If you look at the welfare programs in Europe, they clearly reduce poverty (in the short-term). In the US, they haven’t worked as well, but this is unusual. I think there’s a simple reason for this: the US doesn’t spend very much money on welfare programs compared to Europe. I’m merely pointing out …

My response to those liberals: You can prove anything with decontexualized numbers. Confusing cause and effect.

So let me get this straight. You’re saying, if I take a bunch of money from some people…and hand it to people who didn’t have a lot of money before I came along…you’re saying the amount of poor people goes down? Holy shit! Listen to Stossel’s opening statement here . (And bear in mind that number w…

What I’m trying to say is that essentially the people on welfare in Sweden are not living in poverty, because the welfare state pays them enough money to stay above the poverty line, and continues to pay them. This is not a long-term solution, of course. America now spends about $40,000 on every fa…

Have you looked into this at all? Or is this all just speculation you’re coming up with based on heresay and general “conventional wisdom”? Once again , please, read a book. Here’s a great list . (A list of lists, actually).

Evidently, you’re wrong . (Didn’t even get past your first point. womp womp womp)

In my view, adequately funded welfare programs keep politicians (particularly democrats) employed in the short and long term. These schemes, like free healthcare, are designed to keep politicians in power permanently by giving the masses something they don’t have to pay for. Then they’ll keep reelec…

We can avoid some statistical nightmares of welfare and its effect on poverty, by focusing on the argument that income redistribution strangles growth, which would offset any short-term benefits. It looks like this is the best that liberals can do: The third type of criticism directed against socia…

(I think I jumped the gun with the title of this thread.) Here’s an interesting snapshot of the flawed debate about human nature regarding welfare: Those formulating the argument against welfare fear that, given the opportunity, people will do just what pleases them and no more. In a welfare state…

The Stosselhof says… Now the trillions we have spent have certainly helped some people. When you spend that much, you’re bound to help some. The real question is, is this the best way to help poor people? My point exactly. If you throw a shitload of money at welfare programs, you can reduce povert…

Adequately-funded welfare programs reduce poverty (in the short-term)

Economics Economics Questions

ClaytonB May 19, 2012, 3:01am 6

Leftists really don’t want to go there. They think they do but they really don’t.

Clayton -

Topic		Replies	Views
Welfare, is it necessary? the social safety net. Economics Questions	38	8427	March 5, 2010
How does welfare hurt the poor? Political Theory	51	17598	July 19, 2011
Why welfare/Gov. does not help the poor General	15	3601	July 16, 2010
Three questions from a clueless high school student Economics Questions	18	7859	December 3, 2011
How do you respond to this cherished statistic by Social Democrats? Economics Questions poverty , welfare-state , social-democracy	11	1919	May 4, 2010

Adequately-funded welfare programs reduce poverty (in the short-term)

Related topics

Related on the wiki