Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Helping the Poor

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2012 8:54:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you care about the very poor, fight for their right to trade, to contract, and to keep the fruits of their labor.

http://www.hoover.org...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 11:33:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
No welfare though :)
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 11:47:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 11:33:22 AM, 16kadams wrote:
No welfare though :)

Most of the economic free countries the above references have welfare in some form.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 11:48:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 11:47:37 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:33:22 AM, 16kadams wrote:
No welfare though :)

Most of the economic free countries the above references have welfare in some form.

Actually correction, all.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 11:52:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 11:47:37 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:33:22 AM, 16kadams wrote:
No welfare though :)

Most of the economic free countries the above references have welfare in some form.

It needs to be reformed though.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 11:54:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 11:52:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:47:37 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:33:22 AM, 16kadams wrote:
No welfare though :)

Most of the economic free countries the above references have welfare in some form.

It needs to be reformed though.

Welfare or the economic free index?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 11:57:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 11:54:41 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:52:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:47:37 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:33:22 AM, 16kadams wrote:
No welfare though :)

Most of the economic free countries the above references have welfare in some form.

It needs to be reformed though.

Welfare or the economic free index?

Welfare
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:42:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 11:57:42 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:54:41 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:52:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:47:37 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:33:22 AM, 16kadams wrote:
No welfare though :)

Most of the economic free countries the above references have welfare in some form.

It needs to be reformed though.

Welfare or the economic free index?

Welfare

How do you think it should be reformed?

"Middle-Class" welfare is much more expensive to society (financial aid, social security, medicaid, and medicare) then "poor" welfare. This is to be somewhat expected since poor people rarely vote, and therefore there is less of an incentive to help them and more of an incentive to help the middle class.

How many politicians talk about the poor? almost none. They talk about the "struggling middle class". If a socialist or liberal wants to be listened to, they have to talk about the "struggling middle class". Yes, the people with wages that developing nations would consider excessive and is 5 to 10 times less then they make are "struggling".
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:43:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 11:52:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:47:37 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:33:22 AM, 16kadams wrote:
No welfare though :)

Most of the economic free countries the above references have welfare in some form.

It needs to be reformed though.

I agree. The key reform should be to eliminate the 1997 reforms, which made it so that instead of welfare providing benefits to poor people welfare primary provide jobs for bureaucrats administering the new requirements.
Other then that we should expand welfare considering its effects on crime end up paying for itself
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:54:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 4:43:58 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:52:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:47:37 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:33:22 AM, 16kadams wrote:
No welfare though :)

Most of the economic free countries the above references have welfare in some form.

It needs to be reformed though.

I agree. The key reform should be to eliminate the 1997 reforms, which made it so that instead of welfare providing benefits to poor people welfare primary provide jobs for bureaucrats administering the new requirements.
Other then that we should expand welfare considering its effects on crime end up paying for itself

What was the problem with the 1997 reforms? It provided opportunities for poor people to work their way out of poverty rather then get a free lunch. It also effectively cut money from the US budget and didn't decrease the rate of poverty at all.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 5:11:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 4:54:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:43:58 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:52:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:47:37 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:33:22 AM, 16kadams wrote:
No welfare though :)

Most of the economic free countries the above references have welfare in some form.

It needs to be reformed though.

I agree. The key reform should be to eliminate the 1997 reforms, which made it so that instead of welfare providing benefits to poor people welfare primary provide jobs for bureaucrats administering the new requirements.
Other then that we should expand welfare considering its effects on crime end up paying for itself

What was the problem with the 1997 reforms? It provided opportunities for poor people to work their way out of poverty rather then get a free lunch. It also effectively cut money from the US budget and didn't decrease the rate of poverty at all.

The problem was that it increased bureaucracy so much that the majority of welfare spending is no longer for welfare benefits but for maintaining a bureaucracy.
The 1997 reforms essentially made it so tons of money was/is wasted for the purpose of making welfare recipients go through a bunch of bureaucracy.
Also the act did increase poverty and the harshness of poverty by reducing benefits for the poorest Americans
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 5:19:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 5:11:53 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:54:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:43:58 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:52:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:47:37 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/4/2012 11:33:22 AM, 16kadams wrote:
No welfare though :)

Most of the economic free countries the above references have welfare in some form.

It needs to be reformed though.

I agree. The key reform should be to eliminate the 1997 reforms, which made it so that instead of welfare providing benefits to poor people welfare primary provide jobs for bureaucrats administering the new requirements.
Other then that we should expand welfare considering its effects on crime end up paying for itself

What was the problem with the 1997 reforms? It provided opportunities for poor people to work their way out of poverty rather then get a free lunch. It also effectively cut money from the US budget and didn't decrease the rate of poverty at all.

The problem was that it increased bureaucracy so much that the majority of welfare spending is no longer for welfare benefits but for maintaining a bureaucracy.

Source that it increased the bureaucracy? I have data that it reduced government spending, although that doesn't necessarily mean that it reduced bureaucracy.

The 1997 reforms essentially made it so tons of money was/is wasted for the purpose of making welfare recipients go through a bunch of bureaucracy.
Also the act did increase poverty and the harshness of poverty by reducing benefits for the poorest Americans

Reducing benefits =/= increasing poverty. It allocated resources so that the poor would be helped through job training, and getting a job, not through a government handout.

There is no empirical evidence that shows that absolute poverty rates, malnutrition rates, etc. increased after this act was passed. If you can find it, by all means post it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 5:31:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 5:20:47 PM, darkkermit wrote:
In fact, evidence points to the opposite:

http://www.heritage.org...

The welfare reforms of 1996 were successful.

Heritage? Seriously?

From the source.
"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"
When we look at the data we find that the explosion of out-of-wedlock births leveled off in 1990. Your sources is claiming that a bill passed in 1997 caused a change in 1990. That is impossible.
http://dalrock.wordpress.com...
Second your sources doesn't analysis or explain any of the effects of welfare reform your source simply states trends, all of which started before welfare reform was passed.
We learned today not to use heritage as a source because a 3rd grad essay is more accurate.
I'll post some accurate data in my next post
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 5:38:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 5:31:58 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/4/2012 5:20:47 PM, darkkermit wrote:
In fact, evidence points to the opposite:

http://www.heritage.org...

The welfare reforms of 1996 were successful.

Heritage? Seriously?

From the source.
"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"
When we look at the data we find that the explosion of out-of-wedlock births leveled off in 1990. Your sources is claiming that a bill passed in 1997 caused a change in 1990. That is impossible.
http://dalrock.wordpress.com...
Second your sources doesn't analysis or explain any of the effects of welfare reform your source simply states trends, all of which started before welfare reform was passed.
We learned today not to use heritage as a source because a 3rd grad essay is more accurate.
I'll post some accurate data in my next post

They do offer 31 cited sources, so if you think the heritage is inaccurate, i can redirect you to all 31 cited sources.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 5:38:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 5:19:27 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Source that it increased the bureaucracy? I have data that it reduced government spending, although that doesn't necessarily mean that it reduced bureaucracy.
http://www.cbpp.org...
^Welfare reform reduced the poorest people's income by 1,500 dollars in 2 years.
^
The changes that contributed to the Welfare reform act of 1996 300% increase
In administrative (wasteful) spending include but don't exclude:
1) A workforce development component.
2) The act gave more autonomy over welfare delivery to the states, decentralizing welfare.
^
http://www.libraryindex.com...
http://www.libraryindex.com...
^In 1996 12 million Americans were on welfare.
^In 2001 5 million Americans were on welfare.
^In 1996 total welfare spending was 28 billion
^In 2001 total welfare spending was 24 billion
^Welfare benefits were 1,820(2001 dollars) in 1996.
^Welfare benefits were 1,644 in 2001.
^In 1996 6 billion was spent on welfare administration costs or 21.5%
^In 2001 15 billion was spent on welfare administration costs or 62.5%
*************The 1996 welfare reform act:
1) Increased wasteful spending by 300%
2) Welfare recipients saw their benefits fall 176 dollars a year or 9.5% per year
3) Total welfare recipients fell by 7 million or 58%.
*************If we repealed the welfare reform act of 1996:
1) This means that we could increase welfare recipients by 100% without increasing total costs.

http://www.offthechartsblog.org...
^Welfare reform has made it so that only 27% of families in poverty get benefits down from 68 before reform, and 82% in 1979.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2012 12:42:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
In August 2006, Woods coined "Woods' Law," which states that,
"Whenever the private sector introduces an innovation that makes the poor better off than they would have been without it, or that offers benefits or terms that no one else is prepared to offer them, someone—in the name of helping the poor—will call for curbing or abolishing it."
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:31:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I feel not like arguing, but star craft, you disliked an accurate source. Well is this good?
http://www.dlc.org...
http://www.csmonitor.com...
http://www.nydailynews.com...

Now, find inaccurate ones so I can improve my research skills. Welfare reform worked.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:38:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 3:33:28 AM, hellenicrecon wrote:
Welfare is bad because the poor have no incentive to work for themselves. The strong have the right to dominate society.

lol

I don't really have TOO much of a problem with "poor" welfare

But middle class welfare needs to 100% disappear.

No social security, no medicaid, no medicare, nothing like that
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:39:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:31:24 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I feel not like arguing, but star craft, you disliked an accurate source. Well is this good?
http://www.dlc.org...
http://www.csmonitor.com...
http://www.nydailynews.com...

Now, find inaccurate ones so I can improve my research skills. Welfare reform worked.
Notice how my sources actually use data whiles yours are just rhetorical bs
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:40:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 5:38:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/4/2012 5:31:58 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/4/2012 5:20:47 PM, darkkermit wrote:
In fact, evidence points to the opposite:

http://www.heritage.org...

The welfare reforms of 1996 were successful.

Heritage? Seriously?

From the source.
"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"
When we look at the data we find that the explosion of out-of-wedlock births leveled off in 1990. Your sources is claiming that a bill passed in 1997 caused a change in 1990. That is impossible.
http://dalrock.wordpress.com...
Second your sources doesn't analysis or explain any of the effects of welfare reform your source simply states trends, all of which started before welfare reform was passed.
We learned today not to use heritage as a source because a 3rd grad essay is more accurate.
I'll post some accurate data in my next post

They do offer 31 cited sources, so if you think the heritage is inaccurate, i can redirect you to all 31 cited sources.
If you were literate you would notice that the post you just quoted completly debunked your pathetic excuse for a source
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:46:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.heritage.org...

This source is 100% legit

This is the best type of source their is:

.org
sourced with outside sources of its own
proffessional
well known institution

if you can't use this as a source what can you use???
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:48:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:46:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
http://www.heritage.org...

This source is 100% legit

This is the best type of source their is:

.org
sourced with outside sources of its own
proffessional
well known institution

if you can't use this as a source what can you use???

Your source already got debunked.
rom the source.
"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"
When we look at the data we find that the explosion of out-of-wedlock births leveled off in 1990. Your sources is claiming that a bill passed in 1997 caused a change in 1990. That is impossible.
http://dalrock.wordpress.com......
Second your sources doesn't analysis or explain any of the effects of welfare reform your source simply states trends, all of which started before welfare reform was passed.
We learned today not to use heritage as a source because a 3rd grad essay is more accurate.
Heritage is only legit if you're brainwashed and ignorant
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:52:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:48:43 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:46:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
http://www.heritage.org...

This source is 100% legit

This is the best type of source their is:

.org
sourced with outside sources of its own
proffessional
well known institution

if you can't use this as a source what can you use???

Your source already got debunked.
rom the source.
"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"
When we look at the data we find that the explosion of out-of-wedlock births leveled off in 1990. Your sources is claiming that a bill passed in 1997 caused a change in 1990. That is impossible.
http://dalrock.wordpress.com......
Second your sources doesn't analysis or explain any of the effects of welfare reform your source simply states trends, all of which started before welfare reform was passed.
We learned today not to use heritage as a source because a 3rd grad essay is more accurate.
Heritage is only legit if you're brainwashed and ignorant

The source you posted is a blog post from 3 days ago? What does this have to do with Heritage Foundation?
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 11:02:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:52:20 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:48:43 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:46:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
http://www.heritage.org...

This source is 100% legit

This is the best type of source their is:

.org
sourced with outside sources of its own
proffessional
well known institution

if you can't use this as a source what can you use???

Your source already got debunked.
rom the source.
"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"
When we look at the data we find that the explosion of out-of-wedlock births leveled off in 1990. Your sources is claiming that a bill passed in 1997 caused a change in 1990. That is impossible.
http://dalrock.wordpress.com......
Second your sources doesn't analysis or explain any of the effects of welfare reform your source simply states trends, all of which started before welfare reform was passed.
We learned today not to use heritage as a source because a 3rd grad essay is more accurate.
Heritage is only legit if you're brainwashed and ignorant

The source you posted is a blog post from 3 days ago? What does this have to do with Heritage Foundation?
http://dalrock.wordpress.com...
Heritage stated that "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"
When we look at the data we find that the explosion of out-of-wedlock births leveled off in 1990. Your sources is claiming that a bill passed in 1997 caused a change in 1990. That is impossible.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 11:46:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:39:57 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:31:24 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I feel not like arguing, but star craft, you disliked an accurate source. Well is this good?
http://www.dlc.org...
http://www.csmonitor.com...
http://www.nydailynews.com...

Now, find inaccurate ones so I can improve my research skills. Welfare reform worked.
Notice how my sources actually use data whiles yours are just rhetorical bs

3 credible sources with stats > blog
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 12:13:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 11:46:06 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:39:57 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:31:24 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I feel not like arguing, but star craft, you disliked an accurate source. Well is this good?
http://www.dlc.org...
http://www.csmonitor.com...
http://www.nydailynews.com...

Now, find inaccurate ones so I can improve my research skills. Welfare reform worked.
Notice how my sources actually use data whiles yours are just rhetorical bs


3 credible sources with stats > blog
And here is the facts
http://www.cbpp.org...
^Welfare reform reduced the poorest people's income by 1,500 dollars in 2 years. ^
The changes that contributed to the Welfare reform act of 1996 300% increase
In administrative (wasteful) spending include but don't exclude:
1) A workforce development component.
2) The act gave more autonomy over welfare delivery to the states, decentralizing welfare.
^
http://www.libraryindex.com...
http://www.libraryindex.com...
^In 1996 12 million Americans were on welfare.
^In 2001 5 million Americans were on welfare.
^In 1996 total welfare spending was 28 billion
^In 2001 total welfare spending was 24 billion
^Welfare benefits were 1,820(2001 dollars) in 1996.
^Welfare benefits were 1,644 in 2001.
^In 1996 6 billion was spent on welfare administration costs or 21.5%
^In 2001 15 billion was spent on welfare administration costs or 62.5%
*************The 1996 welfare reform act:
1) Increased wasteful spending by 300%
2) Welfare recipients saw their benefits fall 176 dollars a year or 9.5% per year
3) Total welfare recipients fell by 7 million or 58%.
*************If we repealed the welfare reform act of 1996:
1) This means that we could increase welfare recipients by 100% without increasing total costs.

http://www.offthechartsblog.org...
^Welfare reform has made it so that only 27% of families in poverty get benefits down from 68 before reform, and 82% in 1979.

Se notice how my sources use relevant and real data not made up bs like yours.