Skip to comments.This Chart Busts The Myth That Entitlements Destroy Growth
Posted on 07/11/2012 1:20:10 PM PDT by DannyTN
...The chart below compares average social spending with adjusted per capita GDP growth since 2000. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
God’s reccomendation of a 20% tax to Joseph for the Pharoah is the greatest example of mercy to the poor from the government.
I wonder if any goverment would reduce their demands to merely 20% today in mercy for the poor LOL!
One personal statement if I may. Nuts to your democracy, restore the Republic.
we don’t have safety nets. we have safety hammocks.
define “poor”. I’m betting the Biblical poor were actually poor. Not American
Prior to the “great society” we didn’t have people starving in the streets
all over the place. If we did, there should be some photographic evidence.
“Surprising Facts About America’s Poor”:
The following are facts about persons defined as poor by the Census Bureau as taken from various government reports:
80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
92 percent of poor households have a microwave.
Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.
Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
43 percent have Internet access.
One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.
Gen 41:34. Good point. It was a response to a specific situation. But clearly an example of government authorized to tax and spend on behalf of the poor.
Aside from the lack of clear pattern in the chart, the author seems unaware that correlation is not causation.
A society that assumes it can destroy a significant percentage of GDP by supporting a class of perpetual parasites forever is doomed.
I doubt we spend 20% on the poor. But we do have a lot more complicated society than the farm economies of old.
“Prov 29, especially Prov 29:14 The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established for ever.
Since when have you confused “judgeth” for “supporteth”?
No one is against private safety nets. The very nature of government is to waste and grow. I have "faith" in fellow man to freely help others in need.
Those who believe that government safety nets are necessary or are good do not have any idea of the destructiveness of government. Government programs can NEVER be efficient.
You seem to have a basic belief that without government safety nets people would fall through the cracks. That is a big lie pushed by those in government.
Do you not see that the Great Society programs of LBJ have utterly destroyed the black families? Private charities would never have purposely carried out such evil.
Everything the government touches, it destroys or corrupts.
Millions of people need safety nets because GOVERNMENT is destroying our housing industry, destroying jobs, debasing our currency, burdening our children with unimaginable debt.
There is nothing moral, Christian or good about government "charity" -- it always destroys in the end.
Really? This is a modern problem? Please, cite a source where this issue has invited the Feds into the field in the last few decades.
Think of the gleanings the Bible says should be left in the fields for the poor.
When government taxes too much those gleanings go to it and the poor suffer.
For their own good?
Government will take better care of them with the gleanings- despite what’s in scripture?
No, taxes don’t help the poor in any way.
Or more exactly, "safety chains", wrapped tightly around our necks and securely locked in place.
For one early recipient of Social Security, the total contribution was about twenty-five dollars and she drew out almost twenty-five THOUSAND dollars. Her hammock was supplied by contributors such as myself, contributing to the system in the 1970s.
Now, I am collecting benefits, with a likelihood that this will be among the worst "investments" that I have ever made. Young wage earners today are contributing for my benefit and have little chance whatever of deriving significant benefits themselves.
We have an entire generation of middle-aged wage earners who have saved almost NOTHING for retirement, convinced by liberals that Social Security would take care of them. These people bought into the nonsense and will pay the highest price for doing so.
None of the so-called "safety nets" implemented by government would exist without the use of government FORCE. Nobody would willingly contribute to Social Security without the law to force them to do so.
Obamacare is an exercise in FORCING people to buy health "insurance" who would not otherwise willingly buy it. This mandate is not government recognition that such a person might need health coverage, but is an essential part of paying for the health needs of OTHERS, including those whose pre-existing conditions would make them uninsurable.
I agree. I'm confident it's well above 30% of our tax dollars.
Using the 2010 budget (link), we see
~16% for unemployment
~13% for medicare
~8% for Medicaid
~2% on Health and Human Services
~1% for Housing and Urban Development... there's 40% right there... and if you think that less than 75% of those budgets go to the poor, you're sadly mistaken.
(I left out the ~19% for Social Security, although we all know that this fund is going to weed out the non-poor in the near future.)
You do not understand the very nature of government. By design they cannot over time be efficient or careful with our money.
Your statement seems to indicate that you have more faith and trust in government programs than in private charities. You spent most of your time justifying government activism.
A free people will always provide for others truly in need. I have faith in the goodness of my fellow man to freely help others. You seem to have the most faith in government to intervene. No one can deny that government programs have encouraged millions of able bodied people to become non-productive slaves to taxpayer extracted handouts.
Look at your positions, you’re a liberal. Your beliefs are the very reason America is in such trouble.
Do you have no knowledge of the horrible corruption of the human spirit that welfare has let loose on this country? Don’t you know why there are so many illegitimate children and broken families?
Don’t you understand that welfare buys votes?
The whole point of being a conservative is to know these things and to be wise about unintended consequences.
It's not been an issue in the "last few decades" but I read somewhere that it was an issue when Medicare/Medicaid was originally being discussed. Think pre-60's.
It was also an issue in Colonial America at the state level. State judges spend a lot of their time forcing communities to carry their fair share of the indigent care. I read that researching the history of poor laws in America.
Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. II Corinthians 9:7 NIV
Here is the King James Version if you prefer:
Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
God never intended for us to be forced do His work to help the poor or even give to Him out of compulsion. And what about those who don’t share Christian beliefs? You think they should be forced to pay taxes to take care of the poor.
It sounds like you do. It sounds like you believe Christians should force government to tax people to do God’s work and help the poor which is the exact opposite of what God loves. Our job here is not to force people to help the poor. That is the job the Lord gave us as Christians to do.
God wants us as Christians to give. We as Christians individually and as churches of the body of Christ, need to give of what God has blessed us to help the poor. The idea that we should force people through government taxation to help the poor is anti-Christ because it goes against God’s will for us.
And I defy you to make the case Biblical, historically, practically, that the safety net is something the Federal government can or SHOULD be doing. This is a matter for States and localities ALONE to handle.
If you allow the Federal government to usurp this role it GUARANTEES disaster. They cannot do the job.
I disagree. This is an example of all three that you cited (lies, damnable lies, statistics.) Statistics, itself, is solid. The interpretation of statistics, however, is dependent on one's beliefs.
It's the beliefs that lead us astray. Not the statistics.
This does not exhibit a trend that supports the statement. Not when there are so many high spenders that do so poorly and so many low spenders that do well.
IBD needs to be read carefully and objectively. Do not mistake it with balanced reporting or conservative reporting. It has an agenda and it does not seem to be one of mine.
What would these countries do if they had to divert spending to their own national security?
The chart ostensibly shows GDP/capita growth since 2000. I doesn’t say when the growth or lack of it occurred. From 2000 to 2007 the world lived in an economic fairy land.
It probably wouldn’t make a difference, but a better x-axis would be growth since 2007. Sort of a stress-test for socialism.
In all, the chart doesn’t bust any myths. There clearly are other factors that allow welfare states to survive.
But then again, it’s not a matter of survival, it’s a matter of freedom. A point lost in the argument.
What percentage is the EIC Christmas?
That nearing 50 percent of the population get to enjoy from what I actually earned.
“I do believe their is scriptural authority for individuals, churches and yes Governments to care for the poor”
I disagree, in part.
I do not see “the society” and the government as the same or as having the same obligations. Socialism and Fascism and every form of Marxism sees government and society as mutually interchangeable, as far as what they are and as far as what our responsibilities are.
The founders believed that they were giving us a Constitution with a system - a limited government - from which the bounties from our LIBERTIES - our freedoms and our free associations and private works - would flow.
Not that the government would create or insure them.
Lastly, I do not find Yeshua ever calling for his followers to go demand that they be given the power of Caesar’s sword - secular government - so they could use it to extract what wealth they chose from their neighbors to fulfill His call that we should be charitable to the poor.
Until the age of Constantine, the Christians understood this and lived accordingly.
Again, the distinction is between what we are called to do, as a society, as opposed to placing what we are called to do in the hands of government to be produced by it’s power.
The government takes authority of nothing unless it becomes it’s master.
Does this mean there is no role for government in charity?
It means it’s role must be limited, and we must be very circumspect about how far and how deep it’s power is placed in any purpose we give it. It also means we as a society put our expectations of the free and private works of our society above and ahead of expectations of government in all things. These things we do to keep government the servant not the master.
Yeshua’s final path near this question found Satan offering Yeshua the keys to the kingdoms of this world - secular power. Yeshua answered that His kingdom was not of this world; meaning His kingdom was not of the world systems of secular power and government.
How did Yeshua say we would finally shine as His?
Because the laws of our secular government would reflect and, with it’s power enforce, His laws and thinking on all?
He said instead that His law would be written in our hearts.
I would ask all Jewish and Christian religious orders to quit questioning what charitable works government is or is not doing, and instead ask themselves why any of their own active members are out of work, and what THEY are doing about it.
There are only two religious denominations in the U.S. - besides sects like the Amish - where unemployment is rare or nonexistent. It’s a perplexing fact in as much as unemployment is not rare in many Christian and Jewish denominations, but the two who seem to have largely solved this problem are considered cults by all the others.
I think many Christians and Jews need to get their heads out of Marxist and Progressive notions, on charity, and start removing the log from their own eyes. Why is their religious calling kept out of what they try to do in their own work and in the work they are responsible for. Why do they try to fulfill all of their own responsibility “to give”, by deflecting it, by deflecting their own power to the power of government to take.
When people say “I support” this or that government program because “i believe I should give” to xyz charitable cause, they have come to believe a delusion. The achievement is not a giving, it is a taking. In truth they are not deciding to “give”. They have decided that they and at least 51 out of 100 of their fellow citizens have decided how much will be taken from the other 49 out of one hundred, to achieve a benevolence chosen by the 51. It is a taking, not a giving.
The chart is deceptive for many reasons.
One is the selective time frame they chose - only since the year 2000.
Regardless, the chart does not say what they want it to.
GDP growth averaged not much different for Germany during the period than it did for the U.S., while social spending by Germany was much higher. And GDP growth was less than the U.S. in France, Belgium, the U.K. and Canada, while social spending is higher in all of them.
If the chart says anything at all it says that social spending is no guarantor or barometer of GDP growth.
I really would like original sources for such claims. Did you get this from some leftist documentation?
Again, please provide original sources to the claim, "a lot of their time forcing communities." I will make it a point to seek and verify those sources.
What goes for welfare programs/spending today could hardly be imagined for colonial times through to the late 1880s.
Governments at ALL levels are consuming our hard-earned wealth propelling our Republic into a socialist nightmare. Yet, you spend most of your time justifying activist government. Not at all very conservative if you ask me.
The bottom line of the reality we face is the the government is in the process of destroying our Republic and our way of life -- not very charitable if you ask me.
The “poorest” person in this country has it better than the vast majority of Haitians.
“So when a blind man begs at the temple gate, or an orphan begs, is that coveting and idolatry?”
You win the cheap straw-man award this week.
The missing component in the public discussion about government involvement in social spending is that we refuse to define who deserves help because they otherwise cannot sustain life and who is expected to carry their own weight. We have also allowed government to replace charity and in the process we have destroyed property rights and allowed too many people to think they have a right to enslave others so they may live at their expense.
As a result today, where we used to have 1 in every 35 workers on disability, we have 1 in 15.
6 charts that show the Welfare State run amok
The original purpose of Medicaid was to provide improved healthcare access for poor people, while not turning the safety net into a trap. Under President Obamas Affordable Care Act, Medicaid will be greatly exapnded beyond what Congress originally intended.
In fact, as these charts show, it has already expanded beyond what Congress surely originally envisioned and, in the process, has created a terrible fiscal problem for the United States. (These charts and graphics come from a briefing today here at AEI, conducted by Gary Alexander, secretary of public welfare for Pennsylvania.)
A few scary factoids:
In the 1960s, there were 18 workers per Medicaid recipient. Today that number is 2.5.
The number of Americans on disability has risen 19% faster than jobs created during this recovery.
There are just 1.2 private sector workers per 1 person on welfare or working for government.
There are now just 1.65 employed persons in private sector per 1 person on welfare assistance....
Safety nets are not socialism, and I didn't say anything about socialism. Socialism does fail. We have a capitalistic society that has had some safety nets in place such as bankruptcy since the beginning of the country. And we've done okay.
Actually what I did, was to use an extreme example to show you that not everything and everybody you are accusing of covetiousness is truly guilty of covetiousness.
And while I agree that you're statistics are indeed scary. The fact is that those statistics starting in 2008 have become suddenly much worse. And they've done so because our economic house is not in order.
We've not pursued an energy policy that would leave us independent and not subject to an oil price shock. We knew the dangers of that since the early 70's but we sat on our hands.
We've also pursued stupid trade policies that have allowed communist countries like China to purchase our manufacturing capability and drive up our unemployment.
It's not the safety net's fault, nor is it mostly people becoming dependent on the safety net and refusing to leave it that is the cause of those scary statistics. It's that we put ourselves in a position to have a very weak economy that was then tanked by another oil price shock. So surprise, when you do that safety net usage increases. And we better fix the economic house before the safety nets break us. (Some dependency does occur and we need to fix that.)
An earlier poster alluded to putting buckets under the leaks but not fixing the roof. We need to do both. Fix the economy and keep people from starving in the meantime.
No you don't. But, like it or not, we in America find ourselves in the position of having the power of Caesar's sword. We are in the position of the King or the Ruler. "We the People" are the rulers of this great land.
With that comes all the responsibility of rulership. And our reign as rulers will live or die based in part on how we treat the poor and needy as rulers.
If we shirk our responsibility and say charity has no place in government and trod down the poor all the while claiming as an excuse that Christian individuals also have that responsibility, then I expect that our reign will come to an end.
And once again, we don't need to be stupid about it. We don't need to allow fraud or encourage fraud. We don't need to encourage dependency. We can't give more than we can afford. And we need to maintain a strong economy in order to help others.
Besides, Social Security and Medicare and most unemployment is not truly charity, but rather poorly managed government insurance programs for which people paid insurance premiums. Medicaid, food stamps, and probably a myriad of smaller programs are charity.
Thanks for your great comments. I generally agree.
You are insanely stuck on the false belief that government programs are a net positive. These programs are NOT charity at all -- they are out and out welfare handouts.
I personally know of a number of people who are scamming the Food Stamp and WIC programs. They have relatives inside the system that tell them how to do it to get the benefits. I am sure this is repeated over and over throughout the government These are people making good money.
The vast majority of the money goes to people that are in no way suffering as they did, say in the depression.
Charity at it's root is a voluntary giving of one's time or money to help others truly in need.
Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc were constructed for two reasons -- to increase the Democratic voter base and increase the power of the State.
Any rational person who cherishes I Constitution should be appalled at any program at the Federal level dispensing so called private charity It goes against everything our Founders believed in.
So you've reported these people right? Or are your morals such that you can stand down while people rob the system while you decry the fact that any of the poor are getting help?
Have you ever read through the acts of the first 4 to 5 congresses? They gave food to the Indians. They voted for disaster relief. They gave land away like crazy. They authorized help for people who had suffered damage from Indians. They provided funds for many windows, orphans, invalids usually those that were linked to the revolutionary war. But often by specific name. Even setting up an education fund for the son of a slain General.
What's more, There's even a record of them mandating health care and mandating purchases. This one is a few years further down the road in 1790, but 14 of the 20 constitution framers still in congress voted for it and none objected on constitutional grounds.
I don't like the mandates and was hoping they would be ruled unconstitutional, but to imply the framers weren't charitable ignores history.
Yes, we called and placed an anonymous complaint well over a year ago. Nothing happened as of yet.
Or are your morals such that you can stand down while people rob the system while you decry the fact that any of the poor are getting help?
You speak with the heart of someone who belongs at the DUmp. You will NEVER understand that these programs are NOT setup to help the poor. They are setup to increase the power of the State and make people beholden and dependent on the State.
As I said, the vast majority of the money dispensed by the programs are an absolute waste of hard-earned taxpayer money. These programs are NOT designed to be efficient of careful with our money.
Just think if more money was left in the private hands, how much more people would have to give to those truly in need. Then again, you seem to be of the mindset that activist government at the Federal level is moral and helpful to the needy.
Good for you!
You will NEVER understand that these programs are NOT setup to help the poor. They are setup to increase the power of the State and make people beholden and dependent on the State.
I think you are way too cynical. These programs were set up to help the poor, not increase the power of the state. Yes, they are sometimes abused, and some people including program directors need to go to prison for turning a blind eye to fraud. There needs to be better audits, independent audits, published of each of these programs to ensure proper controls and fraud prevention.
As I've said repeatedly, we don't need to be stupid about how we help the poor. But I do think we have an obligation to help.
People asking for help defraud churches and individuals too! Churches have had to band together to help identify and stop some of that abuse. What if they all just threw up their hands and said, we can't help because some people abuse it?
Abuse is a failure to manage the program properly, it's not an excuse to shirk duties.
OMG, linking from the far leftist site, PolitFact. I read through some of the links and the reasoning applied by the author is typical of a far-left Statist. To compare acts that involve those in the employ of the government or contracted to the government to today's health care mandate compelling private citizens purchase health care is the height of leftist brainwashing.
You have truly revealed yourself to be a DUmp comrade. You are no friend of Liberty nor of our Constitution.
What is welfare today, what is Obamacare today is nothing at all what the intent of what was described in some of your links.
The arrogance of the author of that piece should be an insult to anyone who cherishes Liberty and the believe in the individual.
Anyone with half-a-brain knows that PolitiFact is nothing but a far-left outfit whose only purpose is to attack Conservative beliefs. Thanks so much for revealing yourself :) It made my day to know that you worship at the Alter of State Power -- now I understand why you post what you do.
I stand with the Founders in believing that government is a necessary EVIL.
I am not cynical. I just try to look at reality. I have studied the works of Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Hayek and others. They provide reasoning and facts to show that government is good at only a very few things. Charity is not one of them. There needs to be better audits, independent audits, published of each of these programs to ensure proper controls and fraud prevention.
Again, it sounds good but you do realize that the worse aspect of these programs is not the fraud. It's the fact that it purposely ensnares and dehumanizes millions of able bodied citizens. These government programs destroy the will to work for millions, it destroys the humanity for millions, it robs hard-working Americans of the fruits of their labor. Is that not evil?
As I've said repeatedly, we don't need to be stupid about how we help the poor. But I do think we have an obligation to help.
agreed. I believe ONLY private charity is true charity. People asking for help defraud churches and individuals too! Churches have had to band together to help identify and stop some of that abuse. What if they all just threw up their hands and said, we can't help because some people abuse it?
Huh? Fraud exists in all institutions, private or public. I can guarantee that the fraud in private charities will NEVER approach the fraud of government systems.
The main point about private charities is that they would NEVER dispense help to people who don't need it. They would be very careful with the money.
They would never KNOWINGLY dispense help to people who don't need it. But neither should government if it's set up right.
This is an 8 year old's excuse. "I can't wash dishes because I don't get them clean." BS. Government can absolutely do this well if it is set up right. Measure the effectiveness and independently audit and change management unless and until it gets better.
If it's set up right, it shouldn't do that.
And again, we aren't talking about the government insurance programs like SSA, Medicare, or Unemployment where people paid premiums right?
We're talking now about just the true welfare programs such as Food Stamps and Medicaid. Where dependencies occur, we need to look at that and fix it. I don't believe that "we can't". That we can't is not an acceptable excuse to kill it.
It's hard to make a case that people have become emotionally dependent on food stamps when unemployment is 25%. Some people are going to be less employable than others and will be on the side lines until employment drops to 5%.
Shirking responsibilities is not conservative. I'm for lean accountable government, but I'm not for shirking.