Often yes. It needs safe guards, conditions and should be done at state level.
Discuss!
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 11, 2012, 11:07:11 AM
Often yes. It needs safe guards, conditions and should be done at state level.
Discuss!
Luxembourg Income Study:
Country Social expenditures on non-elderly[6]
(as percentage of GDP) Total percent of
poverty reduced
United States 2.3 26.4
Netherlands 9.6 65.2
Sweden 11.6 77.4
Germany 7.3 70.5
Canada 5.8 46.0
Finland 10.9 69.7
United Kingdom 7.1 60.1
Belgium 9.3 76.9
Austria 7.4 75.8
Italy 4.3 57.7
Ireland 5.5 44.1
Average 7.4 60.9
Country Absolute poverty rate (1960–1991)
(threshold set at 40% of U.S. median household income)[3] Relative poverty rate
(1970–1997)[4]
Pre-welfare Post-welfare Pre-welfare Post-welfare
Sweden 23.7 5.8 14.8 4.8
Norway 9.2 1.7 12.4 4.0
Netherlands 22.1 7.3 18.5 11.5
Finland 11.9 3.7 12.4 3.1
Denmark 26.4 5.9 17.4 4.8
Germany 15.2 4.3 9.7 5.1
Switzerland 12.5 3.8 10.9 9.1
Canada 22.5 6.5 17.1 11.9
France 36.1 9.8 21.8 6.1
Belgium 26.8 6.0 19.5 4.1
Australia 23.3 11.9 16.2 9.2
United Kingdom 16.8 8.7 16.4 8.2
United States 21.0 11.7 17.2 15.1
Italy 30.7 14.3 19.7 9.1
This is from wikipedia, but as you can see, it is taken from real studies. Sorry if it's hard to read.
------
More circumstantial is the evidence that liberal states are wealthier and more educated (posted on various active topics), and that Western European nations have remarkably low poverty rates.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 11:13:23 AM
Luxembourg Income Study:
Country Social expenditures on non-elderly[6]
(as percentage of GDP) Total percent of
poverty reduced
United States 2.3 26.4
Netherlands 9.6 65.2
Sweden 11.6 77.4
Germany 7.3 70.5
Canada 5.8 46.0
Finland 10.9 69.7
United Kingdom 7.1 60.1
Belgium 9.3 76.9
Austria 7.4 75.8
Italy 4.3 57.7
Ireland 5.5 44.1
Average 7.4 60.9
Country Absolute poverty rate (1960–1991)
(threshold set at 40% of U.S. median household income)[3] Relative poverty rate
(1970–1997)[4]
Pre-welfare Post-welfare Pre-welfare Post-welfare
Sweden 23.7 5.8 14.8 4.8
Norway 9.2 1.7 12.4 4.0
Netherlands 22.1 7.3 18.5 11.5
Finland 11.9 3.7 12.4 3.1
Denmark 26.4 5.9 17.4 4.8
Germany 15.2 4.3 9.7 5.1
Switzerland 12.5 3.8 10.9 9.1
Canada 22.5 6.5 17.1 11.9
France 36.1 9.8 21.8 6.1
Belgium 26.8 6.0 19.5 4.1
Australia 23.3 11.9 16.2 9.2
United Kingdom 16.8 8.7 16.4 8.2
United States 21.0 11.7 17.2 15.1
Italy 30.7 14.3 19.7 9.1
This is from wikipedia, but as you can see, it is taken from real studies. Sorry if it's hard to read.
------
More circumstantial is the evidence that liberal states are wealthier and more educated (posted on various active topics), and that Western European nations have remarkably low poverty rates.
What exactly is your point with those numbers?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 11, 2012, 11:15:05 AM
What exactly is your point with those numbers?
A very cursory glance of "those numbers" should make it clear that social welfare measurably
reduces poverty. Ergo, my answer to the resolution is "No".
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 11:17:18 AM
A very cursory glance of "those numbers" should make it clear that social welfare measurably reduces poverty. Ergo, my answer to the resolution is "No".
What is the percentage of the USA under the poverty line?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 11:17:18 AM
A very cursory glance of "those numbers" should make it clear that social welfare measurably reduces poverty. Ergo, my answer to the resolution is "No".
Unless we also know what the poverty line was before and currently, how can we be sure that those governments aren't "cooking the books", to make themselves look better. We ran into the same problem when we started comparing infant mortality rates, a countries definition of a still born versus an infant that dies in it's first year, has a profound affect on those numbers.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 11, 2012, 11:24:05 AM
What is the percentage of the USA under the poverty line?
15% - far more than European nations with better welfare programs; far less than communistic and fascist nations with little or no welfare programs.
Quote from: mdgiles on November 11, 2012, 11:26:30 AM
Unless we also know what the poverty line was before and currently, how can we be sure that those governments aren't "cooking the books", to make themselves look better. We ran into the same problem when we started comparing infant mortality rates, a countries definition of a still born versus an infant that dies in it's first year, has a profound affect on those numbers.
The burden of proof is on you to establish the existence of a massive and coordinated conspiracy by the Western world to manipulate poverty levels.
I would also point out that the poverty rate during the Gilded Age (read: conservative utopia) was over 50%. Circumstantial, but hardly trivial, evidence.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 11, 2012, 11:07:11 AM
Often yes. It needs safe guards, conditions and should be done at state level.
Discuss!
Anyone whose adult offspring is living in their basement for free can answer that one!
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 11:29:20 AM
15% - far more than European nations with better welfare programs; far less than communistic and fascist nations with little or no welfare programs.
The burden of proof is on you to establish the existence of a massive and coordinated conspiracy by the Western world to manipulate poverty levels.
I would also point out that the poverty rate during the Gilded Age (read: conservative utopia) was over 50%. Circumstantial, but hardly trivial, evidence.
SO basically welfare does not make anyone complacent because 15 percent of the Unites states is under the poverty line. That is a weak argument and does not address the topic at all.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 11, 2012, 11:41:20 AM
SO basically welfare does not make anyone complacent because 15 percent of the Unites states is under the poverty line.
Ridiculous black and white fallacy. Just because welfare might make
some people complacent doesn't mean that the
net change in poverty isn't negative. You might as well argue that automobiles were a terrible invention because many people have died from it.
I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency.... As somebody who worked in low-income neighborhoods, I've seen it where people weren't encouraged to work, weren't encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and over time their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if you're progressive you've got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed.
-President Obama
LOL - I was about to post "wow, that's unusually eloquent prose you got there...". :lol:
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 11, 2012, 11:45:43 AM
I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency.... As somebody who worked in low-income neighborhoods, I've seen it where people weren't encouraged to work, weren't encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and over time their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if you're progressive you've got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed.
-President Obama
Yet again, your respond does nothing to address the argument.
1. That specific welfare programs were poorly designed does not mean that welfare is intrinsically bad.
2. That welfare programs were inefficient does not mean that they were useless - an inefficient firefighting department is still better than none at all.
3. You're still ignoring the cold, hard, numbers.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 11:47:46 AM
LOL - I was about to post "wow, that's unusually eloquent prose you got there...". :lol:
Yet again, your respond does nothing to address the argument.
1. That specific welfare programs were poorly designed does not mean that welfare is intrinsically bad.
2. That welfare programs were inefficient does not mean that they were useless - an inefficient firefighting department is still better than none at all.
3. You're still ignoring the cold, hard, numbers.
The argument is not whether or not they are bad or inefficient. Bad or inefficient has nothing to do with complacency.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 11, 2012, 11:51:44 AM
The argument is not whether or not they are bad or inefficient. Bad or inefficient has nothing to do with complacency.
There are two parts to the resolution.
The first part is that it encourages laziness.
The second part is that it traps the poor in a cycle of poverty.
I suppose that if
any proportion of welfare recipients are subject to the above two effects, then you are right. But if you actually want to establish that
most weflare recipients are both more lazy as a result and "trapped in a cycle of poverty"...the numbers don't support it.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 11:29:20 AM
The burden of proof is on you to establish the existence of a massive and coordinated conspiracy by the Western world to manipulate poverty levels.
I would also point out that the poverty rate during the Gilded Age (read: conservative utopia) was over 50%. Circumstantial, but hardly trivial, evidence.
Oh, no. You posted statistics that are in complete. It isn't proposing a "conspiracy" to ask whether we are all talking about the same thing. Unless we know ALL the relevant data, you've just posted some numbers. There's the issue of relative poverty for example. It is quite possible to be below the poverty line in the US, and own your own home - air conditioned. With your car parked in the drive way. And sit in your living room looking at your flat screen. Simply posting percentages tells us nothing. Perhaps "cooking the books" was a bad choice of words, the parameters they were using, would be better. That's the point I was making when I brought up the infant mortality numbers.
A funny thing happened when Clinton signed the Welfare reform bill into law.
Overall poverty, child poverty, and black child poverty have all dropped substantially
Although liberals predicted that welfare reform would push an additional 2.6 million persons into poverty, the U.S. Bureau of the Census reports there are 3.5 million fewer people living in poverty today than there were in 1995 (the last year before the reform).
Some 2.9 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1995
Decreases in poverty have been greatest among black children
In fact, the poverty rate for black children is now at the lowest point in U.S. history. There are 1.2 million fewer black children in poverty today than there were in the mid-1990s.
Hunger among children has been cut roughly in half
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are 420,000 fewer hungry children today than at the time welfare reform was enacted.
welfare caseloads have been cut nearly in half
and employment of the most disadvantaged single mothers has increased from 50 percent to 100 percent.
The explosive growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing has come to a virtual halt
The share of children living in single-mother families has fallen, and the share living in married-couple families has increased, especially among black families.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/02/the-continuing-good-news (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/02/the-continuing-good-news)
Quote from: mdgiles on November 11, 2012, 11:54:46 AM
Oh, no. You posted statistics that are in complete. It isn't proposing a "conspiracy" to ask whether we are all talking about the same thing. Unless we know ALL the relevant data, you've just posted some numbers. There's the issue of relative poverty for example. It is quite possible to be below the poverty line in the US, and own your own home - air conditioned. With your car parked in the drive way. And sit in your living room looking at your flat screen. Simply posting percentages tells us nothing. Perhaps "cooking the books" was a bad choice of words, the parameters they were using, would be better. That's the point I was making when I brought up the infant mortality numbers.
Your infant mortality example involves different countries using different parameters to define "morality rates". Here, we're comparing nations against themselves before and after welfare. The only way this could be rigged would be if the parameters of poverty rates were changed simultaneously in every relevant nation immediately after implementing welfare. Which is quite the conspiracy.
http://www22.us.archive.org/details/tv?time=201010&q=patrick%20berry (http://www22.us.archive.org/details/tv?time=201010&q=patrick%20berry)
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 11, 2012, 11:55:53 AM
A funny thing happened when Clinton signed the Welfare reform bill into law.
Overall poverty, child poverty, and black child poverty have all dropped substantially
Although liberals predicted that welfare reform would push an additional 2.6 million persons into poverty, the U.S. Bureau of the Census reports there are 3.5 million fewer people living in poverty today than there were in 1995 (the last year before the reform).
Some 2.9 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1995
Decreases in poverty have been greatest among black children
In fact, the poverty rate for black children is now at the lowest point in U.S. history. There are 1.2 million fewer black children in poverty today than there were in the mid-1990s.
Hunger among children has been cut roughly in half
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are 420,000 fewer hungry children today than at the time welfare reform was enacted.
welfare caseloads have been cut nearly in half
and employment of the most disadvantaged single mothers has increased from 50 percent to 100 percent.
The explosive growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing has come to a virtual halt
The share of children living in single-mother families has fallen, and the share living in married-couple families has increased, especially among black families.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/02/the-continuing-good-news (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/02/the-continuing-good-news)
How does this have anything to do with anything?
Oh, right: you thought that "welfare" does not include post-Clinton reform welfare...even though that still is (wait for it!) welfare.
Or, you thought that a system being imperfect proves the proposition that it increases poverty.
Riiighhht.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 11:58:11 AM
Your infant mortality example involves different countries using different parameters to define "morality rates". Here, we're comparing nations against themselves before and after welfare. The only way this could be rigged would be if the parameters of poverty rates were changed simultaneously in every relevant nation immediately after implementing welfare. Which is quite the conspiracy.
BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE BEING COMPARED TO. Is that so difficult to understand. When someone tells you the poverty rate has gone from 10% of the population to 5%, what does that actually represent? As I noted "poverty" represents different things depending upon who's counting. For example, the US poverty rate is based upon cash income. IOW, if I cashed in all my stocks and bonds, put all the money in the bank, and lived off the interest while I was busy for the next five years writing the great American novel, I would be below the poverty line. Even though I still lived in the same mansion I used to, and went down the bank and drew out 1/12th of the interest income every month. You can't make any judgement on how good or bad they're doing without knowing the parameters they're using.
Quote from: mdgiles on November 11, 2012, 12:08:38 PM
BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE BEING COMPARED TO. Is that so difficult to understand. When someone tells you the poverty rate has gone from 10% of the population to 5%, what does that actually represent? As I noted "poverty" represents different things depending upon who's counting. For example, the US poverty rate is based upon cash income. IOW, if I cashed in all my stocks and bonds, put all the money in the bank, and lived off the interest while I was busy for the next five years writing the great American novel, I would be below the poverty line. Even though I still lived in the same mansion I used to, and went down the bank and drew out 1/12th of the interest income every month. You can't make any judgement on how good or bad they're doing without knowing the parameters they're using.
Here's (IIRC) the original study:
http://www.lisproject.org/publications/liswps/424.pdf (http://www.lisproject.org/publications/liswps/424.pdf)
QuoteIn this paper the author defines poverty and prosperity each by two absolute
measures. POOR1 is the percent of households below half the U.S. median household
disposable income (for example in 1991 the median household after-tax-transfer income
in 2003 dollars was $22,576 and so half the median was $11,290). POOR2 is the percent
of households below the U.S. second quintile cutoff (this should be approximately 40%
for the US, and in 1991 this threshold was $18,505).
Just to point out, you do realize that the fact that the poverty parameters are based on
income actually helps my point, right?
If welfare simply gave people checks and prompted them to sit at home and do nothing, you'd expect the poverty rate to increase, because welfare receipts don't count as income. You need a
job to get income. Ergo, if welfare reduces poverty (read: increases income), that implies that it helps people get jobs.
The poverty line is skewed because the Dollar is so worhtless.
a dollar isn't worth a dollar anymore so trying to figure out if you are Rich, Poor or middle income because you make under or over $250K
annum is just plain stupid.
They only way you can move up into middle class, or upper class and improve your station in life is to get off welfare by getting a decent paying job or win the lottery.
there are sooo many ways to game the system its staggering.
Without addressing the myriad of factors >
In the 1940 - 50 weren't more blacks 2 parent families?
There has been a "Trillion" dollars of welfare distributed in the last few decades.
There has been little to no change in the low income strata - except they have more a lot more toys.
Yes I think it's important to define poverty. Personally I don't agree with the current definition.
Those that are aged or retired, or disabled need to be separated into their own category to clarify the debate.
The racial makeup of those in Poverty need to be defined and expressed. It's not just Blacks and Hispanics there is probably more Whites that either of the preceding.
For those that are "NOT" disabled or retired; people should not be labeled as living in poverty, if own a car, more than one TV, a large 30 - 50" flatscreen, DVD players, multiple cellphones, desktop / laptop Computer and other toys. The type of person just addressed is not in poverty. They may be low income but they are not starving, destitute, and in fact are living comfortably.
The economic class you are in has a lot to do with financial management.
Note two families making the same amount of money.
One family has a paid off house, two cars and money in the bank and another family rents, pays large car payment and no money in the bank.
Those that are in the Welfare strata have often been there for generations.
What is there to motivate them to upgrade their status?
Nothing or very little.
ONE THINK THAT EVERYONE IGNORES IS THERE WILL ALWAYS BE POOR PEOPLE AND RICH PEOPLE.
There will always be about 10% on the lowest end of the economic ladder. It's human nature.
Wealth Redistribution is unconstitutional, especially at the federal level. Whats so hard to comprehend hear? Dems just wipe their asses with our founding documents and call it Obsolete.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 11:17:18 AM
A very cursory glance of "those numbers" should make it clear that social welfare measurably reduces poverty. Ergo, my answer to the resolution is "No".
You have a pitiful argument here.
There are many things that impact poverty, such as the economy itself, the propensity to save, the health of the monetary system, the education system, the various values and preferences for work vs leisure.. etc
Your argument assumes that social welfare is the casual factor, but statistics cannot make that claim, because statistics only look for correlation.
So what you have here is a logical fallacy.
Correlation is not causation.The sad truth is, poverty decreases with sound money and free markets. And the more welfare a nation has, the less emphasis that is placed on property rights, and as a result, poverty becomes greater than it would be otherwise.
Once upon a time, when I still lived in Brooklyn, while riding home from work; I was in the front seat of a "dollar cab" (Google it). Note, this was about the time of welfare reform, when work requirements were first announced. Seated behind me were two women, who from their conversation, I judged to be public assistance recipients. They were quite loud and were quite angry. It seems they were discussing the newly announced work requirements, and were very angry over the fact that they would be required to do any work at all to receive their checks. And whatever task they were sent to perform had better provide day care for their children. The cab had picked up other passengers at at the Stillwell Avenue Subway station, and - like me - they were probably coming home from work. The two women continued to complain as we drove along, until one of the passengers (not me, I'm too much of a gentleman) asked them to be quiet. Uh, actually he said something along the lines of: "You two lazy (expletive deleted)s, need to shut your (expletive deleted) lazy (expletive deleted) mouths". The working poor, have little or no sympathy for the non working poor. Yes, welfare does generate attitudes not really conducive to success.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 11, 2012, 11:07:11 AM
Often yes. It needs safe guards, conditions and should be done at state level.
Discuss!
Absolutely! I will even turn my head and allow temporary means of welfare to help certain people in certain situations, but turning it into a career is horrible. The purpose of welfare is to get people who can't or don't contribute to our society to vote for liberals.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 11:17:18 AM
A very cursory glance of "those numbers" should make it clear that social welfare measurably reduces poverty. Ergo, my answer to the resolution is "No".
So, the more welfare, the better the society? Please, clarify your idiocy.
Quote from: taxed on November 13, 2012, 10:02:29 AM
So, the more welfare, the better the society? Please, clarify your idiocy.
I suggest he read
Bastiat, on the
"Broken Windows Parable".
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html (http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html)
Like many in favor of government spending, he acts as if government has a source of income other than the taxpayers.
In taking money from one set of citizens to spend it on another, you prevent those citizens from spending their money on their needs or wants.
I desperately wish that I could avoid using food assistance. The Mr. and I are working actively towards self-sufficiency. If I was able to do a normal job, things might be easier, but when you get thrown a curve ball, you can do one if two things, whine about it and let the world pay your way, or learn to hit the curve ball. I am working to become an editor, I have already edited two books, I will begin editing the third in December or January. So I speak from experience when I say, not always, but usually yes. Government assistance provides a bandaide covered in the flesh eating virus. You look at from one angle, and it seems to be working, look deeper and you realize it is doing deep, horrific damage.
Families that are using multiple types of assistance know that, in all likelihood, they will not make enough working to "make" what they do on assistance. They don't (generally speaking) have the education to get the type of job they would need to live the lifestyle they are used to. People heavily in the system receive EBT (food stamps), utility assistance, welfare, housing, and sometimes education grants.
I have no problem with these programs on their face, but most people do not understand that these programs were set up to help the generational welfare recipiant, not the disabled, not the elderly, not the aged veteran. My mom has a similar spinal issue to me, she has no one to help her so she collects SSI, because she collects SSI, according to social services, she can not collect food or rental assistance. She will always have to scrape by on under $1000 a month. She can not own a vehicle worth more than $3500, she can not own property. She has to prove annually that she is still disabled.
Contrast that with the welfare recipient. Not only do they get welfare, they get (if applicable) WIC, EBT, and government health insurance. In fact, the EBT and healthcare application are on the same forms. When you apply for EBT, you also list your utilities and they will automatically set you up with utility assistance unless you ask them not to. If your income is a certain percentage under the poverty line, you qualify for housing assistance, in this case, welfare does not count ad income so those that get it automatically qualify for housing assistance or section 8 housing. They get a plethora of help, and their is no time limit, no limit on how much help can be received. Because so much is given, they have no reason to try. It is the path of least resisance, if a mans life is comfortable he has no onus to change it. If it is not impossible, but difficult, he will try to change his situation to make it better.
I think assistance should be limited to those who genuinely need, and amounts should be limited by person more than they are now. JMO
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.
:huh: 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? :rolleyes:
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
:huh: 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? :rolleyes:
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! :rolleyes: 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.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 04:18:38 PM
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"?
Reduction fallacy.
Ooohhh, they want people to vote! :rolleyes: How dare they.
But that doesn't answer my question: do you want people to get out of poverty, or not?
Yes, and having money to feed your children and grandparents certainly helps.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1996/06/bg1084nbsp-how-welfare-harms-kids (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1996/06/bg1084nbsp-how-welfare-harms-kids)