You won't accept equality on assistance.

Scholars have long assumed that the United States' welfare system resembles that of its English-speaking cousins in the Commonwealth of Nations, which tend to have strong strains of market liberalism and thus favor private spending over public spending. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, for example, all fall near the bottom of the scale of public spending on social welfare. But these countries, like the United Kingdom, devote a relatively high proportion of their spending to programs that are contingent on the recipients' having low incomes. In Australia, for instance, more than a third of direct public spending goes to means-tested programs, and in Canada and the United Kingdom, almost a quarter does.
In the United States, however, only about seven percent of direct public spending goes to means-tested benefit programs. To be fair, this figure understates U.S. expenditures on low-income people because it leaves out in-kind benefits -- benefits, such as health care (including Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program), that are provided free or at reduced cost, as opposed to direct cash transfers. Nevertheless, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in 2010, 10 percent of entitlement spending in the United States went to the top ten percent of households, 58 percent of entitlement spending went to middle-income households, and 32 percent went to the bottom 20 percent.[/quote]

A system that doesn't target actual need seems wasteful to me... and ineffective...

Since U.S. social welfare spending is not directed primarily at the poor, it does little to reduce the country's rate of poverty or inequality.

bbauska wrote:The word in the title of this forum is equality. I offered equal treatment of services provided to ALL citizens.

I think you do not want equality. You want the government to give some more than others.

I think you do not want equality. You want the government to give some more than others

Those interested in effective social policy could also look closely at the activities subsidized through the tax code. When budgets are tight and poverty is high, giving rich people thousands of dollars in tax breaks so they can buy expensive homes does not seem like a wise use of public resources. There is no reason why U.S. tax-based subsidies could not be adjusted according to income, with the deductions or credits getting phased out as citizens' incomes climb. Making more tax breaks refundable (instead of in the form of deductions), moreover, would guarantee that the benefits flowed to people who truly needed them, rather than to those higher up the income-distribution scale. Even after granting such subsidies, the government could continue to rely heavily on the private sector to deliver services, but it could do so at lower cost and to greater effect for a larger share of the population.

There is no easy political path to reforming a deeply entrenched status quo. Filling in the gaps of the American social welfare system to better help the less fortunate will involve limiting or eliminating some benefits enjoyed by others, generally those who are better off and far more politically powerful. These kinds of tough choices already loom, as the cost of health care continues to balloon and public finances are spread thin. But the lesson from peer countries is that the policy challenges themselves are not insurmountable: it is possible to provide better services to more people at a lower total cost than the United States does now, without massive government intervention, a dramatic loss of freedom, or any of the other supposed dangers lurking in the background

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:The word in the title of this forum is equality. I offered equal treatment of services provided to ALL citizens.

I think you do not want equality. You want the government to give some more than others.

There is a difference between equality and equanimity. If you want to go all Marx and insist on absolute equality for all, well, that's your prerogative.

But in a reality where we need to accept that not all people have equal circumstances, absolutist equality is a mockery. The whole point of a welfare safety net is that it provides what is needed when it is needed, and sometimes some need more than others.

And having read through the last few posts, I am not very impressed with your attempt to force words into Ricky's mouth. He's not the best debater in the world, and you managed to hit a low mark. Congrats.

And I'm done

freeman3 wrote:Here is a very interesting and very informative article about 28 cities going into insolvency.
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/t ... mal-cities

rickyp wrote:bbauska

And I'm done

Why? Because you got nothing else to say on the subject, or because your feelings were hurt by Danivon?

freeman3 wrote:Here is a very interesting and very informative article about 28 cities going into insolvency.
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/t ... mal-cities

bbauska wrote:

rickyp wrote:bbauska

And I'm done

Why? Because you got nothing else to say on the subject, or because your feelings were hurt by Danivon?

My feelings were not hurt.

I felt we explained our positions, and we were both entrenched.
You want no limits, no time restraints or little consequences for violations of rules. We disagree.

No sense tilting at windmills...

Doctor Fate wrote:Is poverty in the US as big a problem as you all make it out to be? How much time have you spent in the homes of poor Americans?

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

rickyp wrote:bbauska

And I'm done

Why? Because you got nothing else to say on the subject, or because your feelings were hurt by Danivon?

My feelings were not hurt.

I felt we explained our positions, and we were both entrenched.
You want no limits, no time restraints or little consequences for violations of rules. We disagree.

No sense tilting at windmills...

As I read what Ricky has written, this is a gross misrepresentation of his views.

Not agreeing with your limits is not the same thing as not wanting any limits. Not agreeing with your lifetime-based time-restraints is not the same as not wanting any time restrains. And Ricky has already repeated that he does not have a problem with punishing fraud.

It is one thing to disagree.

freeman3 wrote: Also, what happens when the wealthier inhabitants of Detroit move out into suburbs and work in the City--but pay no taxes to the City of Detroit.