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This discussion has been archived.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.
You can't have your cake and let your neighbor eat it too.
-- Ayn Rand
(Score: 5, Insightful) by qzm on Tuesday May 29 2018, @08:19AM (8 children)
Their research seems to have basically checked that giving more resources to someone without them means they have more.. Earth shattering.
Of course what they didn't bother to research is the long term effects on their own ability to sustain themselves.
Or are we supposed to simply accept that once someones life is being funded by others that all is well in the world?
Don't get me wrong.. Good social support is a good thing, and can help avoid many problems.
But without great care it can create as many, if not more problems. Primarily dependence.
But no.. In their world it seems so long as the people being given (other people's) money are better off, then job done.
And this is research? There was better work being done in the 50s and 60s. This is primary school grade stuff.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday May 29 2018, @08:53AM (6 children)
Yep, I am not sure they got the idea, the IRL Capitalism steals from the poor and gives to the rich. IRL Communism steals from the not so poor and gives to the poor, while the rich are high ranking bureaucrats those mounting black market ops successfully. After the fall of east bloc communism the capitalist ruling class emerged in an instant.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @03:07PM
The fall of Communism simply revealed the authoritarians who already existed.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @03:10PM
Rather, a Capitalist is someone who gains control of resources solely through voluntary interaction with others.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:46PM (3 children)
You're NOT describing Communism (which is a classless society)
In Communism, all assets are held in trust for ALL the people and the people DEMOCRATICALLY decide what will be done with those assets).[1] [google.com]
[1] A soviet is a council (workers council, consumers council, town council, whatever).
What you are describing is Stalinism[2]--which is NOT something that Marx would recognize as what he was describing as Communism.[3]
Lenin would have been just as pissed off (if he wasn't dead) and, until he was murdered by Stalinists, Trotsky stayed pissed off at what Stalin had done to USSR.
[2] See the link above in #685935 [soylentnews.org]
As that motes, Stalinism more closely resembles the classist inequality of Capitalism than the egalitarianism in 1917 - 1923 USSR.
[3] Neither would the citizens of The Paris Commune of 1871 nor the citizens of Catalonia/Barcelona in 1936 - 1937 when they declared it to be A Workers' State.
.
Now, look at what Trump and the GOP[4] and their funders are doing and tell me how USA has a "Democracy" when the vast majority of USAians disapprove of that shit.
[4] Throw in the Dumbocrats for good measure.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 30 2018, @04:25AM (2 children)
Ever wonder why Stalin got so powerful during Lenin's reign? It's because Lenin needed a tough guy to murder people even after the Civil War ended. That Stalin then took over and retained power by continuing to murder people shouldn't be a surprise. That was his job from a time before the USSR even existed. Then we get to the post-Stalin stage after his death in 1953. Those problems with the elites running things still happened despite the end of Stalinism.
And of course, the usual word-mincing. In the real world, the democracy never happened and within a generation several of the worst murderers of history were in charge. It's the nature of the beast that one needs perfect people for the perfect civilization. It takes a lot of death to make imperfect people fit.
How did Trump get elected in the first place? I guess it's easy to forget that Trump won in the first place because a sufficient voting block disapproved of that shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30 2018, @12:21PM (1 child)
I've mentioned before the giant amount of Cold War bullshit you've swallowed.
Still applies.
...and a USAian pointing to other places and talking about murderers is just rich.
Those 3 fingers of your own hand pointing back at you are a small portion of the truth about what a treacherous, homicidal bunch USAians are.
How did Trump get elected?
42 percent of registered voter chose None of the Above.
That beat Clinton's 29 percent and Trump's 28 percent.
If we had an actual Democracy, there would have been a do-over.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 31 2018, @04:28AM
Pretty damn easy when it's Communist. Whataboutism fails hard when there's orders of magnitude difference.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:22PM
As I have encountered numerous times (perhaps because of my political leanings and my choices of media): "a hand up--not a handout".
...and another mention here for Italy's Marcora Law. [google.com]
Since 1985, that has allowed workers (10 or more), idled by boom-and-bust Capitalists, to start a worker-owned cooperative through receiving their unemployment benefits in a lump sum.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]