171–180 of 188 posts
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the OP I replied to should have been the one you censored. That post was ideological. I highlighted it true but that doesn't change anything.
I don't agree. The commenter's description of personal experience made it a valuable contribution. It did not come across as primarily ideological, whereas yours did, plus was snarky—a particularly unwanted combination.
I'm not sure I understand. Did you censor this because of my comment or because of the thread?
The bigger issue is shilling...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree. The commenter's description of personal experience made it a valuable contribution. It did not come across as primarily ideological, whereas yours did, plus was snarky—a particularly unwanted combination.
> It's not a question of your comment alone but of the whole subthread. I'm not sure I understand. Did you censor this because of my comment or because of the thread? The bigger issue is shilling...
> The bigger issue is shilling
Based on the data I see, I'm pretty sure that's false. But any user with specific concerns about astroturfing or shilling should email hn@ycombinator.com with links. When we get an email like that we look for evidence, and when we find evidence we act on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 jus…
>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. I find it hard to believe we waste more money administering welfare than we will transfer to those who really don't need it under the need-blind UBI. Under UBI we'll be giving money to many, many people who need it less than the current welfare recipients, and even UBI wil…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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. I find it hard to believe we waste more money administering welfare than we will transfer to those who really don't need it under the need-blind UBI. Under UBI we'll be giving money to many, many people who need it less than the current welfare recipients, and even UBI wil…
Do you happen to have any pointers to such research? If anything rigorous (comparable to GiveDirectly's randomized controlled trials) has been done in the US about the effect of just handing out cash, I would really be interested.
http://econweb.tamu.edu/common/files/workshops/PERC%20Applie...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387813...
http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/cfg...
Articles related to the studies:
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what-...
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-... (direct cash vs CCTs)
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3049642/solving-inequality/how-to...
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/wel...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I live in a small town and most of my poor friends voted for Obama. Now they are all furious because they're getting fined for not having health insurance. They don't make enough (or don't manage their money well enough) to pay for Obamacare every month. It doesn't provide great plans either - one person I know pays $130/month for a plan with a deductible of several thousand.
I was on the other end of the spectrum. I had a good insurance through a small company and because of Obama care also kind of got screwed insurance company raised our rates 50%+ in a couple of years before the whole thing started to go into effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not a question of your comment alone but of the whole subthread. I'm not sure I understand. Did you censor this because of my comment or because of the thread? The bigger issue is shilling...
I have a hard time reading that as a good-faith question. > The bigger issue is shilling Based on the data I see, I'm pretty sure that's false. But any user with specific concerns about astroturfing or shilling should email hn@ycombinator.com with links. When we get an email like that we look for evidence, and when we find evidence we act on it.
Well it was. I don't understand why you censored my OP. I clarified my point about the GP before you censored the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10447015. I've further clarified post-censorship https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10453441.
> Based on the data I see, I'm pretty sure that's false. But any user with specific concerns about astroturfing or shilling should email hn@ycombinator.com with links. When we get an email like that we look for evidence, and when we find evidence we act on it.
This is in effect a non-policy. This is pseudonymous forum. Users don't have any evidence other than heuristics (i.e. what the poster actually writes). Given that you don't accept that as evidence they have no possibility to raise serious questions unless there is blaringly obvious mistake on the shill's part.
EDIT Would the downvoter like to pitch in and actually contribute?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>A bit tangential, but I'd also argue that the military as recourse is, itself, an unfair burden on poor people. Not borne out by the statistics. The average recruit comes from a family that's better educated and wealthier than the average American. The real problem with poor people using the military to lift themselves out of poverty is so many of them can't enlist as a consequence of obesity or a criminal record.
'Rich kids don't feel compelled to enlist just to make financial ends meet.' Statistics only tell you the demographics of enlisting, not -why- they're enlisting. Plenty of people enlist because of reasons other than "I have no other options available to me". My point was that "I have no other options available to me" is only ever true for poor people.
And my point was if you have no other options the military probably won't take you either.
It also has the typical characteristics of demagoguery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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. I find it hard to believe we waste more money administering welfare than we will transfer to those who really don't need it under the need-blind UBI. Under UBI we'll be giving money to many, many people who need it less than the current welfare recipients, and even UBI wil…
Do you happen to have any pointers to such research? If anything rigorous (comparable to GiveDirectly's randomized controlled trials) has been done in the US about the effect of just handing out cash, I would really be interested.
"If I were an enterprising young researcher looking for an idea and experiments that will prove powerful in five years, I would try to find the stake I can drive into the heart of the cash transfer movement."
He states that giving cash is useful if the person is enterprising, such as trying to start a business, and direct cash is what is holding them back. I doubt this is most poor people, especially in the US. Otherwise, cash is not as useful as other poverty alleviation methods.
[1] http://chrisblattman.com/2013/06/27/why-cash-transfers-to-th...