Zero percent of economists agree!

I think you should look up what objective means.

I also think it funny that I have yet to see anyone (from the "we hate smp" crowd) actually attack the logic or reason of a post.

You must not know what those words mean, then.

Alternative theory, you're not reading this thread.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/...lly-increased/

from the link within the link (which is what you actually should have linked to)

oops

Sometimes.

But transfer payments to the poor have been shown to boost the economy even more efficiently, so what's your point?

LOOOL remember when Professor of Cross Burning over here claimed I was making up his position and acted all hurt about it, like I couldn't possibly know what deep intellectual heft he had? He contains multitudes!

Turns out that his titular question in the OP was absolutely disingenuous trolling! Something that was only obvious to, oh, literally every single person who read it! Good work on wasting 500 ****ing posts to get to the part where you spit out your actual point. Extra credit for that point being warmed over rhetoric from the ****ing 1850s.

Just as a sidebar, what? From scratch? **** it, Billy, recess is cancelled, you're working the clean room today, gotta crank out a chipset if you want to play Minecraft.

Probably gotta process some gold ore before you go making microchips, connectors and all

If Billy wasn't on welfare, he would have certainly gone out to the mine himself.

Ron Swanson worked the mine by age 10 and he's a true Murican.

The only way to determine if a person is lazy is through direct observation of them in life or by way of an admission, so unless you have directly observed or have received admissions from every poor person to back your assumption, I think you are just making stuff up to confirm your world view.


This is all very convenient, but the added cynicism about the "D"s to reinforce the stereotype they enslave people with basic necessity is absurd.

While we can find examples of and parallels with "work or starve" ideology in the "R" camp.

Why fly says "we're on to you" this is the sort of thing he's talking about.

sigh

Zing!

A half a century or so ago, some economists were predicting that due to our increasing production efficiency the average 40 hour work week would halve or quarter. The reasoning being that once people’s basic needs were met they wouldn’t work. What we found instead was that the more people got the more they wanted, so instead of one householder working 20 hours a week we typically have two working 80. Most people, but some won’t because they’re lazy in the sense of just being interested in supplying their most basic needs. And some of those people take advantage of our safety nets, but I think the numbers that actually do for that reason are highly exaggerated. However, I do think there is a not insignificant portion of the poor who fit that profile, not because they don’t want more, but because they don’t believe they can get more. In other words, some don’t believe in the promise of the dream and hence don’t pay the price, i.e., those little disciplines like staying in school, postponing a family until their career is on path, etc. And while I can understand people seeing them as victims of circumstance, I can’t understand why some paint them as victims. Meaning even if their victimhood is true in a general sense, instilling that belief in someone who without it may have overcome the odds sans believing otherwise is wrong, if one’s intentions are genuinely humanitarian and pure evil if politically motivated.

What? No I don't need the direct observation or confession to determine that some are poor because they are "lazy".

I asked the question previously (which you didn't answer) if you thought every single poor person was hard working and just couldn't get ahead because of "the man". So what's your answer?

Holy false dichotomy batman!

The two options aren't. Poor black people are lazy. Poor black people are victims.

You can understand the agency of people and the need for personal responsibility, whilst not pretending that everyone had the same chance. You can also suggest ways to fix the underlying structural problems without assuming everyone is a victim.

Sigh. I should have just done a fly, because it's obvious your post is just another "not saying what you mean" thing.

Black people are poorer because they are lazier right? There may be non racial reasons for that laziness, but it's still the reason?

Hard hitting questions ITT.

edit: nevermind. carry on.

So why the 1 person gets the job is irrelevant? I know you don't have a job in HR. GOD ALMIGHTY - no wonder our country is how it is. (hint: it has nothing to do with race/gender/sexual orientation or anything else you want to throw into the argument)

I mean, besides this non-sequitor, you previously stated that your criticism of welfare was due to its structure, but now you seem to be saying it's slavery to offer assistance to the poor. I'm having trouble seeing a coherent position.

Yes, very. The point of the discussion was to show that there were not enough jobs for all the people.

I'm sure some applicants had poor work history and some were lazy just looking to show that they'd applied for a job so they could keep getting free money, but I'm equally as sure that some were quite qualified, skilled, and eager to get back to work.

But there were no jobs for available for any of these types of people. The numbers did not allow it, and that was the point of the conversation.

I don't see what anything I said in that post has to do with assistance to the poor. I was commenting on the absurd notion that the only reason people cut taxes is to "help" the "rich".

Over 75% - but if the 75% were ALL whites it wouldn't be an issue because "we had our time"

The 90s were so good because of Reagan's politics - most economists will say it takes about 10 years to show the effects of tax cuts. Good post jibs

This would hold weight if zero economists didn't agree that interest rates would rise this year - what do you have to say about that?

Remember when Jeremiah Wright said white people were bad?? Excellent Job again FLY - what's your point again? We're not in a BS court trial

You are correct

FLY is never onto anything - hence why he never makes a ****ing point