Free Markets, Not Redistribution, Is Best Way to Reduce Poverty

The so-called War on Poverty has failed. Making government bigger and creating more federal redistribution programs has been bad news for taxpayers. But the welfare state also has been a disaster for the less fortunate, creating a flypaper effect that makes it difficult for people to lead independent and self-reliant lives. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video shows how the poverty rate was falling after World War II -- but then stagnated once the federal government got involved. www.freedomandprosperity.org

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• freedom
• prosperity
• poverty
• cfp
• cf&p
• free
• market
• welfare
• obama
• medicaid
• liberty
• taxes
• spending
• big
• government
• quinlan
• mitchell
• center

[dubified89]

@schlecksi69 What part of what you wrote disproves the content of the video? The stats shown are the government's own figures so whether 'big corporations' fund the organization that produced the video is irrelevant.

[schlecksi69]

CFPE is a well-made series of big corporations' agenda to promote laissez-faire ("free market" is not really accurate to describe it) capitalism, which in the real world means tax breaks, exemptions for big business and cuts in social solicy programmes.

In Austria, we have one of the most generous unemployment benefits (90% of your last net income over 12 months) and still the lowest unemployment rate in the EU, far below the US one. We have nationwide collective bargaining & strong unions.

[wiseman152439]

@italy0225 you should read some of Frederic Bastiat's books/essays. I found them really interesting.

[wiseman152439]

@italy0225 Capitalism is all about the free market. It's not a free market if its taken over by monopolies. So capitalism discourages monopolies. However, by drifting away from capitalism and subsidising certain businesses, the government funded certain businesses, in essence creating monopolies. If things were left to the free market, the real estate bubble would not have been so harsh, and everyone would have less debt. In essence, only the free market premotes the most incentive for wealth.

[italy0225]

Yes, you are right that weshould have free exonomic opportunity, but how if capitalism has produced unfair monopolies that promote government to tax you so u cant start ur business? Capitalism destroy ur own opportunity to have a desent life, choice depends on the freedom to choose and if ur shackled wit debt you dont have a freedom to choice in capitalism and the working class doesnt have a say becuase people in debt bceome hopeless and hopeless dont vote and even if they did, they would be to

[gdoyle05]

@shoresofinfinity in order to have Free Market Capitalism the economy needs sound money (asset backed currency), and we haven't had that since 1913. Government ruined that one for us... government ALWAYS fails when they try to control the market. It SOMETIMES only temporarily succeeds (usually around election time)

[ChildOfTheWilderness]

Yes government is too big, but that is not reason to get rid of it. There are too many anti-government people who aren't realistic. The country can't run properly without government and a market without control would collapse under the power of greed and the rule of rich elite.

Look at what the Banks did when they were allowed to run free, look at what top-level execs did to save themselves as their employees were made redundant. This is wrong, this should be stopped. Only government can

[shoresofinfinity]

Sorry, but capitalism is only as good as it's market participants. You should disclose this fact instead of cheerleading the same repetative rhetoric that capitalism is good and big govt is bad. They are both rat poison. Moral capitalism, not capitalism should be the focus. Otherwise, people will continue to flock back to socialism when the free market messes up the next time. Please, lets have someone more knowledgeable have this discussion and stop wasting my bandwith with canned doctorine

[TheAndyChandy]

Hadley Heath, you are Hella Hot!

[YaHuWaHservant]

@Vaserlan There is no such thing as a real poverty. You are simply drawing divisions between different levels of poverty. People who can't pay bills on essentials are in poverty. Who cannot afford to buy food are in poverty. Simply out if you cannot afford the essentials you are in poverty.