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

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

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

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

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
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