Before these programs were put into effect, the United States poverty rate was nine-teen-freakin'-percent! 1 in 5. Now, depending on how you count it, it's half or even less that.
Yes, keeping everybody dependant on the government is such a good thing for our country!
__________________ Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.-Dr. David Berlinski, Philosophy
Most people believe Evolution not because they themselves are dumb, but cause they trust the "experts" who are feeding them evolutionary fast food, and so they don't bother questioning whether or not it's true.
So, three different studies from three different reputable sources- University of Chicago, Colombia, and Harvard- are posted, and you two just roll your eyes and assume it's wrong because it doesn't line up with your beliefs, without counter evidence.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's better than 1 in 5 Americans living in poverty. I'm not sure why you'd think it's better, 19% sounds like a high poverty rate to me, but you must have your reasons.
And note, these are still mostly working people who contribute, and people in turn pay in to the government, which they can do better when out of poverty. One can view programs like this as an instrument with which people use to deal with some problems, like poverty.
Regardless of your ideological opinions, they clearly work.
Really, you two are sad. You're like dogs who bark at everything, trying to chase it all alway. What it is, what evidence there is.... I dunno, I feel bad about poking you two with evidence sometimes? Like, you obviously don't know any better. If I draw something with evidence, you bark to try and chase it away. If I don't, you bark. It's empty, you obviously don't want to hear anything that doesn't agree with you, and it reinforces your habit of barking at everything without even considering it, and it's not like I wanna reinforce that habit, I want you to actually stop and look at stuff and consider data, but you really don't want to, and when someone tried to get you to look at something, you just bark.
Nice to see that freedom of speech is banned on the forum now. "Agree with us and our liberal opinions or else don't say anything at all!". At the risk of getting unfairly banned I must say that I'm getting a similar biased vibe from this forum now to what we all witnessed during the Republican debate last week.
__________________ Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.-Dr. David Berlinski, Philosophy
Most people believe Evolution not because they themselves are dumb, but cause they trust the "experts" who are feeding them evolutionary fast food, and so they don't bother questioning whether or not it's true.
Last edited by Star428 on Nov 3rd, 2015 at 09:10 AM
That's a total nonsense. It's nothing to do with freedom of speech, it's about you showing respect for the content and point of a thread. Play the victim all you like- the problem is your confrontational attitude.
I don't think for one moment you paid any serious amount of attention to what the OP posted. That's not acceptable. Either engage and discuss or stay out.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
i think the study gives a good enough idea of actual poverty rates but at the same time can be questioned as to why the income portion wasn't comepletely filled out
Yes. This is called a 'good thing.' It is also a sign that there is return on investment here- return on investment notably higher than the level at which people were already willing to support the programs.
They're mostly either people who work but still need help and where combined with working gets them to a point where they no longer need help and can offer it, or cannot work due to age, disability, and similar. Often soldiers- wounded soldiers are a very traditional source of people in poverty.
Note that not everyone who contributes to society gets paid for it- poor parents trying to put their kids through college so they can get better jobs being an obvious example.
One other overlooked thing is that if you don't help people, they don't simply vanish. They still cost society, often more. There's more crime, more hospital trips, or even simple costs of dealing with homelessness and similar poverty-problems. Police salaries, cleanup, etc..
"A Colorado study found that the average homeless person cost the state forty-three thousand dollars a year, while housing that person would cost just seventeen thousand dollars."
Helping people actually saves money.
Which is more valuable to you, making sure that people don't get so-called 'unearned help,' or actually doing things that cost less money?
I'd rather help people and have more money, than not help people and have less.
That's not surprising- there's a lot of stigma to accepting help in the US, even if one is working and one needs it. Just look at this thread- we've had three people do just that.
You came into a thread and basically go, "Hah, you listen to evidence?" because the evidence doesn't agree with you.
You come across as frankly terrified of things that don't agree with you when you so obviously react like that. I am sad for you.
Your definition of free speech seems to be allowing you to bark at anything that disagrees with you, without anyone commenting on it or doing anything about it.
You feel threatened by the topic, so you attack, but without argument or substance.
You don't have to agree, but you do not even try and pretend that you're listening, you merely don't want people to speak things that disagree with you.
That's not free speech you're after, you want control of speech.
These results seem to point to the idea that welfare programs are being taken advantage of because of under-reporting and not reporting of income. That quite clearly points to a massive misuse of these programs. That's what these studies indicate to me. If it brings them out of poverty, that's awesome! But the results seem to indicate that they keep collecting the benefits after being brought out of poverty.
So am I understanding these studies properly?
Good: brings people out of poverty.
Bad: but they miss-report or don't report their income so they still can stay on the programs.
Someone chime in (Q99) with a serious reply. I'm not interested in bashing liberal agendas. I'm a social liberal and I think welfare programs do not go far enough (and they are not optimally designed, executed, and funded) in the US. For example, a universal healthcare option would be a very nice start for fixing poverty issues in America, in my opinion.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
The way I understood it the survey data is incorrect because people feel uncomfortable or embarrassed to report receiving government assistance. So looking at these surveys makes it seem like there's more poverty.
That is not be related to eligibility for government assistances however, which surely the government does not base on a sample survey, but decides on a case by case basis.
Like Bardock said, this doesn't affect whether or not someone gets benefits, just whether or not people knew the results and how the data compiled.
The way they found out the surveys were so far off was by going around to the agencies and searching out their numbers. The individual agencies normally focus on specific criteria like, "is your income below X and are you in Y situation," not "if you lump everything together do you fall above or below the poverty line," so the information then had to be compiled together from these various ones. Different benefits happen or don't at different times. Like, benefits to a student in poverty for education fade when they're no longer a student, and such.
Also, thanks for asking an on-topic, real, critical question. It doesn't matter if someone is a social liberal or not, a good question to remove confusion is a good question.
Also, while on the topic of people's responses- Long Pig did post something on-topic too. Rather than barking or rejecting the data, he posted how he viewed it in a different light. That's at least something.
My knowledge of the programs like SNAP says that if they are no longer under the federal poverty level (which has a definition that includes children and dependents so it can change depending on the family), they no longer qualify.
Is that not the case?
Because if that is not the case, then my issue with these studies is null. If that is the case, then research like this can hurt the cause, in my opinion. If it turns out that the programs are helping people get out of poverty but also causing people to not report their income properly, then opposition to Welfare programs will take this information and run with it.
Edit - I am more than open to admitting my assumption is horribly and ridiculously wrong. I hope it is.
If we end up getting in another circle of argumentation and you know you're right, just say, "dadudemon, don't worry about it. You're wrong. I'm right." Then I'll drop it.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 3rd, 2015 01:46 AM
