Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
I look forward to the rational discourse that rebuts these posts.
I look forward to the rational discourse that rebuts these posts.
I know that you're trolling, but I legitimately want to know what you mean by the bold.
When conservatives make a scene and, ultimately, convince the government to conduct natural experiments to test their hypotheses, research reveals over and over again that the millions (if not tens of millions of dollars) spent to test these hypotheses were spent to uncover very few incidences of the phenomena in question. And this happens across the board, no matter the issue and no matter the organization conducting the research.
From the perspective of a party that is at least putatively against bureaucratic bloat and reckless government spending, how does make any sense?
You don't believe the research that says if you grow up in a two parent household, your chances of staying out of poverty are demonstrably better than the alternative? Mean old JHMD has duped the conservative rag THE BOSTON GLOBE into believing it?
Go back to your Safe Space. Then you won't have to read this. If you did, you'd have to have an answer for this:
The advantages of growing up in an intact family and being married extend across the population. They apply about as much to blacks and Hispanics as they do to whites. For instance, black men enjoy a marriage premium of at least $12,500 in their individual income compared to their single peers. The advantages also apply, for the most part, to men and women who are less educated. For instance, men with a high-school degree or less enjoy a marriage premium of at least $17,000 compared to their single peers.
'df07 unsurprisingly called that one.
Your post is fine and good and has nothing to do with the question that I asked you. I know you're a smart guy, jhmd, and pretty much everyone on this board agrees with your basic premise that intact families are likely better indicators of success down the road. What is the relevance of your response to my post?
ETA: Most of the research that I cited agrees with your basic premise, as well, and cites a lot of research that supports it, so it's not like we can't have a conversation about this stuff.
'
You asked for the stats, presumably because you doubted them. Now you claim you agree with them. Which is it?
Explain to me how chain dependency is a sustainable plan capable of showing gains.
One would think that if it was as widespread as pubs claim that it is (see also: voter fraud), then it would manifest itself in a way that could be statistically measurable. After all, these agencies -govt, NPO, and private - collect tons of data. If economists can figure out the dynamics of drug and prostitution markets (see Levitt's work), I find it hard to believe that there's no way to investigate this.
Or, you could simply refer to the mountains of scholarship across disciplines that show that these phenomena are nowhere near as prevalent as the talking points suggest.
shrug
Let's not pretend that would matter. SJWs have a pretty good answer for widespread, statically measurable social problems they'd rather not confront. Blame that ish on privilege and move on.
Please make your point that the existence of the welfare state is the cause of American poverty
It has nothing to do with gaming the welfare system. It's two completely separate discussions. You aren't stupid so we know you can grasp that. You're shucking and jiving.
Your transparent, if ill-fated, attempt to wash your unclean hands by pretending not to hear my oft-repeated response that the number of people gaming the system is dwarfed by the number of people being gamed by the system, is tiresome and unconvincing. Your favorite saying in these here parts is "Follow the money." You're (deliberately) missing my point: nobody could game your awful, broken system. It's a loser's bet on its best day. But you won't admit that.
I'll kindly ask you to "Follow the power" of America's failed welfare state. Will you?
If it was a solution, wouldn't we know it by now?
Jh doesn't need his own thread. Stop bitching.
It has nothing to do with gaming the welfare system. It's two completely separate discussions. You aren't stupid so we know you can grasp that. You're shucking and jiving.
haven't we determined this is racist ?
But that has nothing to do with whether or not welfare programs are full of gamers or not. It's a different point altogether.
Your next post will be that the existence of welfare programs causes single parent families. Another non data-based theory.
But by all means, go right ahead.
In my best 30-for-30, what if I told you there was empirical evidence that a certain behavior, entirely within the control of the effected individual, that significantly improved one's chances of sustainable, economic self-sufficiency out of poverty, and did so across racial lines, wouldn't you want to make that behavior the baseline of social change? Why would that behavior be the problem that dare not speak its name, to the party who pretends to care about such things?