Federal lifeline programs have helped keep millions out of poverty, U.S. Census data shows.
Social Security payments lifted 21.4 million people -- including 14.5 million senior citizens -- over the poverty line in 2011, while unemployment benefits prevented 2.3 million Americans from falling into poverty.
The Census Bureau doesn't take into account non-cash benefits, such as food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit, when it measures income. But it calculates how these programs would have helped keep poverty in check.
You pay into Social Security and your employer pays unemployment insurance.
If removing non-cash benefits lands you right back in poverty, you can hardly say you've overcome it.
Quote:
Quote:If "decisions are prelimited (sic)", how do you explain the many success stories from poverty? Hint: it ain't due to welfare.
How do you know if these people didn't receive some form of govt aid during their life in poverty? Do you have the statistics?
Do you? No relationship between success and welfare is the null hypothesis.
Quote:
Quote:You know what maintains ghettos that are rife with gangs and drugs? Democrats whose cities have the highest income inequality, most racial segregation, and believe in policies that lead to de-policing black neighborhoods. Oh, and you pandering to their victim mentality by denying their agency.
It's only a victim mentality if you aren't a victim to things like racism and crime and sickness due to no health care and single parenting and the overall debilitating culture of poverty.
No, it's a victim mentality either way. Just because you think you can justify your self-limiting beliefs doesn't make them healthy.
And providing said justification, as you're so keen to do, is just immoral.
Quote:
Quote:You will find that it's ONLY YOU that keeps making those connections. Sure, you do it as a straw man, but nonetheless.
I have repeatedly said the problem is cultural, and you've even agreed that there is a culture of poverty.
No..it's all you. Now we are to believe minorities are so stupid and naturally lethargic that they are duped by sinister liberals into inaction thru their devoting so much time and money and effort to trying to get them out of poverty. Watching where your racism pops up next is like playing wack a mole! lol!
Again, go re-read the whole thread. Try to find even one quote of me doing so. Go ahead, I dare you, chickenshit. You will find that you have to provide your own racist commentary to make anything I've said sound even remotely so.
No one is being duped. People offering money for bad choices simply incentivizes bad choices. You would probably say that tax cuts for the wealthy incentivizes their bad choices. All humans respond to reward.
Quote:You pay into Social Security and your employer pays unemployment insurance.
If removing non-cash benefits lands you right back in poverty, you can hardly say you've overcome it.
So what? It's still all govt services provided to alleviate poverty. And as the article proves, these programs pull millions out of poverty every year.
Quote:Do you? No relationship between success and welfare is the null hypothesis.
So you don't know? So much for that.
Quote:No, it's a victim mentality either way. Just because you think you can justify your self-limiting beliefs doesn't make them healthy.
No..it's called being aware of yourself and facing your limitations and getting the help you need to rise above them. There is nothing unhealthy or immoral about getting help when you need it. Telling poor people they are responsible for their bad situation in life and to just make better choices? Yeah..that's pretty hateful and cruel.
Quote:People offering money for bad choices simply incentivizes bad choices.
There's that racism again! Whack! Now it's the bad choices black people make that make them poor and trapped in poverty? Hmmm they must be bad people to always be making bad choices, eh? You really can't shake this hatred you have for black people can you? lol!
Quote:You pay into Social Security and your employer pays unemployment insurance.
If removing non-cash benefits lands you right back in poverty, you can hardly say you've overcome it.
So what? It's still all govt services provided to alleviate poverty. And as the article proves, these programs pull millions out of poverty every year.
Alleviating the symptom, not providing a remedy.
Quote:
Quote:Do you? No relationship between success and welfare is the null hypothesis.
So you don't know? So much for that.
Yes, we all know you have no clue what the null hypothesis is. You're just shifting the burden of proof for your own assertion. Typical nut-job argument.
Quote:
Quote:No, it's a victim mentality either way. Just because you think you can justify your self-limiting beliefs doesn't make them healthy.
No..it's called being aware of yourself and facing your limitations and getting the help you need to rise above them. There is nothing unhealthy or immoral about getting help when you need it. Telling poor people they are responsible for their bad situation in life and to just make better choices? Yeah..that's pretty hateful and cruel.
Assuming certain minorities are inherently incapable of making good decisions, in the face of examples to the contrary, is vile and racist.
Accepting limitations is only a justification for self-limiting beliefs. And you're oh so eager to reinforce those beliefs.
All help requires the person both realize they need it and be willing to help themselves.
Quote:
Quote:People offering money for bad choices simply incentivizes bad choices.
There's that racism again! Whack! Now it's the bad choices black people make that make them poor and trapped in poverty? Hmmm they must be bad people to always be making bad choices, eh? You really can't shake this hatred you have for black people can you? lol!
Not "black people", all poor people. Why do you insist on always equating black people with poor, bad decisions, lazy, unmotivated, etc.? Never mind, we already know. You've repeated these equivalencies so many times now, we can't even pretend you're not a narcissist, so paranoid of your own racism that it oozes out at every opportunity.
Notice how you couldn't even handle the cognitive dissonance invoked by the part you failed to quote: "You would probably say that tax cuts for the wealthy incentivizes their bad choices." Nor could you "find even one quote of me doing so" (equating minorities and bad character traits, like you continuously do).
Quote:Alleviating the symptom, not providing a remedy.
Lifting people out of poverty IS the remedy. Or at least the beginning of it. They are thus enabled to move or to afford college or vocational school or get healthcare for their kids or buy a car or get on the internet or buy nice clothes for interviews or afford child daycare or many other choices they formally didn't have.
Quote:Assuming certain minorities are inherently incapable of making good decisions, in the face of examples to the contrary, is vile and racist.
No..that's your assumption. Mine is they don't have the choices people out of poverty have. And giving them help opens up ways for them to better themselves. It has nothing to do with anyone making bad choices.
Quote:Accepting limitations is only a justification for self-limiting beliefs.
No it isn't. It is recognizing the truth of your situation and moving forward to ask for help in overcoming those limitations. The first step in solving a problem is acknowledging you have one. Pretending you don't and putting the blame on yourself for not choosing right is a recipe for endless failure.
Quote:Not "black people", all poor people.
Oh so ALL poor people are inherently bad and just wallow in poverty because they just can't seem to make the right choices? That's a pretty strong moral indictment against the impoverished class. So what accounts for the cycle of poverty that perpetuates itself over generations of those born into it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In economics, the cycle of poverty is the "set of factors or events by which poverty, once started, is likely to continue unless there is outside intervention".
The cycle of poverty has been defined as a phenomenon where poor families become impoverished for at least three generations, i.e. for enough time that the family includes no surviving ancestors who possess and can transmit the intellectual, social, and cultural capital necessary to stay out of or change their impoverished condition. In calculations of expected generation length and ancestor lifespan, the lower median age of parents in these families is offset by the shorter lifespans in many of these groups.
Such families have either limited or no resources. There are many disadvantages that collectively work in a circular process making it virtually impossible for individuals to break the cycle. This occurs when poor people do not have the resources necessary to get out of poverty, such as financial capital, education, or connections. In other words, impoverished individuals do not have access to economic and social resources as a result of their poverty. This lack may increase their poverty. This could mean that the poor remain poor throughout their lives. This cycle has also been referred to as a "pattern" of behaviors and situations which cannot easily be changed.
Quote:Alleviating the symptom, not providing a remedy.
Lifting people out of poverty IS the remedy. Or at least the beginning of it. They are thus enabled to move or to afford college or vocational school or get healthcare for their kids or buy a car or get on the internet or buy nice clothes for interviews or afford child daycare or many other choices they formally didn't have.
Nope. If people on welfare never leave welfare, it is not a remedy, just a band-aid.
Quote:
Quote:Assuming certain minorities are inherently incapable of making good decisions, in the face of examples to the contrary, is vile and racist.
No..that's your assumption. Mine is they don't have the choices people out of poverty have. And giving them help opens up ways for them to better themselves. It has nothing to do with anyone making bad choices.
Nope. You're the ONLY ONE who has made those connections to specific minorities. If they don't have choices, other than bad ones, how can they make good decisions? You're contradicting yourself now.
Quote:
Quote:Accepting limitations is only a justification for self-limiting beliefs.
No it isn't. It is recognizing the truth of your situation and moving forward to ask for help in overcoming those limitations. The first step in solving a problem is acknowledging you have one. Pretending you don't and putting the blame on yourself for not choosing right is a recipe for endless failure.
Again, see the difference between blame and responsibility.
Quote:
Quote:Not "black people", all poor people.
Oh so ALL poor people are inherently bad and just wallow in poverty because they just can't seem to make the right choices? That's a pretty strong moral indictment against the impoverished class. So what accounts for the cycle of poverty that perpetuates itself over generations of those born into it?
Again, you are the ONLY ONE saying anyone is "inherently bad".
I've repeatedly said that anyone can make good decisions, and that generational poverty is an issue of bad incentives, which will pervert anyone's behavior...poor or rich.
Quote:"In economics, the cycle of poverty is the "set of factors or events by which poverty, once started, is likely to continue unless there is outside intervention".
The cycle of poverty has been defined as a phenomenon where poor families become impoverished for at least three generations, i.e. for enough time that the family includes no surviving ancestors who possess and can transmit the intellectual, social, and cultural capital necessary to stay out of or change their impoverished condition. In calculations of expected generation length and ancestor lifespan, the lower median age of parents in these families is offset by the shorter lifespans in many of these groups.
Such families have either limited or no resources. There are many disadvantages that collectively work in a circular process making it virtually impossible for individuals to break the cycle. This occurs when poor people do not have the resources necessary to get out of poverty, such as financial capital, education, or connections. In other words, impoverished individuals do not have access to economic and social resources as a result of their poverty. This lack may increase their poverty. This could mean that the poor remain poor throughout their lives. This cycle has also been referred to as a "pattern" of behaviors and situations which cannot easily be changed.
Many people routinely break the cycle of poverty, without "financial capital, education, or connections". Because it is cultural and cultures often cross-pollinate.
Quote:Nope. If people on welfare never leave welfare, it is not a remedy, just a band-aid.
"Welfare recipients are often characterized as lazy, simply waiting for the next month's benefits to roll in. But nearly 73% of people receiving public benefits are members of working families.
Some programs, like TANF, actually operate under the expectation that families are working but need temporary assistance to become financially stable. Many argue the problem is really income inequality, which leaves minimum wage earners struggling to afford basic needs, and therefore reliant on public assistance.
Viewing people as morally responsible for their own situations "obviously ignores the systemic inequalities in the economy and polity that make people poor in the first place," independent scholar Gwendolyn Mink, who authored Welfare's End and several other works on public assistance programs, tells Mashable. "The kind of income inequality that is in the system puts especially women of color at the lowest end of the earning spectrum, which is a sentence of abject poverty."
Even though welfare recipients are in the labor force, Mink explains, they aren't earning enough money to support a family and provide food security for their children while at the same time pay bills, such as rent and utilities.
....Eligibility requirements prevent government aid recipients from getting benefits if they don't demonstrate dire need. TANF programs, for example, have a federal lifetime limit of five years.
"You might be on consecutively for five years and fall off," Mink says, "but if you fall into dire straits five years from now, forget it. You can't get back into the program."
As a result, these requirements often prevent some people from accessing the support they need. For instance, the federal government's food stamp cuts enacted at the end of 2014, which included tighter eligibility restrictions, had experts predicting severe hardships for the nation's poorest by 2016.
Welfare offers basic support to provide families with the bare necessities, if even that. Many families on welfare are simply looking to use government assistance as a way to build up their finances during tough times, with the goal of getting back on their feet.
Quote:Nope. You're the ONLY ONE who has made those connections to specific minorities. If they don't have choices, other than bad ones, how can they make good decisions? You're contradicting yourself now.
That's why they need outside help. So they can have more choices than what they had normally.
Quote:Again, you are the ONLY ONE saying anyone is "inherently bad".
I've repeatedly said that anyone can make good decisions, and that generational poverty is an issue of bad incentives, which will pervert anyone's behavior...poor or rich.
There's no better incentive to get out of poverty than being in poverty. So they already have incentives. They just lack the options that people out of poverty have. It isn't a matter of making bad decisions as if it is somehow their fault. It's a matter of having choices to decide from.
Quote:Many people routinely break the cycle of poverty, without "financial capital, education, or connections".
SyneMar 11, 2018 03:17 AM (This post was last modified: Mar 11, 2018 03:20 AM by Syne.)
(Mar 11, 2018 02:50 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:Nope. If people on welfare never leave welfare, it is not a remedy, just a band-aid.
"Welfare recipients are often characterized as lazy, simply waiting for the next month's benefits to roll in. But nearly 73% of people receiving public benefits are members of working families.
Some programs, like TANF, actually operate under the expectation that families are working but need temporary assistance to become financially stable. Many argue the problem is really income inequality, which leaves minimum wage earners struggling to afford basic needs, and therefore reliant on public assistance.
Viewing people as morally responsible for their own situations "obviously ignores the systemic inequalities in the economy and polity that make people poor in the first place," independent scholar Gwendolyn Mink, who authored Welfare's End and several other works on public assistance programs, tells Mashable. "The kind of income inequality that is in the system puts especially women of color at the lowest end of the earning spectrum, which is a sentence of abject poverty."
Even though welfare recipients are in the labor force, Mink explains, they aren't earning enough money to support a family and provide food security for their children while at the same time pay bills, such as rent and utilities."--- https://mashable.com/2015/07/27/welfare-...PidETtrZqh
SJW bullshit. Minimum wage was never meant to support a family.
A family is considered a working family when, “All family members age 15 and older either have a combined work effort of 39 weeks or more in the prior 12 months OR all family members age 15 and older have a combined work effort of 26 to 39 weeks in the prior 12 months, and one unemployed parent looked for work in the prior four weeks” (Waldron, Roberts, & Reamer, 2004, p.12).
- https://workfamily.sas.upenn.edu/glossar...efinitions
Yeah, that's one hell of a high bar. [/sarcasm]
The only things that "make people poor" are things like the highest income inequality and racial segregation in Democrat-run cities and states.
And no one makes people have, or even keep, kids they can't afford.
Quote:
Quote:Nope. You're the ONLY ONE who has made those connections to specific minorities. If they don't have choices, other than bad ones, how can they make good decisions? You're contradicting yourself now.
That's why they need outside help. So they can have more choices than what they had normally.
Yes, we know you think they're incapable of making good decisions.
Quote:
Quote:Again, you are the ONLY ONE saying anyone is "inherently bad".
I've repeatedly said that anyone can make good decisions, and that generational poverty is an issue of bad incentives, which will pervert anyone's behavior...poor or rich.
There's no better incentive to get out of poverty than being in poverty. So they already have incentives. They just lack the options that people out of poverty have. It isn't a matter of making bad decisions as if it is somehow their fault. It's a matter of having choices to decide from.
Poverty would be an incentive to get out of poverty IF we didn't have the programs that even you said get them above the poverty line. Which is it? Does welfare get them out of poverty, and remove that as an incentive, or are they still in poverty, despite welfare? Make up your mind and figure out what you're arguing already.
And yet again, you claim they can't make good choices.
Quote:
Quote:Many people routinely break the cycle of poverty, without "financial capital, education, or connections".
Routinely? Give me some stats on that then...
The Caicedos are among the 3.5 million Americans who were able to raise their chins above the poverty line last year, according to census data released this month. More than seven years after the recession ended, employers are finally compelled to reach deeper into the pools of untapped labor, creating more jobs, especially among retailers, restaurants and hotels, and paying higher wages to attract workers and meet new minimum wage requirements.
...
Government programs like Social Security, the earned-income tax credit, and food stamps have kept tens of millions from sinking into poverty year after year. But a main driver behind the impressive 1.2 percentage point decline in the poverty rate, the largest annual drop since 1999, was the economy finally hit a tipping point after years of steady, if lukewarm, improvement.
Overall, 2.9 million more jobs were created from 2014 to 2015, helping millions of unemployed people cross over into the ranks of regular wage earners. Many part-time workers increased the number of hours on the job. Wages, adjusted for inflation, climbed.
- https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/201...story.html
Quote:Yeah, that's one hell of a high bar. [/sarcasm]
It's a bar that ensures people aren't using welfare to lay around and be dependent. So it totally debunks your claim that welfare or other govt subsidy programs remove incentive. They PROVIDE incentive to better oneself.
Quote:Yes, we know you think they're incapable of making good decisions.
You're the only one blaming the poverty of poor people on them making bad decisions. I'm the one arguing they don't have the choices to decide from. And outside help provides them with those choices.
Quote:Poverty would be an incentive to get out of poverty IF we didn't have the programs that even you said get them above the poverty line. Which is it?
The programs demand demonstrative need. So the programs themselves give them more incentive to find work or get an education and so to stay out of poverty. They get used to having more money. They see the benefits and choices opened to them. So they have incentive to succeed by getting a good job or vocational training or a college degree.
Quote:But a main driver behind the impressive 1.2 percentage point decline in the poverty rate, the largest annual drop since 1999, was the economy finally hit a tipping point after years of steady, if lukewarm, improvement.
An improving economy helps everyone, even the poor. It is an increase in job opportunities, and not confirmation of poor people "routinely" pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. Still waiting for those stats..
Quote:Yeah, that's one hell of a high bar. [/sarcasm]
It's a bar that ensures people aren't using welfare to lay around and be dependent. So it totally debunks your claim that welfare or other govt subsidy programs remove incentive. They PROVIDE incentive to better oneself.
Except the family only working half the year, combined, and one parent looking for a job once a month.
If welfare keeps you out of poverty only working half the year, you have little incentive to get and keep a full-time job.
Quote:
Quote:Yes, we know you think they're incapable of making good decisions.
You're the only one blaming the poverty of poor people on them making bad decisions. I'm the one arguing they don't have the choices to decide from. And outside help provides them with those choices.
Not having the choice literally means they can't make better choices.
I think poor people are as capable as anyone else.
Quote:
Quote:Poverty would be an incentive to get out of poverty IF we didn't have the programs that even you said get them above the poverty line. Which is it?
The programs demand demonstrative need. So the programs themselves give them more incentive to find work or get an education and so to stay out of poverty. They get used to having more money. They see the benefits and choices opened to them. So they have incentive to succeed by getting a good job or vocational training or a college degree.
Programs based on need incentivize being in need.
Quote:
Quote:But a main driver behind the impressive 1.2 percentage point decline in the poverty rate, the largest annual drop since 1999, was the economy finally hit a tipping point after years of steady, if lukewarm, improvement.
An improving economy helps everyone, even the poor. It is an increase in job opportunities, and not confirmation of poor people "routinely" pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. Still waiting for those stats..
Opportunity is the best remedy to poverty. Period. All else is a band-aid on a bullet hole. And guess whose policies create more jobs.
A recent study...tracked more than 6,000 Kansas families — 17,000 individuals — who were moved off of cash assistance in 2011 when Governor Sam Brownback instituted new work requirements for welfare recipients. The data show that families who left government assistance under the new work requirements saw their incomes double within one year of leaving welfare. Within four years, their incomes nearly tripled, as they earned nearly $48 million more in wages than when they received a government check.
The jobs those Kansans obtained were spread throughout 600 different industries, from health care to information technology to food service to retail. Thanks to these new jobs, the number of able-bodied adults on the welfare rolls has dropped by 78% since Brownback's reforms took effect.
- https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2...557082001/
Quote:Except the family only working half the year, combined, and one parent looking for a job once a month.
It's incentive to stay employed or to keep looking for work. So your lie that it provides no incentive is exposed.
"Welfare recipients are often characterized as lazy, simply waiting for the next month's benefits to roll in. But nearly 73% of people receiving public benefits are members of working families."
Quote:Not having the choice literally means they can't make better choices.
I think poor people are as capable as anyone else.
It also means they can't make bad choices, which you fault for them being in poverty. Once again, you blame the victims of poverty for their own condition. And that is hateful and cruel.
Quote:Programs based on need incentivize being in need.
Programs that require participants to be working incentivize working. We already went over this.
Quote:Opportunity is the best remedy to poverty. Period. All else is a band-aid on a bullet hole. And guess whose policies create more jobs.
It's not an either/or. Govt programs lift millions out of poverty, and so do job opportunities. Both are effective means of fighting the poverty cycle.
"We live in a country where it is almost considered a crime to be poor. We demonize, stigmatize, and discriminate those who need help because they were dealt cards that were not as favorable as some of ours. A majority of these people have done nothing wrong: they work, buy the essentials, and take care of their families because many welfare programs make it impossible to not work and collect welfare. The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act has enabled people on welfare to ween themselves off it once they are able to get back to working. Demonizing collectors of welfare will continue the path put forth that will eventually divide our country by socioeconomic statuses."--- https://www.theodysseyonline.com/women-s...aring-2018
Mar 10, 2018 08:02 AM
![[Image: Ypfiqsq.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/Ypfiqsq.gif)
