Walter Williams on poverty

[cornopean]

Found this interesting:

Much of the justification for the welfare state is to reduce income inequality by making income transfers to the poor. Browning provides some statistics that might help us to evaluate the sincerity and truthfulness of this claim. In 2005, total federal, state and local government expenditures on 85 welfare programs were $620 billion. That's larger than national defense ($495 billion) or public education ($472 billion). The 2005 official poverty count was 37 million persons. That means welfare expenditures per poor person were $16,750, or $67,000 for a poor family of four.
...
The question that naturally arises is if we're spending enough to lift everyone out of poverty, why is there still poverty? The obvious answer is poor people are not receiving all the money being spent in their name. Non-poor people are getting the bulk of it. ​

Is there any reason for this colossus anymore? We would be better off just writing checks....?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Moved to Law of God forum since the thread author is under the 25 post count and cannot see the economics/politics&government forums. Notwithstanding, if this gets political it shall be moved to P&G.

 

[Grymir]

cornopean - Walter Williams is really good and I like the quote. I didn't ever think of the non-poor getting the bulk of it, but it makes sense.

 

[cornopean]

Moved to Law of God forum since the thread author is under the 25 post count and cannot see the economics/politics&government forums. Notwithstanding, if this gets political it shall be moved to P&G.

I shall get to 25 posts forthwith.

 

[cornopean]

cornopean - Walter Williams is really good and I like the quote. I didn't ever think of the non-poor getting the bulk of it, but it makes sense.

I find that Walter Williams is easier to understand than his sidekick Thomas Sowell. Both are outstanding. Thom Sowell was on Dennis Prager's show a while back and Dennis asked him if he were religious. Sowell replied in the negative. I could've cried. how could someone with that much wisdom and sense be nonreligious....?

 

[MMasztal]

I also enjoy Williams, but I'm not sure I agree with the last part of his statement. Granted, there are huge administrative costs for any program administered by a government agency, but I believe much of the problem is that the monies being paid are not wisely used. I know from experience that food stamps are sold on the black market for cash which is used for illicit means.

I'd think Williams would be more likely to say that anything you subsidize (i.e., poverty), the more you get of it.

Found this interesting:

Much of the justification for the welfare state is to reduce income inequality by making income transfers to the poor. Browning provides some statistics that might help us to evaluate the sincerity and truthfulness of this claim. In 2005, total federal, state and local government expenditures on 85 welfare programs were $620 billion. That's larger than national defense ($495 billion) or public education ($472 billion). The 2005 official poverty count was 37 million persons. That means welfare expenditures per poor person were $16,750, or $67,000 for a poor family of four.
...
The question that naturally arises is if we're spending enough to lift everyone out of poverty, why is there still poverty? The obvious answer is poor people are not receiving all the money being spent in their name. Non-poor people are getting the bulk of it. ​

Is there any reason for this colossus anymore? We would be better off just writing checks....?