Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 188 posts

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#101

Post by socialist_coder »

delinka wrote: post #38
AC__ wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess since we can't all openly stereotype people based on race and religion any longer we'll have to make do with stereotyping the poor. I'd love for you to show me these iPod toting welfare recipients. I'm Canadian, and can assure you that welfare recipients are not living high-on-the-hog. Due to the extremely high cost of living in Canada they are, in fact, quite impoverished http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_ncw…

And all you'll ever get is anecdote if you look in the U.S. The "welfare professionals" (let's define this term to mean those that know precisely the minimum of effort to maintain the illusion of 'seeking gainful employment' in order to keep their handouts) keep a low-profile and compartmentalize well. Going to the welfare office today? Don't wear new/"in" clothing, don't take the iDevice with. Out and about socially…

LOL, so it's a conspiracy and all the poor people are in on it!

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#102

Post by nitrogen »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #85
Matumio wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually one of the arguments for UBI (unconditional basic income) - it would reduce the problem that welfare can't reach many of the people who are supposed to benefit from it but too proud to ask for help. (UBI would also reduce the welfare trap mentioned in the Cato article.)

So instead of trying to allocate limited resources to those who most need it we should instead blindly split those resources equally among everyone? And this will help the poor how?

The argument behind the U in UBI (universal) is that it removes incentives against work (cases where working harder yields less money), costs less because there's no effort to keep people out, and is repaid as taxes by those with larger incomes.

I'd need to see numbers again, but it's raw numbers we should use to decide how to run an economy, not rhetoric about "helping the poor how?"

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#104

Post by abalone »

orangecat wrote: post #50
abalone wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey guess what? Silicon Valley is a product of massive amounts of government funding too. DARPA's budget is about $3B this year alone. You can thank Uncle Sam for autonomous vehicles, Siri and the Internet, to pick just three. So if investing taxes in people isn't "free market capitalism" then neither is the tech industry.

DARPA's budget is about $3B this year alone. Compared to $10 billion in R&D for Microsoft and Intel and $8 billion for Google: http://fortune.com/2014/11/17/top-10-research-development/

...in late stage development which is MUCH less risky. Super risky early stage tech development mostly happens in the public sector at taxpayer expense through government agencies like DARPA.

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#105

Post by rdtsc »

ethagknight wrote: post #103

Wait, confused how Bush brainwashed and manipulated evangelicals? The linked article discusses the Bush whitehouse reaching out to constituents. Are evangelicals really easy to brainwash?

> Are evangelicals really easy to brainwash?

Yes they are. They are in a way pre-brainwashed by their leaders so using just the right rhetoric you can get them to act as a block and get them to do your bidding. They also have a nice property that they congregate in large megachurches, you really just have to convince the pastor to preach your agenda, and you instantly got thousands of voters.

Here is an excerpt from the link:

"President Bush made his famous comment that his favorite political philosopher was Jesus Christ because he changes your heart, I was a little bit surprised by that. Surprised, because presidential candidates usually do not make specific sectarian references to their beliefs. …"

Note, Bush Jr wasn't the only one who realized and exploited the potential. The AIPAC (Pro Israel Lobby) is also using Evangelicals.

http://www.aipac.org/connect/communities/yourchurch

^ The strategy is pretty clear. Identify pastors of megachurges and cater to them.

Here is an excerpt from AIPAC's mission page:

"Pastors and other significant community leaders have amplified their voices by inviting elected officials to speak about the U.S.-Israel relationship in church, organizing parlor meetings with members of Congress to lobby them on pro-Israel legislation and participating in AIPAC’s annual Policy Conference."

I have seen the effect first hand, it was very effective. An elderly relative was a member in one of those churches. Maybe 20-15 years ago they couldn't show you where Middle East was on the map. And all of the sudden within 5 years they somehow started talking about supporting the state Isreal and their house filled with trinkets built by settlers as "thank you"s from thousands in donations she sent over there and so on. It was a bit baffling, at first. Then I watched one the sermons by her pastor once (she had a recording) and it become clear what's happening.

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#106

Post by michaelkeenan »

abalone wrote: post #43
xacaxulu wrote: post #13

I was born into a single parent family in a trailer park. I worked my way out of that situation including serving in the US Marines in order to pay for college. Even coming from a background that should have led my family to use welfare (mom was too proud and cleaned houses instead) I tend to lean more towards the idea that welfare and the nanny state in general hurt more than they help. The CATO Institute does a lot…

Every Cato Institute loving Silicon Valley Libertarian should learn this one word: DARPA $3 Billion / year of taxpayer funds invested in the tech industry. Plus, lots of other government agencies and procurement involved in nurturing tech. I mean literally Siri was invented by DARPA.[1] And you can thank it for your next autonomous car.[2] Also a thing called the Internet. So tell us again how investing in people is…

When we see someone say something disagreeable, it's tempting to hope that they also hold another view inconsistent with that. Then we can point out the inconsistency. But if we assume that they hold this other view, we will say irrelevant, nonsensical things.

You ask xacaxulu to "tell us again" something they never said in the first place.

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#107

Post by icebraining »

abalone wrote: post #43
xacaxulu wrote: post #13

I was born into a single parent family in a trailer park. I worked my way out of that situation including serving in the US Marines in order to pay for college. Even coming from a background that should have led my family to use welfare (mom was too proud and cleaned houses instead) I tend to lean more towards the idea that welfare and the nanny state in general hurt more than they help. The CATO Institute does a lot…

Every Cato Institute loving Silicon Valley Libertarian should learn this one word: DARPA $3 Billion / year of taxpayer funds invested in the tech industry. Plus, lots of other government agencies and procurement involved in nurturing tech. I mean literally Siri was invented by DARPA.[1] And you can thank it for your next autonomous car.[2] Also a thing called the Internet. So tell us again how investing in people is…

I'm pretty sure Cato knows about DARPA, as many of its contributors regularly criticize it. I'm not sure why you're assuming they're for it.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/ca...

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#108

Post by rictic »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #85
Matumio wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually one of the arguments for UBI (unconditional basic income) - it would reduce the problem that welfare can't reach many of the people who are supposed to benefit from it but too proud to ask for help. (UBI would also reduce the welfare trap mentioned in the Cato article.)

So instead of trying to allocate limited resources to those who most need it we should instead blindly split those resources equally among everyone? And this will help the poor how?

The wealthy will, in effect, receive nothing, as their taxes will increase more than they will receive from UBI.

Two of the strongest arguments for UBI are: 1) we waste a lot of money administering welfare services. UBI is designed to be inexpensive to administer, which directs more money to the poor. 2) research is beginning to suggest that direct cash transfers have better long term impact per dollar spent than just about any other intervention. see, e.g. research on GiveDirectly's impact

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#109

Post by spacemanmatt »

delinka wrote: post #38
AC__ wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess since we can't all openly stereotype people based on race and religion any longer we'll have to make do with stereotyping the poor. I'd love for you to show me these iPod toting welfare recipients. I'm Canadian, and can assure you that welfare recipients are not living high-on-the-hog. Due to the extremely high cost of living in Canada they are, in fact, quite impoverished http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_ncw…

And all you'll ever get is anecdote if you look in the U.S. The "welfare professionals" (let's define this term to mean those that know precisely the minimum of effort to maintain the illusion of 'seeking gainful employment' in order to keep their handouts) keep a low-profile and compartmentalize well. Going to the welfare office today? Don't wear new/"in" clothing, don't take the iDevice with. Out and about socially…

Yup, you definitely sound like you have never been poor.

Re: The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor

#110

Post by bko »

rdtsc wrote: post #46
projectileboy wrote: post #35

Getting average citizens worked up over welfare is a standard way for the extremely wealthy and powerful to distract those same average citizens from noticing where their tax money gets squandered the most - large corporate subsidies, infrastructure projects that benefit the richest neighborhoods, and so on, and so on. The largest welfare programs I know of are unneeded weapons systems, which very intentionally subco…

At the end of the day it boils down to that fact that the poor as a class, are easily abused and manipulated -- by governments, private entities, even the poor themselves. One of the most perverted ways they are abused is they are convinced to vote against their own interests. For example thinking back at Obama's healthcare reform and the fate of the single payer option vis-a-vis the "get your socialist government ou…

Why is it that when rich people vote against their self interest and vote to raise taxes, that's considered noble. But when poor people vote against their self interest and vote for the government to take less money from people other than them, they're being manipulated?
Post reply on HN