living in poverty in America has grown by 2.6 million in just the last 12 months, and that is the largest increase that we have ever seen since the U.S. government began calculating poverty figures back in 1959.
So the reality is simply not as you claim, and government programs have not reduced the degree of poverty... they haven't even stopped the increase. This is where you explain to us how we're eating shit sandwiches, but if it weren't for democrats it would be much worse! The massive and expansive programs implemented in the 60s, and even the 40s in some cases, were never intended or designed to simply keep people from becoming any more impoverished. Even if that were the modest goal, the programs have still failed... but we didn't spend $70 trillion for the promise that things wouldn't get much worse. The bottom line is, government assistance programs do not HELP bring people out of poverty. In fact, in many cases, they are a ball and chain, shackling the recipient to a life of poverty, which has been passed down through the generations in many families.
(Excerpt) Unemployment is rampant and the number of good jobs continues to shrink. Once upon a time in America, if you really wanted a job you could go out and get one. Today, competition for even the lowest paying jobs has become absolutely brutal. There simply are not enough chairs at the "economic table", and not being able to get a good job is pushing large numbers of Americans into poverty..... (End)
There aren’t enough jobs. If there weren’t any social programs what would the unemployed live on? IF there were jobs and people were not applying for them because they were collecting government benefits you would have an argument but such is not the case.
More people are slipping into poverty due a lack of jobs, not because they are collecting government benefits and not applying for jobs. Government benefits have nothing to do with the lack of jobs unless one expects people to work for next to nothing. In that case, sure, there will be lots of jobs. If someone wants to work for one dollar an hour I’ll even supply a job. They can clean the house, cook meals, shovel snow, garden in the summer, wash my cars…..no problem. I’ll even throw in a cold beer on Fridays.
Why must you always break things down into bizarre situations with a bunch of stereotyped people who are faced with some peril or hardship, and pretend this is a representative portrait of the overall? The aid offered by most local church charities is not "influenced" by anyone except those in need, and the capacity of the charity to help. They don't consult with wealthy church members to pick people to help... just isn't how that works in the real world, apple. The "cookie cutter approach" doesn't help people based on need and need only, it helps everyone the same amount, regardless of needs. That's what "cookie cutter approach" means, dumbshit!
Why do people donate to a specific charity? Because those are the people they want to help. The “cookie cutter” approach is needed to avoid prejudice. A poor person requires financial help regardless of who they are or why they’re poor. A charity for children is not going to help a childless couple who are unemployed.
I agree some government programs help those who don’t require help, such as SS, but that’s because people would not contribute to SS if there wasn’t something in it for them. Or so the politicians claim.
Finally, breaking things down into “bizarre situations” is precisely what’s required when thinking things through. That’s how we find out if an idea is good or bad, if it would work or not work. It’s like abortion. It’s fine to outlaw abortion on the claim zygotes and embryos and fetuses are human beings but then those same folks are fine making exceptions for rape and incest and the mother’s health. They’re all human beings but it’s fine to make exceptions to kill innocent human beings according to their logic.
Charities are targeted. Is the need of a paraplegic for a new wheel chair more urgent than proper food for children? Those are the “bizarre situations” that arise every day in a country of 300 million. Is a charity for children going to buy a middle aged man a new wheel chair?
Charities are fine but they can not replace government programs.
The government handed out over $3 billion to people for buying a new car... A study published after the program by researchers at the University of Delaware concluded that for each vehicle trade, the program had a net cost of approximately $2,000, with total costs outweighing all benefits by $1.4 billion. Another study by researchers at the University of Michigan found that the program improved the average fuel economy of all vehicles purchased by 0.6 mpg in July 2009 and by 0.7 mpg in August 2009.
Now... think about, if we had given checks totaling $3 billion, to all the non-profit charity organizations out there, how many people could have been helped in a time of need? How many single moms could have gotten food for the week? How many homeless could we have fed for how long with $3 billion? Was our money better spent on a program to "help" people purchase a new car? And while we're on the subject, those people who took advantage of this program, they were all in dire need of a new car, right?
Again, I agree. But let’s ask ourselves why such a program was instituted.
(Excerpt) The program was promoted as providing stimulus to the economy by boosting auto sales, while putting safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles on the roadways……The new car bought under the plan must have a suggested retail price of no more than $45,000. (End) (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System)
How many poor people buy a $45,000 car? That program had nothing to do with helping the poor. It was part of the “stimulus package” like bailing out banks. The government could have set a maximum yearly income as a qualifying factor for the program but we all know the screaming that would have caused.
If the government wanted the money to circulate through society the best way would have been to give every welfare recipient a check for a few thousand dollars. Food. Rent. Appliances. Clothes. Every cent would have been spent. Plus an additional bonus would be the rest of the population buying millions of ear plugs to block out the screaming from the Conservatives.
Have you ever noticed how liberals are never satisfied, nothing ever goes far enough? If a program fails, it's because we didn't pour enough money into it... we should have just given away new cars to people, to hell with a $4k rebate... right? I bet we would have seen a dramatic increase in car sales then, and everyone would own a brand new shiny new car, that would be great! Dumbfuck!
Again, the program was not designed to help the poor so to keep insisting it was some kind of “welfare program” is nonsense.
Now here you come with this "retraining" idea... Again, we have already identified the problem, it is that some people lack motivation. It's not because the government isn't providing them with something! Even IF the government retrained them, they would STILL lack motivation! You have not addressed that problem, and you are only enabling it further with more hand outs. As I said before, if that is what you want to fix, the solution is easy, we just start having all the productive people of society fork over their earnings to the unmotivated slackers of society, and that's that! Problem solved! It's the only solution to the problem of fixing the unmotivated, other than tough love.
Lack of motivation? We saw thousands of people lining up to apply for an available hundred or so jobs at a job fair so your argument does not hold water. Sorry. When there are more jobs than people then you can try again. Deal?
