Why don't government programs work

[donttread]

I think there is a general concensus that most government programs don't work. But what is your opinion of why they haven't worked and why they often seem to have the opposite effect from their stated purpose
For example
1) The "war on poverty" has been marked by dramatic INCREASES in the number of people living in poverty
2) The "war on terror" has churned out terrorist at an unpresidented rate
3) The "war on drugs " has led to a huge prison industrial complex , but drugs are more available and wrecking more havoc than ever.
4) Since government started intervening in healthcare, healthcare cost and insurance cost have grown much quicker that the general COL has.
5) "No child left behind has helped champion some the lowest graduation rates of the modern era.

I could go on but I'm sure you get the idea. Failure in government is so common that it is actually difficult, ridiculously so, to name many successes in the past half century or so.
What is your opinion, not your parties opinion which will always and forever be to blame the other guy, but your opinion of why our government not only cannot seem to reach its own goals , but more often than not makes the problem WORSE?

[Chris]

See Hayek’s Rules of Order (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/34814-Hayek%E2%80%99s-Rules-of-Order?highlight=hayek).

In short, you simply cannot centrally design and plan society, economy, etc. The knowledge needed is too distributed, the systems are too complex for any visionaries (men of system Adam Smith called them).


Sometimes I get to thinking that that is known and it's done deliberately knowing it will fail, because, why hell, failure means there's more problems to solve! So it's self-perpetuating, self-aggrandizing.

[donttread]

See Hayek’s Rules of Order (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/34814-Hayek’s-Rules-of-Order?highlight=hayek).

In short, you simply cannot centrally design and plan society, economy, etc. The knowledge needed is too distributed, the systems are too complex for any visionaries (men of system Adam Smith called them).


Sometimes I get to thinking that that is known and it's done deliberately knowing it will fail, because, why hell, failure means there's more problems to solve! So it's self-perpetuating, self-aggrandizing.

Or the programs aren't failing at all, they are just lying to us about the real goal of the programs

[nic34]

Or for as long as there have been programs to help the less fortunate in this country, conservatives have constantly chipped away at them.

Most programs have never really been allowed to operate as intended because of that interference.

[Chris]

Or the programs aren't failing at all, they are just lying to us about the real goal of the programs

Seems to be how Obamacare passed.

[Chris]

Or for as long as there have been programs to help the less fortunate in this country, conservatives have constantly chipped away at them.

Most programs have never really been allowed to operate as intended because of that interference.

Those programs have failed on their own, nic.

[Common Sense]

I wish we could glimpse and alternate universe of the US without its war on poverty and without social programs. I think what we would see would be a dystopian nightmare.

[Chris]

I wish we could glimpse and alternate universe of the US without its war on poverty and without social programs. I think what we would see would be a dystopian nightmare.

When the war on poverty began the poverty rate was around 15%. Today, after many decades of war, it remains at 15%. This is the dystopia. IIRC, the poverty rate had been dropping before the war. Perhaps if we withdrew, it would again.

[donttread]

Or for as long as there have been programs to help the less fortunate in this country, conservatives have constantly chipped away at them.

Most programs have never really been allowed to operate as intended because of that interference.

We spend and ever increasing percentage of our budget on welfare and yet all we get is more poor people. What more would you have done without "interference"?

[Chris]

We spend and ever increasing percentage of our budget on welfare and yet all we get is more poor people. What more would you have done without "interference"?

Welfare and warfare.

[Professor Peabody]

Because they are make work projects for Government cubicle rats. Too busy watching porn on their work computers to care.

[nathanbforrest45]

Or for as long as there have been programs to help the less fortunate in this country, conservatives have constantly chipped away at them.

Most programs have never really been allowed to operate as intended because of that interference.


This is a complete explanation of the liberal mindset in a nutshell. If the program doesn't work its obviously because of the greedy capitalist. Its never the fault of the program which flies in the face of human nature.

[nathanbforrest45]

To answer the question, why don't they work its because very simply the programs are not created to actually solve any problems but to create power for an elite. They go against the basic values of the human spirit's yearning for freedom and individuality. Social programs don't work because humans are more closely related to the Ferengi than the Borg. I understand the "intellectuals" will scoff at that comparison but those of us who live in the real world will totally understand the concept.

[lynn]

Those so-called "wars" were never intended to be won.

[nic34]

I wish we could glimpse and alternate universe of the US without its war on poverty and without social programs. I think what we would see would be a dystopian nightmare.

Instead of 15% today, poverty could be as high as 25% or more as it was for seniors before medicare/medicaid. And during the Depression, at least half of all seniors were living in poverty.

Kind claimed that basically half of seniors lacked health insurance before Medicare, and the program reduced the share of seniors in poverty by 75 percent. His statistics pan out, but he overplays his hand by making Medicare the hero for getting seniors above the poverty line when experts agree other things, chiefly Social Security, are the reason.


http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/aug/25/ron-kind/us-rep-ron-kind-says-thanks-medicare-75-fewer-seni/

[Chris]

Instead of 15% today, poverty could be as high as 25% or more as it was for seniors before medicare/medicaid. And during the Depression, at least half of all seniors were living in poverty.

Kind claimed that basically half of seniors lacked health insurance before Medicare, and the program reduced the share of seniors in poverty by 75 percent. His statistics pan out, but he overplays his hand by making Medicare the hero for getting seniors above the poverty line when experts agree other things, chiefly Social Security, are the reason.


http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/aug/25/ron-kind/us-rep-ron-kind-says-thanks-medicare-75-fewer-seni/


Given that the poverty rate was declining greatly prior to the liberal war on poverty, one could perhaps say that it could have grown higher but for conservative efforts to actually address the problem.

[The Xl]

A lot of these programs are actually necessary to a degree as long as we employ the current monetary and economic systems that we do.

Which is why it's so important to end the fed and fractional reserve banking.

[lynn]

The war on drugs and poverty if won would automatically reduce the staff of state and local governments, as well as every other entity that the government pays for their services that concern drug crimes and poverty. Prisons would lose over half of their population that are incarcerated for drug crimes. Just this alone means they don't ever want to win the war on drugs.

They also do not want to secure our borders because they don't want to stop the flow of drugs coming into this country. Of course this has created another big problem for the public which are the illegals coming across too. Government doesn't want to win that battle because expanding government employees to take care of these immigrants secures government expansion paid entirely by tax payers.

Political messages of wanting to win the war on drugs, poverty, etc. is an easy scam on the gullible public who blindly support them.

[Mac-7]

Because they are make work projects for Government cubicle rats. Too busy watching porn on their work computers to care.

"Cubicle rats?"

that term certainly reminds me of an overpaid government worker who does not work bot spends many hours on the job watching porn.

Cubicle rats.

Very good.

[Peter1469]

I understand what you mean. However, I don't think it is possible to win the wars on drugs and poverty.


The war on drugs and poverty if won would automatically reduce the staff of state and local governments, as well as every other entity that the government pays for their services that concern drug crimes and poverty. Prisons would lose over half of their population that are incarcerated for drug crimes. Just this alone means they don't ever want to win the war on drugs.

They also do not want to secure our borders because they don't want to stop the flow of drugs coming into this country. Of course this has created another big problem for the public which are the illegals coming across too. Government doesn't want to win that battle because expanding government employees to take care of these immigrants secures government expansion paid entirely by tax payers.

Political messages of wanting to win the war on drugs, poverty, etc. is an easy scam on the gullible public who blindly support them.

[donttread]

I wish we could glimpse and alternate universe of the US without its war on poverty and without social programs. I think what we would see would be a dystopian nightmare.

In a bubble perhaps, but if you threw in locialization of economies, less urbanization and the absence of the megacorps I think you might see something very much like the 50's and 60's. Not very dystopian at all .After all there was no war on poverty and fewer social programs back then