I was reading a blog today by Wayne Root and found an interesting section that he makes some extremely direct and substantial claims.


Questions for debate:

1) Do you agree or disagree with Wayne Root that increasing taxes to go towards social assistance (poverty programs) is a broken policy?

2) Does increasing the spending on these programs help to solve our poverty problems in the United States?

3) What evidence do you have to support your position?

Do you agree or disagree with Wayne Root that increasing taxes to go towards social assistance (poverty programs) is a broken policy?
Good Gracious no...

It's really kind of strange to argue that in our capitalist country money doesn't matter.

Hey, no matter how much money we pour into the military we couldn't win in Vietnam or Iraq. The war on drugs ain't working either. In fact crime period continues not matter how much we spend on law enforcement.

Let's start slashing!

That's the liberal counterpoint to this argument.

Both are a bit disingenuous. Social assistance has gone a long way towards improving the opportunities for the working poor and the middle class.

We talk about how useless it all is, but consider the alternative when there is no social security, no food stamps, no public housing, no public education.

We all remember the Great Depression right, malnutrition and sickness on a monumental scale?

A lot of our poverty programs have been poorly made and often gutted after the fact by opponents, but that doesn't mean they are bad policy.

Knock the UK if you will, but they spend less for health care, get universal care, and are still healthier than us.

I don't know if anyone is advocating abolishing all federal assistance, though I could easily be convinced in that direction. What I would like to point out is the increasing numbers of tax dollars each year, and the increasing number of people in poverty. Since 1959, we have had a continual increase in our population living in poverty. I don't see evidence that the problem is being solved. I don't have a solution, but I am sure there are people out there that have much more knowledge than I that can find a solution. What I am saying is that I don't see things getting better at all with our current strategy.

The UK also is having problems of their own, and they have a much greater amount of big government than we do.
Link

As far as spending money on public education, I hope the UK is worse off than us.
Link.
All I am saying is that there has to be something else done besides throw money at the problem. What that would be is anyone's guess.

You're looking at the wrong part of that link, Tim.

Yes, the absolute numbers of people "in poverty" have gone up every year. However, look at the percentages. In 1959, the percentage of people in this country in poverty was over 31%, and hovered in or around there until about '62, or '63 when some of the anti-poverty programs began to come online. Since then, with a few notable exceptions, the rate has remained fairly constant at about half of that.

And Turnea's right. A lot of these programs have either been not fully funded after being passed, or were designed poorly, or whatever. That doesn't mean that these programs haven't helped considerably, much less not helped at all.

1) He says the poor are still poor, schools still suck, drugs, gangs, and hopelessness till abound, etc. but how can I believe that with no evidence? It would do a lot for his point if Root could offer some objective measure of how these social ills are not getting better. You can't just go by what you see in the media, because it's notorious for making stuff seem worse than it is. But, for arguments sake, if I take for granted what he claims about the conditions of those social ills, he's still a long way from showing that increased government social spending worsens those conditions.

2)Money by itself won't fix any of those social problems he listed, but with all things equal it certainly makes intuitive sense that more money would solve more problems. More money for an efficient program will do more good.

Incidentally, this post reminded me of the GAO's, government accountability office's, high risk list. It lists the government programs/agencies that pose the highest risk for inefficiency, wasteful spending, poor management, etc. In 2005, 14 out of the 25 programs were within the DoD, dept. of defense. If Root is really looking for fruitless government spending I think he should start with the DoD. The governments social spending is a fraction of defense spending, yet when people like Root speak of wasteful government spending and cutting back big, inefficient government, they overlook the most glaring examples in defense spending and instead point to the paltry-by-comparison social spending as though it were the source of all government waste.

1) Do you agree or disagree with Wayne Root that increasing taxes to go towards social assistance (poverty programs) is a broken policy?

It depends on the program.

There is a rule of thumb in economics: if you want more of something, you subsidize it. We are, to some extent, subsidizing poverty in this country just as they do in Europe. If you don't have to work to get food or housing, then there are a certain percentage of people who will do just that: live off the public dole. There is still a certain stigma among Americans regarding public assistance, but it is declining.

That being said, there are benefits to certain government programs that help the needy to get decent jobs. Government job training is one of those. The government is repaid by providing this training in the form of future taxes so not only does it help the participants, it helps the government in the future.

2) Does increasing the spending on these programs help to solve our poverty problems in the United States?

Giving money to people does not help.

I believe in an America where no one goes hungry and no one sleeps on the street. To accomplish this, I'd set up public kitchens where basic, nutritious food is available for free to anyone who comes in. I'd allow people to take home food. I'd even go as far as to deliver food to those who don't have transportation or aren't mobile. This type of direct assistance targets a very specific problem (hunger) and is not easily abused by those that take food stamps and buy liquor or drugs.

I'd have a similar program for shelter although this is largely taken care of by private charities already.

He may not have posted anything to support it, and I wanted to know the same thing you do, so I posted some links a few posts back.


Job training and education are things that I think help tremendously. Welfare and housing subsidies only enable. I am torn on helping America, and leaving it up to the individual states. I typically have the position that these types of programs are best suited for the states, as well as it being their responsibilty. I would also require anyone taking advantage of any tax paid program to be subject to the same conditions for employment that tax paid employees face. This includes drug screening.

I think private charities could do much more, if there was less governmental interaction and taxation. If we had more money to donate, our charitable organizations might be better off. Allowing charities do what they do best and the goverment staying out of it could be the best course of action, in my opinion.

This is one of those personal anecdotes I wouldn't believe if I wasn't actually part of it*... This explains why the system is broken I think:

Single mom in Louisiana a few years back is trying to get public assistance to pay for child care. She can't get public assistance for child care because she doesn't work more than 25 hours a week. She can't work more than 25 hours a week because she can't get child care. Wait, it gets better... if she quits her job she can get public assistance for child care. So her choices are:

Work less than 25 hours a week and receive no assistance for child care which is what's holding her back from working 40 hours a week and ultimately not needing ANY public assistance.

Quit her job and get FREE child care.

So she tries a different tack. She applies to college. Gets accepted. She applies for public assistance from the State college and they refuse her because... she's got a job which she needs to pay for housing.

So her choices are:

Quit her job and got to school full time with free child care but become homeless.

Quit college and continue to work 25 hours a week.

***

No amount of money into the system there is ever going to fix anything because they've constructed a losing proposition for people who legitimately want assistance long enough to get "on their feet". You know, what public assistance is supposed to be doing, temporarily helping people out.

***

Questions for debate:
1) Do you agree or disagree with Wayne Root that increasing taxes to go towards social assistance (poverty programs) is a broken policy?
Too sweeping to be answered seriously. The short answer here is: Sometimes.

2) Does increasing the spending on these programs help to solve our poverty problems in the United States?
No of course not. Poverty isn't solved with money. It seems like it should be but it isn't and this has been shown time and time again. The bankrupt Lottery winner anecdote is a pretty good example.





*My wife and I made phone calls, wrote letters and fixed her resume enough so that she ultimate got a job that offered her child care at a greatly reduced rate until she could afford to pay for it herself. Ultimately (BTW) she met a guy and moved to Nebraska and got married.

Yeah, I checked out the link you provided and like Niteguy mentioned, the percentage of people living in poverty has pretty steadily decreased which I would say contradicts the point you were trying to make with the data. Like I said before, it's easy to fall in the line of thinking that social ills, poverty, drugs, etc are on worsening, given the amount of media attention. I would like to see those trends reflected in actual data before I accept that they are true.

BA, I'm not surprised at all by your single mom anecdote. I hear stories like that time and time again. I think that those stories speak to how the gov't's social programs and policies tend to suffer from poor management and implementation more than than anything. I agree with you in that more money won't help bad management.

Except the what you quoted me as saying refers to the information about the UK here and here. I respect the fact that the percentage has dropped from 1959 to 1969, but it has stayed relatively the same, as you and Niteguy pointed out, over the past almost half century. This doesn't discourage anyone?


I don't know if anyone's claim is that it is worsening, but rather not improving, at least on the poverty issue. I agree that efficiencies can help, but is that something that we can honestly expect from our Federal Government? I am of the opinion that our state governments can do a much more efficient job, and will have more oversight of the people. When was the last time you were able to get in the car and drive to the Nation's Capital and observe the proceedings, and also be able to stop your elected official in the hall to discuss what you think of his/her performance? That is much easier to do at the state level.

1.) As stated, it depends. Some programs that focus on education and prevention are beneficial; while others that shell out hand-outs and frivolous luxuries are simply ridiculous.

2.) No. Throwing money at a problem never helps anybody. Education and prevention are the way to go. We would be giving those needing social assistance in the first place the wings they need to fly instead of keeping them dependent on a system that will drain resources from productive members of the economy and society as a whole. It is noble to provide for everyone who cannot provide for themselves. And yes, there is a percentage of people genuinely incapable of dealing, but that is when government assistance is acceptable. I believe it's been said that people will take advantage of the system, but there are ways around it.

3.) Africa.

Oh, now you've done it.

I hate that people know so little about how our aid system actually works. he fact is most of our aid to Africa goes straight to missiles and planes for the Egyptians.

A bit of the rest goes into emergency food aid, i.e. directly back into the US economy because it's our corn.

A good chunk more goes into the feeding trough of domestic consultants in what has to define the term "sweet heart" deal.

I guess some money goes to the governments of the countries but not much is left anyway.

Corruption takes it's toll in Africa, but only the crumbs left after we get our share of the "aid."


It would be magical world were that true... but since most of the world accepts cash (or Visa) it's demonstrably false.

Pell Grants and subsidized loans are putting our nation through college. Food Stamps are allowing poor families to feed their children so they can learn in school.

I myself was on a reduced-price lunch back in my high-school days.

The evidence is against the "anti-tax" crowd here. Fact is the programs are working, not perfectly and there's plenty of room for improvement...

..but cutting the programs does not count as improvement.

Sure poverty numbers are stalling, thank the Reagan Revolution (well, actually policies that date back to Nixon but whose counting) for that.

I've attended conferences and dealt with entire summits on African aid, so I do know my fair share [plus, we've sparred about this issue before ]. And I can safely say I was not meaning to imply that we're bottoming out our economy throwing money at the problem, but it is simply the misappropriation of the money once it gets there. So, the corruption on the ground and in the grassroots of African aid is making it impractical since very little of the intended goal[s] is/are being met.

No, it certainly doesn't. But when the Constitution gives the Congress power to impose taxes during a time of war- it never once establishes social aid programs domestically- I cannot support such things. It is wrong of the government to tax and then redistribute wealth and resources just because. Morally, it may be the right thing to do, I will give you that. But legally? Never. When morality clashes with the law, morality tends to win, which is why we have these social programs which impose taxes in the first place. Now, the amount taxed can be argued until the cows come home, but the fact is that any amount taken from income is still too much according to the Constitution who has the power to raise funds for an army, during a time of war, etc.

The intended goals are geopolitics and dumping surplus agricultural output and are being met very nicely. The tiny percentage that actually goes to development aid has shown proven results.

The effects of African corruption on aid efficacy are wildly overrated. Most aid money never reaches corrupt governments anyway, unless you count ours or Egypt's.


I hear this all the time, but the Supreme Court has never made such a ruling, instead choosing to interpret the "general welfare" clause broadly.

The constitution didn't explicitly guarantee public education either, but even Thomas Jefferson thought it was plenty legal.

I definitely agree, but the case can still be made that no great cultural revolution is in store for Africa in the near future. Genocide and yes: corruption, are taking their toll in the hearts of many who would volunteer aid naturally instead of having it as part of their tax package. We need no taxes to be humanitarian, and if we do, what's the point anyway? Most people give out aid for the warm fuzzy feeling it gives them when they lay head to pillow. But when a government gives aid to another government, doesn't that just invoke the "follow the money" principle? So I don't disagree with foreign aid, certainly not. I just disagree with the manner in which it is given.

Yes, which is one of the banes of my Libertarian existence given that the Supreme Court ought to be making strides in defending our right to economic independence instead of appropriating them in favor of the Federal government which by Jefferson's writings would grow to such a level that it would eventually police its own citizens. The only way to do that is with operating capital... Which it happens to have due to taxes.

Well, my friend, Dubya thinks domestic wiretaps are plenty legal.

Depends on where. There are kinks to work out but South Africa and Nigeria (Africa's biggest country) both have strong growth. Much of west Africa is calming after a decade of civil war.

The trouble is the lack of infrastructure to connect African producers with global markets so that they can move out of the agricultural sector which is laden with US and EU subsidies and get into manufacturing and service which is what worked for Singapore ( once known for its rampant corruption, now one of the cleanest countries on earth), Taiwan, South Korea, Poland etc.

All of these examples show that the formula is growth first and crushing corruption second.

Which holds lessons for our domestic front as well. Bad results don't mean we should "stop playing" in the fight against domestic poverty. The problem is not the goal but the methods, programs need improvement not budget cuts.


..and thank God he'll never be on the Supreme Court.

Jefferson was our most famous anti-federalist and yet even he acknowledged the governments role in developing our basic human resources as has our Supreme Court time and time again.

Libertarian views on the subject, while ver consistent are a disaster waiting to happen if ever actually implemented.

Your vision is simply too narrow to see beyond your prejudice Turnea. Like minded people coming together for a cause that inspires them and offers a ROI can be very powerful. That goes towards trying to jump start a space industry and even to social constructs like investment pools to fund research. Libertarians need to market their ideas better and remember that real people could care less what hayek or rothbard 'opined'. Think insurance company based on a non profit. Want to save the world Turnea, start a business and remember your employees and the world around you matter. Kind of ben and jerry's on steroids. Take the 60's idealsim and match it to the strengths of the free market and many things become possible and better yet beyond the reach of politicians.

turnea



Well, I would be in favor of such small-scale assistance packages, but there is a fundamental difference between the continent of Africa and the country of Singapore. America can but it shouldn't have to repair a continent that was by and large destroyed by Europeans, and I'm sorry to say: fellow Africans. During the slave trade when most of Africa began its decline, there was no sense of African unity, there was loyal to tribes and family units, that created an unstable atmosphere and I'm sure you know the rest. Anyway, the economic depression is still titanic in size and we cannot really mount a sufficent aid package that will reform the continent in the vein of Singapore or South Korea. It's just not feasible given the size of the project and I'm not saying we abandon it since foreign aid has become a reality, but in an ideal world, we wouldn't have to worry about it since taxes shouldn't be funneled there in the first place.




A lot of people look at the programs and say that things will simply be a bigger failure with a bigger budget. Many people are railing against NASA's failures in the past decade and saying it's time we clip their wings, but it hasn't happened. So I don't think we'll be seeing any great pulling-out of funds from programs, but I also don't expect bigger budgets in the next fiscal year. It's simply not fair to take money from hardworking Americans and support those unfortunates who don't earn nearly enough. As I said, I would lose sleep at night if we didn't, but it's still the fact that the Constitution when strictly interpreted doesn't given the government the right to do so. Private donations could in theory revitalize the aid system domestically because people would have the money to spend and it wouldn't be taxed, so they could appropriate it how they choose. If they keep it, isn't that their right as free citizens?




But Jefferson died in debt. He never asked for a bail-out and instead sold part of his private library to jump-start the Library of Congress. The average American can't do that, but it sets a nice example of what should be done.



Not for the "average" American who would receive a monetary boost when the government stops taxing income.

I do not discount the ability of the private sector to contribute to raising standards of living. Indeed it is critical.

But equally critical are the foundational investments in infrastructure that the government does best.

Educated the masses, building the roads, moving the unemployed and working poor towards better training and eventually better earnings.

These are not things the private sector does very well. They are typically not very profitable and fraught with difficulty.

The government has a role just as important as the private sector and we eliminate it at our own peril.


Less than you might think. Ethnic tensions ran high in Singapore after independence too.

Singapore's chief difference is being an island located on key trade routes, which helps.


Indeed. It is the universal story of humanity.


Oh, we could the Marshall Plan shows that. We just don't want to.


...but it didn't work.

Pulling oneself up by their own bootstraps is, quite literally, impossible and doing so in the economic realm is almost as hard.


...but then health care subsidize crumble. Sending kids to college becomes trouble with depressed funding leading to higher tuitions and lower grant and loan aid. Basic education is at risk due to falling federal funds.

...and never mind social security, that's good and dead.

Actions have consequences, either we deficit spend like fiends or we cut some of the programs that are key to the American quality of life. That is the logical end of libertarianism.

Ah, but can we agree that it should do them well? Money exists as a construct so people can feel they are better than other people. That's the basic crux of it all. So if corporations want a labor force to make money, shouldn't they do the things necessary to build or expand that labor force? Isn't that only fair?

The government exists to protect citizens and ensure order. That is textbook as to what the function of government is. I don't know one political scientist who says government should do those things, but it is largely accepted as secondary goals or functions.

So if corporations need those things to make money, they should foot the cost and the government should not pass taxes down the line just because we had the lot in Lala Land to be born here.

The private sector has only just started with these things Turnea. The private sectors has created some very interesting schools. The ones in my area are quite attractive. It is the private sector which allows my autistic son a chance at normalcy through those schools.

Private school ventures offer the poor many chances to have a better life. Skills training that is actually in demand and changes constantly to reflect the actual needs of business instead of the never changing tread of public universities.
I have faith in people to do what is necessary and find the best ways to do it. They can react faster and quicker than government ever could or will. add the incentive of personal involvement and it will also be better protected.

Africa is still abundant in natural resources. I think there is some economic benefit in restoring Africa, it just isn't being done because of age-old intolerance.




Still doesn't mean we should.




Which is why private entities like the Salvation Army and Red Cross are so good.




Maybe I'm proving I'm a snob, but so what if the programs that never were legally supposed to exist crumble? Sure, it'll take a generation or so to rework the system, but the system can be reworked. It'll take time and patience, but taxes shouldn't enable people not to participate in the system. People have lost sight that they own the government and the government does not own them. It lulls people into security having things given to them, and I don't mean to paint the picture that everyone receiving social aid is a moocher, but it hits close to home in any event.

I always thought it was to ease the complications surrounding the transfer of goods and services. A natural outgrowth of the concept of personal property when a society got too complex for barter to be an efficient method of transfer.


Not necessarily. We must remember we are a community. We could just as easily argue that everyone should proved for their own personal security and disband the police forces.

It's "fair" in that it requires those who want an outcome to provide for it themselves. It is also imprudent.


The textbook definition of government is a system of rule.

Its obligations to the citizenry are constructs that came along after the fact. There was a time when government existed solely to benefit the ruling class, they just typically found that making the citizens love them was in their interest.


Ah, but who will pay? The poor?

They call them poor for a reason.

Human labor is necessary in order to manufacture said good or service. Therefore, industry/corporations out to foot the cost if they want to continue their business.



See, as a Libertarian, I'm down with that. But practically, the police force could be argued under the "provide for the common defense." Alas, there's no right answer I'm afraid, since social programs have been allowed to rise in this nation, it's never simple just to ween off them.



But in an ideal world, everyone could provide for themselves and need no government hand-outs, i.e. taxes.



Government existed simply to manage and maintain order in a society, never to benefit one class over the other. When security was established, then came the systems wherein it became possible to oppress. Taxes are one construct of that concept and a kind of atonement for centuries of abuse.

Just like social programs provide for the "general welfare."

Where can one find this ideal world?


Woo!

A lot of ancient cultures would have been thrilled to know that. They always figured it was just a bunch of guys with swords who took their stuff and made them build pyramids.



Oppression is as old as humanity, it was possible the moment anyone had more physical power than anyone else.

Taxes were often, though not always oppressive... but oppression existed before them.

The police force is a state issue, the military is a federal issue.


The Constitution says the "General Welfare of the United States", not the general welfare of the people of the United States. It all depends on the interpretation, and I don't see how wealth redistribution provides for the "general Welfare of the United States". It may just be an opinion.

turnea



Well that's debateable... Hence this debate.




We're a secular republic. We can't just force our populace into making tombs for the living god.




That's a fact. However, taxes are just one more way to widen the gap between social equality, no matter what program is established to reseal it.


scubatim



Semantics, but alas, I'd still say be rid of it.

And I like your interpretation.

Get rid of law enforcement? Not practical from my perspective. Total anarchy is, in my opinion much worse than liberalism. But not by much!

I'm saying we put the States back in United States. We should let individual states decide what programs they want and which ones they feel are excessive. The Federal government was always meant to be the weak body, and now its pontificating and providing where it shouldn't be.

But since most police units are run by the state/community, I can't object too loudly except to say that I would live in a state that didn't tax me for their existence.

Unfortunately we can't have our cake and eat it too. You are then forced to either enjoy the restrictions that come with law enforcement and accept taxes, or live in fear of your neighbors under the total anarchy that would come from no taxes and subsequently no law enforcement. I don't mind paying taxes to ensure my family is safe from those that seek to do harm on innocent people.

Call me a miser, but I don't like government taking money earned in the private sector.

And there are some countries on earth without an organized police force. And history has shown that there can be a benevolent and collectivist anarchy. Rationally, it's impractical for America since we're all so used to and expect certain programs like Police, Fire and Rescue, etc. But I would like to see the day where Americans don't expect taxes to pay for food they could buy themselves if they weren't taxed.

My point was that the "purpose" of government is variable. It need not have anything to do with the "social contract" nor is it's purpose confined to security.


Only if said taxes are regressive, that is if they take a greater proportion on income from the poor as compared to the rich.


I disagree that the value of a tax-free society is more than a society where tax-funded governmental action raises standards of living for all.

At the literal expense of those who funnel money into the system in the first place. It's like giving the man with a gun the bullets it takes to kill himself. May as well just leave him with the money with which to buy both if he wants. Government has categorically been shown to be ineffective in dealing with disaster relief. I work at the company that had the first relief trucks rolling into New Orleans post-Katrina. I think we did a better job than FEMA which was at that time not even on the horizon. Government cannot raise the standard of living for all when it is at the expense of some.

Well as they say "a rising tide lifts all boats." I was chiefly speaking in terms of averages and certainly think that life is far better for the average American than it would be without tax-funded programs.... but having a stronger human resource base is good for the economic top-tier as well.

Private industry has a part to play in disaster but they don't have the means or incentive to act on the scale that the government does. The ineptitude of the FEMA response is a matter of personal responsibility not a universal failure of government.

Sure, that's a valid assumption, but I maintain that without taxes, people would have the capital to do what they wanted rather than what they had to do under penalty of imprisonment. Private programs can accomplish the same ends of government-imposed seizure of income [taxes].

Yes, but FEMA is an arm of the government that seemed to have been atrophied. It takes a well-oiled machine to regulate taxes and that machine seems to have been sabotaged, at least under this administration. And historically, social programs have been great in theory, but almost all have floundered. Social Security is going belly up as it stands and I know more funding would probably help, but I don't want my money going to support the system when I will have limited return on my investment.

Not necessarily. One must consider the concept of economies of scale. he government typically has a far wider scope than any one private sector entity and that can lead to greater efficiency due to streamlined management. It's likely why, as people as just now debating in another thread Medicare Outperforms Private Insurance at Containing Health Care Spending, 30-Year Trend Shows
(thank bucket for this example).

Also the government size allows it to buy services from a stronger bargaining position.

Then their are things like police, fire services, transportation infrastructure that as just plan better handles by government with centralized control responsive to the wishes of the people they serve, not the stockholders that care only for the immediate bottom line.

...and what about regulation, The Jungle shows what happens without well enforced labor regulation (or the FDA for that matter).

But taxes are only allowed to be raised in times of war for the regulation of a standing military and nowhere in the Constitution does it mention social programs. We've established they're a fact of life, but that still doesn't mean we have to like it. And if government had never started taxing in the first place, it's feasible to assume private entities would've stepped up for the survival of their economic interests. There's an interesting book by Max Barry called Jennifer Government: NationStates.

Now I'm not advocating Nike becoming the global governing body, but I would very much like to see the scaling back of government-imposed financial penalties and redistribution of resources that could as easily be managed by the corporation needing that good or service for survival. I dislike big business, but it seems preferable to let them foot the bill rather than the Feds.

Here we reach the crux of the matter.

First I disagree that taxes are unconstitutional except for the military.

Second, I find it less than convincing that "maybe" private industry could adapt to do this same thing. Show an example of this working better than our current system, or at least some convincing reasoning to that a effect.

Otherwise it's just like the defenses of communism....

"It could work..."

As one who probably falls into the 'anti-tax' crowd, let me expound on this. It's not taxes per se we are against, but handouts that don't solve problems. You give good examples of programs that do indeed help. I am not against government programs...I am against government programs which don't solve problems. What I would like to see is not less government, but more management and oversight of the programs that are there. This will work in everyone's best interest. It will help those who the programs target, and in return it will increase their ability to contribute back to the economy and hence pay more taxes. These programs should, in the long run, be self-funding. Pell Grants are a perfect example of this. They help many go on to higher education, which then leads to higher paying jobs, and therefore more back to the government in taxes. This doesn't even take into account the fact that it reduces the burden on other social welfare programs by reducing the number of people they need to serve. Win, win, win. Every social program should function like this in some manner, and that should be measured and tracked, and where progress lags changes should be made. Such changes would only benefit everyone. So, Turnea, you are right, cutting programs doesn't necessarily count as improvement. Improvement counts as improvement. Such improvement should actually reduce the need for the programs, not the other way around.

That's because no one's really given this system a chance, Comrade!

Taxes are a tough subject because there are so many possibilities. I have to say that it's best for America to keep the social programs in place, so in the most immediate sense of this debate: Yes, taxes really help. No, I really don't like it.