[Rhodes22-list] What do you do with monsters?

[Wally Buck]

Do another google search, I think you got the wrong answer -

Wally


>From: Michael Meltzer <mjm at michaelmeltzer.com>
>Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] What do you do with monsters?
>Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:39:05 -0400
>
>That number sound low, I always heard more than the DOD budget, A quick 
>search of google "welfare spending us" showed 435 to 450 billion(for 2000), 
>which sounds more like it. But here the kicker :-) I think it the welfare 
>workers causing the problem. 450 billion divided but 25 million on welfare 
>= 17,400, if we just cut out the middle man(the workers) and send people a 
>check(the republic way :-) and we would cure welfare and poverty in one 
>year.
>
>MJM
>
>PS. ducking and running for cover.
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: <eric.charles.newburger at census.gov>
>To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 6:30 PM
>Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] What do you do with monsters?
>
>
>>
>>So many of you have given thoughtful replies that I felt I should offer my
>>own in support.  Besides, work's over for the day and now I have a few
>>minutes....
>>
>>"Remember, this so called deficit
>>could be eliminated in a couple years if we reduced
>>walfare programs."
>>
>>      This is just wrong.  U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, in its
>>annual report to congress, "Indicators of Welfare Dependance, 2003"
>>reported that the Federal Government and 50 states, combined, spent only
>>about $14.2 billion in 2000 on AFDC and TANF, the programs commonly
>>referred to as welfare.  Compare that with Bush's one year deficit of $450
>>billion or so.
>>      Most of the social spending we do in this country is on social
>>security payments, which are not entitlements at all, but rather, a
>>government run retirement and, to a lessor extent, life insurance program.
>>They go to everyone, and so they cost a lot.  We pay for it, too, with our
>>SSA withholdings.
>>      Welfare only goes to poor people, and there are relatively few of
>>them in our society (though there are more now than before Bush took
>>office--see the Census Bureau's last three Income and Poverty Reports).
>>HHS also reports that only about 3% of Americans are 'dependent' upon
>>welfare (that is, get half or more of their income from these programs).
>>So, with so few mouths to feed, as it were, the bill is pretty small
>>compared to other things.
>>      By the way, those Clinton era figures for welfare are only about a
>>third of what the Reagan era welfare bills were in constant dollars.
>>Welfare reform in '96 really reduced the figures.  However, even at the 
>>$28
>>to $29 billion annual level that typified the Reagan era, welfare would 
>>not
>>then, nor will it now, ever begin to pay off Bush's tax cuts.
>>
>>
>>"So called republican pork allow companies to produce
>>goods or services with a higher profit margin.  The
>>higher the profit margin, the more workers the
>>companies will need to hire to produce more of the
>>goods & services to maintain its market share."
>>      This reasoning stems from what some economists call 'Supply Side'
>>economics, or 'trickle down' economics, and what George Bush Sr. referred
>>to as 'Voodoo economics' when he ran against Reagan.  It's the notion that
>>giving money to poor people (welfare) is bad, but giving money to business
>>owners is good, because it stimulates jobs.
>>      The thing is, the economic stimulus from tax cuts for the rich, and
>>sweetheart deals for businesses, only generate about 1/10th the growth 
>>that
>>the supply side economists claim for them.  We've had a good 20 years to
>>look at this in action.  It doesn't work the way proponents say.  You get 
>>a
>>little bump, but most of that money goes into the pockets of the rich.
>>That is, the rich accumulate wealth, and invest only a portion of it.  You
>>see poor people getting poorer and rich people getting richer, which is of
>>course exactly what the numbers show for the past three years (see those
>>Census reports on poverty and income--they are quite clear).
>>      More fundamentally, most business 'pork' subverts the competitive
>>process so vital to our system--the contract goes to the business with the
>>best connections, rather than the best product or service.  Quality erodes
>>while prices rise, good companies fail, good people go down with them. 
>>It's
>>ugly, and it's the reason that societies in which corruption becomes the
>>norm don't do so well in the long run.
>>
>>Eric Newburger
>>
>>
>>__________________________________________________
>>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/