🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <38md4d$a5@news.utdallas.edu> jargo@utdallas.edu () writes:
>Mohit K Goyal (goyal@utdallas.edu) wrote:
>> : |> and does nothing about entitlements!
>> : I don't have a copy of the Contract handy, but I recall there being some
>> : kind of welfare reform in there.
>
>> Welfare currently takes up a whopping **1%** of the federal
>> budget.  Welfare reform will in all likelihood, end up costing more
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> than the current system.                        
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Yes, this was true in BOTH the Republican and Democratic welfare reform 
>bills.  That's because the cheapest thing to do is cut checks.  Training, 
>daycare, workfare slots, etc., all cost more than cutting checks.  Even 
>if you totally eliminate welfare instantaneously, you would probably 
>still have to spend more: in the short run on foster care, in the long 
>run on juvenile detention facilities and prisons.
>
>--
>
>-- Paul A. Jargowsky (jargo @ utdallas.edu)   214-690-2992 (Voice)
>   Assistant Professor of Political Economy   214-690-2735 (Fax)
>   University of Texas at Dallas               

I am amazed that an Assistant Professor of Political Economy can
say this.  Let me get this straight, Professor:

	a.  If you cut welfare payments, taxpayers (the "you" I assume
	    you are referring to) will have to pay more in foster care,
	    short term.  Is this what you said?  How do you figure this
	    to be true?  Why are you ignoring the expanded role of
	    private and church-based charity under such a scenario?
	    Why do you believe that the only thing keeping families from
	    being ripped apart is government welfare?  And what does that
	    say about our system?

	b.  You are saying that if workface was instituted (i.e. people
	    who get government checks will be asked to work for the money,
	    where "work" is defined as some combination of work and
	    training) that children will have to go into foster care,
            and that long-term this will result in building more prisons?



No one is saying eliminate welfare today, this instant, completely.
That is a straw-man, red-herring argument.  What people are saying is
this:  the current welfare system and system of so-called "entitlements"
doesn't work very well:  it perpetuates poverty, it results in MORE
family breakups, and it costs too much.   People are saying that,
no, its not just 1% of the total budget of the US, its substantially
higher - entitlements are more than 50% of the budget.  And that the
only defenders of such a bankrupt system are people that gain political
power and sustenance from such a system - politicians, professors
of political economy ...  :-)   No, really, just kidding.  A little.

Point is, if the only answer to this mess is to simply spend more money,
or say that without welfare families die, then who needs politicians
and professors of political economy since there IS no other answer?
Disband Congress, disband courses in studying this, and simply let
the bureaucrats collect taxes and distribute it!

I'm waiting for a plausable, realistic, cost-effective solution
to the cycle of poverty.  Spending more money, or even keeping
the same system we have, isn't it -- we've spent hundreds of
TRILLIONS of dollars on welfare since the War on Poverty - and
we still have poverty!



              

-- 
  _    Alan R. Weiss  Motorola-SPS, RISC Division  Austin, TX                  
_| ~-. PowerPC Team System Software    alanw@pets.sps.mot.com                
\, *_} 512-891-6003  Fax:512-891-3798 Pager:512-933-7333,#896003
  \(   Speaking only for myself, and NOT Motorola or its customers.