Not sure if serious. Why do you think Russia invaded the Ukraine to destabilise it and stop them joining Europe?

Who is really the scared one in this situation?

I am defining things as they are in reality. If I work at a job and they pay me, that is my money. Not stealing as much != giving me something. I don't see how any rational person could see this otherwise.

Well this off topic of how to actually help the inner city impoverished and more into the economic theory of libertarian thought so if Wookie wants to split the thread go ahead.

So far you've ignored my question of how did poverty for the elderly drop from 35% to 9%? Presuming that hard work and no welfare would reduce poverty and given the facts that poverty was so high when the elderly had to work for their paycheck and so low when they received transfers, how is it explained?

And on a side note why aren't old people doggedly Democrat if the Democrats are the ones buying off the impoverished with welfare?

I would like to know the answer to these two questions.

Phil,

I am curious why you don't care if the poor would blow the lump sum? If you gave a person the annual lump and they blew it all on degen stuff within a few weeks, wouldn't you still have the problem that they are poor and require assistance to meet their basic needs?

Is your argument simply that they would blow the small checks in this way too, so it's a wash?

Are there any links to credible sources showing how poor people often blow their cash on **** they don't need as opposed to food and shelter? Because it's a pretty terrible thing to believe about any/all underprivileged people without even having a basis for believing such a thing besides an ugly stereotype.

If they want to be poor 50 weeks of the year and rich two weeks paint it up that is their prerogative, it's instant stimulus spending to the economy regardless.

It's basically just a minority side effect and one that is fine because freedom of choice in how they use the money is good. For innovation to happen you need to accept failure.

I think that applies to everyone, not just poor people. Humans just aren't programmed to think way into the future. If you gave them 1 million dollars and told them here use this for your basic needs for the rest of your lives, I best most people rich or poor would blow it. That is why I think giving people money once a week, or once a month is better than once a year.

It's always a bit wierd to hear "We've spent X amount of dollars and poverty hasn't ended!"

People, each, will send hundreds to thousands of dollars this week to stay out of poverty and yet next week will have to spend hundreds or thousands more, and they don't even get counted as impoverished.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...ype=blogs&_r=0

http://www.economist.com/news/intern...it-cannot-deal

Analyzing unconditional vs conditional giving. Finds both are effective in their own ways.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...pirical-Study#

Unconditional giving improves behavioral problems of impoverished Cherokee NAs, with the children of the impoverished presenting as almost equally likely of having said problems as affluent children of the same descent; a 40% decrease.

Also touches on attachment theory a bit and how poverty negatively impacts the early childhood bonds between parent and child, and how reducing poverty can have immediate positive outcomes in this regard.

Because that job only exists in the context of a civilized society.

It's mostly a red herring.

Suppose we came upon an AC society where it was normal practice for pensions companies to offer the option to contribute to pensions for the poorest elderly.

Would we claim that those who voluntarily took the option because they wanted to help were making a mistake because the contributions actually made the problem of poverty among the elderly worse? or would we say its a good thing to do if people wanted to help?

Anytime it says 100%, we know the stats are wrong.

You claimed to know what I think better than I do, that is what I was responding to. I am fine at leaving it for another thread.

I have ignored it because it is really a completely different situation that the poverty we deal with in the inner cities. The elderly poverty is a completely different problem with a completely different timeline and marker for what we could consider it a success or not.

Social security (which is largely going to attribute to your numbers assuming they are correct) is a massive ponzi scheme that is not sustainable.

Isn't the whole point of helping the poor to not accept failure? Why are you ok with people failing after getting a subsidy but not ok with it when they are not getting one?

Sure.



Well the first point that SS involves a different problem than the inner city. On a large scale I say they don't. Both involve a basic problem, both do not have enough cash flow to cover getting out of poverty at a set point in time. What you want to say is the causes of that deficit are different, and here on a large scale I would disagree too. Both, supposedly involve lack of foresight and the market, as we have set it up, doesn't reward both with getting out of poverty. I'm sure I can dig out some quotes from the 60's about how SS would reward slothfulness, etc. I'm sure on some level it probably did, but as a fact it reduced poverty for the elderly by 2/3rds, even taking into account the lazy ones. That's a good effective rate.

As to SS being a Ponzi scheme. It's not, it's a tax like any other tax that can be adjusted to fit the makeup of the constituency. If you enact a tax break you should, generally, expect less income and less spending. If you have more elderly to pay out you can expect taxes to be raised or benefits to be cut. It's really that simple. The Aaaaaughibbrgubugbugle! of unfunded liabilities are a smoke screen for the real reason, which is SS is supposedly stealing money at gun point. Dvaut1 has a post about unfunded liabilities and SS Ponzi schemes somewhere that nails it on the head.

It's completely different. Most old people are not physically capable of working full time. Most poor people are. Also old people getting SS is something they paid into their whole life,not free money. Apples and oranges.

What you're wanting to say is that the elderly cannot preform the kinds of work that lift them out of poverty, which is also very true of the poor.
So still apples and apples.

As for "free money" vs SS. First, how they calculate how much money you receive is not the actual money you put in. The money you put into the vault was spent by the elderly a while ago. So the "putting money into SS" is a nice myth to make it feel justified but it's no more justified than say getting a tax break for having a child. How much money did you put into the vault to justify getting a tax break? Doesn't matter, they'll rate it on your income when you have a child. But notice, when you asked that you've jumped criteria. You're not asking, "Will this improve the lives of the poor?", now you're asking, "Is the money we give to lift the impoverished out of poverty justified?" which is the beginning of a long history of talking about the "deserving poor".

Part of the "deserving poor" discussion is about who deserves it, and why. The theory that the discussion is leaning on is the individual theory of poverty. There would be no, or little, poverty if not but for the actions of individuals who bring it upon themselves, and therefor don't deserve help. Welfare should only be reserved for those who truly deserve it. Medicare originally was created for (white) widows and orphans because, it was thought, they couldn't control their circumstances, unlike others.

There are a lot of recently-unemployed poor people out there who paid into the system most of their lives.

I didn't say the poor don't deserve help. I simply said that comparing senoir citizens to inner city poor is not a valid comparison. As for old people taking more out of SS than they put in, what was the dollar that was withheld from their paycheck in 1975 worth compared to the dollar they are repaid today.

Old people still would have had a strong incentive to save during their working years, and yet a whole ****load of them ended up poor.

And when SS was founded, old people who'd never paid a cent into the system got money.

I know. I said that the problem is, at heart, exactly the same. They don't earn enough to lift themselves out of poverty. Ultimately the solution will be the same, them having enough money to lift them out of poverty, no? Seems apples to apples to me.

I think I understand what is meant though. The elderly are part of structural poverty. The specific people change but, overall, people after 65 or so are endemically in poverty. The question should be then, are the people in the inner city or the rural poor structurally poor or are they poor by their own decisions that could be avoided?

Interesting that you brought up healthcare because, like education, we're spending more than ever before but not getting what we would consider optimal results. A big problem in both areas is massive administrative bloat.

Relying on private employer to help feed me = hard working individualist

Relying on government to help feed me= mooching parasite


Only the self employed business man should ever dare use the taxes is theft meme and even then it's dumb as he relies upon infrastructure built by the previous generations to feed himself.

So 100% of the time?