[Rancid]

NPR is also leftist and bias. Really bad actually.

I disagree with this. I think they are biased, but it's not that bad. I listen to a lot of NPR podcasts. The only one that was blatantly leftist is embedded. It's also the podcast I least like from them.

[Drlee]

The problem with arguing that welfare incentivizes people not to work easily fails on many levels POD.

1. It tyrannizes individuals in defense of a theory. For example. If Mitt Romney's parents had never taken welfare he would, in all likelihood not be a US Senator now. Likewise with Oprah and J.K. Rowling. Both immensely successful billionaires and both crediting welfare for its help in getting them jump started.

2. These kinds of figures assume a level playing field to start with. We all know it is not. You can talk about race, location, disability or ability none of which are reflected in the numbers. For example. A rural white kid in a tiny town in Nebraska whose parents lost their jobs when the one factory in town closes down is disadvantaged in ways different from the inner city black kid but no less needy of assistance.

3. Figures like those presented are disingenuous in the first place. They are rarely presented by someone honestly looking for solutions to poverty, racism and disenfranchisement. They are presented by people seeking to characterize the poor and disadvantaged as slothful, lazy or dishonest. They wish to show welfare recipients as somehow naughty. Their clear intention is to somehow rationalize the decision not to help the underclasses for either racist or selfish reasons. The louder they protest their innocence of this, the more obvious it is that they are doing it. The same tables and "studies" are used, almost entirely by the right, to argue against affirmative action and other forms of relief aimed specifically at common forms of need.

4. It is a clear attempt to classify all forms of relief as a one-size-fits-all solution. It encourages the reader to consider, for example, food stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Medicare as all the same thing serving the same purpose. They are not and they do not.

5. They ignore the fact that these programs are a powerful and direct subsidy to business. They frequently off-load the expense of health care, day care, and even daily living to the government when, if we really did have a free enterprise system, these expenses would naturally be covered by employers in the form of salaries consistent with filling all of these needs. The argument against a minimum wage on principle assumes that the marketplace imagines a robust middle class. While there are some of us posting here who remember when it did, it most decidedly does not now. (Enter a diatribe about immigration workplace enforcement here if you like positing that employers are simply not willing to pay the "going rate" for labor.)

6. Never forget that these folks assume that the rural white guy I mentioned earlier, deprived of help and facing a nonexistent job market will take to the road in search of a job rather than take to the streets in search of a political solution. And that when the road takes him to Chicago where he arrives poor, moves into a poor neighborhood and challenges the inner city folks there already facing an underpaid or scarce job market he will exacerbate these problems spurring a response from the folks already struggling there.

So looking at this issue, that poor, white country girl is no different economically from the poor, brown Guatemalan immigrant arriving at our Southern border. Will he not displace workers already there and drive down wages even further. The factory down the road now having to applicants for the same job both of which have the further problem of no public aid to give them options for education, training and relocation? (I have a sore side today so please do not consider private charity as a solution. It is not and never will be.)

So I do not reject the "tables, facts and figures" as inaccurate representations of what they set out to prove. Rather I consider them so shallow as to be useless in the debate at all.

4.

[Victoribus Spolia]

As I am the one presently debating POD and the only one to really post any source material on this thread, I can only assume this is an underhanded critique of my claims; which I will now address accordingly.

The problem with arguing that welfare incentivizes people not to work easily fails on many levels POD.

This was not my argument as I only argued that welfare incentivizes the behavior it either explicitly or implicitly subsidizes after the pattern of logically derived economic laws.

1. It tyrannizes individuals in defense of a theory. For example. If Mitt Romney's parents had never taken welfare he would, in all likelihood not be a US Senator now. Likewise with Oprah and J.K. Rowling. Both immensely successful billionaires and both crediting welfare for its help in getting them jump started.

Anecdotal and irrelevant. There are also successful black republicans who credit being exposed to welfare as children as the reason for being tea-partiers who oppose all welfare. This sort of argument is just as relevant as the one your presented.

2. These kinds of figures assume a level playing field to start with. We all know it is not. You can talk about race, location, disability or ability none of which are reflected in the numbers. For example. A rural white kid in a tiny town in Nebraska whose parents lost their jobs when the one factory in town closes down is disadvantaged in ways different from the inner city black kid but no less needy of assistance.

No, the statistics are not meant to take into account the almost infinite amount of variable that occur on the individual level, but that's not the point. The stats given by me in this thread are only intended to confirm what could have been predicted by economic laws.

For instance, women may be single mothers for a whole host of reasons; however, those reasons are irrelevant to the statistical fact that single-motherhood skyrocketed in correlation to its subsidization by welfare, as could have been predicted.

The individual circumstances of those individual women are irrelevant to that point.

3. Figures like those presented are disingenuous in the first place. They are rarely presented by someone honestly looking for solutions to poverty, racism and disenfranchisement. They are presented by people seeking to characterize the poor and disadvantaged as slothful, lazy or dishonest. They wish to show welfare recipients as somehow naughty. Their clear intention is to somehow rationalize the decision not to help the underclasses for either racist or selfish reasons.

Fallacy of Presumption; Assigning Motives.

Likewise a Red-Herring; as the motives of the one arguing are irrelevant to the validity or invalidity of his claims. This being, ultimately, an emotional argument.

In point of fact, I would actually argue that people seeking out welfare instead of market alternatives are acting rationally based on a cost-benefit analysis. Welfare dependency is (from a short-term perspective) a very rational thing to pursue. That is hardly a negative characterization; even if I find the practice ignoble on a personal level.

The louder they protest their innocence of this, the more obvious it is that they are doing it. The same tables and "studies" are used, almost entirely by the right, to argue against affirmative action and other forms of relief aimed specifically at common forms of need.

Fallacy; Poisoning The Well.



Your argument here is basically that if someone denies the claim that he is being racist (according to your fallacy of presumption); that automatically makes him racist (poisoning the well); likewise, you have implied that simply using these statistics implies a rightwing racist agenda (also a poisoning of the well).


These are not very nice things to say about people.

4. It is a clear attempt to classify all forms of relief as a one-size-fits-all solution. It encourages the reader to consider, for example, food stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Medicare as all the same thing serving the same purpose. They are not and they do not.

Some may do that, but the question here is whether or not subsidizing a behavior will lead to that behavior's increase. This is incontrivertable irrespective of questions of policy.

5. They ignore the fact that these programs are a powerful and direct subsidy to business. They frequently off-load the expense of health care, day care, and even daily living to the government when, if we really did have a free enterprise system, these expenses would naturally be covered by employers in the form of salaries consistent with filling all of these needs. The argument against a minimum wage on principle assumes that the marketplace imagines a robust middle class. While there are some of us posting here who remember when it did, it most decidedly does not now. (Enter a diatribe about immigration workplace enforcement here if you like positing that employers are simply not willing to pay the "going rate" for labor.)

"Naturally" as term here is a bit of a speculation; businesses would only provide such if there were a competitive necessity to do so. I don't really see how minimum wage is relevant either to this conversation as its not really a subsidy per say.

6. Never forget that these folks assume that the rural white guy I mentioned earlier, deprived of help and facing a nonexistent job market will take to the road in search of a job rather than take to the streets in search of a political solution. And that when the road takes him to Chicago where he arrives poor, moves into a poor neighborhood and challenges the inner city folks there already facing an underpaid or scarce job market he will exacerbate these problems spurring a response from the folks already struggling there. So looking at this issue, that poor, white country girl is no different economically from the poor, brown Guatemalan immigrant arriving at our Southern border. Will he not displace workers already there and drive down wages even further. The factory down the road now having to applicants for the same job both of which have the further problem of no public aid to give them options for education, training and relocation? (I have a sore side today so please do not consider private charity as a solution. It is not and never will be.)

What an interesting and irrelevant rant.

So I do not reject the "tables, facts and figures" as inaccurate representations of what they set out to prove. Rather I consider them so shallow as to be useless in the debate at all.

Well of course you would! Your entire speculation as to what I am setting out to prove is false to the point of slanderous libel and based soley on presumption. However, if you actually read what people such as myself were purporting to use the data to prove, you would see no such boogeymen behind this poster.

Do subsidises for a behavior promote or lead to an increase in that behavior? Yes.

This is my only claim and the stats can be used fairly in support of that claim and they have been.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes we were. This was what you specifically asked me here on December 20th, 2018 on this thread:

So no rebuttal then?

False.

I NEVER agreed to such a narrow scope; especially given the nature of U.S. unemployment programs.

This is not the repeating of a claim, this is a summary of the evidence already provided. All of the points mentioned were independently verified in this thread with links, quotations, sources, charts, and graphs.

As mentioned, only the one link demonstrated generational continuity without discussion of increase or decrease at all (was not in the scope of the study), but the chart that I provided shortly after DID demonstrate the increase in welfare dependency every generation as outpacing population growth, so yes, evidence has been provided for that point.

Likewise, no studies are necessary; the law of incentives is an absolute economic law and is derived from logic. It needs no empirical verification to be true. I am only giving LOTS of empirical verification as a courtesy to small minds.

Either do I. This has not to do with "liking" anything, this has to do with logic.

Logic is the ultimate standard of rationality.

Fallacy. Appeal-to-Authority.

Likewise, I hold to no such theory, I only hold to the laws of economics as derived from reason.

Not an Argument.

Your theory is called the welfare trap theory, i.e. that welfare makes people stay on welfare.

When you Google it, there are very few studies that even attempt to find verification of it. I found only one that supported it, and that was in a very limited context.

All this to say that this hypothesis is logical, but does not have any empirical verification.

It seems to assume that low income earners and welfare recipients have a clear and precise knowledge of all the beneifts that come from welfare and how they would be affected by a change in job status. This assumption seems apllicable in only a few situations.

[One Degree]

Your theory is called the welfare trap theory, i.e. that welfare makes people stay on welfare.

When you Google it, there are very few studies that even attempt to find verification of it. I found only one that supported it, and that was in a very limited context.

All this to say that this hypothesis is logical, but does not have any empirical verification.

It seems to assume that low income earners and welfare recipients have a clear and precise knowledge of all the beneifts that come from welfare and how they would be affected by a change in job status. This assumption seems apllicable in only a few situations.

Lol. Are you actually arguing welfare recipients are too stupid to understand what is going on? LMAO

[Pants-of-dog]

If your only comeback is to accuse me of calling others stupid, you have no intelligent criticism to my point.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Your theory is called the welfare trap theory, i.e. that welfare makes people stay on welfare.When you Google it, there are very few studies that even attempt to find verification of it. I found only one that supported it, and that was in a very limited context.

Irrelevant.


nobody cares about your feelings regarding your meandering adventures on google.

All this to say that this hypothesis is logical, but does not have any empirical verification.

I do not have a hypothesis, I have a law. The law does not require empirical verification for its validity, but I gave that in spades anyway.

The evidence is here on this thread for all to see.

It seems to assume that low income earners and welfare recipients have a clear and precise knowledge of all the beneifts that come from welfare and how they would be affected by a change in job status.

I never claimed this, nor would I.


So also irrelevant.

[One Degree]

If your only comeback is to accuse me of calling others stupid, you have no intelligent criticism to my point.

I am not accusing you. I am pointing out you actually said it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Irrelevant.
nobody cares about your feelings regarding your meandering adventures on google.
I do not have a hypothesis, I have a law. The law does not require empirical verification for its validity, but I gave that in spades anyway.
The evidence is here on this thread for all to see.
I never claimed this, nor would I.
So also irrelevant.

Let me know if you find any evidence.

Until then , this seems like an unsupported hypothesis.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Let me know if you find any evidence.Until then , this seems like an unsupported hypothesis.

Your feelings are irrelevant.


The evidence is there for all to see.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, the complete lack of verification is obvious.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Yes, the complete lack of verification is obvious.

No, The sufficient verification is plain for all.

[Pants-of-dog]

If anyone cares about this, please Goigle “welfare trap theory”.

While it is an accepted idea mong many economists, it has yet t9 be verified empirically.

[Victoribus Spolia]

^ What complete failure in a debate looks like.

[Pants-of-dog]

You seem sensitive today.

It is called welfare trap theiry.

It is a widely held belief among economists.

It has little, if any, verification.

These are facts.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You seem sensitive today.It is called welfare trap theiry.It is a widely held belief among economists.It has little, if any, verification.These are facts.

Fallacy of Presumption and Ad-Hominem.

Also, I don't hold to welfare trap theory. I hold to no theories at all, I only to economic laws based on logic.

It is a widely held belief among economists.

Appeal to Authority.

It has little, if any, verification.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.


Otherwise, regarding my position, I have given ample verification.

[Pants-of-dog]

People are free to Google “welfare trap theiry” and see how well suported it is.

[Victoribus Spolia]

People are free to Google “welfare trap theiry” and see how well suported it is.

People are free to examine the charts, graphs, articles, and sources I have provided to see how well my claims are supported.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes.

They will undoubtedly come to the same conclusion that I did:

You are supoorting related arguments but not the welfare trap theory.

[Libertarian353]

1. You have committed the genetic fallacy yet again now with your dismissal of government sources.

The government has been known to lie, so I take those sources with a ladle of salt. For example the cdc has been expose of making false statistics or inflating them for a agenda

http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/
https://www.painnewsnetwork.org/stories ... y-inflated
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/03/19/cd ... ills-12717
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... it-anyway/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
https://capitalresearch.org/article/lie ... d-the-cdc/

And considering this administration is being held by bigger crooks than democrats, they only give out statistics and reports that cater to trumps narrative and those who criticize them or outed as fake news.

So of course, I'm going to trust wash post more than heritage, they at least tell less falsehoods than most conservative websites.

I'm not going to dismiss a argument just cause I deem it "leftist".

2. I am not doing your work for you by providing more research for the research already given (that you fallaciously dismissed anyway); especially now that you have dismissed the research for the research (the U.S. gov) under the same fallacy yet again.

You started the argument it's up to you give more research to it. Otherwise I'll dismiss it, like that false source(which those exist in conservative circles).

I find it laughable that you peddle this idea that I dismiss your entire claim of welfare wasteful spending, where all I said was use a better source that then the site that still support the rapist as SCOTUS.

3. Your critique (and ignorance of) my Christianity in this discussion is also a fallacy: Red Herring.

I never used it as an argument against the discussing, I used it as argument against your patterns of "anti-christian" thoughts and values(supporting a child rapists as president, race baiting masquerading as jokes and then accused the "other"(me of being someone I'm not and a racist). So "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"

False, I used the Wash Post's sources and arguments IN SPITE of my feelings on the matter about the publication.

So again willing cherry pick sources that suit your agenda and not on the basis of truth.

And I'm committing a fallacy?

That is, even though I believe the Washington Post is bias fake news, I still assess the articles on a case-by-case basis and will use their information if it is accurate and relevant.

AKA: Whatever confirms my worldview regardless of it objective value. So you're in the same boat as me. I don't want to hear you.

Same thing goes for the Heritage Foundation.

You're a conservative, it's conservative that cater to your politics. Damn truthfulness of the research.

I am consistent

,

In the same way trump and conservatives are consistent in their pursuit of interest and politics.

That does not equate being consistent of finding truth. Otherwise you wouldn't be a trump supporter or a conservative.

I will use source information from those I disagree with because I am an actual logician and not a hack.

You call wast post fake news, you obviously don't care about logic. It means accepting truth no matter where it's from or what politics you disagree with.

What are you?

Not you, thank God.

NPR is also leftist and bias. Really bad actually.

See this is why I never understand why rightist complain about sane people comparing them to Nazis when those rightists keep taking the page of their play book of calling people who disagree or speak differently commies.

Like what realm of reality are you living in to accuse NPR leftist? Like at some point you people will call trump a commie(considering his praise of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) like George Bush was when trump goes to jail since he outlived his usefulness.

Care to try again?

No cause it's pointless.

Irrelevant.

You keep bringing it up!

I don't care who you claim to be.

I claim to be what both my parents made me.

Your libertarianism can be assessed by your statements on the forum, which is why few people here actually think you are a libertarian ancap georgist (a whole string of contradictions fyi).

I believe there have been two members since my time here in 2017 Oct that also called themselves libertarians. Yet they haven't said anything of relevance to their politics. There's no contradiction of libertarianism and georgism.

Likewise your political compass score is hardly libertarian.

And your support of trump is hardly libertarian as well.