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.

(Gawker)   Shocking revelation of the day: government programs to reduce poverty actually do reduce poverty   (gawker.com) divider line 211
    More: Obvious, revelations, poverty, war on poverty  
•       •       •

5522 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Dec 2013 at 2:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-10 01:04:59 PM  
So let's cut SNAP!
 
2013-12-10 01:21:56 PM  
BUT AT WHAT COST, MAN? AT. WHAT. COST?
 
2013-12-10 01:25:36 PM  
Yeah, but they have things like refrigerators and air conditioning, so it's not REAL poverty.
 
2013-12-10 01:40:09 PM  
Yeah, but if we had no government intervention, everyone would be filthy rich and free with loads of servants.
 
2013-12-10 01:46:49 PM  
So lemme get this straight.  A study funded by people who help poor people found that helping poor people is good?  GTFO!
 
2013-12-10 01:48:05 PM  

netizencain: So lemme get this straight.  A study funded by people who help poor people found that helping poor people is good?  GTFO!


uh...no
 
2013-12-10 01:49:54 PM  

netizencain: So lemme get this straight.  A study funded by people who help poor people found that helping poor people is good?  GTFO!



"These people want to help disadvantaged poor children? Then numbers mean nothing!"
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-12-10 02:15:24 PM  

netizencain: So lemme get this straight.  A study funded by people who help poor people found that helping poor people is good?  GTFO!


Those perverted bastards.  You can't believe a word they say!
 
2013-12-10 02:30:39 PM  

netizencain: So lemme get this straight.  A study funded by people who help poor people found that helping poor people is good?  GTFO!


There are people who are against helping poor people? Have conservatives completely abandoned the "our policies are actually better for poor people" facade now?
 
2013-12-10 02:35:00 PM  
That's the problem!

When government is not horribly inefficient, it can be effective! Now poor people are getting handouts!
 
2013-12-10 02:35:39 PM  

DamnYankees: There are people who are against helping poor people?


The only help the poors need is directions to their bootstraps...
 
2013-12-10 02:36:29 PM  
And yet, poverty is worse now than it has been in 70 years despite record high spending on handouts.
 
2013-12-10 02:37:21 PM  

DamnYankees: netizencain: So lemme get this straight.  A study funded by people who help poor people found that helping poor people is good?  GTFO!

There are people who are against helping poor people? Have conservatives completely abandoned the "our policies are actually better for poor people" facade now?


Oh, of course not, they still need poor white's votes!

But everyone who isn't poor and stupid knows they don't really care.

And poor whites know deep down that they aren't really poor.
 
2013-12-10 02:38:02 PM  
www.economicsjunkie.com
 
2013-12-10 02:38:44 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: BUT AT WHAT COST, MAN? AT. WHAT. COST?


Go ask the next generation that is starting life out $20 trillion in the hole.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-12-10 02:39:38 PM  

Dwindle: And yet, poverty is worse now than it has been in 70 years despite record high spending on handouts.


citation needed
 
2013-12-10 02:39:39 PM  
Go be poor somewhere else!
 
2013-12-10 02:40:06 PM  
Dependence, Cadillacs, etc.
 
2013-12-10 02:40:11 PM  

Dwindle: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: BUT AT WHAT COST, MAN? AT. WHAT. COST?

Go ask the next generation that is starting life out $20 trillion in the hole.


You hear that, guys?

Poors aren't just taking your money, they're taking your children's money, too!
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-12-10 02:40:14 PM  

Dwindle: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: BUT AT WHAT COST, MAN? AT. WHAT. COST?

Go ask the next generation that is starting life out $20 trillion in the hole.


could unfunded wars have something to do with this?  Naw...
 
2013-12-10 02:40:31 PM  

Phinn: [www.economicsjunkie.com image 649x434]


interesting. So the Great Society stuff actually stopped poverty at ~8.8% and then what? Did we repeal all that stuff?
 
2013-12-10 02:40:32 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: BUT AT WHAT COST, MAN? AT. WHAT. COST?


http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3200
 
2013-12-10 02:40:55 PM  
Probably asked them on their way from the welfare store in their pink Cadillacs with rims and spinners and heading to the liquor store to buy steak and lobsters while listening to the rap music that goes "boogie woogie baby wanna stick it in ya!!"

You know I'm right.
 
2013-12-10 02:41:51 PM  
If this study actually shows that, it would be the first such study to ever reach that conclusion.  So, call me skeptical that a study commissioned by the very people who benefit from the results of this study is actually valid.
 
2013-12-10 02:43:12 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: DamnYankees: There are people who are against helping poor people?

The only help the poors need is directions to their bootstraps...


In the GOP mind helping equates to encouraging them to stay poor to keep getting that free high-flying lifestyle.
 
2013-12-10 02:45:30 PM  
They don't. It's a lie perpetrated by the Obama administration. You drank the kool aid, didn't you?
 
2013-12-10 02:45:40 PM  

monoski: Sin_City_Superhero: DamnYankees: There are people who are against helping poor people?

The only help the poors need is directions to their bootstraps...

In the GOP mind helping equates to encouraging them to stay poor to keep getting that free high-flying lifestyle.


Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
 
2013-12-10 02:45:46 PM  

Phinn: [www.economicsjunkie.com image 649x434]


Bottoms out in the seventies and then wobbles around a bit, followed by a spike after Reagan gets elected.  Peaks towards the end of his first term, then declines through his second term, followed by a spike after Bush I gets elected.  Peaks at the end of Bush I's term, then declines throughout Clinton's time in office, followed by a spike when Dubya gets elected.  Levels off around his re-election, then spikes at the end of his second term.

Clearly, Republicans cause poverty.
 
2013-12-10 02:45:47 PM  

monoski: Sin_City_Superhero: DamnYankees: There are people who are against helping poor people?

The only help the poors need is directions to their bootstraps...

In the GOP mind helping equates to encouraging them to stay poor to keep getting that free high-flying lifestyle.


I know man... every poor person I know is just living it up with their TWO cans of Vienna Sausages for dinner....
 
2013-12-10 02:46:28 PM  
Government is the tyranny of the many over the few. The poor huddled masses stealing from the rich and through patronage and graft gorging themselves at the trough of other's success. Poverty is fiction. No one is starving in this country. No one is on the streets because they can't afford rent. And what's more, why is it the government's job to be a safety net? Where are the churches in this?
 
2013-12-10 02:47:43 PM  
So I guess that means we just need to make a few more programs, spend some more money, and all this poverty stuff will be gone soon! Yaaay!
 
2013-12-10 02:47:45 PM  
i41.tinypic.com
 
2013-12-10 02:49:22 PM  
But Rush Limbaugh says those programs only make poverty worse. And Rush Limbaugh says no government program has ever worked. And Rush Limbaugh says liberals hate poor people. Rush Limbaugh also says he has an invisible friend named Bo Snerdley.
 
2013-12-10 02:50:22 PM  

Phinn: [www.economicsjunkie.com image 649x434]


Interesting - the poverty rate began to climb once Bush Jr. took over the White House.
 
2013-12-10 02:50:32 PM  

Girl Sailor: No one is starving in this country.


Yeah. That's the same logic that's led to me to getting rid of my furnace. I mean my house is warm, nobody in here is cold, so what do I need a furnace for?
 
2013-12-10 02:50:50 PM  
Short version:
Poverty used to be measured by how much people made in a given year.

This study takes that and adds all of the money and SNAP and housing credits to family income, and uses that as the new basis. Basically, "if we give them a lot more money, they have a lot more money."

If you look at their Figure 6, where they actually show their work, you see that pretax/pretransfer poverty has actually gone up a bit - and that they only get a drop with their "anchored SPM" if they include all of the government money dumped into the program.

They do, however, show that after trillions of dollars spent, the actual rate of poverty in the US hasn't changed much at all in the last half-century.
 
2013-12-10 02:51:12 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Probably asked them on their way from the welfare store in their pink Cadillacs with rims and spinners and heading to the liquor store to buy steak and lobsters while listening to the rap music that goes "boogie woogie baby wanna stick it in ya!!"

You know I'm right.


you forgot to mention grilles
 
2013-12-10 02:51:15 PM  

somedude210: Phinn: [www.economicsjunkie.com image 649x434]

interesting. So the Great Society stuff actually stopped poverty at ~8.8% and then what? Did we repeal all that stuff?



No.  The big one was Medicare.  The rest were welfare programs that have been periodically amended since then.

The only thing that ends poverty is expanding economic opportunity.  Welfare that is geared toward temporary crisis-management is a relatively small expenditure.  And obviously there are people with disabilities who are wholly dependent on state benefits, and thus who are (by definition) incapable of adapting their economic behavior to become more productive.

But for the rest, welfare helps create a more or less permanent underclass.  Giving money to poor people does nothing to change the reasons why they are poor in the first place.  It solves none of the systemic problems, causes quite a few others, and cements the root causes into place.  It's a form of regulating the poor, not ending the reasons for their poverty.
 
2013-12-10 02:51:49 PM  

Dwindle: And yet, poverty is worse now than it has been in 70 years despite record high spending on handouts.


And our military can't win a war against a bunch tribes armed with WWI era weapons despite record high defense spending.  What's your point?
 
2013-12-10 02:51:57 PM  

somedude210: Phinn: [www.economicsjunkie.com image 649x434]

interesting. So the Great Society stuff actually stopped poverty at ~8.8% and then what? Did we repeal all that stuff?


Not only that- it caused the poverty level to drop before it was even enacted!
 
2013-12-10 02:52:13 PM  

sendtodave: Dwindle: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: BUT AT WHAT COST, MAN? AT. WHAT. COST?

Go ask the next generation that is starting life out $20 trillion in the hole.

You hear that, guys?

Poors aren't just taking your money, they're taking your children's money, too!



Well there is clearly nothing we can do to reduce the deficit except tax cuts for the rich.  We know we can't raise taxes on the rich, because this graph clearly demonstrates that the wealthy are now taxed at record high rates. It also clearly shows that any time we tax the wealthy more the economy grinds to a halt:

www.savantcapital.com
 
2013-12-10 02:52:19 PM  

Girl Sailor: Government is the tyranny of the many over the few. The poor huddled masses stealing from the rich and through patronage and graft gorging themselves at the trough of other's success. Poverty is fiction. No one is starving in this country. No one is on the streets because they can't afford rent. And what's more, why is it the government's job to be a safety net? Where are the churches in this?


9.5/10  well done


you'll get some bites with that.
 
2013-12-10 02:54:31 PM  
But reducing poverty is SOSHULIZUM! If Jesus wanted us to help the poor he would have said so!
 
2013-12-10 02:54:46 PM  
Reposted (with some edits; I'm not a monster) from an earlier thread:

Speaking as someone on Day <10 of a new job after 6 weeks of paid unemployment (enough for rent, car, insurance, utilities, and gas. Not food. I had to borrow a bit from family, which sucks more than I can explain), let me tell anyone who says otherwise to sit on an unsterilized B&O railroad spike wrapped in razor wire.

Having that little bit of cover gave me enough "room" to look for the better-than-60k/year job I have now, rather than having to carry a busket around DC for maybe $10/day if I'm lucky.

// also, I'd have to be out in the snow
// which is fine (I'm hairy), but no one else is out
// and if the government shuts down, no one around here would have money to pay me, deepening my crisis
// bonus: it's a medical-device company (OBAMACARE TAXES GONNA STEAL MAH JOB), a small business (THE ENGINE OF THE ECONOMY), and run by a bunch of fat, sweaty liberals (WHO DON'T KNOW A THING ABOUT RUNNING A BUSINESS AMIRITE AND ALSO THEY ARE FAT HAHAHAHAHAHA)
 
2013-12-10 02:55:01 PM  

cirby: Short version:
Poverty used to be measured by how much people made in a given year.

This study takes that and adds all of the money and SNAP and housing credits to family income, and uses that as the new basis. Basically, "if we give them a lot more money, they have a lot more money."

If you look at their Figure 6, where they actually show their work, you see that pretax/pretransfer poverty has actually gone up a bit - and that they only get a drop with their "anchored SPM" if they include all of the government money dumped into the program.

They do, however, show that after trillions of dollars spent, the actual rate of poverty in the US hasn't changed much at all in the last half-century.


So it didn't go back up?
 
2013-12-10 02:55:13 PM  

Phinn: [www.economicsjunkie.com image 649x434]


1973 is about the time western Europe and Japan recovered from WWII and started competing w/ the USA again.
 
2013-12-10 02:55:45 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: DamnYankees: There are people who are against helping poor people?

The only help the poors need is directions to their bootstraps...


How will they ever learn to support themselves if you keep providing directions?
 
2013-12-10 02:55:48 PM  

Girl Sailor: Government is the tyranny of the many over the few. The poor huddled masses stealing from the rich and through patronage and graft gorging themselves at the trough of other's success. Poverty is fiction. No one is starving in this country. No one is on the streets because they can't afford rent. And what's more, why is it the government's job to be a safety net? Where are the churches in this?


You should write christmas cards...
 
2013-12-10 02:55:59 PM  

INeedAName: Phinn: [www.economicsjunkie.com image 649x434]

Interesting - the poverty rate began to climb once Bush Jr. took over the White House.


It's almost as though a big, negative economic event happened around 2000 ...
 
2013-12-10 02:57:37 PM  

DamnYankees: netizencain: So lemme get this straight.  A study funded by people who help poor people found that helping poor people is good?  GTFO!

There are people who are against helping poor people? Have conservatives completely abandoned the "our policies are actually better for poor people" facade now?


In 1980.
 
Displayed 50 of 211 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | 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