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

What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 163 posts

Re: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

#141

Post by notdrunkatall »

splitrocket wrote: post #106
notdrunkatall wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know what the Swedes didn't have a problem with a decade ago? Welfare abuse. All of a sudden, they have a problem with it now. Do you know who are the ones abusing the system? Hint: it's not the Swedes. Every other country which has accepted middle eastern immigrants in the last decade are experiencing the same problems. If a population does not respect your system, they will abuse it, period. If you can get o…

So, let me see if I have your position right: because some people will abuse a system that will improve things for many more people, we should not implement said system? Is that right? I think it is telling that you would rather not have one "type" of person benefit unjustly in the face of all of society benefiting greatly. Says more about your feelings about "types" of people than your willingness to participate in…

You have my position wrong.

You people suck at this.

Re: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

#142

Post by [deleted] »

nahname wrote: post #128
mcherm wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Correction: this is what happens when poor Cherokee receive a stipend, but let's not pretend that the Cherokee are the ones we're worried about here. [...] Successfully repeating this experiment in poor black and latino populations a few times would [...] I can't be sure what you intended to say here, but the message it sounds to me like you are implying sounds quite racist to me. I DO care about poor Cherokee -- a…

>every one of the "racial differences" (especially the mental ones) that have been claimed have turned out to be baseless and untrue. You should re-phrase that to point at racist claims. There are quite a few differences between the races. Bone density is one example. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863580/

[deleted]

Re: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

#143

Post by runamok »

notdrunkatall wrote: post #75
rauljara wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You left out poor white people in your discussion. While white people do have a lower rate of poverty than blacks or latinos, they actually make up a very large majority (68.5% as of 2009) of the people living under the poverty line in the United States. [1] "... let's not pretend that the Cherokee are the ones we're worried about here." "Successfully repeating this experiment in poor black and latino populations a f…

Forgive me for offending your politically correct sensibilities, but it seems that I'm going to have to be even more blunt: if you want to convince white people in this country that doling out free money to the poor is a good idea, you're going to have to convince them that blacks and latinos aren't going to abuse that system en masse. The only way to do that is to try something similar in neighborhoods that are comp…

> if you want to convince white people in this country that doling out free money to the poor is a good idea

Based on the last presidential election I'm not so sure you need to convince white voters about anything: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/...

Re: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

#144

Post by biafra »

chii wrote: post #90
vectorsys wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia is very authoritarian. They actually confiscated the guns. not just made them illegal. They threatened law abiding citizens with prison time for not turning them in. Here http://rense.com/general81/ligun.htm when other authoritarian regimes have confiscated guns. Not only that, but crime went up in Australia. Obviously the criminals didn't turn in their guns. Australia also makes it mandatory to vote. Any k…

Mandatory voting is more democratic. The US should do the same.

What does mandatory voting mean exactly?

Can I still vote invalid?

What ist the punishment for not voting?

Re: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

#145

Post by JoeAltmaier »

notdrunkatall wrote: post #43
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #34

The researcher supposed that the reduced stressors in poor parents' lives allowed them to be more nurturing, resulting in reduced problems with their children. Seems like a no-brainer to do, considering this analysis: "Bearing that in mind, Randall Akee, an economist at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a collaborator of Professor Costello’s, argues that the supplements actually save money in the long ru…

Correction: this is what happens when poor Cherokee receive a stipend, but let's not pretend that the Cherokee are the ones we're worried about here. There are differences between the subcultures, and those differences almost certainly extend to how they treat money. Furthermore, the psychological and social difference between receiving money from a source which a population would consider to be 'theirs' cannot be ov…

That is an overly precious view of money. Do poor Cherokee with starving kids care where the money comes from? If they do care, does it change anything? Do we leave kids suffer because some rich folks care about what they're thinking?

The fact is, the 1st attempt worked stupendously well at alleviating a critical problem. Further study will likely cause real delay and suffering, and is an excuse for inaction indefinitely.

Re: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

#146

Post by 1stop »

biafra wrote: post #144
chii wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mandatory voting is more democratic. The US should do the same.

What does mandatory voting mean exactly? Can I still vote invalid? What ist the punishment for not voting?

You have to show up (or post) a vote, there is no requirements on your actual vote (it can be completely blank, or a picture of ponies... but you have to put your bit of paper in the ballet box (or postbox)).

Punishment for not voting is usually a fine. Though encouraging people not to vote or to post invalid votes (i.e. subversion), can carry jail terms of up to 12 months (from memory).

Re: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

#147

Post by rXoX »

notdrunkatall wrote: post #141
splitrocket wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, let me see if I have your position right: because some people will abuse a system that will improve things for many more people, we should not implement said system? Is that right? I think it is telling that you would rather not have one "type" of person benefit unjustly in the face of all of society benefiting greatly. Says more about your feelings about "types" of people than your willingness to participate in…

You have my position wrong. You people suck at this.

No, I believe they have your position right, insofar as it's deeply flawed. Please go enjoy any one of several thousand books at your local library.

Re: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

#148

Post by icelancer »

vl wrote: post #92
icelancer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. In WA state they force the tribes to spend it "within the community," which ends up as huge hotels and other ridiculous expenses that don't help the poor members of the tribe.

I live in WA and I don't understand why local city casinos are choked, but we allow some specific groups to run casinos 30 minutes away by different rules. How is it making any sense? Lets run casinos on the same enabling rules and get taxes back to communities. The situation now is that members of all communities play, 3 communities pocket the profits.

Well... my point was a bit different. WA state grants tribal casinos better licensing for gambling as well as other breaks, but X% of the profits must be "re-invested" into the tribe by law.

Although the tribes by and large fund education, medical expenses, and other stuff rather well, it still leaves a huge surplus of money they are forced to spend on community "reinvestment." And that's how you get the ridiculous Tulalip hotel, and there's tons of outrage at the tribe for this - when in reality the law is forcing them to spend it.

Re: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

#149

Post by splitrocket »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #135
splitrocket wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define wasted. Was it burned? Unless you are talking about military expenditures, which have some of the lowest economic multipliers, it paid someone's salary, who in turn went and participated in the economy. Was it ideally spent? No, but read some Edward Denning: you can spend more money ensuring that only the right people get money or you can just wrote checks and accept statistical levels of error.

Uh, just Google: "Wasteful Government Spending" and you'll find a few gems like this: http://www.policymic.com/articles/48003/14-ridiculous-ways-t... "Gitmo detainees also have a soccer field funded by American taxpayers. Don't worry, it only cost $750,000 to build." "The federal government pays pensions of deceased employees, costing $120 million. According to the Huffington Post: "One man, whose father died in 1971…

Arguably, still not actually wasted. Went back into the money supply, bought goods and services, contributed to the economy.

Seriously, unless you have truly minimal savings rate like the dirt poor, when you pay taxes you are doing one of two things: building infrastructure or boosting the economy. Surely your taxes COULD be better spent, some government expenditures have higher economic multipliers than others, but wasted? You don't understand economics.

Re: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

#150

Post by splitrocket »

notdrunkatall wrote: post #141
splitrocket wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, let me see if I have your position right: because some people will abuse a system that will improve things for many more people, we should not implement said system? Is that right? I think it is telling that you would rather not have one "type" of person benefit unjustly in the face of all of society benefiting greatly. Says more about your feelings about "types" of people than your willingness to participate in…

You have my position wrong. You people suck at this.

How do I have your position wrong? Please enlighten me. Telling me I suck at "this" is hardly informative or constructive.

You indicated how a) this was a special case and that other types of people wouldn't behave similarly and that b) because other types of people wouldn't behave similarly this type of social policy shouldn't be enacted.

Yes? What did I miss?

Additionally, it is telling that you consider me to be plural. As if I am speaking on behalf of some sort of group that is "other" to you. Methinks, perhaps, you've caught the identity politics meme. You and I, we are not on separate teams, in different groups, or of a different type.

Post reply on HN