Americans Are Mistaken About Who Gets Welfare

[Timshel]

If you actually need evidence for how disincentives to work; such as, government handouts, perpetuates the poverty cycle then you're not really worth talking to.

Benefit cliffs are a problem. They affect white benefit recipients just as they do minority recipients, though.

Everything you provided in this part is beside the point and does nothing to show why black/hispanic minorities are disproportionately impoverished.

A) Slave owners were in the extreme minority of whites in the US.

So?

B) It absolutely did retard growth in the US in that it prevented industrialization in the South relegating them to a primitive agrarian based economy lagging decades behind the north.

Did it make whites poorer relative to blacks? I don't think so.

It may have made the South poorer relative to the North but that IS definitely a different argument/discussion than the topic we were on.

Care to point out where in the National Housing Act of 1934 there is a racial criterion:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAQegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw0gllKcyUXDu8aGdUGmWHGb

In the 1930s, the Federal Housing Authority established mortgage underwriting standards that significantly discriminated against minority neighborhoods. Between 1945 and 1959, African Americans received only 2 percent of all federally insured home loans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Housing_Administration#Redlining

Absolute nonsense, Hispanics started immigrating to the US at the same time as Asians during the California gold rush:

In 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, concluding the Mexican War, extended U.S. citizenship to approximately 60,000 Mexican residents of the New Mexico Territory and 10,000 living in California. An additional approximate 2,500 foreign born California residents also become U.S. citizens.

In 1849, the California Gold Rush attracted 100,000 would-be miners from the Eastern U.S., Latin America, China, Australia, and Europe. California became a state in 1850 with a population of about 90,000.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States

LOL... You are counting people that lived in the newly annexed area as immigrants. That's absolute nonsense and I had already made note of them in my initial post.

What about the fact that the income of Asians was already at parity with whites when the programs you are attacking were implemented? You failed to address that.

C) Is your argument actually that recent Hispanic immigrants are an economic burden? That sounds like a fantastic argument in favor of ending immigration from Latin America.

Obviously, it was not my argument.

Your attempts to cherry pick, strawman and distort are rather pathetic. I won't bother responding to more of them.

 

[cawacko]

"word-smithing" is problematic?
So a well reasoned argument is nothing more then "smithing" 'eh? Because we want to dumb it down for you where needed.

The general welfare clause is NOT a catch all for spending the federal government broke by a zillion programs that state and locals can do,or individuals can do on there own..you are advocating a "welfare state"

Ultimately the Supreme Court decided it was. The new deal was the first big step but even then they deferred somewhat to the states. Overtime it was chipped away and ultimately the great society put the federal government in total control. Instead of making decisions the states were basically administrators to the federal programs.

The welfare reform act in '96 gave the states back a little control but the federal government has been chipping away at it since

 

[dukkha]

Ultimately the Supreme Court decided it was. The new deal was the first big step but even then they deferred somewhat to the states. Overtime it was chipped away and ultimately the great society put the federal government in total control. Instead of making decisions the states were basically administrators to the federal programs.

The welfare reform act in '96 gave the states back a little control but the federal government has been chipping away at it since

yes. it goes to federalism. most of the history it was a discrete layering of roles (marble cake federalism)
But society does get more complicated,and we don't want Americans to be without food/shelter/basi education.

Think of Maslow's heirachy. I think we all are good with physiological needs being met.

When we start getting into funding the arts, or anything non-essential, you are going past general welfare.
at least get back to Reagan's block grant approach (decentralizing decisions),
and not have the feds determine what zip code to put in Section 8 housing. Surely that states can do that much

 

[cawacko]

Word salad. Entitlement. Welfare. Don't care about any alleged distinction.

I have never been interested in the attempts of politicians, message boarders, or anyone else to word-smith ideas in the service of selling them.

The constitution refers to the "general welfare", and I am pretty sure they had a broader concept of that than food stamps or unemployment benefits.

Conservatives constantly wail about the European socialist "welfare" states, and we know exactly what they are talking about: the broad array of publically funded services and programs that provide a societal benefit that is generally feasibly unavailable through for-profit corporations.

I am pretty sure if you went to your CATO websites, they would have decades of reports, opinion columns, and studies referring to Medicaid and Social Security as hallmarks of European style "welfare".

The way the word "welfare" is used by the right is carefully calculated, and I think we all know that.

As for the budget, half going to social programs, healthcare, education, does not bother me in the least. This is not 1844 anymore, and modern civilized nations have decided we have a different set of standards today, than the Kaiser of Germany or the Tsar of Russia had in 1855.

It was up to 1930 I believe where 3/4ths of government spending was on military and debt.

And sure welfare, entitlement, earned right etc. can all be used in different ways to connote a meaning to the reader.

 

[cawacko]

I am not familiar with it, but I don't think know of any reason to believe that AA or Great Society programs slowed their progress. Our current social safety net programs are too paternalistic and could be better, but I don't think they are doing more harm than good to beneficiaries.

Certainly it is not doing as much harm as continuing discrimination within the criminal justice system.

http://projects.heraldtribune.com/bias/sentencing/

We can look back to the AFDC program's harmful incentives that lengthened the time mother's were on the welfare rolls (and not marrying the father of their child). We can look at the soaring cost of Medicare and Medicaid and the incentives those programs created for excess use of health services.

LBJ claimed the role of the Great Society was to get people off the dole but what it did was explode the number of people on it and it has only grown since then.

The above effects people of all races. If we're talking race specific and black people more specifically based on their percentages they get hurt the more by these disincentives (there are more than above, that was just an example).

This is in no way suggesting we shouldn't have programs to help needy people because we should. But the programs and their incentives today are faaar different than what the proclaimed goals were at their creation.

 

[Timshel]

We can look back to the AFDC program's harmful incentives that lengthened the time mother's were on the welfare rolls (and not marrying the father of their child). We can look at the soaring cost of Medicare and Medicaid and the incentives those programs created for excess use of health services.

LBJ claimed the role of the Great Society was to get people off the dole but what it did was explode the number of people on it and it has only grown since then.

See...

Our current social safety net programs are too paternalistic and could be better, but I don't think they are doing more harm than good to beneficiaries.

They were worse before but some (not me) may argue that the lack of declining income gap was due to the 90s welfare reform.

The above effects people of all races. If we're talking race specific and black people more specifically based on their percentages they get hurt the more by these disincentives (there are more than above, that was just an example).

There is no proof of that. The disincentives hurt poor people more because they are the ones subjected to the programs but there is no proof that disincentives hurt poor blacks more than poor whites.

This is in no way suggesting we shouldn't have programs to help needy people because we should. But the programs and their incentives today are faaar different than what the proclaimed goals were at their creation.

I am leaning towards support for scrapping them all (including those for the elderly) and replacing them with a UBI. You are not going to find me disagreeing that the programs have problems. But they are here to stay.

The nazis and race realists (I do not count you as one) are pushing a very different agenda. They just use this stuff to support their crap arguments about the superiority of whites and the data does no support for that.

Poor people use welfare more (duh) and minorities are poorer (unfortunate duh). But poor minorities do not use welfare more than poor whites. That disproves their bs arguments.

 

[Cypress]

"word-smithing" is problematic?
So a well reasoned argument is nothing more then "smithing" 'eh? Because we want to dumb it down for you where needed.

The general welfare clause is NOT a catch all for spending the federal government broke by a zillion programs that state and locals can do,or individuals can do on there own..you are advocating a "welfare state"

You do not get to decide what the general welfare is.
It is collectively decided through our elected representatives and democratic institutions.

Funding of arts, science, education, retirement, and health care is a role the United States government plays in funding. You are welcome to make the argument that we should go back to the good old days of 1850, but you are going to lose that argument. And lose big time.

You can throw around the world "welfare state" as a pejorative if you want. If the question is, should we have a social welfare state somewhat approaching what Norway or Sweden have, I do not think you will find many informed people who think the Norwegians and Swedes have anything other than pleasant, happy, well functioning, generally egalitarian societies.

The bottom line for me is this: I figured out decades ago what conservatives were really talking about when they talk about "welfare", "welfare queens", and "makers versus takers". I am hip to what is really being talked about in the context in which Trumpettes use the word "welfare" in a derogatory way. And I know exactly why Medicare and SS, which largely benefit middle class whites, are not lumped in with the concept of social welfare.

And I am pretty sure conservatives know they are using coded language too.

 

[cawacko]

See...



They were worse before but some (not me) may argue that the lack of declining income gap was due to the 90s welfare reform.



There is no proof of that. The disincentives hurt poor people more because they are the ones subjected to the programs but there is no proof that disincentives hurt poor blacks more than poor whites.




I am leaning towards support for scrapping them all (including those for the elderly) and replacing them with a UBI. You are not going to find me disagreeing that the programs have problems. But they are here to stay.

The nazis and race realists (I do not count you as one) are pushing a very different agenda. They just use this stuff to support their crap arguments about the superiority of whites and the data does no support for that.

Poor people use welfare more (duh) and minorities are poorer (unfortunate duh). But poor minorities do not use welfare more than poor whites. That disproves their bs arguments.

Welfare (dis)incentives affect people the same regardless of race. I only mentioned race in context of discussing Jason Riley's comments earlier but ultimately it's not about race it's about a system that is leveraging our future for the benefit of people today as well as taking away individual incentive.

 

[cancel2 2022]

You do not get to decide what the general welfare is.
It is collectively decided through our elected representatives and democratic institutions.

Funding of arts, science, education, retirement, and health care is a role the United States government plays in funding. You are welcome to make the argument that we should go back to the good old days of 1850, but you are going to lose that argument. And lose big time.

You can throw around the world "welfare state" as a pejorative if you want. If the question is, should we have a social welfare state somewhat approaching what Norway or Sweden have, I do not think you will find many informed people who think the Norwegians and Swedes have anything other than pleasant, happy, well functioning, generally egalitarian societies.

The bottom line for me is this: I figured out decades ago what conservatives were really talking about when they talk about "welfare", "welfare queens", and "makers versus takers". I am hip to what is really being talked about in the context in which Trumpettes use the word "welfare" in a derogatory way. And I know exactly what Medicare and SS, which largely benefit middle class whites, are not lumped in with the concept of social welfare.

And I am pretty sure conservatives know they are using coded language too.

Sweden has dealt itself a near mortal blow by accepting so many young single Muslim men. Many are not very well educated, speak no Swedish and have little chance of a good job. It's only a matter of time before they turn to extremism, we know all about that in the UK.

As for Norway, I started a thread on that very subject.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?p=2213981

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

 

[Granule]

That was easy ...

Shut up, racist.

 

[Timshel]

Welfare (dis)incentives affect people the same regardless of race. I only mentioned race in context of discussing Jason Riley's comments earlier but ultimately it's not about race it's about a system that is leveraging our future for the benefit of people today as well as taking away individual incentive.

Again, I don't believe it is about race for you.

The argument from CFM and others is about race. Their arguments have nothing to do with principles of limited government or concern about disincentives.

It's not taking away individual incentive. Paul Ryan and may others still had incentive to make something of their lives. Nobody really wants to subsist on welfare or takes pride in needing it. There are problems but there's no reason to overstate them.

 

[cawacko]

Again, I don't believe it is about race for you.

The argument from CFM and others is about race. Their arguments have nothing to do with principles of limited government or concern about disincentives.

It's not taking away individual incentive. Paul Ryan and may others still had incentive to make something of their lives. Nobody really wants to subsist on welfare or takes pride in needing it. There are problems but there's no reason to overstate them.

I don't believe I'm overstating them at all. Let's say most people don't want to be but many programs have high marginal tax rates that is a disincentive for those trying to get off. This also harms economic growth for all of us.

As stated before we continue to be more generous in what is being offered. It does have an effect on people

 

[Timshel]

I don't believe I'm overstating them at all. Let's say most people don't want to be but many programs have high marginal tax rates that is a disincentive for those trying to get off. This also harms economic growth for all of us.

As stated before we continue to be more generous in what is being offered. It does have an effect on people

High marginal tax rates? What?

What do you think about UBI?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Fucking lazy white trailer trash. And I bet the large majority voted for Trump.
Idiots!!!

I'm pretty sure everyone on welfare voted demmycrat......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You do not get to decide what the general welfare is.
It is collectively decided through our elected representatives and democratic institutions.

and when those elected persons are from a different party and decide something different?........

 

[cawacko]

High marginal tax rates? What?

What do you think about UBI?

On the road (not driving) so can't say this the best now but you get certain welfare benefits and they go away if you make more money. (a sliding scale of some sort). But these marginal rates can be 30% all the way up to 100%. It is total disincentive to work and it's not the person's fault.

I've listened to a couple of podcasts on UDI. Definitely an interesting concept. Can't say I'm sold on it yet but I like the outside the box thinking of the idea

 

[Timshel]

Well, that's a "benefit cliff." I thought that was what you meant. A high marginal tax rate is similar but on income taxes paid rather than benefits received.

I am not sold on the UBI either. But there would be no worries about benefit cliffs. There would be a lot less overhead, paternalism and social engineering. Most importantly it should be sustainable in perpetuity while the current package of benefits is not.

A lot of the tech giants out your way are tentatively in favor of it. There are many libertarians and conservatives supporting it, as well, or at least want more discussion of it.

 

[CFM]

People are poor for a simple reason, they don't have money. It's not an excuse, it's a simple fact.

I have made no excuses. Individuals can and do escape it. But if you start poor then you are more likely to end poor than if you start rich/middle class.

Poor isn't a reason. Poor because you don't have money is a result.

When you want to blame others that didn't cause someone else to be poor, that's an excuse. Using those excuses is how people like you try to justify those that aren't poor being forced to hand to a group of people that are something they didn't earn nor deserve.

 

[Timshel]

Poor isn't a reason. Poor because you don't have money is a result.

When you want to blame others that didn't cause someone else to be poor, that's an excuse. Using those excuses is how people like you try to justify those that aren't poor being forced to hand to a group of people that are something they didn't earn nor deserve.

Reason vs result, okay but you took me out of context. Poor is a label. Having no money is the reason for the label, but can be a result in a different context.

I have not blamed anyone.

When you start life poor/rich it is not a result of anything you can control. One is more likely to end poor if they started poor than someone that started rich/middle class. Beginning poor is clearly a causative factor/one reason in a result of being poor. It's not the only reason or factor but it most certainly IS a significant factor.

 

[PraiseKek]

Reason vs result, okay but you took me out of context. Poor is a label. Having no money is the reason for the label, but can be a result in a different context.

I have not blamed anyone.

When you start life poor/rich it is not a result of anything you can control. One is more likely to end poor if they started poor than someone that started rich/middle class. Beginning poor is clearly a causative factor/one reason in a result of being poor. It's not the only reason or factor but it most certainly IS a significant factor.

Spare me, whites and blacks starting in the same tax bracket have nearly identical levels of socioeconomic mobility provided 1) they graduate from highschool and 2) they come from a 2 parent household, the problem is blacks have far more kids dropping out and far more children out of wedlock.