Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   What happens when you give money with no strings attached to the poor? Do they: A) spend it on hookers and blow; B) burn it to keep warm; or C) start up businesses and buy food for their children?   (npr.org) divider line 276
    More: Obvious, developing world, poor people, return on investments  
•       •       •

10508 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Oct 2013 at 9:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



276 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-25 10:47:59 AM  

chimp_ninja: teenytinycornteeth: Don't speculate on the status of "Cabrini Greens" when you have zero knowledge and are just spouting your thinly veiled racism to be hilarious.

Let's not pretend that tlenon or THE GREAT NAME bother to thinly veil the fact that they're human garbage.

Well, assholes playing a character who is human garbage, at least.


In case anybody is wondering why chimp_ninja is so whiny, it's because he's had his butt kicked in more climate change threads than I care to enumerate and has basically had to give up, having realised that all the arguments in favour of CC which he believed in so strongly are actually, in the cold light of day, garbage. Like most eco-loons, chimp_ninja is in fact a "watermelon" - that is, green on the outside but red on the inside. He's here to spout leftist drivel and basically show us all how sincerely he beleives he has the moral high ground when he's really just an ignorant twat.
 
2013-10-25 10:48:40 AM  

brobdiggy: Also, as some people have pointed out, the article discusses giving aid to people in African countries, not welfare-poor in the US.

Two things to note:
1. Giving $1,000 to a welfare-poor person in the US and giving $1,000 to an abject-poverty man in Uganda are two completely different things.  Money will go a lot further in Uganda.  Note that I am NOT advocating that we give MORE money to American poor because of this.

2. If you do give a random poor person in the US some money, there is a VERY high probability that the money will be blown and they'll still be poor next year.  Yeah, you don't want to hear that, but you know it's true.


Actually that's only true if the number of welfare queens is very much higher than the number of working poor here in the U.S.

Probably a waste of time, but I'll ask anyway:  you got a citation for that?

You've also got to quantify how much is "some" money...you give a lower class working stiff in the US a hundred buck, ya...no shiat he'll still be working class next year, unless he hits the lottery.
 
2013-10-25 10:49:10 AM  

brandied: There are some many view of this, so I decided to go full Maslow on this.

People in third world countries are struggling just to have their basic needs of food, shelter and clothing met.  Perhaps they really understand the need to use money to get those fundamental survival needs met.

Folks in America have their basic needs met - often through working the welfare system.  They don't really understand the meaning of true poverty.  Thus, figuring they can get their food, shelter, and clothing provided, they misuse money, not realizing that this is a possible means of improving their situation rather than just getting some wants fulfilled.

Some folks really need the assistance of welfare just to get back on their feet.  Many folks just work the system to fund their lifestyle.


Oh bullshiat. Have you ever been on welfare? 1: Most people feel ashamed to be on welfare. You know, because Republican talking points have turned them into lazy assholes who just want everyone's money. 2: Its a huge pain in the ass to get welfare (Think DMV but 10 times worse), and I can't imagine anyone who didn't need it wouldn't be on welfare otherwise. This is made clear by the low amount of fraud, or undesirables/druggies who are on welfare. Which is why programs to make people take drug tests before getting on welfare, usually cost more money than they save. 3: I live in a liberal state, but even here they check up on you regularly to make sure you have a job/your income hasn't changed etc. Eventually you will be thrown out of the system if you don't have a job.

Granted, I don't think welfare alone is an answer and would personally like to see less people on welfare. That requires good paying jobs, an education system that isn't embarrassingly inadequate (We pay more money per child than anyone else. Yet most graduates of high school often graduate not ready for the world or college), and a society that values people for who they are rather than how much money they have. We are getting our asses handed to us by the likes of Finland and South Korea. Both have great education systems, and low and behold better social mobility. Meaning they don't stay at the bottom if they start at the bottom.

In America, if you aren't born into a family that is either well to do middle class, or rich, your opportunities to succeed are few.

Fark_Guy_Rob: lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.

I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.


Uh, you do know that in most cases you have to have a job to receive welfare right? These are people who work 30 to 40 hours a week, and yet still can't afford to get ahead or eat healthy enough.
 
2013-10-25 10:49:23 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: DROxINxTHExWIND: Fark_Guy_Rob: lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.

I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.


You sound woefully ignorant. Many of the people on welfare are called working poor. The DO have the $8/hr job but that cannot sustain one person, much less, a family. So, they require public assistance.

http://benswann.com/welfare-recipients-in-new-york-can-now-earn-more -t han-teachers/
Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that in 33 states, welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job. In fact, in 12 of those states, welfare recipients make more than they would at a $12 per hour job.

I'm sorry, maybe you could elaborate on where I'm wrong?

What an excellent argument for raising the minimum wage, doubling it in fact.

Or halving welfare.  The argument goes both ways.

Regardless though, the dilemma I described wasn't an unreasonable one.  And given the choice, I'd take welfare over a job - even if the job pay 15-20% more.


No, the argument doesn't go both ways.  Either society wants people to be able to earn a living wage and/or have their basic needs covered or it doesn't.  You are arguing the latter.  We have tried this already.  The late 1800s (Gilded Age) and early 1900s (robber barons) which were defined in large part by vast industrialization with a large number of workers in factories working for near nothing wages, in horribly dangerous environments both from machines and from fumes, smoke, and hazardous chemicals, with absolutely no protections under the law whatsoever.  It was a very bad time to be a worker in this country.  It was a great time to be one of the few factory owners.  Very few people would advocate that we go back to that sort of environment and say that it's a good thing with a straight face, you among them.
 
2013-10-25 10:50:12 AM  
Give everyone over 18 $10K/year and get rid of the bureaucracy.
 
2013-10-25 10:51:50 AM  

brobdiggy: Two things to note:
1. Giving $1,000 to a welfare-poor person in the US and giving $1,000 to an abject-poverty man in Uganda are two completely different things. Money will go a lot further in Uganda. Note that I am NOT advocating that we give MORE money to American poor because of this.


Agreed. Euthanasia seems to be a much better option.
 
2013-10-25 10:51:58 AM  
shiny wheels and a  gold tooth
 
2013-10-25 10:52:10 AM  

BMFPitt: DROxINxTHExWIND: You don't think eating Raman noodles several meals per week or making a choice between medicine and meat for dinner is true poverty?

That's called college.

Apparently you have no concept of what true poverty is.


Yeah, it is called college to someone who was born on third base but thinks he hit a triple. The difference that you seem to be missing is, a college kid can always GO HOME. What the fark is wrong with ou animals who think that someone needs to be emaciated with a vulture flying over their heads before anyone should lift a finger to assist them? Where do they make you assholes?
 
2013-10-25 10:52:21 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: The problem is that libs don't like to talk about those people; they get wierd, accusatory and screechy.


THE GREAT NAME:  First I wondered why this young boy would aid a theif, attempt to injure, deface property, and finally insult a state worker who was simply doing his job. Then I saw the skin colour of the people he grew up around.

Yeah, the problem is that "libs" don't want to talk about poverty and race.  If only poor minorities were treated as well as you treat them, which isn't hateful or "weird, accusatory, and screechy" at all.
 
2013-10-25 10:53:04 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Fark_Guy_Rob: DROxINxTHExWIND: Fark_Guy_Rob: lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.

I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.


You sound woefully ignorant. Many of the people on welfare are called working poor. The DO have the $8/hr job but that cannot sustain one person, much less, a family. So, they require public assistance.

http://benswann.com/welfare-recipients-in-new-york-can-now-earn-more -t han-teachers/
Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that in 33 states, welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job. In fact, in 12 of those states, welfare recipients make more than they would at a $12 per hour job.

I'm sorry, maybe you could elaborate on where I'm wrong?


You send me some whacked out blog that links to the DAILY CALLER? The website that asked the burning question that's on all of our minds..."Why doesn't the President have any white dogs"?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/when-political-commentary-goe s -the-do?lite">http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/when-political- commentary-goes -the-do?lite=

THAT Daily Caller?

/Stopped reading right there


How about Forbes?   http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/02/on-labor-day-201 3 -welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/
On Labor Day 2013, Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States

Here is the study that prompted the articles...
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/work-versus-welfare-tra de
Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour

Aside from that, I personally know someone in this exact system.  She sat down, did the math, and decided *not* to get a job.  In fact, I encouraged her - in the same way I would encourage my parents to deduct their new A/C that qualified for some energy credit a few years back.  And it's been working out just fine for her since.
 
2013-10-25 10:53:41 AM  

xalres: Dude, the system is rigged. The only people who can un-rig it? Bought and paid for by the people who benefit from it.


The system is rigged but that is a completely different conversation.  "the system" is a very broad term.  So for you to oppose to it is also a very broad statement.  By playing the system I merely mean do everything to prevent an all out revolution.  If you destroy it and start over the same thing will just happen again, so why not figure out how to deal with it now?
 
2013-10-25 10:55:07 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: In case anybody is wondering why chimp_ninja is so whiny, it's because he's had his butt kicked in more climate change threads than I care to enumerate and has basically had to give up, having realised that all the arguments in favour of CC which he believed in so strongly are actually, in the cold light of day, garbage.


Feel free to provide links, so people can judge the content of my posts for themselves.  Since you butted in about race/poverty, I provided quotes from you making racist comments (and you admitting that you're a troll), with links so people can judge the context themselves.  You know, evidence for my claims.

I'm wacky like that.
 
2013-10-25 10:55:25 AM  

chimp_ninja: teenytinycornteeth: Don't speculate on the status of "Cabrini Greens" when you have zero knowledge and are just spouting your thinly veiled racism to be hilarious.

Let's not pretend that tlenon or THE GREAT NAME bother to thinly veil the fact that they're human garbage.

Well, assholes playing a character who is human garbage, at least.


I'm not going to lie. I've been away from Fark, in the loving arms of other websites for some time and i've lost my ability to accurately and quickly discern who is worth arguing with and who isn't.
 
2013-10-25 10:56:39 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: You're building a strawman....

I'm not saying that the minimum wage is too low, or too high.  I'm saying that it is an ARTIFICIAL limit.   The value of many minimum wage workers is actually *less* than minimum wage.  That is the entire point of a minimum wage, to artificially increase wages.

I'm not for or against minimum wage laws.  I'm saying it's silly to blame a company for not paying people 'enough' when they are both complying with and exceeding the minimum wage.  The average 'hourly' Walmart employee earns $9.40 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/06/news/economy/costco-fast-food-strike s/ ) well above the minimum wage.  And that excludes all of their salary employees who typically earn significantly more.


Yes, I know exactly what you're saying: that we should remove restrictions (minimum wage) and let corporations drive wages down even further than they already are, and that this would somehow benefit society in some way.  From the article I linked early, Walmart employs over a million workers, hundreds of thousands of which are subsidized by the federal government because their pay isn't high enough for them to get by.  Either you believe as I do that it would be better that the "artificial limit" be raised so that the federal government ie taxpayers didn't have to make up the difference, or you believe that it's good that it is the case that this is the reality.  Or the third option is that you believe we should both remove the "artificial limit" AND remove the federal safety net and let the free market sort it out.  Which it will do by creating a dystopian hellscape for a large majority of us hearkening back to the days of the robber barons and Gilded Age.
 
2013-10-25 10:57:20 AM  
Fark_Guy_Rob:
How about Forbes?
On Labor Day 2013, Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States

Here is the study that prompted the articles...

Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour

Aside from that, I personally know someone in this exact system. She sat down, did the math, and decided *not* to get a job. In fact, I encouraged her - in the same way I would encourage my parents to deduct their new A/C that qualified for some energy credit a few years back. And it's been working out just fine for her since.



Awww shiat. Here come the personal anecdotes.
 
2013-10-25 10:59:47 AM  

Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: DROxINxTHExWIND: Fark_Guy_Rob: lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.

I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.


You sound woefully ignorant. Many of the people on welfare are called working poor. The DO have the $8/hr job but that cannot sustain one person, much less, a family. So, they require public assistance.

http://benswann.com/welfare-recipients-in-new-york-can-now-earn-more -t han-teachers/
Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that in 33 states, welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job. In fact, in 12 of those states, welfare recipients make more than they would at a $12 per hour job.

I'm sorry, maybe you could elaborate on where I'm wrong?

What an excellent argument for raising the minimum wage, doubling it in fact.

Or halving welfare.  The argument goes both ways.

Regardless though, the dilemma I described wasn't an unreasonable one.  And given the choice, I'd take welfare over a job - even if the job pay 15-20% more.

No, the argument doesn't go both ways.  Either society wants people to be able to earn a living wage and/or have their basic needs covered or it doesn't.  You are arguing the latter.  We have tried this already.  The late 1800s (Gilded Age) and early 1900s (robber barons) which were defined in large part by vast industrialization with a large number of workers in factories working for near nothing wages, in horribly dangerous environments both from machines and from fumes, smoke, and hazardous chemicals, with absolutely no protections under the law whatsoever.  It was a very ba ...


I'm absolutely not arguing the former *or* the latter.  I haven't given an opinion on how things *should* be, I've only stated 'facts' as I understand them, supported by data I've linked to.

I've claimed that the value of someone's time at work is defined by what someone will pay them.  Generally speaking, that is how we value all things.  Fair-market value and all that jazz.
I've claimed that minimum wage laws exist because some people's time at work is worth very little and our society feels they should be taken care of.
I've claimed that low-income employees benefit from welfare, not Walmart.
I've claimed that in many places, many people, can earn more by not working than they can from working.
I've claimed that Walmart pays *more* than the federal minimum wage.

I've expressed some opinions too, like not being able to fault someone for not working when they could get more staying home.  Or not faulting Walmart for paying people what people are willing to work for.  I think it makes sense, but it's just my opinion.

Raising the minimum wage would encourage people who currently an equivalent wage to work.  So would reducing welfare benefits.  That's my last claim.  I'm not saying we *should* do either of those things; just that they are effectively the same.
 
2013-10-25 11:00:21 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: HindiDiscoMonster: Uranus Is Huge!: Truly poor

Not iPhone 4 and Applebees poor.

Apple and Applebees are not poor... they are huge multimillion dollar businesses....

No shiat.

I was referring to people considered poor because they still carry an iPhone 4 and go to Applebees for special occasions.


Applebee's is some fine dining.

i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-10-25 11:01:29 AM  

Carn: Yes, I know exactly what you're saying: that we should remove restrictions (minimum wage) and let corporations drive wages down even further than they already are, and that this would somehow benefit society in some way.


Well duh... It would clearly make poor people even that much more poor thus growing the middle class by lowering the bar.  Ta-Da!  Economy fixed.
 
2013-10-25 11:02:50 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Fark_Guy_Rob:
How about Forbes?
On Labor Day 2013, Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States

Here is the study that prompted the articles...

Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour

Aside from that, I personally know someone in this exact system. She sat down, did the math, and decided *not* to get a job. In fact, I encouraged her - in the same way I would encourage my parents to deduct their new A/C that qualified for some energy credit a few years back. And it's been working out just fine for her since.


Awww shiat. Here come the personal anecdotes.


First - you objected to my blog link.

Now I've given you Forbes, an actual study, and my own personal experience.
Now you're upset that I include my own personal experience in my response, while entirely ignoring the Forbes article and the study, that you requested.

You might as well stick your fingers in your ears and go 'lalalalalala'.

If you have MORE compelling evidence to the contrary, by all means, provide it.  Otherwise, concede the point.
 
2013-10-25 11:02:57 AM  
Oh yeah?  Try that in 'Merica!!
 
2013-10-25 11:03:27 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: BMFPitt: DROxINxTHExWIND: You don't think eating Raman noodles several meals per week or making a choice between medicine and meat for dinner is true poverty?

That's called college.

Apparently you have no concept of what true poverty is.

Yeah, it is called college to someone who was born on third base but thinks he hit a triple. The difference that you seem to be missing is, a college kid can always GO HOME. What the fark is wrong with ou animals who think that someone needs to be emaciated with a vulture flying over their heads before anyone should lift a finger to assist them? Where do they make you assholes?


It's a coping mechanism to help with the guilt they feel for not caring about or helping the impoverished in their own neighborhoods. "Pah, they're not  really poor. They have a refrigerator for God's sake!"

Either that or they're sociopaths.
 
2013-10-25 11:04:42 AM  

Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: You're building a strawman....

I'm not saying that the minimum wage is too low, or too high.  I'm saying that it is an ARTIFICIAL limit.   The value of many minimum wage workers is actually *less* than minimum wage.  That is the entire point of a minimum wage, to artificially increase wages.

I'm not for or against minimum wage laws.  I'm saying it's silly to blame a company for not paying people 'enough' when they are both complying with and exceeding the minimum wage.  The average 'hourly' Walmart employee earns $9.40 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/06/news/economy/costco-fast-food-strike s/ ) well above the minimum wage.  And that excludes all of their salary employees who typically earn significantly more.

Yes, I know exactly what you're saying: that we should remove restrictions (minimum wage) and let corporations drive wages down even further than they already are, and that this would somehow benefit society in some way.  From the article I linked early, Walmart employs over a million workers, hundreds of thousands of which are subsidized by the federal government because their pay isn't high enough for them to get by.  Either you believe as I do that it would be better that the "artificial limit" be raised so that the federal government ie taxpayers didn't have to make up the difference, or you believe that it's good that it is the case that this is the reality.  Or the third option is that you believe we should both remove the "artificial limit" AND remove the federal safety net and let the free market sort it out.  Which it will do by creating a dystopian hellscape for a large majority of us hearkening back to the days of the robber barons and Gilded Age.


I have said absolutely none of that.....you're being silly.

I'll gladly debate my stances and I'm open to changing my opinions....but, I really don't know what you're talking about.
 
2013-10-25 11:05:30 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I'm absolutely not arguing the former *or* the latter.  I haven't given an opinion on how things *should* be, I've only stated 'facts' as I understand them, supported by data I've linked to.

I've claimed that the value of someone's time at work is defined by what someone will pay them.  Generally speaking, that is how we value all things.  Fair-market value and all that jazz.
I've claimed that minimum wage laws exist because some people's time at work is worth very little and our society feels they should be taken care of.
I've claimed that low-income employees benefit from welfare, not Walmart.
I've claimed that in many places, many people, can earn more by not working than they can from working.
I've claimed that Walmart pays *more* than the federal minimum wage.

I've expressed some opinions too, like not being able to fault someone for not working when they could get more staying home.  Or not faulting Walmart for paying people what people are willing to work for.  I think it makes sense, but it's just my opinion.

Raising the minimum wage would encourage people who currently an equivalent wage to work.  So would reducing welfare benefits.  That's my last claim.  I'm not saying we *should* do either of those things; just that they are effectively the same.


So, you're a sociopath.  Now that we've identified the problem, you can work on correcting it.  No sane person would argue that raising the minimum wage and reducing welfare are effectively the same.  The former gives a lot of American workers a hell of a lot better chance of moving up the economic ladder.  The latter hurts people, possibly results in deaths but who can say exactly how many.  You're going with the "bu bu bu BOOOTSTRAPS!" argument that lowering welfare will result in people bootstrapping themselves into gainful employment at such wondrous places as Walmart, but as has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread, Walmart won't pay them enough to survive on their own.
 
2013-10-25 11:05:58 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Awww shiat. Here come the personal anecdotes.


Doesn't make them not true.

Bob: "Hi, DROxINxTHExWIND. It's raining outside!"
Betty: "Yeah, it's really coming down!"
Joe: "Yeah. I'm soaking wet!"

DROxINxTHExWIND: "Sheesh. All these 'personal anecdotes'!"
 
2013-10-25 11:06:19 AM  
Some people are poor because they cannot manage money well.
Giving money to someone who cannot manage it well will result in it being squandered.
Therefore...
Giving some poor people money will result in it being squandered.
 
2013-10-25 11:07:30 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Awww shiat. Here come the personal anecdotes.


In many situations, n=1 is sufficient data if it illustrates a fundamental flaw or incentives problem in the system, as his anecdote does. There is value in examining both representative and egregious cases in these public policy discussions.
 
2013-10-25 11:08:55 AM  

fredklein: DROxINxTHExWIND: Awww shiat. Here come the personal anecdotes.

Doesn't make them not true.

Bob: "Hi, DROxINxTHExWIND. It's raining outside!"
Betty: "Yeah, it's really coming down!"
Joe: "Yeah. I'm soaking wet!"

DROxINxTHExWIND: "Sheesh. All these 'personal anecdotes'!"


A better example:

Carn: "It's raining outside"
fredklein: "It's raining everywhere!"
 
2013-10-25 11:09:09 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: And given the choice, I'd take welfare over a job - even if the job pay 15-20% more.


You say that when you don't have to do it and would never do it.  We were on Wic for a few years and the looks you get from people was pathetic.  I tried to go at odd times because of it.  Then god forbid it took the cashier an extra minute to run the checks because the foot tapping and huffing was just icing on the cake.
 
2013-10-25 11:09:32 AM  
In an earlier comment, I mentioned that libs don't like to talk about the undeserving (unless rich). chimp_ninja has graced us with a comment, so lets take a look and note whether he talks about about the undeserving. Here's his comment:

 chimp_ninja:
Yeah, the problem is that "libs" don't want to talk about poverty and race.  If only poor minorities were treated as well as you treat them, which isn't hateful or "weird, accusatory, and screechy" at all.
 
No mention of the undeserving there, then. But let's look again, more closely:


..."libs" don't want to talk about poverty and race...

Now, obviously chimp is using sarcasm, because he still thinks that's sort-of grown up and sophisticated. But the really interesting thing is that in attempting to lampoon my comment by repeating it in a sarcastic tone, he still could not prevent his subconcious from modifying it. So, out with the "underserving" qualification I used (and which I explained perfectly eloquantly at the time) and instead the comment is changed to be about all the poor. Why? Two reasons:
1. Because this is the only fight he can win - it's easy to criticise people who hate the poor because such people are obviously unreasonable (but they also basically don't exist)
2. c_n is pretty much a waste of space himself, affluent but without having put in the hard graft to deserve it. He probebly does naff all for others, doesn't tip and regularly skips rounds.

All in all, c_n is simply proving my point - which is that libs are terrified of talking about the undeserving in society except in the top 1% (now 0.1% - obviously a few libs in the 1% but not the 0.1% got edgy after all the banging on about one percenters in the media lately).
 
2013-10-25 11:09:39 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I've claimed that in many places, many people, can earn more by not working than they can from working.

[many citations needed]


/many
 
2013-10-25 11:10:47 AM  
You keep feeding the poor.
And they will keep breeding the poor.
 
2013-10-25 11:11:54 AM  

bbfreak: brandied: There are some many view of this, so I decided to go full Maslow on this.
....
Uh, you do know that in most cases you have to have a job to receive welfare right? These are people who work 30 to 40 hours a week, and yet still can't afford to get ahead or eat healthy enough.


I'm sorry, I don't specifically mean 'welfare', I'm generally referring to 'welfare programs' that would include things like food stamps,

'(1) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the post-1996 cash welfare program; (2) the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps; (3) Medicaid; (4) housing assistance; (5) utilities assistance; (6) the Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC), and (7) the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) '

I'm not trying to imply that individual factors aren't considered, or that 'welfare' *always* pays better than working.  But in a lot of places, for a lot of people, particularly single parents, it can make sense to not work.  And, given the choice, I'd gladly take government assistance over working hard; provided the compensation is roughly the same.
 
2013-10-25 11:12:16 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: farkdd: So what happens when conservatives want to (a) not give any money to poor people and (b) reduce spending on education, health care, social security, etc. so the top 0.1% can get another tax break?

What if sometimes (and I only mean sometimes) doing something like this would actually help the poor? What would be your moral view then?


If trickle-down economics didn't have 30+ years of proof invalidating the theory, then sure. I mean, if giving rich people more and more money actually ended up raising the standard of living for all -- instead of, you know, the simpler explanation that rich people just want more money and made up a B.S. reason to get you to give it to them -- then I'd be for it. But history (along with common sense) has shown us that what made America different and more successful than any other system throughout history was having a strong middle class that could actually afford to buy stuff. A lot of the money ends up with rich people anyway, because if the middle class shares in the productivity gains (which stopped happening about 30 years ago when all the gains started going to the top 0.1%), they will spend that money on iPods and cars, and rich people will get richer.

If, on the other hand, you go with the theory of give all the money to a few ultra-wealthy people -- the theory that predominated throughout the Dark Ages with lords and serfs, and throughout every druglord hellhole country on Earth today -- that disparity gets wider and wider. There is no way to "work hard" and catch up with a rich guy earning 100x my salary on dividends and capital gains, AND he pays a lower rate in taxes than I do! The 0.1% will accumulate more and more, at the expense of everyone else. And rich people can only buy SO many iPhones and cars -- that's not what drives our "consumer-driven" economy. A thousand rich people can buy 10 iPhones each I guess, great. But 100 million middle-class workers doing well enough can buy 100 million iPhones. Henry Ford understood this concept, and paid his factory workers enough to buy the cars they were helping to produce. It was a win-win, and made Henry Ford very rich.
 
2013-10-25 11:12:31 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: How about Forbes? http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/02/on-labor-day-201 3 -welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/
On Labor Day 2013, Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States

Here is the study that prompted the articles...
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/work-versus-welfare-tra de
Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour


Just provide the Cato paper, then.  The other two are just summaries, which makes it look like three sources instead of one.  And understand that Cato has a strong libertarian lean.  (They advertise this-- promoting libertarianism is their avowed reason for existing.)

Then read some of the rebuttals to the Tanner/Hughes study, notably that they assume that every family receiving federal assistance simultaneously qualifies for every conceivable benefits program.  Quoting from CBPP, which has been cited and awarded many times over for non-partisan, accurate analysis:

"Cato ignores the fact that low-income working families are eligible for, and receive, assistance through programs such as SNAP, Medicaid, housing assistance, and WIC.  When considering the assistance that low-income working families receive, Cato assumes they receive none of these benefits and only get help from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit."

In other words, in many circumstances you can work and receive benefits, since minimum wage wouldn't boost you past the poverty line.  So logically, you'd choose to work.  Also, Cato overestimates the additive nature of the benefits, which is how they produce such ridiculously high inflows of money:

"When adding up the benefits that jobless families receive, Cato assumes that these families all receive TANF, housing assistance, and WIC despite the fact that very few such families would receive all of these benefits.

Consider TANF. Due to changes that states made in their welfare programs after the 1996 federal welfare law was enacted, very few families receive TANF cash assistance and those that do often work or participate in employment programs and are subject to time limits on their receipt of assistance.

Nationally, for every 100 families in poverty, just 27 families receive TANF cash assistance.[5] In eight states, fewer than ten of every 100 families in poverty receive TANF. In most states, families must have incomes well below the poverty line to receive TANF. Even among those families with incomes low enough to meet their state's eligibility criteria, just one-third receive assistance, according to the federal Department of Health and Human Services.[6]

Nor do families typically receive TANF for very long. In fiscal year 2010, 14 years after the advent of time limits, 60 percent of adults receiving TANF had accumulated 24 months or less on their 60-month lifetime limit.[7]

Cato's report doesn't just overstate TANF's availability. Cato's own data show that just 16 percent of families receiving TANF also receive housing assistance. Yet, Cato assumes that in most states families have ready access to both types of assistance.

Cato also assumes that jobless families receive WIC for two children. While many jobless families may receive WIC at some point, it is not a long-term support. WIC is only available to low-income pregnant women, postpartum and breastfeeding women, infants, and children under the age of 5. In 2010, fewer than one in four individuals (adults and children) receiving TANF also received WIC."


Cato is creating a false comparison where benefits are inflated for non-workers, and nearly eliminated for poverty-line workers.  Whether that was deliberate or careless is an exercise for the reader.
 
2013-10-25 11:14:08 AM  

TNel: Fark_Guy_Rob: And given the choice, I'd take welfare over a job - even if the job pay 15-20% more.

You say that when you don't have to do it and would never do it.  We were on Wic for a few years and the looks you get from people was pathetic.  I tried to go at odd times because of it.  Then god forbid it took the cashier an extra minute to run the checks because the foot tapping and huffing was just icing on the cake.


I'm ugly.  The looks I get from people all the time is pathetic.  In all seriousness, I would feel no shame.  These programs exist for a reason, collectively our society wants them.  If you qualify, you shouldn't feel bad about it.
 
2013-10-25 11:16:50 AM  

Carn: fredklein: DROxINxTHExWIND: Awww shiat. Here come the personal anecdotes.

Doesn't make them not true.

Bob: "Hi, DROxINxTHExWIND. It's raining outside!"
Betty: "Yeah, it's really coming down!"
Joe: "Yeah. I'm soaking wet!"

DROxINxTHExWIND: "Sheesh. All these 'personal anecdotes'!"

A better example:

Carn: "It's raining outside"
fredklein: "It's raining everywhere!"


Exactly... except for the fact that no one is claiming that ALL people on welfare are cheats. Just that SOME are.

Carn: "It's raining outside"
fredklein: "This is the Nth report of rain I've gotten, from all different places around the country. It's raining lot's of places!"
 
2013-10-25 11:16:50 AM  
9  out of 10 times it's A or something similar.  This author found the one.
 
2013-10-25 11:17:49 AM  

Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: I'm absolutely not arguing the former *or* the latter.  I haven't given an opinion on how things *should* be, I've only stated 'facts' as I understand them, supported by data I've linked to.

I've claimed that the value of someone's time at work is defined by what someone will pay them.  Generally speaking, that is how we value all things.  Fair-market value and all that jazz.
I've claimed that minimum wage laws exist because some people's time at work is worth very little and our society feels they should be taken care of.
I've claimed that low-income employees benefit from welfare, not Walmart.
I've claimed that in many places, many people, can earn more by not working than they can from working.
I've claimed that Walmart pays *more* than the federal minimum wage.

I've expressed some opinions too, like not being able to fault someone for not working when they could get more staying home.  Or not faulting Walmart for paying people what people are willing to work for.  I think it makes sense, but it's just my opinion.

Raising the minimum wage would encourage people who currently an equivalent wage to work.  So would reducing welfare benefits.  That's my last claim.  I'm not saying we *should* do either of those things; just that they are effectively the same.

So, you're a sociopath.  Now that we've identified the problem, you can work on correcting it.  No sane person would argue that raising the minimum wage and reducing welfare are effectively the same.  The former gives a lot of American workers a hell of a lot better chance of moving up the economic ladder.  The latter hurts people, possibly results in deaths but who can say exactly how many.  You're going with the "bu bu bu BOOOTSTRAPS!" argument that lowering welfare will result in people bootstrapping themselves into gainful employment at such wondrous places as Walmart, but as has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread, Walmart won't pay them enough to survive on their own.


I'm afraid I'm going to stop responding to you.  You aren't replying to my comments, you are replying to a fictional adversary with unreasonable beliefs that you want to prove wrong.  This is my last attempt.....

Increasing the minimum wage would encourage people to choose work over welfare because people want to maximize their income.
Decreasing welfare benefits would encourage people to choose work over welfare because people want to maximize their income.

In that context, either option produces the same result.   IN THAT CONTEXT.

I'm not for or against either of them.  I'm just saying that either approach accomplishes the same thing.  Your suggestion is not the only reasonable response to the situation.
 
2013-10-25 11:20:43 AM  

teenytinycornteeth: zeroman987: jshine: teenytinycornteeth: tlenon: Its a wonder Cabrini Greens isn't a sprawling zone of commerce and industrial business startups. Mind you Crack production does not count....

You know how I know you're not from Chicago?  It's not just the s you added to Cabrini Green.

Another good hint that he's not from Chicago is where it says "Omaha, NE" in his profile.  It's subtle, but telling.

Then he should shut his mouth about Chicago. Omaha is a freaking pit and I wouldn't move there even if you gave me a 20% raise.

Oh btw, for the price of a two bedroom condo in the area where cabrini green used to be, you could get a nice house in Omaha.

Well right, that was sort of my point.  Don't speculate on the status of "Cabrini Greens" when you have zero knowledge and are just spouting your thinly veiled racism to be hilarious.


Hey, I used to take the bus in front of Cabrini Green years ago when it was up and the experience was mildly scary (worse than other subsidized housing in Chicago). Anyway I was surpised Omaha's OP didnt get more hits because my first thought on the headline was "why havent all welfare recipients bootstrapped their way out of poverty if this is true for the US?"

I know welfare and other public assistance programs in the states give paltry amounts, but in our culture cash contributions to poor peope usually goes to immediate needs like bills, food, medical care etc. i dont blame them for that. They are used to living day to day and having most of their needs go unserved. Concepts like investment seem like more of a rich/educated person's concept, so at the very least we should be pairing our cash contributions to poor people with education.
I have been poor and have managed my money badly (it's difficult to pass up earthy comforts when you have little), but at least education helped me get out of that cylce.
 
2013-10-25 11:22:47 AM  
I do believe "the system" needs to operate in a way that if people do go to school, get a job and work hard, and not waste all their money on hookers & blow, then they should be able to achieve a decent middle-class lifestyle. Maybe lower middle-class, maybe they can't afford cable TV and iPhones just because all the ads say everyone should, but not worried about putting food on the table every day.

Now, if "the system" does not allow that -- if there are not enough jobs for millions of people, and the jobs that are there for tens of millions more don't pay enough to stay out of poverty anyway -- then you can expect lots of people to say "the hell with this" and lounge around drinking beer.

I would prefer a system where people who want to work can make enough to be middle class. Yeah, those working as janitors and burger flippers will be lower middle class and will give up some things -- but society needs those jobs too if you want to have clean toilets and burgers available for you to eat at McDonald's. We can't just say "they should get a better job!" when what you mean is "NO ONE can live on those jobs so NO ONE should do them!" OK, fine, get rid of all those jobs, tear down all the fast food joints. Now instead of having only ten million fewer jobs than people looking for jobs, we have fifty million fewer jobs and all those people are making zero, which means either (a) you are paying for them through taxes AND all the restrooms are filthy, or (b) eventually there will be a revolution and all the money will truly be "redistributed."
 
2013-10-25 11:24:23 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: TNel: Fark_Guy_Rob: And given the choice, I'd take welfare over a job - even if the job pay 15-20% more.

You say that when you don't have to do it and would never do it.  We were on Wic for a few years and the looks you get from people was pathetic.  I tried to go at odd times because of it.  Then god forbid it took the cashier an extra minute to run the checks because the foot tapping and huffing was just icing on the cake.

I'm ugly.  The looks I get from people all the time is pathetic.  In all seriousness, I would feel no shame.  These programs exist for a reason, collectively our society wants them.  If you qualify, you shouldn't feel bad about it.


Sure, but the stigma that people put on it is crazy.  Look at this forum and any other forum/facebook that starts talking about welfare.  Everyone assumes you are scamming the system because of the "Welfare queens" that was hyped so much but was such a small fraction but when you live in a complete red county they all asume the worst without knowing.
 
2013-10-25 11:25:10 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I'm ugly. The looks I get from people all the time is pathetic. In all seriousness, I would feel no shame. These programs exist for a reason, collectively our society wants them. If you qualify, you shouldn't feel bad about it.


There is a legitimate place for shame. Shame aligns cultural incentives toward getting people off of public assistance when possible. It is impossible to effectively police a program with miliions of people in millions of different, ever-changing financial situations from the top down through enforcement. Shame provides a second, more comprehensive check on the system by encouraging people to police themselves. The problem is progressives want people to be supported AND feel no shame about it. They want everything to be anonymous and easy and remove all sources of potential embarrassment. All of this aligns incentives the wrong way and encourages dependence and abuse.
 
2013-10-25 11:25:42 AM  

trappedspirit: Fark_Guy_Rob: I've claimed that in many places, many people, can earn more by not working than they can from working.

[many citations needed]

/many


I've provided a link to a recent study.  By Fark standards that is pretty good.  Thus far, only one person (chimp_nina) has acknowledged it at all.  He raises good points, and many of them are addressed by the author's here:   http://www.cato.org/blog/work-vs-welfare-trade-response-critics

I haven't had time to actually read/process all of what chimp_ninja has written, and read the responses in the above link, and decide how exactly I feel about the issue.  Really though, it's not unreasonable to say that FOR AT LEAST SOME PEOPLE, not working pays as much as a minimum wage job, in the United States.  The question is really just a mater of what percentage.  Given that almost all of the needs-tested benefits consider income and dependents, while minimum wage does not scale up for dependents....

I also understand/acknowledge that working doesn't preclude benefits.  It's not an either or.

Still, it's hard to argue that a full-time job at minimum wage is in the best interest of a single mother with six children.
 
2013-10-25 11:26:36 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I'm sorry, I don't specifically mean 'welfare', I'm generally referring to 'welfare programs' that would include things like food stamps,

'(1) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the post-1996 cash welfare program; (2) the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps; (3) Medicaid; (4) housing assistance; (5) utilities assistance; (6) the Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC), and (7) the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) '

I'm not trying to imply that individual factors aren't considered, or that 'welfare' *always* pays better than working. But in a lot of places, for a lot of people, particularly single parents, it can make sense to not work.


Working parents can be eligible for 1 through 7 of your list, as minimum wage doesn't get you over the poverty line except (sometimes) if you live by yourself.  You're creating a false choice where if you work at minimum wage, the Government eliminates all of your benefits.

Also, keep in mind that most minimum wage employees don't end up averaging 40 hours per week despite their best efforts.  They'll almost never go over-- that would entail overtime, and most minimum wage employers do everything they can to avoid overtime.  But if there's a slow season?  Hours get cut.  You need a sick day?  You're not being paid that day.  Get assigned a graveyard shift at the last minute and you can't arrange child care?  Someone else can work it, no need to pay you that day.  Etc.

So $14,500 is an overestimate of what their gross income will be.
 
2013-10-25 11:28:35 AM  

TNel: Fark_Guy_Rob: TNel: Fark_Guy_Rob: And given the choice, I'd take welfare over a job - even if the job pay 15-20% more.

You say that when you don't have to do it and would never do it.  We were on Wic for a few years and the looks you get from people was pathetic.  I tried to go at odd times because of it.  Then god forbid it took the cashier an extra minute to run the checks because the foot tapping and huffing was just icing on the cake.

I'm ugly.  The looks I get from people all the time is pathetic.  In all seriousness, I would feel no shame.  These programs exist for a reason, collectively our society wants them.  If you qualify, you shouldn't feel bad about it.

Sure, but the stigma that people put on it is crazy.  Look at this forum and any other forum/facebook that starts talking about welfare.  Everyone assumes you are scamming the system because of the "Welfare queens" that was hyped so much but was such a small fraction but when you live in a complete red county they all asume the worst without knowing.


Sorry - you are right; and I don't mean to trivialize the social burden.  I do know there are a lot of people who would feel bad collecting benefits.  I don't think I'm one of them, but at the same time, it's hard to speculate how I would actually feel until in that position.  I can't imagine caring *enough* to let it impact my decision on using/applying for a benefit.

At the same time, I probably wouldn't mention it on a first date either.
 
2013-10-25 11:33:29 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Really though, it's not unreasonable to say that FOR AT LEAST SOME PEOPLE, not working pays as much as a minimum wage job, in the United States. The question is really just a mater of what percentage. Given that almost all of the needs-tested benefits consider income and dependents, while minimum wage does not scale up for dependents....

I also understand/acknowledge that working doesn't preclude benefits. It's not an either or.

Still, it's hard to argue that a full-time job at minimum wage is in the best interest of a single mother with six children.


Again, the poverty line does scale with the number of dependents.

Now, with six children, it may be the case that arranging child care is so challenging that going on benefits is your only option.  If you have one or two kids, there's a good chance you can convince a relative or good friend to help out.  If you have six, that's a hard sell.

But once they're in school (or the oldest ones start to be able to take care of the youngest ones), you'd be rational to try to work at least part time, because the poverty line for you and six kids is about $35K.  I'm oversimplifying to some extent, but most work income is cumulative with benefits until you start to approach the federal poverty line.
 
2013-10-25 11:33:56 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I'm afraid I'm going to stop responding to you.  You aren't replying to my comments, you are replying to a fictional adversary with unreasonable beliefs that you want to prove wrong.  This is my last attempt.....

Increasing the minimum wage would encourage people to choose work over welfare because people want to maximize their income.
Decreasing welfare benefits would encourage people to choose work over welfare because people want to maximize their income.

In that context, either option produces the same result.   IN THAT CONTEXT.

I'm not for or against either of them.  I'm just saying that either approach accomplishes the same thing.   Your suggestion is not the only reasonable response to the situation.


You're saying, as above, and as you did before, that these two things are equivalent, while ignoring all other factors, which is an intellectually worthless statement.  Sure, we could decrease welfare benefits, and it will be really bad for a lot of people, possibly resulting them into choosing to become members of the working poor instead of plain old poor, but nothing is gained.  Society still has to subsidize these people's lives, however we would have created a situation where it would then be impossible to make ends meet even through combined low-wage earnings and federal assistance.  We have people right now who work at Walmart, get federal assistance, and still are barely able to make ends meet.  If we decrease welfare, how exactly does that help those people?  Ignoring this is what makes your statement worthless.

Please enlighten me then, what else is a reasonable response.  Are you arguing, as it has seemed and I've been responding to, that a "reasonable response" is to decrease welfare?  That's what it sounds like you've been saying, and as I've been responding, that is at best a sociopathic response, not a reasonable one.
 
2013-10-25 11:37:28 AM  

chimp_ninja: Fark_Guy_Rob: I'm sorry, I don't specifically mean 'welfare', I'm generally referring to 'welfare programs' that would include things like food stamps,

'(1) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the post-1996 cash welfare program; (2) the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps; (3) Medicaid; (4) housing assistance; (5) utilities assistance; (6) the Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC), and (7) the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) '

I'm not trying to imply that individual factors aren't considered, or that 'welfare' *always* pays better than working. But in a lot of places, for a lot of people, particularly single parents, it can make sense to not work.

Working parents can be eligible for 1 through 7 of your list, as minimum wage doesn't get you over the poverty line except (sometimes) if you live by yourself.  You're creating a false choice where if you work at minimum wage, the Government eliminates all of your benefits.

Also, keep in mind that most minimum wage employees don't end up averaging 40 hours per week despite their best efforts.  They'll almost never go over-- that would entail overtime, and most minimum wage employers do everything they can to avoid overtime.  But if there's a slow season?  Hours get cut.  You need a sick day?  You're not being paid that day.  Get assigned a graveyard shift at the last minute and you can't arrange child care?  Someone else can work it, no need to pay you that day.  Etc.

So $14,500 is an overestimate of what their gross income will be.


Agreed, I realized that my posts were implying the 'either/or' nature, but I did write, 'I also understand/acknowledge that working doesn't preclude benefits.  It's not an either or. '

But if getting a paycheck of X reduces your welfare benefits by 'almost X' - and you've got additional costs related to going to work.....while you *could* do both, in certain situations, it doesn't make financial sense.

Single parents really come to mind.  It can cost a small fortune (and a logistics challenge) to get the children some place safe while you attend work.  Throw in transportation costs in getting to work and whatever additional fees (for example, if I'm staying home all day I can cook cheap food....but if I'm working 8 hours + an hour commute + plus dropping the kids off, picking the kids up + plus all the regular parenting crap + dealing with four children as a single parent....I'm going to pick up McDonalds).
 
2013-10-25 11:38:07 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Yeah, it is called college to someone who was born on third base but thinks he hit a triple.


You seem to have been born on third base and thought you were on first.

The difference that you seem to be missing is, a college kid can always GO HOME.

Some can, some can't.  I knew plenty of kids who couldn't afford to go home at all some years.

What the fark is wrong with ou animals who think that someone needs to be emaciated with a vulture flying over their heads before anyone should lift a finger to assist them? Where do they make you assholes?

They apparently make such assholes out of straw in your imagination.

xalres: It's a coping mechanism to help with the guilt they feel for not caring about or helping the impoverished in their own neighborhoods. "Pah, they're not  really poor. They have a refrigerator for God's sake!"


Pretending such things is your coping mechanism to justify not helping poor people and feeling like you do.  By assuming others don't, either.
 
2013-10-25 11:44:06 AM  

vudukungfu: You keep feeding the poor.
And they will keep breeding the poor.


Ah yes. Bumper sticker politics. So much easier than presenting actual policies. The hard part is making them rhyme. The GOP could use heavy thinkers such as yourself.
 
Displayed 50 of 276 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report