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 64
    More: Obvious, developing world, poor people, return on investments  
•       •       •

10500 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Oct 2013 at 9:13 AM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-10-25 09:22:27 AM
11 votes:

HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.


Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.
2013-10-25 09:17:03 AM
6 votes:
When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.
2013-10-25 09:43:22 AM
5 votes:
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.
2013-10-25 09:17:11 AM
5 votes:
Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.
2013-10-25 09:34:15 AM
4 votes:

beezeltown: Give money to poor people who LIVE IN A POOR COUNTRY, and they do good things, potentially.

CSB:

My friend dated a girl, when we were in high school, who came from a very poor family. One winter, her mother complained that the heating bill was too high, maybe $200. My friend's parents gave GF's mom $200 to pay the heating bill.

A couple of weeks later, another story about the gas being turned off emerged. Turns out, the mom used the $200 to get cable installed.

This is just an anecdote, but I would tend to think throwing money at people who squander resources and opportunities routinely is a poor use of "charitable" funds.


Yeah, screw the poor, because of this one guy who knew some other people who told a story that he's now telling on the internet that's totally believable.
2013-10-25 09:38:31 AM
3 votes:
Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run.

Kind of like supply side vs. demand side.

Liberals say we should keep throwing money at poor people, and look at short run benefits.  They completely ignore the culture of dependency it creates.

Economists know that spending is better focused on policies in which the poor can lift themselves.  Better/subsidized education, training, or vocation programs.

You know, the whole "give a man a fish" vs. "teach a man to fish" idea.
2013-10-25 09:36:19 AM
3 votes:

nunyadang: Any Farkers read the whole article?

"Even though households were spending more on health and education, it didn't seem to be having much effect. People who got money were sick just as often as those who got less. And school attendance rates for their kids didn't really change. Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run. "


Yes and the very next paragraph:

"Paul Niehaus, one of Give Directly's founders, does think cash can have long-lasting effects. He points to a similar study in Uganda where the government gave people money and people's incomes went up - and stayed up, even years later. People had used the money to start small businesses, like metal working or tailoring clothes. "
2013-10-25 09:20:41 AM
3 votes:
Well it happened this time, surely it will happen any time this is tried any where in the world.
2013-10-25 09:18:25 AM
3 votes:
It's almost like poor people immediately spend their money in local economies while rich cocksuckers, they probably all in the Hamptons braggin' about what they make.

fark you and your Hampton house
I fark your Hampton spouse
Came on her Hampton blouse
and in her Hampton mouth
2013-10-25 09:15:00 AM
3 votes:
Gotta have money to make money.  More at 11.
2013-10-25 10:34:53 AM
2 votes:

Slaves2Darkness: vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.

Well that is the problem.

In Tennessee the poor know that they will get at least one meal a day and most likely two. In Africa the poor are lucky if they can eat once a day. The Republicans are right in this, that the less of a safety net a society provides the more their poor become self starters. The only downside is those that can't or won't pull themselves up by their bootstraps starve to death.  I'd rather provide the basics of life and have people by lifers in the welfare system, then allow my fellow citizens to starve to death.


That right there is what I see as the fundamental difference between right and left in this country. Liberals believe it's the role of government to ensure its population isn't starving destitute on the street, conservatives believe government has no business giving out what they perceive as free handouts to undeserving people who won't take personal responsibility for their situation. What I think conservatives fail to grasp is that pretty much every time their model for dealing with the poor has been put into practice it's led to bloody revolts and uprisings. Social welfare programs are as much about keeping the rich in possession of their heads as they are about helping the poor.
2013-10-25 10:16:03 AM
2 votes:

brobdiggy: Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run.

Kind of like supply side vs. demand side.

Liberals say we should keep throwing money at poor people, and look at short run benefits.  They completely ignore the culture of dependency it creates.

Economists know that spending is better focused on policies in which the poor can lift themselves.  Better/subsidized education, training, or vocation programs.

You know, the whole "give a man a fish" vs. "teach a man to fish" idea.


Carn: brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.

The Waltons, whose fortunes are subsidized by the federal government through assistance to their workforce because they aren't paid a living wage, would like a word with you.  Indirectly, that's exactly where a lot of that money is coming from.


Same goes for pretty much any company who gets away with paying the majority of their workforce so poorly that they have to be on assistance programs just to get by. Add on top of that the ridiculous tax breaks they get from setting up tax havens and shady overseas bank accounts, and taking advantage of loopholes, to say nothing of corporate welfare. Given all the various and sundry ways there are to buy your way out of paying your fair share of taxes if you have the money, I'd say the middle class subsidizes rich peoples' lifestyles to a greater extent than we do for the poor.
2013-10-25 10:13:49 AM
2 votes:

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?
2013-10-25 10:12:10 AM
2 votes:

Wise_Guy: zeroman987: brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.

What about TARP? What about the Detroit bailout? Walmart? Mobil Exxon? Etc etc ad infinitum.

Because every rich person is a huge corporation.


Respond to my comment, not what you wish my comment says.

Every corporation is run by a rich person. When a government gives money to a corporation, a rich person gets it through their salary or through dividends. Poor people don't own very much and they don't own stock.

Rich people directed their minions to originate crappy mortgages, lied about their crappiness, and sold them to other rich people. When the house of cards fell, the taxpayers footed the bill. So, his statement is incorrect. When rich people blow all their money, it DOES come out of the taxpayer's pocket.

See also Walmart (the government subsidizes their low wages by a ridiculous amount, putting more money in their pockets) and the other companies that get corporate welfare.

It is disengenuous to say that rich people don't get welfare because the majority of welfare goes to the rich. Democracy is failing, not because the masses are voting themselves tons of money, it is failing because the rich have tricked the masses into voting to give the rich even more money.
2013-10-25 10:09:47 AM
2 votes:
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.
2013-10-25 09:49:05 AM
2 votes:

CapnPlaty: The study was conducted by the person who co-founded the charity.  I'm guessing these results are just a tad bit skewed.

That's not to say that providing resources to those ambitious enough to do something with them is a bad idea. Personally, if someone hands me an additional $20,000, my first move isn't going to be to start a home business. I'll probably pay off some bills and upgrade some things around the house, but I'd also get a kick ass new computer.


You are probably not going to start a new business because you already have a mean of income. Career change is not the same things as starting a career. Besides that, none of the other moves are bad.

I think it all boils down to a philosophical argument: if you give free money to people, is it more likely to make them lazy or give them a kick start.

Of course it depends on individual. The real question is, what percentage is likely to do what. According to conservatives 99% lazy 1% kick start. According to liberals (I consider myself one), 20% lazy 80% kick start.

It would be interesting to see the real number somehow.
2013-10-25 09:41:50 AM
2 votes:

odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.


Cool selectivity story bro. In UK not so long ago the government found out we were handing out about a billion per year in housing benefit for people to have spare bedrooms they didn't need. This was keeping people who did need those properties on waiting lists. The government reduced the housing benefits of claiments who refused to move, saving UKP800M, and put back UKP150M into a specialist fund to help out the few who would be really inconvenienced.

In response, UK's BBC (left wing state broadcaster) adopted the term "bedroom tax" in a bid to fool the viewing public into thinking this was some new tax on bedrooms in general. Furthermore, and this is the relevent point, they spent $$$ of compulsory license fee money on a research firm to scour the country looking for people who lost out. Eventually, after a FOUR MONTH search, they found a couple and stuck them on prime-time news with no balance to speak of.

This is the same BBC (and indeed the same actual news programme) that conspired to conceal repeated acts of child sexual exploitation because it was done by "one of their own", and which in order to divert people's attention started randomly accusing right-wing politicians of pedophilia knowing that they would be able to pay off the lawsuits using cash forcibly taken from the public. Oh, and its then-director-general became "buddies" with Al Gore, and promptly stiched up a policy conferance so that it would henceforth treat climate change as undisputed fact. It then refused to honour FOI requests about the conferance until it was finally discovered that it had been packed out with Greenpeace activists and the like. But, if you're an incompetant and incorrigably Marxist senior BBC manager, you can cock up as much as you want, and you'll still get a multi-million payoff from all the other incompetant Marxist hypocrite wankers in the upper ranks of the BBC. Money taken, ironically, from a highly regressive tax that hits the poor the hardest. Utter. Cock. Suckers.
2013-10-25 09:26:17 AM
2 votes:

vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.


It would be exactly the same. No matter how much conservatives wail about it, poor people use the money they get to take care of themselves and they spend it responsibly (mostly). At around a 98% level. Facts are facts.
2013-10-25 09:23:38 AM
2 votes:
Give money to poor people who LIVE IN A POOR COUNTRY, and they do good things, potentially.

CSB:

My friend dated a girl, when we were in high school, who came from a very poor family. One winter, her mother complained that the heating bill was too high, maybe $200. My friend's parents gave GF's mom $200 to pay the heating bill.

A couple of weeks later, another story about the gas being turned off emerged. Turns out, the mom used the $200 to get cable installed.

This is just an anecdote, but I would tend to think throwing money at people who squander resources and opportunities routinely is a poor use of "charitable" funds.
2013-10-25 08:42:19 PM
1 votes:

Ablejack: WhyKnot: Ablejack: Why is it more important to prevent the poor from type-2 diabetes than the rich? With your reasoning we should allow no treats or sugars etc. for anyone. This is only about having control vs. human dignity, plus a dose of punishment for the poor.

Because the poor aren't buying it with their own money!
The government should not be buying people sugar snacks and soda instead of rice and milk.

Yes they are. When the government issues a check to you, it is your own money. At least that's how it has always been. Just like when you get paid, that money is yours, doesn't matter who signed off on it. Besides, the government spends tons of money on snack foods and sugars that we all eat. Basically you have just agreed with me that it's only a control thing. People tend to think that the money they paid in taxes still somehow belongs to them personally. It doesn't. It is spent by policies written by Politicians that we all elect. The woman with three kids that treats them to ice cream Friday night after she gets home from work isn't blowing your money at all. She is adding to the local economy much more than the corporate welfare dollars to the oil and banking industry, to say nothing of the big chunk of taxes spent on the military.


Ha. I love that you equate my pay check to a welfare recipient getting his/her welfare check. My company gets the benefit of my labor...what does the government get from giving people money to sit around?

Oh, it stimulates the economy...them why doesn't everyone get money? Welfare isn't "stimulate" the economy money, it is don't starve to death money...it is don't rob your neighbor to buy bread money...along those lines, yes, we absolutely should regulate what foods can be bought with goverent dollars. Sorry if little Johnny can't have twinkles in his lunch because his family doesn't make enough to afford it, at least little Johnny has food in his stomach that is healthy.

But shiat, let's keep letting little Johnny's mom fill him up with sugar and unhealthy food...it isn't like studies have shown proper nuitrition helps with brain development that could help Johnny break the cycle of poverty.

The government ties strings to money all the time, what this tax credit, do xyz....I fail to see how it would be abusive to say, you want money so you don't starve? Fine, but you can only buy these certain types of food. Nah, it is 'their' money.
2013-10-25 04:13:58 PM
1 votes:
If you're referring to African 'poor' than answer C. If you're talking about American 'poor' then A.

I'm old enough to realized that my $$ goes a LOT further giving to a destitute family in Mongolia than to a family who lost their house from Katrina.
2013-10-25 04:13:40 PM
1 votes:

fredklein: here to help: NOBODY benefits from an absurdly low min wage. When THAT many people have ZERO extra funds to toss around the economy flounders.

And when people have a lot of money to 'throw around', prices go up, and the corporations make more money.


Yes, that's what's known as a healthy economy. And it works so long as we can regulate and tax appropriately to keep from a winner take all scenario.
2013-10-25 04:08:11 PM
1 votes:

ShadowKamui: Ablejack: But to what end? To further denigrate the dignity of our neighbors? We should do as much as possible to make the SNAP inconspicuous. If anything, there should be no option to opt out of food stamps if you are selling foods. One of the local urban farms here will not accept food stamps "on principle" at their stand. Fresh farmed produce is unavailable to these people out of spite. It is made more unconscionable that they gladly accept subsidies themselves.

The end is to stop having people on food stamps end up w/ type-2 diabetes.  Qualified fo ...


Why is it more important to prevent the poor from type-2 diabetes than the rich? With your reasoning we should allow no treats or sugars etc. for anyone. This is only about having control vs. human dignity, plus a dose of punishment for the poor.
2013-10-25 04:00:32 PM
1 votes:

fredklein: Do a dead-simple task that anyone can do with no training? Earn only a little.


We've tried this experiment.  It ends in virtual serfdom.

You're arguing for going below the existing minimum wage, which is a prescription for having to work 12+ hour days just for basic needs, and no chance to save enough to ever do better.  That isn't the country I want to live in.

As is, if you work full-time for the minimum wage, you probably don't break the poverty line.  Then we all end up paying for you anyway.
2013-10-25 01:00:53 PM
1 votes:

fredklein: Carn: I think the solution is rather simple: ensure that all jobs pay a decent, living wage.

So why don't you start a business, and pay your employees $100/hour, or whatever you think is "decent".


Yes, hyperbole. Excellent.

Minimum wage NEEDS to be tied to the inflation rate and cost of living indexes. That way we don't end up in situations where people are either losing buying power for their hard earned cash or harming employers with drastic wage increases once the minimum absolutely NEEDS to go up.

Once a year or so just crunch the numbers and there's your min wage. Hell, it could be done by region. The min wage could go DOWN if cost of living decreases.

NOBODY benefits from an absurdly low min wage. When THAT many people have ZERO extra funds to toss around the economy flounders. This is why I don't trust these supposed economic experts who run the companies. They don't seem to understand that more money floating around the bottom means more money floating to the top. They can't even see their own asses. It's a game of hoarders in that world and they aren't only hurting us peons they are hurting their OWN BOTTOM LINE!!!
2013-10-25 12:11:06 PM
1 votes:

Fark_Guy_Rob: 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.


From the study: In 11 states, welfare pays more than the average pre-tax first year wage for a teacher.  In 39 states it pays more than the starting salary for a secretary.  And, in the 3 most generous states a person on welfare can take home more money than an entry-level computer programmer.

I checked on this in my state last year out of curiosity.  Just wondering what was available, not to enroll.  And it was sub-minimum wage.  I didn't consider that we were so far down the list as to be in the minority.  Early retirement in Massachusetts here I come!
2013-10-25 11:52:27 AM
1 votes:

Carn: 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.


You can scroll up and verify; but this was our exchange....

Me:  "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."
You: 'What an excellent argument for raising the minimum wage, doubling it in fact.'
Me:  'Or halving welfare.  The argument goes both ways.
 '

The 'excellent argument' you are talking about is directly in response to what I wrote.  '...welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job'

You are claiming that this is an excellent argument for doubling the minimum wage.  That is the ONLY justification you gave.  That's it.  'Because welfare recipients make more than an $8 per hour job, we should double minimum wage'.

YOU:  IF X IS GREATER THAN Y - WE SHOULD DOUBLE Y SO THAT Y IS GREATER THAN X
ME:  Umm - or.....WE SHOULD HALVE X SO THAT Y IS GREATER THAN X

By your own words, 'excellent argument' supports cutting benefits exactly as much as increasing the minimum wage....but you only mentioned the part you wanted.  That's exactly the same as saying, 'I think we should double minimum wage' - which is fine.  But it's just an opinion without any supporting argument.  You can't say, 'If I flip a coin, it will be either heads or tails, therefore it will be tails'.  That doesn't make sense, and neither did your statement.
2013-10-25 11:26:36 AM
1 votes:

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 11:22:47 AM
1 votes:
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 11:12:31 AM
1 votes:

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 11:12:16 AM
1 votes:

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 10:52:10 AM
1 votes:

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 10:49:10 AM
1 votes:

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 10:47:20 AM
1 votes:

RedTank: brimed03: RedTank: Yes, lets give 100 poor people money and then report how well it went when 1 of them actually does something with it to make sustainable income.

/Just giving money away is a little too leftist for me.

Except it turned out to be a hell of a lot more than 1 person out of 100 so your comment is stupid.

But you know which 1% does suck?

Yes, I do know which 1% sucks.  That 1% unquestionably needs to pay more - But everyone else needs to be motivated through working (long-term gain) as opposed to literally just handing them money (generally short-term gains).  Raise minimum wages and raise wages in general at the expense of the top 1%.  But do it through the system.


Dude, the system is rigged. The only people who can un-rig it? Bought and paid for by the people who benefit from it.
2013-10-25 10:34:15 AM
1 votes:
The other thing to point out here is when sending aid to impoverished countries the bulk of it gets absorb by overinflated costs, logistics, bureaucracies and outright theft. Just handing the cash directly to those that need it cuts that sh*t out. Will some people waste it? Definitely but who gives a sh*t? It costs more to pay for the anti abuse systems that are themselves abusing the money.

Bring that concept to the US. How much gets wasted on bullsh*t drug testing and anti fraud schemes? How much gets wasted on social workers who don't really give a sh*t and are just absorbing a paycheck and/or getting their rocks off by making their caseloads jump through ridiculous hoops just to get a measly few bucks? Again, will people abuse the system? Yes. But that is what fraud laws are for. Don't waste a ton of money assuming EVERYONE on bennies is a con artist. If someone is scamming it's pretty easy to see the red flags going up at which point you investigate. Compare this to an agency like the IRS. Do we audit every single person who files taxes? No. We trust that people will do the right thing and trust that the failsafes and warning systems will prevent fraud or alert the agency that someone is up to no good.

And as someone who as a young man was forced into that sh*tty system a few times I'll tell, ya... it's a f*ck of a lot harder to find a job when you are constantly getting harassed by these people or having to ask potential employers to sign your welfare form to prove you asked for a job. How does that look to an employer with all the negativity surrounding people on welfare? The stigma alone is enough for them to trash your resume so that time and opportunity have been wasted.

I propose if you want to do these job search requirements then set up a system that employers are required to provide a reference ID for ANYONE who comes in to apply. No signing papers or declaring whether you are on welfare or not. Just something that shows you did indeed apply somewhere.

There are tons of other common sense things that could be done but all we hear are screams to punish anyone who is forced accept benefits.

And at the end of the day there will ALWAYS be lazy people. Just let them be lazy. I don't want to work with or employ them. I don't want them so broke they're wandering the streets stirring up sh*t and looking for stuff to steal. I don't want them so depressed and angry that they turn to drugs or violence. Just let them do their thing of in some corner of society where we don't have to deal with them. When and if they are ready to make something more of themselves give them an opportunity to rejoin the productive populace.
2013-10-25 10:31:45 AM
1 votes:

Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: Supply and demand doesn't work that way.  Nobody is forced to work at Walmart *and* Walmart is complying with minimum wage laws.  The fact that Sam Walton can make more money than some other less-rich business man doesn't increase the value of the guy scanning items at the checkout.

If Walmart wasn't paying enough, nobody would work there.  People do, of their own free will.  It's quite clear that they are paying a fair wage, because people accept it under reasonable circumstances.

That's unfortunately not how our current economy works.  Walmart doesn't pay enough and a million people work there.  There are millions of jobs that do not pay enough, which is the reason why we have a class of people called the working poor.  Most people who can work, do, and are still poor.  The belief that poor people are all lazy moochers is the right wing's love child.

Of course, it's not just Walmart.  Let's say you can choose between them, Target, Best Buy, or some other big box.  If you work retail, you're making shiat wages and you're f*cked.


You're making the assumption that 'If someone works X hours' they should have 'Y lifestyle'.  And I fundamentally disagree.

How much should someone get paid for doing X?  However much they can get!  Is a football player making 3 million per year overpaid?  No.  That's his value.  Being good at football is something a lot of people care about, and spend money to support.

Lots of jobs are trivial.  *Anyone* can do them.  I can, you can, my half-retarded nephew can.  How much should someone get paid for doing a trivial job?  Whatever they can get!  I used to work at McDonalds.  I was a 'good employee' but there isn't really a difference between a good employee and an average employee and a not horrible employee at McDonalds.  So, that sets the wage.

Our society feels that, the free market approach is too much.  Without laws and regulations, employers could band together and force wages down for trivial jobs where performance doesn't really matter; so we have laws to stop that.  Specifically the minimum wage laws.

As long as Walmart pays the minimum wage, they aren't doing anything wrong.  If people don't like it; they should complain about the law, not Walmart.  The law is artificially increasing prices, and that benefits the employees - not Walmart.  If the employees qualify for government assistance, that benefits the employees - not Walmart.  People will gladly work 50 hours per week for enough money to feed their children rice, history and even current living/working conditions show that.

Of course, there is very little difference between raising the minimum wage and giving 'working poor' government assistance.

But yeah, minimum wage already *isn't* a fair wage; it is an artificially inflated wage.  And if that isn't enough money, don't blame Walmart or Target, blame the lawmakers that put minimum wage where it is.  Getting upset at Walmart for not paying people more is like getting upset at people for declaring legitimate tax deductions when they file each year.  People SHOULD act in their own best interest, within the confines of the law and whatever internal sense of right and wrong they have.
2013-10-25 10:30:06 AM
1 votes:

DROxINxTHExWIND: You don't think living in Chicago in the winter with no electricity is "true poverty"? You don't think eating Raman noodles several meals per week or making a choice between medicine and meat for dinner is true poverty? I really despise you people who speak with so much authority about issues that you obviously have no idea about. You are what I like to call a phony intellectual. You actually think that you are BETTER than poor people because you were born with a mommy and daddy who could pay the bills. your ignorant comment that I highlighted is the perfect illustration. You think that poor people don't "realize" that spending money frivilously is the opposite of saving it? You think that poor people don't know that MONEY will improve their situation? But, I guess you're able to sustain yourself because you were smart enough to figure it out, huh? Unlike those poors who lack your intelligence. Smh. Please.


Here is the problem with this progressive narrative. Even if we ignore the many, many government programs available to the lower classes in the U.S., if they found themselves truly desperate and approached any mainstream church or synagogue in the United States, explicitly asking for help turning their life around, there is no farking way they would be turned away without food, clothing, and being hooked up with some sort of decent work opportunity, at least for the short-term to give them a start. I can name several in my city alone. Why does this never happen in reality, despite being so painfully obvious? Because that would require both serious effort and humility. People want to fill out an application and get checks in the mail because it's less embarrassing than asking real people for life-changing assistance.
2013-10-25 10:24:00 AM
1 votes:

Wise_Guy: zeroman987: Wise_Guy: zeroman987: brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.

What about TARP? What about the Detroit bailout? Walmart? Mobil Exxon? Etc etc ad infinitum.

Because every rich person is a huge corporation.

Respond to my comment, not what you wish my comment says.

Every corporation is run by a rich person. When a government gives money to a corporation, a rich person gets it through their salary or through dividends. Poor people don't own very much and they don't own stock.

Rich people directed their minions to originate crappy mortgages, lied about their crappiness, and sold them to other rich people. When the house of cards fell, the taxpayers footed the bill. So, his statement is incorrect. When rich people blow all their money, it DOES come out of the taxpayer's pocket.

See also Walmart (the government subsidizes their low wages by a ridiculous amount, putting more money in their pockets) and the other companies that get corporate welfare.

It is disengenuous to say that rich people don't get welfare because the majority of welfare goes to the rich. Democracy is failing, not because the masses are voting themselves tons of money, it is failing because the rich have tricked the masses into voting to give the rich even more money.

And all this would change if the rich person spent his money more wisely.  Good to know.


All this would change if rich people were forced to put their own money at risk and not the taxpayer's money. Maybe then they would spend more time evaluating their investments. Then again it must be nice to know you can invest in something and when it turns out to be crap, the government cuts you a check no matter how stupid you were! Not to mention the richest people don't actually work and live off investments.

Basically fark them.
2013-10-25 10:13:35 AM
1 votes:
It is amazing to me just how much the Puritan idea that poor people are poor due to having low character pervades American thinking.  The idea that situation may have more to do with someone's inherent wealth seems an anathema to most people.  I guess there is attribution bias as well, with people who figure if someone else is going through tough times, it must be because they are somehow flawed, but if they themselves are going through tough times, it is because they were dealt a shiatty hand.
2013-10-25 10:12:19 AM
1 votes:

Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: Carn: brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.

The Waltons, whose fortunes are subsidized by the federal government through assistance to their workforce because they aren't paid a living wage, would like a word with you.  Indirectly, that's exactly where a lot of that money is coming from.

That's some slippery logic.

Without government assistance, do you honestly believe everyone at Walmart would quit?  Nope.  They don't have a better place to go.  They'd simply have less money.

It's also worth mentioning that, while American's like to talk about how poor 'poor people' are; by other countries standards they have an incredibly high standard of living.  True story - I live in a *400 sq ft.* apartment, have no cable TV, no car, no a/c.  Where I live, that's not too exceptional (maybe the TV is).

Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

If we cut-off government assistance programs, Walmart workers would keep working because it is the best option they have.  The quality of their lifestyle would decrease.

I really don't think it is far to say these programs help Walmart.  Walmart doesn't give a f***.

Slippery logic?  That Walmart and other large corporations keep labor costs low by paying poverty wages and then reap the benefits in terms of record profits?  This isn't some n ...


Supply and demand doesn't work that way.  Nobody is forced to work at Walmart *and* Walmart is complying with minimum wage laws.  The fact that Sam Walton can make more money than some other less-rich business man doesn't increase the value of the guy scanning items at the checkout.

If Walmart wasn't paying enough, nobody would work there.  People do, of their own free will.  It's quite clear that they are paying a fair wage, because people accept it under reasonable circumstances.
2013-10-25 10:12:02 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-10-25 10:11:02 AM
1 votes:

brobdiggy: Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run.

Kind of like supply side vs. demand side.

Liberals say we should keep throwing money at poor people, and look at short run benefits.  They completely ignore the culture of dependency it creates.

Economists know that spending is better focused on policies in which the poor can lift themselves.  Better/subsidized education, training, or vocation programs.

You know, the whole "give a man a fish" vs. "teach a man to fish" idea.


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? (And they don't care, they send their kids to private school, have a great health insurance policy anyway, private guards in their private subdivision, etc. So why spend money so a bunch of poor people have a decent school?)

I mean, I could almost sorta get behind the whole "screw anyone who is poor, no matter the reason" mentality, if it didn't also come with huge cuts to education or any other program that might give hard-working poor people a chance to pull themselves up and improve their situation. (Forget about the middle class working their way up, the super-rich have pulled that ladder up behind them a long time ago.) And it's all couched in "we need tax cuts for job creators" and "we have a spending problem" when it's really "Boo hoo, Mitt Romney pays 12% of his income in taxes (less than most middle class workers) and some of that goes to feed and educate these stinking poor people. If we just let them die, he may only have to pay 10% and can buy that third yacht."

Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for those who are lazy or choose not to work. Unlike Mitt Romney (who is unemployed and makes millions in dividends/untaxed capital gains), I work hard for my money every day. But as the income disparity in this country widens, the middle class is being pushed toward the bottom (go ahead and look at a graph of income and see if 50% is closer to the bottom or the line on the right that goes straight up), and we are becoming more like the Dark Ages and third-world hellholes where like 6 families have all the money and everyone else lives in poverty.
2013-10-25 10:08:17 AM
1 votes:

brobdiggy: 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


They will spend that money on what?  Food, clothes, electronics, etc right?    So business will sell more which makes their bottom line better, people are happier at the bottom and at the top.  Kind of a stimulus you might say.

Wait I forgot you have to cut taxes to the wealthy and the money will trickle down to the poor people.
2013-10-25 10:02:10 AM
1 votes:

Carn: brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.

The Waltons, whose fortunes are subsidized by the federal government through assistance to their workforce because they aren't paid a living wage, would like a word with you.  Indirectly, that's exactly where a lot of that money is coming from.


That's some slippery logic.

Without government assistance, do you honestly believe everyone at Walmart would quit?  Nope.  They don't have a better place to go.  They'd simply have less money.

It's also worth mentioning that, while American's like to talk about how poor 'poor people' are; by other countries standards they have an incredibly high standard of living.  True story - I live in a *400 sq ft.* apartment, have no cable TV, no car, no a/c.  Where I live, that's not too exceptional (maybe the TV is).

Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

If we cut-off government assistance programs, Walmart workers would keep working because it is the best option they have.  The quality of their lifestyle would decrease.

I really don't think it is far to say these programs help Walmart.  Walmart doesn't give a f***.
2013-10-25 10:00:50 AM
1 votes:
Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run.

ih2.redbubble.net
2013-10-25 09:55:08 AM
1 votes:
As a poor person every extra penny I have left over gets put into things I need to make money which would make me less poor so I could by more things I need to make more money. However when the absolute MAX I can put aside each month is no more than $30-40 (on a REALLY good month) makes the process grindingly slow and excruciating that by the time I manage to build anything significant it's already out of date (computer stuff).

If I had been given even an extra $50-100 per month or a one time influx of $5000-10,000 a few years back I would be out of poverty and paying taxes by now and even able to pay that money back. Instead I'm a drain and get treated like a freaking leech/criminal just because I'm broke.

In fact if the "job creator" who completely imploded his business despite my best efforts to get him to make RATIONAL decisions with company resources hadn't ripped me off for thousands of dollars I would have been well on my way to making money again.

Also no one will lend to you when you're poor ESPECIALLY when you have the AUDACITY like I did to never go into debt with credit cards, cars, houses, bill collectors, etc.

So glad I listened to all the super responsible people in this world and worked myself into a wheelchair, avoided debt and splurging on useless crap, etc while they ran the entire economy into the ground, made housing completely unaffordable, froze wages and stole every freaking penny they could. I watched my youth slip away as all my friends enjoyed life and I toiled away for scumbags who stabbed me in the back.

I was (and am) one of the most bootstrappy mother frackers you'll ever meet. Where's mine, assholes?!
2013-10-25 09:54:36 AM
1 votes:

brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.


What about TARP? What about the Detroit bailout? Walmart? Mobil Exxon? Etc etc ad infinitum.
2013-10-25 09:53:15 AM
1 votes:

brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.


The Waltons, whose fortunes are subsidized by the federal government through assistance to their workforce because they aren't paid a living wage, would like a word with you.  Indirectly, that's exactly where a lot of that money is coming from.
2013-10-25 09:53:10 AM
1 votes:
Some people will use the money responsibly to improve their lives. Other people will foolishly spend the money on fleeting things and end up right where they started.

Gosh, it's almost like poor people are individuals who are capable of making good and bad decisions just like everyone else, and are not automatically going to do the things a commonly held socio-economic bias says they will. But but but that means the only real way to effect true change is to give each and every poor person the chance to improve themselves and their lives, through continued funding of strong social support programs, financed primarily by taxes on the rich and middle class!
2013-10-25 09:52:54 AM
1 votes:

Lady J: so I checked one of your facts, that the BBC came up with the term 'bedroom tax', and it's bs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21321113

I can't be bothered to check the rest, but I suspect they're bs as well


He said they adopted the term, not created it.
2013-10-25 09:50:51 AM
1 votes:

Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.


If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.
2013-10-25 09:50:09 AM
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

Cool selectivity story bro. In UK not so long ago the government found out we were handing out about a billion per year in housing benefit for people to have spare bedrooms they didn't need. This was keeping people who did need those properties on waiting lists. The government reduced the housing benefits of claiments who refused to move, saving UKP800M, and put back UKP150M into a specialist fund to help out the few who would be really inconvenienced.

In response, UK's BBC (left wing state broadcaster) adopted the term "bedroom tax" in a bid to fool the viewing public into thinking this was some new tax on bedrooms in general. Furthermore, and this is the relevent point, they spent $$$ of compulsory license fee money on a research firm to scour the country looking for people who lost out. Eventually, after a FOUR MONTH search, they found a couple and stuck them on prime-time news with no balance to speak of.

This is the same BBC (and indeed the same actual news programme) that conspired to conceal repeated acts of child sexual exploitation because it was done by "one of their own", and which in order to divert people's attention started randomly accusing right-wing politicians of pedophilia knowing that they would be able to pay off the lawsuits using cash forcibly taken from the public. Oh, and its then-director-general became "buddies" with Al Gore, and promptly stiched up a policy conferance so that it would henceforth treat climate change as undisputed fact. It then refused to honour FOI requests about the conferance until it was finally discovered that ...


so I checked one of your facts, that the BBC came up with the term 'bedroom tax', and it's bs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21321113

I can't be bothered to check the rest, but I suspect they're bs as well
2013-10-25 09:49:43 AM
1 votes:

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.

It would be exactly the same. No matter how much conservatives wail about it, poor people use the money they get to take care of themselves and they spend it responsibly (mostly). At around a 98% level. Facts are facts.


Citation SORELY needed. That certainly flies in the face of what I've seen in my city.

And, BTW, while it seems intuitive that more people in a poor country (rather than people in a bad neighborhood) would do something proactive with the money I have yet to see anyone note that this "study" was simply asking the recipients what they bought. If they spent it on khat or hookers would they say that?
2013-10-25 09:43:12 AM
1 votes:

beezeltown: Give money to poor people who LIVE IN A POOR COUNTRY, and they do good things, potentially.

CSB:

My friend dated a girl, when we were in high school, who came from a very poor family. One winter, her mother complained that the heating bill was too high, maybe $200. My friend's parents gave GF's mom $200 to pay the heating bill.

A couple of weeks later, another story about the gas being turned off emerged. Turns out, the mom used the $200 to get cable installed.

This is just an anecdote, but I would tend to think throwing money at people who squander resources and opportunities routinely is a poor use of "charitable" funds.


yeah some folks are poor because of bad decisions and some are poor because of no fault of their own just like some people are rich because of good decisions and some are rich because of no work on their own. The Left really loves to put all rich in one "i got mine so fark you" bucket and the Right loves to put all poor in one "taker class" bucket. If you look at the level of hatred by the middle class there's not a lot of difference between the poor and the rich.
2013-10-25 09:43:10 AM
1 votes:

Carn: Yes and the very next paragraph:

"Paul Niehaus, one of Give Directly's founders, does think cash can have long-lasting effects. He points to a similar study in Uganda where the government gave people money and people's incomes went up - and stayed up, even years later. People had used the money to start small businesses, like metal working or tailoring clothes. "


It's probably a bit easier to start a small business where it is largely unregulated and not taxed to hell.
2013-10-25 09:42:11 AM
1 votes:
The study was conducted by the person who co-founded the charity.  I'm guessing these results are just a tad bit skewed.

That's not to say that providing resources to those ambitious enough to do something with them is a bad idea. Personally, if someone hands me an additional $20,000, my first move isn't going to be to start a home business. I'll probably pay off some bills and upgrade some things around the house, but I'd also get a kick ass new computer.
2013-10-25 09:34:55 AM
1 votes:
My cousin is/was always poor and in trouble with financial/money issues.  He was just completely senseless with money.

When he did get money, he would blow it.  Due to his low income, he gets a decent tax refund each year.  Does he save it for a rainy day?  Use it to pay off debt?  Nope - buys the latest gaming console or iGadget.

Going to his house at Christmas, you'd think he was wealthy with the gifts he bought his family/kids.  He bought a $700 PS3 package a couple of years ago.  Then he had to pawn it for $180 two months later because he couldn't pay his bills.  Dumb and dumber.

He wonders why no one in the family will give him money when he asks for help.
2013-10-25 09:34:40 AM
1 votes:
Any Farkers read the whole article?

"Even though households were spending more on health and education, it didn't seem to be having much effect. People who got money were sick just as often as those who got less. And school attendance rates for their kids didn't really change. Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run. "
2013-10-25 09:34:30 AM
1 votes:

dwrash: So one 1 in 1,000,000 justifies free handouts?


Where did you get these numbers?
2013-10-25 09:32:41 AM
1 votes:
So one 1 in 1,000,000 justifies free handouts?
2013-10-25 09:30:54 AM
1 votes:
Anyone finds this interesting and not know about micro credit, should read about Dr. Yunus and his Grameen Bank experiment.
2013-10-25 09:22:41 AM
1 votes:
So, you give people free money and then hang around to see what they do with it. They therefore avoid the hookers and blow and are seen to be spending it sensibly. They are (or claim to be) happier, but do not get any healthier or better educated.

Cultures have to lift themselves out of poverty. The only thing "we" can do to help is to protect them from tyranny (which necessarily includes not being a typrant yourself, something western libs, with their legendary lack of self-awareness, are rather bad at).
2013-10-25 09:19:56 AM
1 votes:
Half Price Books did a massive clearance sale event and bragged about "And we'll donate the rest to Feed The Children" leaving me to ask "Children eat books? Or are they going to transport the books to impoverished regions and hand them out thus making it impossible for a small book dealer to grow up in the area since they have to compete with free".

It tends to be a problem when we toss out piles of food. We flooded the Haitian market with free rice, impoverishing local rice farmers. Want to hand out food? Buy local first.
2013-10-25 09:17:55 AM
1 votes:
Truly poor

Not iPhone 4 and Applebees poor.
 
Displayed 64 of 64 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report