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!

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...".   

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...".   

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.