Quote from: taxed on November 13, 2012, 10:02:29 AM
So, the more welfare, the better the society?  Please, clarify your idiocy.

I don't think you understand that statistics trump your gut feeling.

Which is basically what you all have done in response to the study I presented: post anecdotal evidence and play word games.

Don't you understand that assumptions need to be supported empirically?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 12:48:45 PM
I don't think you understand that statistics trump your gut feeling.

Which is basically what you all have done in response to the study I presented: post anecdotal evidence and play word games.

Don't you understand that assumptions need to be supported empirically?

You do realize that your use of statistics in this argument has amounted to a logical fallacy, that of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on November 13, 2012, 12:55:51 PM
You do realize that your use of statistics in this argument has amounted to a logical fallacy, that of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Only if I used a simple example, or a bunch of examples happening at a uniform date.  It can't just be a coincidence that poverty rates drop significantly across multiple nations upon the implementation of welfare.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 12:57:31 PM
Only if I used a simple example, or a bunch of examples happening at a uniform date.  It can't just be a coincidence that poverty rates drop significantly across multiple nations upon the implementation of welfare.

Sure, you can give money to the poor and raise their standard of living, but where does this magic money come from?
I'm speaking of the US in this case?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 12:57:31 PM
Only if I used a simple example, or a bunch of examples happening at a uniform date.  It can't just be a coincidence that poverty rates drop significantly across multiple nations upon the implementation of welfare.

Maybe, maybe not.

Either way, nothing conclusive about it can be said using statistics.

There are a lot of things that factor in to it that are not accounted for in these numbers.

Quote from: Solar on November 13, 2012, 01:03:29 PM
Sure, you can give money to the poor and raise their standard of living, but where does this magic money come from?

1. This has nothing to do with the OP.
2. The money comes from increased taxes on the rich and a slice of unnecessary spending.
3. It's not a net loss; if the poor have more money, they will buy more and pay more taxes.
4. If there are less people in poverty, crime will naturally decrease.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 12:48:45 PM
I don't think you understand that statistics trump your gut feeling.

Which is basically what you all have done in response to the study I presented: post anecdotal evidence and play word games.

Don't you understand that assumptions need to be supported empirically?

And you believe assumptions are "supported" simply by producing statistics. Lysenko produced "statistics" supporting his theories on "environmentally acquired inheritance". How about the recent problems with the "statistics" on AGW (many of the stations in rural areas were abandoned, a favor of measuring stations in urban heat sinks). And of course, changes behind the scenes in the manner in which BLS "statistics" are produced, have lead to questions about their reliability. To quote something that I learned in accounting 101: "Figures never lie, but liars figure". Just because numbers are produced, doesn't give them immediate credibility, simply because they're numbers. 

Quote from: mdgiles on November 13, 2012, 01:08:36 PM
And you believe assumptions are "supported" simply by producing statistics. Lysenko produced "statistics" supporting his theories on "environmentally acquired inheritance". How about the recent problems with the "statistics" on AGW (many of the stations in rural areas were abandoned, a favor of measuring stations in urban heat sinks). And of course, changes behind the scenes in the manner in which BLS "statistics" are produced, have lead to questions about their reliability. To quote something that I learned in accounting 101: "Figures never lie, but liars figure". Just because numbers are produced, doesn't give them immediate credibility, simply because they're numbers.

Let me get this straight: some statistics are misleading.  Others are flat out falsified.  But if this is so, you actually have to prove it!  You can't just dismiss any and all numbers that are inconvenient to you on the basis that they could be wrong, without proof.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 01:06:51 PM
1. This has nothing to do with the OP.
2. The money comes from increased taxes on the rich and a slice of unnecessary spending.
3. It's not a net loss; if the poor have more money, they will buy more and pay more taxes.
4. If there are less people in poverty, crime will naturally decrease.

It has everything to do with the OP.
If we could afford to give money away, it wouldn't matter, but we no longer have the ability to support the current programs in place, we are on the verge of borrowing more than we produce (Fiscal Cliff).
Borrowing or printing money is not the answer, we are close to follong Greece over the cliff.

To answer the question does it make people lazier?
Not necessarily, what it does do however, is trap people into a life of poverty, the reason is quite simple, people can actually exist and live comfortably on assistance, but to do so, you are told that if you retain work, the amount you make will be deducted from your assistance check.

Now what do you suppose most people do in this case?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 01:09:45 PM
Let me get this straight: some statistics are misleading.  Others are flat out falsified.  But if this is so, you actually have to prove it!  You can't just dismiss any and all numbers that are inconvenient to you on the basis that they could be wrong, without proof.

I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE AN (EXPLETIVE DELETED) THING. Where did you get the idea that simply throwing some numbers out, makes it the responsibility of the person you are throwing the numbers at, to prove them false. It's the responsibility of the person presenting the numbers to show not only their accuracy, but that they also support the argument you're making. Simply presenting a number, does not automatically give validity to the argument the number was supposed to support, making it the other persons duty to prove them invalid. Your original number purported to show how poverty had declined in social democracies with the rise of the welfare state. But correlation, is not causation. The fact that poverty did, or did not, go down; may, or may not, having anything to do with rising social spending.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 12:48:45 PM
I don't think you understand that statistics trump your gut feeling.

I have real world experience.  You don't.  Let's get that straight.

Quote
Which is basically what you all have done in response to the study I presented: post anecdotal evidence and play word games.

Don't you understand that assumptions need to be supported empirically?

Show me the statistics on how many times those countries went to the Moon and send a Rover to Mars.

You can insist all you want that welfare is good and makes people productive, but that doesn't make it so.  You need to provide evidence that it does.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 01:06:51 PM
1. This has nothing to do with the OP.
2. The money comes from increased taxes on the rich and a slice of unnecessary spending.
3. It's not a net loss; if the poor have more money, they will buy more and pay more taxes.
4. If there are less people in poverty, crime will naturally decrease.

Wrong, as usual.  People who earn money are those who were responsible enough to learn a skill, responsible enough to get up in the morning, and driven enough to earn a living.  You may think those who don't care about their lives or have any drive to achieve a living and are rewarded the fruits of another's labor makes for a good society, but that just reinforces your idiocy.

Quote from: taxed on November 13, 2012, 01:44:37 PM
I have real world experience.  You don't.  Let's get that straight.

I have numbers.

Quote
Show me the statistics on how many times those countries went to the Moon and send a Rover to Mars.

How does this have anything to do with welfare?

Quote
You can insist all you want that welfare is good and makes people productive, but that doesn't make it so.  You need to provide evidence that it does.

I DID.  Have you even bothered to read anything?

Welfare remarkably reduces poverty levels.

Is this a bad thing?  Do you want people to remain poor, so that they keep on voting against you?   

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 03:51:53 PM
I have numbers.

No you don't.  You have inaccurate liberal propaganda.

Quote
How does this have anything to do with welfare?

Well, those are strong societies with high welfare.  They must certainly be more advanced than us.

Quote
I DID.  Have you even bothered to read anything?

Welfare remarkably reduces poverty levels.

Wrong.

Quote
Is this a bad thing?  Do you want people to remain poor, so that they keep on voting against you?   

They vote against me because union organizations round them up and get them to the polling stations.

If someone wants to no longer be poor, then they need to start doing things that gets them off poverty.  It really is that simple.

Quote from: taxed on November 13, 2012, 04:15:48 PM
No you don't.  You have inaccurate liberal propaganda.

The aforementioned paper's methodology is there for you to see.

Come back to me and point out its errors.

Or are you just dismissing every statistic that you find inconvenient as "liberal propaganda"? 

Quote
Well, those are strong societies with high welfare.  They must certainly be more advanced than us.

Reduction fallacy.

Quote
Wrong.
They vote against me because union organizations round them up and get them to the polling stations.

Ooohhh, they want people to vote!     How dare they.

But that doesn't answer my question: do you want people to get out of poverty, or not?

Quote
If someone wants to no longer be poor, then they need to start doing things that gets them off poverty.  It really is that simple.

Yes, and having money to feed your children and grandparents certainly helps.