Racial Tension in the U.S.

[David.]

Coming back and reading this, I definitely came across quite inhumane -- I apologize for that, it was not my intention.

The thought process in my mind is more geared towards the complexities of the issues within Government intervention on these matters.

I guess what I am trying to say is at what cost do we (re)integrate and evaluate approach? How stringent would the evaluation processes be? [From my studies/observations], the current net is a little too wide, as far as qualification and the incentive to actually graduate yourself from Government/State assistance.

Imagine running on taking away welfare. Regardless of how efficacious it isnt.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Imagine running on taking away welfare. Regardless of how efficacious it isnt.

So if the solution entails something that is politically unpopular, we are unlikely ever to enact it.

Which suggests to me that significant improvement is very unlikely.

 

[David.]

So if the solution entails something that is politically unpopular, we are unlikely ever to enact it. Which suggests to me that significant improvement is very unlikely.

Candidates run on batshit stupid things. Whatever is most incendiary will get people irrationally invested. Ain't a great system.

 

[AZ_]

Imagine running on building a giant fucking wall and thinking it will solve immigration.

 

[Nathan S]

Is there any research on whether unemployed people receiving more welfare are more or less likely to find a job? There are arguments to be made both ways, but actual data, especially from an unbiased source, would be more persuasive.

 

[David.]

Is there any research on whether unemployed people receiving more welfare are more or less likely to find a job? There are arguments to be made both ways, but actual data, especially from an unbiased source, would be more persuasive.

More or less compared to?

Average welfare recipient works 16 hours.

Welfare threatens the removal of entitlementst should you get married or start working for example. That's going to encourage the wrong things

 

[Nathan S]

More or less compared to?

Average welfare recipient works 16 hours.

Welfare threatens the removal of entitlementst should you get married or start working for example. That's going to encourage the wrong things

I'm totally aware of the arguments for both sides. I'm just wondering if anyone's researched different strategies (on a basic level, less vs. more welfare) to see how effective they are in promoting upward mobility (from unemployed or under-employed to a steady full-time job).

 

[David.]

I'm totally aware of the arguments for both sides. I'm just wondering if anyone's researched different strategies (on a basic level, less vs. more welfare) to see how effective they are in promoting upward mobility (from unemployed or under-employed to a steady full-time job).

Considering the psychology of dependency, I doubt giving people more would encourage them to provide for themselves, but I hope you get the answer youre looking for

 

[Nathan S]

Considering the psychology of dependency, I doubt giving people more would encourage them to provide for themselves, but I hope you get the answer youre looking for

Yeah, but on the flip side if you don't give people enough money to survive on, you're threatening their physical and mental health (which makes them less employable), and you're incentivizing them to commit petty crimes (which is very bad for the community at large).

There are definitely two sides to this coin; we could talk in circles about it for the next ten pages I'm sure but as I said before I'd rather see some real-life studies.

 

[David.]

Yeah, but on the flip side if you don't give people enough money to survive on, you're threatening their physical and mental health (which makes them less employable), and you're incentivizing them to commit petty crimes (which is very bad for the community at large).

There are definitely two sides to this coin; we could talk in circles about it for the next ten pages I'm sure but as I said before I'd rather see some real-life studies.

http://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/how-welfare-harms-kids

 

[Nathan S]

http://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/how-welfare-harms-kids

A good start, but I'm really looking for an unbiased look at things. This site doesn't even bother to hide its right-wing bias, and rates as an "extreme right" news source (further right than Fox, similar to Breitbart) according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heritage-foundation

 

[David.]

A good start, but I'm really looking for an unbiased look at things. This site doesn't even bother to hide its right-wing bias, and rates as an "extreme right" news source (further right than Fox, similar to Breitbart) according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heritage-foundation

Dude this is silly.

You're comparing a think tank to Fox news? Or BRIETBART?

They cited 14 studies.

This is ad hominem. You're attacking the source and not addressing the argument. Feel free to look up the textbook definition, which this is. This is what happens with the fact checking sites. Completely poison the well. Common sense isn't enough,. So I find data. Now the data is somehow invalid because of who it comes from.

A biased source can be right, can't it? You have mountains of data to look at. Do you care to address the actual data and report?

These conversations can't go anywhere if one side refuses to use fallacy and the other depends on it.

 

[BooyaCS]

A good start, but I'm really looking for an unbiased look at things. This site doesn't even bother to hide its right-wing bias, and rates as an "extreme right" news source (further right than Fox, similar to Breitbart) according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heritage-foundation

Here is a piece from Forbes which is right leaning.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...fective-welfare-benefits-system/#3bae2c324cb5

CBS left center bias
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-social-welfare-benefits-help-the-economy/

The problem comes in as both of these may be hit pieces in favor of welfare. Trying to find hard numbers and emperical data is lacking (not surprised).

 

[BooyaCS]

Dude this is silly.

You're comparing a think tank to Fox news? Or BRIETBART?

They cited 14 studies.

This is ad hominem. You're attacking the source and not addressing the argument. Feel free to look up the textbook definition, which this is. This is what happens with the fact checking sites. Completely poison the well. Common sense isn't enough,. So I find data. Now the data is somehow invalid because of who it comes from.

A biased source can be right, can't it? You have mountains of data to look at. Do you care to address the actual data and report?

These conversations can't go anywhere if one side refuses to use fallacy and the other depends on it.

One problem I have is that a vast majority of the sources are from 1995 or before. So the data is outdated when applying it to modern legislation (it doesn't take into account some of the Clinton welfare reforms that went in place in 1996).

 

[Nathan S]

Dude this is silly.

You're comparing a think tank to Fox news? Or BRIETBART?

They cited 14 studies.

This is ad hominem. You're attacking the source and not addressing the argument. Feel free to look up the textbook definition, which this is. This is what happens with the fact checking sites. Completely poison the well. Common sense isn't enough,. So I find data. Now the data is somehow invalid because of who it comes from.

A biased source can be right. You have mountains of data to look at. Do you care to address the actual data and report?

These conversations can't go anywhere if one side refuses to use fallacy and the other depends on it.

The problem isn't that the data is necessarily invalid, it's that it's cherrypicked. They looked for and found 14 studies that back their viewpoint, and didn't give any consideration to other viewpoints.

I can probably find a 20-page report like this from a far-left source that also cherrypicks studies that fit their biases and then I can sit here and ask you to pick it apart and show me why it's wrong. That's not productive.

On a basic level, my complaint with the reasoning in that report is the following. They show that employed people do better than similar people on welfare. I can believe that, no doubt. But what does cutting welfare accomplish, besides apparently forcing people to marry out of economic necessity? The ends justify the means, i guess (and screw anyone who can't find a decent person to marry)?