Comments about ‘Study: $15 trillion in welfare spending has had little impact since 1964’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, July 11 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

That's a surprise! Nancy Pelosi said herself that the quickest way to inject money into the economy and to spur it's recovery is by giving away money to poor people.

The problem with that theory, is that first it doesn't work. Second poor people buy made in china junk which only spurs their economy. Third the reason poor people are poor, is because they don't invest in themselves or in items that generate wealth. They are consumers, run up credit cards and believe a car is valuable or a home is an investment, or they just rent and never save up to buy a home.

I know I'll get attacked because their are a few situations that are out of peoples control (ie health care, disease, accidents etc). If that's the case then 50% of the people in this country fall into that exception, a statistic I have a hard time believing.

If I can prosper working at minimum wage jobs, put myself through the university on my own dime, save and invest....99% of the people on welfare can do what I did, if they just worked. I'm not special...

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

So press releases and studies by the Charles Koch Foundation are now disguised as "news?"

I have no qualm with the idea that there are too many overlapping programs out there to help the poor, but come on, how about some actual journalism where both sides of a story are shown, and research outside of the press release are done.

American Fork, UT

Wow, a conservative think tank came up with a conservative conclusion. That's news for you. The one thing I agree with is it seems we could be much more efficient if we could consolidate and trim down all those "126" separate programs into something more streamlined.

Cedar City, UT

During His ministry Jesus said "ye will always have the poor among you". He also charged His disciples to feed and clothe the poor.

Did anyone think we could eliminate poverty? NO.

Are there those that want to end our assistance to the impoverished? YES.

What should we do? I think the answer is in Jesus' words.

Provo, UT

Our government needs to take a step back and really see what they are doing with our money. There really is a sense of entitlement that has left us addicted and dependent. I have no problem helping the poor. I like to do it in my own way. One example was when I saved my own personal money to pay for a volunteer mission down south. With an allowance to pay for some of my needs of only 150 a month excluding gas, people were astonished that not only was I only allowed such a small amount, but they were baffled that I was not lining up to get my food stamps. "everybody has food stamps down here, didn't you know?" was a common question.

There needs to be a more defined line!

Los Angeles, CA

There is always room for improvement and evaluation.

However, possibly the poverty programs are working, but other factors are increasing the poverty rate--like increasing inequality, loss of maufacturing-middle class jobs combined with more service sector jobs and/or more single-parent female headed families (who have a lower earning potential).

Perhaps we need to examine/address those issues rather than arrive at the conclusion that anti-poverty programs aren't working.

Casa Grande, AZ

The deseretnews is not dedicated to the pursuit of truth. That's a fact or they wouldn't publish nonsense political garbage like this with data from the CATO Institute that is not only non-scientific but politically one sided and agendized. Justlook up the CATOInstitute and see. But there is no mention in the article that it's a right wing think tank.

And I'm sure all those kids that ate the food from welfare thought there was a difference in being full vs hungry thank you.

To present this information without describing the source, as apposed to simply naming it knowing that most will not look it up is just dishonest. I've learned to always look up the source of DN "facts".

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

The CATO Institute policy analysis also found that the rich are not getting rich fast enough.



Jesus would not spend more money than he had
Jesus would not allow for inefficiencies and duplicity
Jesus would not brush aside fraud and abuse
Jesus would not just GIVE he would TEACH
Jesus would not perpetuate a system that traps its participants
Jesus would not promote a process that paralyzes peoples progress

Jesus didn't give Peter fish... He told him where to drop the net.

Jesus would want NOTHING and I mean NOTHING to do with the United States welfare system.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The reason that poverty is unchanged by our efforts is because our efforts only treat the symptoms of poverty and not the cause. Seems like I’ve heard that you can’t cure a disease just by treating the symptoms.

Little if anything was done during this period to fight the causes of poverty. Instead our society has reduced the need for American labor through technology, automation and foreign labor. But we’ve not done anything to replace the jobs and provide the means for people to live above the poverty. There needs to be a new way for ordinary people to earn their way. Perhaps there needs to be a new way to own and profit from the existence of our society.

Further during this time period, public education has been denigrated, diminished, starved and become the subject of hate. It is proper now to trample on the teachers and keep people from proper education.

Wasilla, AK

Like a friend said the other day: "I'm voting for Obama because I'll get more free stuff and I need free stuff to survive."

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

What would Jesus do?
He'd set up a TEMPORARY assistance program, monitored by a priesthood leader and a relief society leader and set up work opportunities to work for assistance.
Free labor would be used in the production and delivery of the food.
And I doubt you'd get a free cell phone from Him.

Sanpete, UT


Off the high horse for a second.
Jesus didn't let the poor starve--neither do I. I give what I can, not what the government thinks I should be able to give--actually I'm forced to give that too. I give because I know it's right. The problem with Liberals is that they lose faith in society. Do you really think that we are going to let people starve? Do you think I would let my family or neighbors die of hunger? Get real. The left paints a drastic picture of an inhumane society and tries to force us into utopia. They need to wake up and realize there are good people who will do what they should--out of their own good hearts, not because the government forces them to do it.

Jesus didn't give handouts. Many of his parables talked of work. Many of his apostles were chosen as they were working. Where did Christ say that we should live off the rich? Where does he say we should stand idle?

concord, 00

Since the 1960s and LBJ's so called War On Poverty, the taxpayers of this country transferred over $16 Trillion of their hard earned money to the poor and low income through means tested welfare programs. We have over 70 such programs. We now have a huge poverty problem and are $15 Trillion in debt. I guess all that giving didn't work out very well.
Maybe we should try giving away another $16 Trillion. Maybe it will work better the second time around.
BTW - I don't hear any of the liberals telling the people who took the $16 Trillion without earning it that they are "Greedy".

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Most if not all of the money spent by the government on welfare programs ends up in the pockets and bank accounts of the people who sponsored the legislation that created the welfare programs. The notion that the people of poverty had any hand in the creation of welfare programs is silly. And so is the notion that government itself profited.

Every action taken by the government through legislation, regulation and even the preemption of war is done at the behest of private commercial business owners.

Not that that’s any thing new, governments have be operating under the thumb of business since the beginning. America promised a new sharing of the wealth of humanity, but over the years business has caused our government to default on those promises.

Alpine, UT

DN should tell us what percentage of these numbers occurred under Obama's watch. It is not government's job to care for the needy. It is just another excuse to pick the pockets of the working class. And if liberals continue to get their way with our money, we will not always have the working class among us.


Before commenting further on the welfare issue, let me first acknowledge that there are many, many different reasons why people find themselves below the poverty level whether it's within the United States or elsewhere in the world. We will always have those who need help because they simply cannot adequately do for themselves. I acknowledge that and I accept that. That said, however, we SHOULD NOT be supporting (on a long-term basis) those individuals who CAN do for themselves but who refuse to do so. We have four basic categories of people who are getting help: 1) Those who face genuine long-term health, age and/or mental/physical challenges which make it impossible for them to live without help; 2) Those who need help on a short-term basis due to temporary factors such as unemployment, divorce, health challenges; 3) Those who have decided that being supported by the government (think redistribution of wealth) is just grand because it enables them to live an easy lifestyle; and 4) Those whom the Supreme Court calls "Undocumented Aliens" who seem to have the best of both worlds. Needless to say, defunding 3 and 4 should be our #1 priority.

Kearns, UT

I have observed the college married students taking advantage of government assistance. Many of them have families who spend thousands of dollars on weddings and receptions, baby clothes and furniture, even furniture for the couples apartment and travel to and from family events. The family will pay for all those things that are not available through welfare to make life fun and comfortable, yet they do not pay for the necessities for their children. The parents have learned how to work the system quite well in the U.S. This allows the students to take out minimum loans to attend college. Government welfare has been used not only today for college students, it was used back in the early 70's too. It could be called generational welfare in planned situations passed on from parent to child.

Centerville, UT

Well, in the new normal world of today's Democrat party, the reason it has had little impact is because we have not spent NEARLY enough money on these programs. As Vice President Biden pointed out, "We have to spend to keep from going bankrupt." And along this line, the agency that administers the food stamp program is now advertising on the radio so that more people will take advantage of the program because only about 60% of those eligible are using the program.

This is the new normal. Trillions in debt with plans to spend much more. Higher taxes for EVERYONE. 8% unemployment. Fewer people looking for work. More people depending on the federal government. This is Barack Obama's 'fundamentally changed' America. If we elect him again, this IS how it's going to be permanently.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT


I don't think so.

By creating a dependent underclass and destroying the black family (now over 70% of black children are born to single mothers because welfare requirements at one time said there could not be a father in the home in order to receive payment) all that welfare spending has had a horrible, devastating, and long-lasting NEGATIVE effect.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments