Bifurcation: The charity of wealthy conservatives

[ribozyme]

Ahh, so what failed so badly in the past – that which actually made things worse – will work in the future?

Now there are two priceless sentences!!

Who says “equality of outcome” is possible, or even desirable? If it were, we’d all be NBA basketball players, rock stars and TV game show hosts, now wouldn’t we?

But education** will** alleviate poverty significantly – people with jobs are a giant stride above people who live on welfare. Indeed, I would think everyone would be for educating as many people as possible, so as to transform consumers of public assistance to contributors to the common good.

I’ll post this written by Charles Murray, one of the contributors of welfare reform.

opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531

I will not offer any comment on it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’ll post this written by Charles Murray, one of the contributors of welfare reform.

opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531

I will not offer any comment on it.

A moment ago you were sneering at The Bell Curve, and now you’re advocating the very positions it advances?

Let me explain – to say some people are less intelligent than others is one thing. To say we should not attempt to educate the lower half of the list is something else entirely different.

There are lots and lots of gainfully employed people who have IQs below 100.

 

[po18guy]

It’s not that simple. The principle legal obligation in a publicly traded company is to the stockholders.

What I was (poorly) suggesting is that the existence of companies and corporations is a blessing and benefit in and of itself. The employment they provide tends to be dismissed or zeroed out, even though it is a virtue unto itself, and companies, by their very existence, provide that. As compassionate as it sounds, the recent stress on a “living wage” is a poisoned, human concept with roots in socialism.

Christ’s peace.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What I was (poorly) suggesting is that the existence of companies and corporations is a blessing and benefit in and of itself. The employment they provide tends to be dismissed or zeroed out, even though it is a virtue unto itself, and companies, by their very existence, provide that. As compassionate as it sounds, the recent stress on a “living wage” is a poisoned, human concept with roots in socialism.

Christ’s peace.

And one that has no impact on poverty.

Note how the one program that does have an impact on poverty – education – is poo-pooed.

 

[ribozyme]

And one that has no impact on poverty.

Note how the one program that does have an impact on poverty – education – is poo-pooed.

I didn’t say that education would have no impact; I just think you are overestimating its effects.

BTW, education is not the only program that has an impact on poverty:

cbpp.org/7-19-05acc-pr.htm

Research and data show that the U.S. system of public benefits — including programs targeted on low-income Americans (such as food stamps, Medicaid, and the EITC) as well as universal social insurance programs (such as Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance) — have helped make millions of Americans healthier and more economically secure.

When people experience crises such as job loss or disability, these programs can cushion them against deep poverty. When people have low earnings or little or no health insurance, these programs can supplement their incomes and provide health care coverage. And when people reach retirement age, these programs provide retirement and health security.

Taken together, these programs lift 27 million people out of poverty. The programs also reduce the severity of poverty for those who remain poor; they lift the average family income of those who are poor from 29 percent of the poverty line to 57 percent of the poverty line. Through Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, the programs also provide health insurance to tens of millions of people who otherwise would lack health insurance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I didn’t say that education would have no impact; I just think you are overestimating its effects.

And you underestimate its effects.

But then you want to get rid of people who don’t meet your standards, don’t you?

BTW, education is not the only program that has an impact on poverty:

cbpp.org/7-19-05acc-pr.htm

Lots of programs have an impact on poverty – just not the impact we want.

Research and data show that the U.S. system of public benefits — including programs targeted on low-income Americans (such as food stamps, Medicaid, and the EITC) as well as universal social insurance programs (such as Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance) — have helped make millions of Americans healthier and more economically secure.

You are confounding charity with social justice.

The Parable of the Sunken Ship

A ship sank in the middle of the ocean. The survivors floated under the blazing sun in the life rafts, without food and water. Then a plane flew over and dropped food, water, chapstick and sun block.

A few days later, another plane flew over and dropped more food, water, chapstick and sun block. And another a few days later. And so it went, week after week, month after month – a drop of food, water, chapstick and sun block every few days.

And finally one of the survivors said, “I don’t want to seem ungrateful, and I really appreciate all this food, water, chapstick and sun block, but don’t you think it would be cheaper if they’d just take us ashore, and we could find our own food, water, chapstick and sun block?”

With enough charity, we could make the poor more comfortable in their poverty – by giving them money. But with education, we can make them self-supporting, and that’s better than charity.

 

[ribozyme]

Lots of programs have an impact on poverty – just not the impact we want.

What effect? Of course, I want poverty eliminated, but didn’t Jesus said that the poor will always be with us?

And you underestimate its effects.

But then you want to get rid of people who don’t meet your standards, don’t you?

I do not want to get rid of them… maybe, just maybe the Singularity will solve that, but I do not want to talk about that concept here.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What effect?

The opposite of the one we want. Like creating generations of people dependent on those programs. Like killing incentive to work. Like subsidizing out-of-wedlock births.

Of course, I want it eliminated, but didn’t Jesus said that the poor will always be with us?

And a million poverty program bureaucrats roared back, “They will if we have anything to do with it!”

 

[ribozyme]

The opposite of the one we want. Like creating generations of people dependent on those programs. Like killing incentive to work. Like subsidizing out-of-wedlock births.

And a million poverty program bureaucrats roared back, “They will if we have anything to do with it!”

Doesn’t the EITC provide an incentive to work?

A substantial body of research has been conducted on the EITC over the past decade, including numerous studies of its effect on employment.[1] Only people who work are eligible for the EITC, and for workers with very low earnings such as those who work less than full time, the size of the credit increases with each additional dollar of earnings, providing an incentive for more work.

cbpp.org/7-19-05eic.htm

 

[vern_humphrey]

Doesn’t the EITC provide an incentive to work?

Not around here. People work until they are about to lose EITC eligibility, and then quit.

Nor does EITC provide any skills or training so they can get better jobs.

 

[ribozyme]

Not around here. People work until they are about to lose EITC eligibility, and then quit.

Nor does EITC provide any skills or training so they can get better jobs.

Some people do not have the innate ability to acquire skills. That is why I vaguely referenced The Bell Curve on the last page… I only made the vague reference because it should be conveyed that education has its limits and is not the panacea to this problem.

But the EITC does help some people acquire some skills.

The research indicates, for example, that a significant share of families use part of their EITC to repair or replace a car needed to get to work, to make essential but costly repairs to a home such as repairing a leaking roof, or to pay for more education or job training.

 

[SoCalRC]

Take a look – the evidence is there, plain as the nose on your face.

Sorry, I prefer tangible facts. I know it boggles your mind, but the brilliance of say, Rush Limbaugh often eludes me.

Oh, come on! You made a bigoted remark, and what’s more, you meant it to be bigoted.

You’ve accused me from everything from public mopery to barrantry at sea, but at least I never attacked you or your state in such a bigoted manner.

Shame on you!

Vern, you are thumbing your chest and whining again. But the fact remains, Arkansas has a problem with stable marriages.

Unlike you, I am not professing to look into your heart and mind. I simply noted that, since you live in a subculture that is less stable in terms of marriage and family your perspective is different than mine.

Actually, we did – the REA only handled a part of the state. Arkansas Power and Light (now Entergy) did most of it.

We just provided over 78% of the total investment (per Arkansas’ own numbers)…

Guess which grid came back on line first, and which one was two weeks later?

You seem to be under the impression that they are wholly different, competing entitities. They were not. Though the REA was required to hire predominantly locals, perhaps that was the problem? Undertrained staff was a serious problem in a number of REA areas.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Some people do not have the innate ability to acquire skills. That is why I vaguely referenced The Bell Curve on the last page… I only made the vague reference because it should be conveyed that education has its limits and is not the panacea to this problem.

Ah, yes, the old “People are stupid, so we smart guys need to control them, and eventually prevent them from breeding” idea.

But the EITC does help some people acquire some skills.

That’s called “sophistry.”

 

[ribozyme]

Ah, yes, the old “People are stupid, so we smart guys need to control them, and eventually prevent them from breeding” idea.

That’s called “sophistry.”

Look, I was rather terse when referencing the rather ignominious The Bell Curve in this thread. All I wanted to do was give one possible reason why education should not be expected to be a panacea to this problem. I did not want to discuss this in depth okay.

I do not want to again “embark upon one of the most unpleasant intellectual odysseys in recent memory” by discussing that book.

salon.com/jan97/murray970120.html

But I wanted to point out that Charles Murray himself who some consider to be the father of welfare reform did not think education will solve the problem. He used some of your arguments. For example compare your remark with this:

Yep – along with evidence that government programs halted the decline of poverty in this country and institutionalized an underclass of poorly-educated people raised in single-parent homes.

And

Murray’s “Losing Ground” (1984) is one of the most important and influential works of social policy written in the last 20 years. It has influenced several Republican administrations and helped frame the terms of the welfare debate, with consequences being played out today. Murray set out to make sense of an apparently contradictory fact: At precisely the time when Great Society social welfare programs aimed specifically at them were implemented, the plight of inner-city blacks, far from improving, dramatically worsened. How could this be? Murray argues that welfare programs like AFDC, instead of providing a helping hand for those in temporary need, actually created the problem.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Look, I was rather terse when referencing the rather ignominious The Bell Curve in this thread. All I wanted to do was give one possible reason why education should not be expected to be a panacea to this problem. I did not want to discuss this in depth okay.

In other words, you want to hunt with the hounds and run with the hare.

I do not want to again “embark upon one of the most unpleasant intellectual odysseys in recent memory” by discussing that book.

salon.com/jan97/murray970120.html

But I wanted to point out that Charles Murray himself who some consider to be the father of welfare reform did not think education will solve the problem. He used some of your arguments. For example compare your remark with this:

And

Ah, you reject the book, but resort to the author for support.

I don’t need Murray or any of your other heros – I can use the data itself to show what happened.

 

[SoCalRC]

I don’t need Murray or any of your other heros – I can use the data itself to show what happened.

Then please do. As I mentioned above, I’d prefer verifiable facts and analysis over baseless assertions.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I already gave you cites – and don’t pretend I didn’t. But here’s a quick capsule:
historycentral.com/sixty/Economics/Poverty.html

Persistence of Poverty
When Johnson first proposed his anti-poverty measures, it seemed entirely possible that poverty could be eradicated from the richest nation in the world. Between 1959 and 1969, the number of people classified as being in or near poverty dropped from 39 million to 24 million; as a percentage of population, the number fell from 22.4 to 12.1. By the end of the decade, however, it was clear that, although the policies implemented had alleviated the suffering of many, poverty remained a part of the American landscape.

Now, apologists like to say the Viet Nam War derailed the Great Society – but that is patently false. The Viet Nam War has been over for 35 years, and the Great Society programs expanded greatly since then – and the poverty rate still bounces around at the same general level.

 

[ribozyme]

Then please do. As I mentioned above, I’d prefer verifiable facts and analysis over baseless assertions.

If you want that, then click on my signature.