• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

What poor person knocked you down, stole your wallet, and went running off into the night with it?
Well, the same ones that mugged me. The high school dropout baby machine, the fellow with the mild back trouble that's on lifelong disability, any recreational drug dealer that is in government sponsored rehab, anyone on food stamps who eats better food than I, participants in Native Health Services, the list goes on and on.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that a variety of people here realize for most intensive purposes that welfare is nothing more than a fee we pay to poor people to stop them from robbing us and burglarizing our houses.

This paper reviews the economic literature on welfare reform over the 1990s. A brief summary of the policy changes is followed by a discussion of the methodological techniques that analyze the effects of these changes on outcomes. The paper then critically reviews the econometric and experimental literature on caseload changes, labor force changes, poverty and income changes, and family formation changes. A growing body of evidence suggests that recent policy changes have influenced economic behavior and well-being. One particular set of “new-style” welfare programs seems to show especially promising results, with significantly increased work and earnings and reduced poverty.
Evaluating Welfare Reform in the United States

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22clinton.html

.
 
Last edited:
Well, the same ones that mugged me. The high school dropout baby machine, the fellow with the mild back trouble that in on lifelong disability, any recreational drug dealer that is in government sponsored rehab, anyone on food stamps who eats better food than I, participants in Native Health Services, the list goes on and on.

So which one of them knocked you down, took your wallet, and went running off into the night with it? Because if there ain't no police report, there ain't no theft.
 
Well, the same ones that mugged me. The high school dropout baby machine

Crude stereotypes aren't especially enlightening, particularly the false ones. I'd recommend that you have a look at Hotz et al.'s Teenage Childbearing and Its Life Cycle Consequences: Exploiting a Natural Experiment. Consider the abstract:

We exploit a "natural experiment" associated with human reproduction to identify the causal effect of teen childbearing on the socioeconomic attainment of teen mothers. We exploit the fact that some women who become pregnant experience a miscarriage and do not have a live birth. Using miscarriages an instrumental variable, we estimate the effect of teen mothers not delaying their childbearing on their subsequent attainment. We find that many of the negative consequences of teenage childbearing are much smaller than those found in previous studies. For most outcomes, the adverse consequences of early childbearing are short-lived. Finally, for annual hours of work and earnings, we find that a teen mother would have lower levels of each at older ages if they had delayed their childbearing.

Teenage childbearing can function as a beneficial reproductive strategy in light of its ability to facilitate later uninterrupted labor.
 
Crude stereotypes aren't especially enlightening, particularly the false ones. I'd recommend that you have a look at Hotz et al.'s Teenage Childbearing and Its Life Cycle Consequences: Exploiting a Natural Experiment. Consider the abstract:



Teenage childbearing can function as a beneficial reproductive strategy in light of its ability to facilitate later uninterrupted labor.

Ha. Maybe it is because employers tend to look down on young mothers (who obviously have young children, i hope) more so than older mothers with older children (11+). Once the kids are grown, it is less of a risk to hire an older woman with older children as opposed to an older woman with younger children. Of course, i am only speculating:2razz:
 
If he actually cared about the elimination of theft, he'd condemn capital accumulation through wage labor, as it relies on the unjust extraction of surplus labor in the production process and utilization in the circulation process to maintain a "vicious cycle" of sorts.

ed4a754f.png


But he can't be expected to care about anything so trivial as that! :lol:

You're absolutely right. Wage labor is theft, so all rich people engaging in the practice of hiring people should stop immediately and close their factories.
 
Oh so it's not poor people. It's politicians. Glad we cleared your misdirection up.

No, it's poor people.

Don't worry, I've run into many a liberal that finds the simple metaphor too complex for their reading abilities.

I think most of them are public school graduates.
 
You're absolutely right. Wage labor is theft, so all rich people engaging in the practice of hiring people should stop immediately and close their factories.

A sounder conclusion would be that it's not necessary to maintain a financial class whose sole purpose is to "provide capital," and that embracing the efficiency benefits of workers' ownership and management would do us all good.
 
No, it's poor people.

Don't worry, I've run into many a liberal that finds the simple metaphor too complex for their reading abilities.

I think most of them are public school graduates.

Well you're talking to neither a public school graduate nor a liberal.

You are making no sense whatsoever, but then partisan hacks rarely do. Why don't you enlighten us as to what your deep, often misunderstood metaphor is supposed to mean?
 
The same goes for me, my dear Mr. Akhbar. I'm neither a liberal nor a public school graduate, and I don't find your contribution to this thread very substantive in nature. :2wave:
 
A sounder conclusion would be that it's not necessary to maintain a financial class whose sole purpose is to "provide capital," and that embracing the efficiency benefits of workers' ownership and management would do us all good.

Well, no. Nobody has to "maintain" them, they do just fine maintaining themselves.

It's the poor people that need the jobs, not the rich folks.

But hey, if the rich can't use their money as they wish, they should certainly be allowed to take it home with them, right?

You got a problem with people hanging onto their own property?
 
The same goes for me, my dear Mr. Akhbar. I'm neither a liberal nor a public school graduate, and I don't find your contribution to this thread very substantive in nature. :2wave:

Sure it is.

You just don't like valid depictions.

Tell ya what, how about if the state of California ends its state subsidy of poverty and all you liberal socialist pity-party types dig into your very own personal bank accounts and show us how much you measure your compassion for these maggots, and I'll show you how much I measure mine by the same process?

You first.
 
Then explain your failure to understand the simple process of making a metaphor in the English language.

I understand the concept of a metaphor quite well, thank you. I just don't understand the drivel your extra chromosome is causing you to spew.

Sorry I gave you the chance to try to enlighten me. :shrug:
 
Sure it is.

You just don't like valid depictions.

Tell ya what, how about if the state of California ends its state subsidy of poverty and all you liberal socialist pity-party types dig into your very own personal bank accounts and show us how much you measure your compassion for these maggots, and I'll show you how much I measure mine by the same process?

You first.

But I thought you said the maggots were in washington. Are poor people still maggots? Or are politicians maggots? Or are poor people politicians? I scarcely believe you even know what you meant to say anymore.
 
I don't think that a variety of people here realize for most intensive purposes that welfare is nothing more than a fee we pay to poor people to stop them from robbing us and burglarizing our houses.

Then I want my money back, because it doesn't work.
 
Well, no. Nobody has to "maintain" them, they do just fine maintaining themselves.

It's the poor people that need the jobs, not the rich folks.

An interesting comment! It could certainly function as a component of an analysis into the coercive nature of wage labor. For instance, we could first consider Alfred Marshall's observation that "labor is often sold under special disadvantages arising from the closely connected group of facts that labor power is 'perishable', that the sellers of it are commonly poor and have no reserve fund, and that they cannot easily withhold it from the market." Coupled with Adam Smith's similar observation that "in the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate," we can slap together something decent about the subordinate position of the laborer and his consequent greater susceptibility to manipulation or coercion.

But hey, if the rich can't use their money as they wish, they should certainly be allowed to take it home with them, right?

You got a problem with people hanging onto their own property?

I've already explained to you precisely why capital accumulation is based on theft, thus making the finances ill-gotten through the unjust extraction of surplus labor the legitimate property of the laborers, not the financial class. It's merely a matter of nothing that the economic framework of capitalism involves a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus labor from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation, as I did. I even provided a visual illustration to that effect! :cool:

Tell ya what, how about if the state of California ends its state subsidy of poverty and all you liberal socialist pity-party types dig into your very own personal bank accounts and show us how much you measure your compassion for these maggots, and I'll show you how much I measure mine by the same process?

You first.

As usual, you've chosen to abuse political economic terminology rather than make valid comment. Liberalism is necessarily opposed to socialism; it upholds an economic order wherein the means of production are privately owned, which is the direct antithesis of a socialist state of affairs. Your comment wasn't very valuable either; broad economic policy cannot be reduced to the individual economic agent.
 
But I thought you said the maggots were in washington. Are poor people still maggots? Or are politicians maggots? Or are poor people politicians? I scarcely believe you even know what you meant to say anymore.

There's poor people in Washington, DC.

It run by socialists, isn't it?
 
An interesting comment!

It's friggin' amazin', guv!

I've already explained to you precisely why capital accumulation is based on theft,

Since capital accumulation is not based on theft, you merely explained your religion.

As usual, you've chosen to abuse political economic terminology rather than make valid comment. Liberalism is necessarily opposed to socialism;

Welcome to America.

Most people don't make it.

How was the boat trip?

Did you remember to bring a spare hand pump for the inner tubes?

In America, the socialists steal everything, just like everywhere else in the world. Naturally, American socialists saw that the word "liberal" was doing the freedom loving peoples just wonders, so they stole it an applied it to themselves and have been living the socialist lie as "liberals" ever since.
 
So which one of them knocked you down, took your wallet, and went running off into the night with it? Because if there ain't no police report, there ain't no theft.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that metaphor, descriptiuve allusion and irony were beyond you.

Would it be helpful if I began to provide simplified alternative text with colorful pictures for posts I think that you are likely to attempt to read?
 
Last edited:
Crude stereotypes aren't especially enlightening, particularly the false ones. I'd recommend that you have a look at Hotz et al.'s Teenage Childbearing and Its Life Cycle Consequences: Exploiting a Natural Experiment. Consider the abstract:



Teenage childbearing can function as a beneficial reproductive strategy in light of its ability to facilitate later uninterrupted labor.
So are you saying that I'm not paying taxes to support programs for unwed teenage mothers that had children that they can't support?

By the way, I used highly valid illustrations, not crude stereotypes.
 
Back
Top Bottom