Poverty in America

Pakawala wrote:For those who thing government programs are OK...

Do any Americans out there have any memory of the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter Administration?
Anybody? Anything? No? Didn't think so!
Bottom line, we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember. Ready? It was very simple, and at the time everybody thought it very appropriate.

The Department of Energy was instituted August 4,1977, TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL. HEY, PRETTY EFFICIENT, HUH?

AND NOW IT'S 2008, 31 YEARS LATER, AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR, THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE! THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY 'WHAT WAS I THINKING?'
Ah yes, good ole bureaucracy. And now we are going to turn the Banking system over to them and create a Health/Medical Program? God Help us.

Pak I understand your frustration but remember we have had how many President promise us we would be energy independent let see now there was R.R GHWB.BC.GWB and I quote now of them did any thing 3 republicans & 1 democrat so were does the fault lie during those 31 years 12 of them was controlled by Republicans nothing done by either party so finger pointing at D or R is waste of time they both stink they are in the pockets of big oil & defense
now let see were the new President elect will take us will he be in the same pockets or will he do some thing good
only time will tell I will not attack him now give him a chance to show what he is made of best Ron / Jun

Farang, I figured it had to do with the idea that those on welfare are lazy and don't want to work, a common stereotype.

I worked as a benefits administrator for welfare programs and certainly a small percentage of poor people fit that stereotype. Less than 10%. Most receive benefits for several months while they are between jobs, after a separation, after an illness/injury, after a short jail term, etc. The programs do largely serve the target group they were legislated for. Also welfare programs are among the least expensive of the entitlement programs. That's why when you read about the expenses of entitlement programs you read about where the bulk of the money is going, not welfare.

Even the chronic welfare recipient isn't actually lazy. They are using the skills they have to care for themselves and their families. They know how the welfare system works and they know how to get money there. They are marginally literate and can not hold a job for any length of time because having to care for a sick child, or other family obligations. Employers are not flexible enough to figure out how to keep them. They really need a different skill set and family support systems.

A comparison. People raised in poverty in the US are more like Thai people in their outlooks and values than they are like the middle class in the US. People raised in poverty have a different set of values than people raised in the middle class. You can witness that struggle today in Thailand where the poverty mentality has the political advantage in sheer numbers, but the middle class wants the power. In the US the poor are not numerous enough to have the political advantage.

Many government programs have a built in self perpetuation conflict of interest. If they are successful they are out of a job or the bureaucratic empire is greatly reduced. The 'War on Drugs', 'Energy Independence', 'Law and Order', 'Ending Hunger', 'Eradicating Poverty', 'Full Employment', 'Peace', and on and on.

What happens, if the flow of drugs is actually stopped? Thousands of law enforcement people lose their jobs. The prisons nearly empty out. Massive unemployment by armed people. Doesn't sound good to me. Let's keep enough of those drugs flowing to keep them employed.

It's the same scenario for nearly any government initiative. There is no incentive to succeed, only to 'try to'.

aznyron wrote:but remember we have had how many President promise us we would be energy independent let see now there was R.R GHWB.BC.GWB and I quote now of them did any thing 3 republicans & 1 democrat so were does the fault lie during those 31 years 12 of them was controlled by Republicans nothing done by either party so finger pointing at D or R is waste of time they both stink they are in the pockets of big oil & defense

You must think the president has the powers of a monarch or dictator. He doesn't, and it's not even close.

Keep repeating over and over. There are three branches of government, and there are checks and balances on all three. There are three branches of government, and there are checks and balances on all three. There are three branches of government, and there are checks and balances on all three. There are three branches of government, and there are checks and balances on all three. There are three branches of government, and there are checks and balances on all three.

The president can talk until he's blue. It doesn't matter what party he's from. If Congress doesn't want the policy or the program, it won't happen.

Energy policy is like anything else proposed by any president. If Congress doesn't allow the program by funding it or rewriting the law to allow it, the president can't do anything. That is where we are with oil and drilling. The problem with US energy policy is that it is a phantom policy that is funded to the hilt! Who funds it? Not the president. Congress is responsible for all funding.

What do you think would happen if any president cuts it from the budget and proposes dissolving it because it serves no purpose or isn't worth the funds dedicated? Those in Congress who are beholden to energy companies who receive funding (big oil does not -- they pay huge amounts of windfall profits taxes in addition to their 40% corporate taxes) will scream bloody murder that the president doesn't care about energy.

Politics, baby. Once it's in the budget, it NEVER comes out. Once funding is automatically increased in the budget, that automatic increase NEVER stops.