SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Poverty-alleviation programs like food stamps (SNAP), Social Security, and other "welfare" programs are broadly effective at reducing poverty, a new study from University of Chicago researchers found.
The study, performed by researchers Bruce Meyer and Derek Wu, conducted a more comprehensive analysis than most studies, because it used administrative data from the programs' payment records, not just survey data of recipients from the Census Bureau.
[...] For the elderly, Wu said the research found that Social Security benefits "single-handedly slashes poverty by 75%." Social Security's overall effect on all poverty is also enormous, responsible for by far the largest poverty reduction among all these programs, the study said.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Study: Public Assistance Programs Lessen Poverty
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 100 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
"The subspace _W inherits the other 8 properties of _V. And there aren't
even any property taxes."
-- J. MacKay, Mathematics 134b
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @08:19AM (11 children)
The truth is, notwithstanding The Green Revolution [wikipedia.org], Malthus [wikipedia.org] was quite correct:
Given that it's always the poor (read: less useful and almost always corrupt, immoral and unprincipled -- God showers the righteous with wealth and curses the wicked and ungodly with poverty [wikipedia.org]) who suffer, it's incredibly inhumane to allow such suffering to continue.
We must be strong and do God's work! Cull the herds and remove the weak, immoral and lazy. We know who they are. They're the bottom 20% of every society. They are always a burden on the rest of us. Some people have radical solutions [thoughtcatalog.com], but they are generally cruel and ungodly.
And so I propose that the useless who burden our society (and if they're poor, they've obviously been forsaken by God because they are unworthy) should not be murdered or removed from society. Rather, we should remove their unworthy genes from the genetic pool.
If we are to succeed as a civilization, we must be strong and resolute. Every generation (25-30 years or so, I'll leave the specifics up to the policy makers -- they are most loved by God!) the poorest 20% of the population should be sterilized before puberty.
Removing the least deserving in society on a regular basis will ensure that only the most worthy will procreate. This will both reduce the surplus population and ensure that those who are of little or no use don't create more people who are of little or no use.
Within a century we will live in a new Eden, a paradise on Earth!
Praise God!
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday May 29 2018, @08:48AM (6 children)
I wholeCPUedly agree with your assessment but for one point: the toxic meatbags who ruin the party for everybody else do not stay in the lower classes for long. Being free from scruples make them float above others fast. Plus, lower classes make the system work. So, start selectively culling on the other end of the social ladder and see miracles happen.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Entropy on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:16AM (4 children)
South Africa tried that, and now they are starving. Turns out if you murder the people that are actually producing all the food(aka have land, and assets), then replace them with people from a poverty background the folks don't magically gain the drive and skills to succeed. Instead, you ruin those industries and starve.
Then of course you ask for assistance from the world because poverty.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:04AM (2 children)
Note that I said
> start selectively culling
and referred to the toxic ones.
The situation in SA is not directly about the toxic ones, it's envy of the wealth accumulated by others no matter how, instigated by the toxic ones.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Osamabobama on Tuesday May 29 2018, @06:45PM (1 child)
The problem is, nobody has culled the right people to make this work. You can't just go around killing people indiscriminately and expect to prosper; you have to kill just the right people in order for it to work.
Okay, so now what? Oh, yeah: make me your leader and I will provide you with the list of names. It will definitely work out better this time.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:59PM
> You can't just go around killing people indiscriminately
I know, I know, fourth directive and all.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday May 30 2018, @01:37AM
That was South Africa. What you are implying is that large portions of America's workforce couldn't survive without the c-suites protecting us from ourselves, and performing services only they can.
LOL. That's complete utter fucking bullshit. C-suites are not as important, or indispensable, as they think they are. The specific MBA tasks that really need, can honestly, be mostly automated these days. C-suites exist to service the workers actually providing product, not the other way around. One day soon, AI can and will replace a lot of MBA tasks that workers need fulfilled.
In America we really could kill the entire c-suite class, and all of the Elites, and all of the bankers, and we would be just fine. The factories would still exist, the farms would still exist, all that would gone are management tasks. Other than that, all that the c-suites have ever provided us are more and more effective ways to make money. That goal quite often results in quite negative outcomes for the Middle Class, and even worse on the poor and vulnerable. As for the management of great big distribution channels going everywhere, ie the Middle Men, technology can help us there too. The Internet is really fucking amazing, and I'm positive that there is technology that would help us model our needs and predict our demand/supply.
The average level of intelligence in America is still sufficient to kill of the Elites, and still have enough skillsets and experience at the top to meet our needs. The difference being of course, that the new class of managers that will be created will be employee oriented first, and not the toxic modality of shareholder first.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:56PM
I disagree with your use of "lower classes" as if there are more than 2 classes in total.
(The 2 classes in a Capitalist system are The Proletariat and The Bourgeoisie.)
...then there's the use of "lower".
In addition, I note that Marx advocated for a classless society.
...which was going pretty well in USSR--until Stalin decided he'd rather have a dictatorship. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [redflag.org.au]
...but, if we substitute "Workers", your point is well made.
As proof, let's look at a country with a Reactionary Oligarchical class which, in the prior week, has been shown the power of The Working Class.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:43AM
That's exactly what the original intent with welfare was. [spectator.co.uk] And when we say "was", we mean "is". Look at the lives of people in any welfare dependant shithole for evidence.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday May 30 2018, @02:07AM (1 child)
Not sure why this is modded troll.
It should be, IMHO, modded '+1 Informative' as it provides (with references) a look at how Christians in the US view poverty and lack of opportunity.
The US, since even before its founding has had large numbers (starting with the Puritans [wikipedia.org]) of Christians (mostly protestants) who view poverty as a sign of moral failing. What's more, many Christians believe that wealth is a consequence of their faith [wikipedia.org].
This view was examined by Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic And The Spirit of Capitalism [wikipedia.org] in the early 20th century.
This idea was long embodied in vagrancy laws [wikipedia.org] and the poor quality of essential services, poor quality education and other incredibly regressive and punitive public policies, many of which continue to this day.
The idea that the rich are more deserving, moral and just plain *better* than the poor is deeply rooted in American religious and civic traditions.
There are arguments on both sides of the idea that the poor are that way because they deserve to be poor, vis a vis the idea that poverty is primarily a result of societal and economic structures and policies.
An interesting discussion about this can be found here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/stewardship/rykenlelandpuritansandmoney/ [apuritansmind.com]
Another discussion gives examples of how this really isn't the case:
http://www.mourningmail.com/posts/580 [mourningmail.com]
As well as discussion as to how this idea is true:
https://www.slayerment.com/poor-people-choose-be-poor [slayerment.com]
Perhaps AC used some hyperbole in their (IMHO) satirical treatment of the connection between religious righteousness and wealth.
Apparently, satire is (at least on SN) not appreciated.
Methinks Jonathan Swift [gutenberg.org] would be disappointed in you troll modders.
Just a little food for thought if you actually care to think.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Informative) by VanessaE on Wednesday May 30 2018, @03:26AM
....which is why the fundies who follow that crap can go fuck themselves with a rusty flagpole, no lube.
I'm poor, though I don't look it because I'm careful with how I spend my money, but I will not hesitate to say that I'm a good person. I'll just leave it at that.
No, G*d doesn't foist poverty on people. The rich do that by controlling access to all the resources they can, and the true dregs of society handle the rest by just shoving the poor out of sight as much as possible.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 30 2018, @03:53AM
No, he wasn't. As I have noted [soylentnews.org] before, what destroys the Malthusian argument is not the Green Revolution, but the emancipation of women (including birth control and entry into the labor pool). Once women had something better to do than just have kids, they did that instead. That's why the developed world has a universally declining native population (once you get past first and second generation immigrants from higher fertility parts of the world).
The rest of your troll is rather boring.