What a Horrible Woman

Quote:Less than 3% of the population receives welfare.

Not exactly, I think that would be more like 11% just judging by food-stamps (and there are 5 other programs generally considered as "welfare").

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56759420090708

You might find this interesting as well.

Quote:Does Welfare Help the Poor?
David Henderson

Economists believe that people tend to make decisions that benefit themselves, so the answer to the above question seems obvious. If welfare did not help the poor, then why would so many of them go on welfare? This self-interest among the poor could also explain a phenomenon noted by those who study welfare, namely that only about one-half to two-thirds of those who qualify for welfare programs are enrolled in them. Presumably, the others have decided that it is in their self-interest to refuse the money and keep the government from meddling in their lives.

So, while it seems clear that welfare helps the poor who accept welfare, that does not mean that welfare helps the poor generally. Two groups of poor people, not counted in the welfare statistics, are hurt by welfare. The first group consists of the future poor. Economists know that welfare is a disincentive to work, and, therefore, that its existence reduces an economy’s output. If even some of this output would have been used for research and development, and if this forgone R&D would have increased growth, then welfare hurts growth by reducing R&D. If the annual growth rate of GDP in the United States had been just one percentage point lower between 1885 and 2005, then the United States today would be no richer than Mexico. The main thing that helps all poor people in the long run is economic growth. Even though the 1920s are thought of as a decade of prosperity, by today’s standards almost all Americans in the 1920s were poor. Economic growth made almost all Americans richer than their counterparts of the 1920s. A reduction in economic growth, even a slight one, if compounded, causes more future poverty than would otherwise have been the case.

The second group hurt by U.S. welfare is poor foreigners. The welfare state acts as a magnet for poor immigrants to the United States. Because of this, there are various domestic pressures to limit immigration. Without the welfare state, the number of immigrants would likely rise substantially, meaning that many previously poor foreigners would become much richer. The welfare state limits this improvement.

Based on Tyler Cowen, “Does the Welfare State Help the Poor?” Social Philosophy and Policy 19, no.1 (2002) pp. 36–54.

You can access the full study through your local library.

Quote:Bill, I was just being silly. Of course, as law abiding citizens, we have to pay taxes. Nothing prevents me from giving money to the disadvantaged. However, my ability to significantly impact poverty and hunger among the poor is limited. Many people advocate private charities as an alternative to government social programs. The amount of whining generated by taxation makes me sceptical that donations to these private charities would prove adequate to meet basic needs. I could be wrong.

You might also be interested in reading "The Tragedy Of American Compassion" By Marvin Olasky. Professor Olansky studies the evolution of charities in the U.S. from entirely private to largely public (welfare), and compares the efficacy of each. He found that public charity is a very distant second place by any metric.

There is a link at this site to download the entire book for free. http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/compassion.htm

I personally complain about taxes and government intrusion into my life probably as much as just about anybody, but over the last 10 years or so I've given 3 to 10% of my annual income to charities (not including PM). Not that it's particularly relevant, but I also rarely take a tax deduction for it.

Giving freely to causes and organizations I support gives me great satisfaction. Having the government steal my hard earned money and then give it to those they think deserving (oftentimes apparently in order to purchase their vote), galls me to no end, even when it's a charity or cause I support. In fact, we greedy conservatives give 30% more to charity than those caring liberals, even though our incomes are less ("Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism" Arthur Brooks).

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, HunterBear71, so let me ask you a serious question: Do you trust the government generally to run your life.

By "generally" I mean you should include not only the Obama administration but the Bush, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc admins back at least as far as FDR.

If you answer no (as most people do), then the next question would be:

If you don't trust the government to run your life, then why are you supporting an expansion of government power?

Put another way, even though I'm a conservative, the Patriot Act (for one) scared me, not because I thought the Bush administration would abuse it (and they apparently didn't), but because the thought of what Clinton/Reno might have done with it was alarming, and sooner or later we would have their equivalent again.

Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts are all about expanding the power of the federal government.

Are you really comfortable with the amount of control that Obama/Pelosi/Reid are instituting over every aspect of American lives, considering that when (not if) the pendulum swings and a conservative president/congress is elected they will then have that same control?
 
Wow...thanks for the educational post. However, a little over 2% of the population receives cash assistance. Even if we accept your figure of 11%, that leaves 89% of the population not receiving government aid. I would think this 89% would likely vote to end the transferal of their wealth to the minority. Unless, of course, some of these folks agreed that these programs were necessary. I have a few problems with your facts. The abuses of the Patriot Act are well documented. The director of the F.B.I, Robert Mueller, has publically admitted to these acts. To pretend that the act has proven benign is not truthful.I am very familiar with Marvin Olasky. To say he is not popular with liberals would be an understatement. I believe it would be fair to characterize the man as partisan. Mr. Olasky has some unusual theories and actually doesn't believe in evolution. I mean no disrespect for Mr. Olasky, but I do not consider him a reputable source. I appreciate your thoughtfull comments and I too am concerned with the ever increasing expansion of government power.
 
Quote: and I too am concerned with the ever increasing expansion of government power.

This is tantamount to saying you were for the war before you were against it. If you are worried about increasing government expansion then why are you actively supporting those that seek to expand it far greater than ever before?

What makes you suspect a guy that doesn't believe in evolution? For the record, I beleive in evolution through adaptation (survival of the fittest) but I do not believe I was ever a monkey. Does that make me an idiot?
 
Right now roughly 48% of wage earners pay no income taxes. That in of itself is welfare if you are taking out more than you are paying in.
 
I really don't believe a Republican president will shrink the federal government. Their track record is horrible. Bill Clinton actually shrunk federal spending more than any president in recent memory. Ronald Reagan comes in a very distant third place. I can't argue that the wealthy contribute a significant amount to the tax base. Since these people control 90% of the wealth in this country, that would seem fair.
 
reminds me of an incident saturday afternoon in Las Cruses. We were done hunting & almost back to the motel when Matt pulled in behind a car. It had several bumper stickers.

The top center one read "I love my country but fear my government"

Directly underneath that was a pro-obama sticker.

Some folks just seem to have trouble connecting the dots...
 
Reducing spending is one thing. Reducing the power and scope of government is quite another. The main reason Clinton cut welfare spending is because he was dragged kicking and screaming by the Reps into signing it. He also knew that it would greatly help his re-election chances.
 
Quote:However, a little over 2% of the population receives cash assistance.

I'll accept your numbers without even checking. I guess Medicaid, Foodstamps, Wick, Housing etc don't count as welfare? That's not even considering all the folks who pay zero income taxes but get money for EIC.

Quote:I am very familiar with Marvin Olasky. To say he is not popular with liberals would be an understatement. I believe it would be fair to characterize the man as partisan. Mr. Olasky has some unusual theories and actually doesn't believe in evolution. I mean no disrespect for Mr. Olasky, but I do not consider him a reputable source.

Typical liberal response, and one that they all too often succeed in affecting public opinion with, but it's usually absolutely fallacious.

When an academic/statistical study is done, the proper way to debunk it is to find erroneous facts or methodologies used by the authors of the study. That is the purpose of peer review.

Simply saying "he's biased" because a study happens to support a conservative (or liberal) precept is dishonest at best. Where exactly in a study did the author use erroneous facts or methodologies, or ignore salient facts?

We see (mostly) liberals defaming "conservative" authors of studies (Olasky, Lott, Sowell, etc, etc) as biased conservatives, but they can't/don't discredit the studies.

Perhaps these authors have become "conservative" because the findings of the studies they have done support a conservative viewpoint? That is certainly the case for John Lott who started his studies on guns/crime expecting to find just the opposite of his actual findings.

You see, rational people (conservatives) accept the world based on objective reality, while delusional folks (liberals) try to "shape" reality to fit their desires.
tt2.gif
 
Typical conservative response. Is it your contention that Olasky has the universal support of his peers? I can list atleast a dozen peer reviewed studies that debunk the economic theories of Mr. Olasky. For example, Neoconservatives, Federalism And The Defense Of Inequality by Donald J. Mathewson of California State University Fullerton. I would suggest that perhaps you and Mr. Olasky are shaping reality to fit your desires. We are probably not going to agree on much. I do recognize your obvious intelligence and have enjoyed the dialogue.However, I find it a little insulting that you would label me irrational simply because I disagree with you. I think of you as an intelligent and rational person who is misinformed.
 
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71Typical conservative response. Is it your contention that Olasky has the universal support of his peers? I can list atleast a dozen peer reviewed studies that debunk the economic theories of Mr. Olasky. For example, Neoconservatives, Federalism And The Defense Of Inequality by Donald J. Mathewson of California State University Fullerton. I would suggest that perhaps you and Mr. Olasky are shaping reality to fit your desires. We are probably not going to agree on much. I do recognize your obvious intelligence and have enjoyed the dialogue.However, I find it a little insulting that you would label me irrational simply because I disagree with you. I think of you as an intelligent and rational person who is misinformed. I wont use BIG words like you to try to diffuse your actual method of attack on the free world. You lost MASS. NEVADA is next!!! LMAO.
lol.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Stu Farishreminds me of an incident saturday afternoon in Las Cruses. We were done hunting & almost back to the motel when Matt pulled in behind a car. It had several bumper stickers.

The top center one read "I love my country but fear my government"

Directly underneath that was a pro-obama sticker.

Some folks just seem to have trouble connecting the dots...
????? Our children need to be home schooled if thats whats to be expected from our govt. SAD, VERY SAD!
 
Sorry I insulted you (really). It was meant as a joke, as denoted by the little tongue wagging guy at the end of the sentence.

Whether or not Olasky has "the universal support of his peers" is irrelevant. The question is, after peer review have his facts and methodologies been shown to be erroneous? The simple answer is no.

I would suggest that you actually read the paper you cited. http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/4/1/2/pages84124/p84124-1.php

In no way is it a peer review of anyone's research or academic papers. It is instead, as described by the author:

Quote:This paper critically examines the neoconservative argument for a type of federalism that promotes decentralization of government functions and urges close government cooperation with some segments of the private sector. We demonstrate that the type of federalism envisioned by neoconservatives increases social and economic inequality. Neoconservatives argue that such inequality is not only acceptable but essential for democracy and social progress. The paper is divided into four parts: First, we examine the neoconservative conception of federalism relying primarily on the public choice literature, in particular the work of Buchanan and Tullock (1962), Riker (1982), and Riker and Weingast (1988), and show how conservatives such as Marvin Olasky (1991) have used this literature to argue for a specific vision of American government.

It's an interesting opinion paper, but is not a scientific or statistical study, and more to the point, it in no way refutes any of the statistics or methodologies in Olasky's study.

Dr. Matthewson instead uses the same basic formula as you, dressed up in seemingly academic citations, without pointing out any erroneous data or methodologies.

As I stated before,

Quote:Simply saying "he's biased" because a study happens to support a conservative (or liberal) precept is dishonest at best. Where exactly in a study did the author use erroneous facts or methodologies, or ignore salient facts?

We see (mostly) liberals defaming "conservative" authors of studies (Olasky, Lott, Sowell, etc, etc) as biased conservatives, but they can't/don't discredit the studies.
 
I disagree with your opinion of the paper I cited. I also disagree that the statistics and methodologies of Mr. Olasky have never been refuted. In fact, I am certain that you understand that statistics can be made to support nearly any contention. Dr. Mathewson clearly shows that the methodolgy of Olasky is critically flawed.The simple act of you declaring Olasky to be correct is irrelevent. I wouldn't expect his statistics to be flawed, because that would guarantee the contempt of his peers. You are requiring that I prove gross incompetance. Instead, I would contend that Mr. Olasky has drawn simplistic and erroneous conclusions. You are playing a game of semantics and basically implying that Mr. Olasky is correct because it cannot be proven that he has fabricated information.
 
Quote: I wont use BIG words like you to try to diffuse your actual method of attack on the free world. You lost MASS. NEVADA is next!!! LMAO.
lol.gif


Thanks for the salt in the wounds. The party does appear to be over.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quote:I am certain that you understand that statistics can be made to support nearly any contention

Yes I do understand that. That is the reason for peer review.

To refute a statistical analysis you must show that the author used erroneous facts or methodologies, or that he missed (or ignored) salient facts.

For example, a refutation might be:

Mr Olasky's data on population (X) are incorrect in this calculation on pg 56. An updated census shows X2. This would change his results to....

Or,

Mr Olasky uses XY/Sigma in this calculation on pg 62. The correct formulation should be X + Y / Sigma. This changes his analysis to....

Or,

Mr Olasky completely missed the population data for Staten Island. As SI is one of the 5 boroughs incorporated in the city it should be included.

While he criticises conclusions and beliefs of conservative going back as far as Plato and St. Augustine (and mis-characterizes them), Mathewson doesn't dispute any data compiled by anyone else, methodologies used in calculations, or add any new data. The paper is not a peer review paper at all, and certainly not a peer review refutation. It was not meant to be.

Quote:You are playing a game of semantics and basically implying that Mr. Olasky is correct because it cannot be proven that he has fabricated information.

No sir, I'm saying that (opinion based criticism not withstanding) no one has shown that Olasky's data or methodology was flawed under peer review, and that therefore his conclusions must rationally carry great weight until and unless another researcher can either (a.) show him to be in error on peer review (see above), or (b.) publish a countervailing peer reviewed statistical study, reaching differing conclusions.

Peer review finds errors fairly frequently, especially in statistical studies, and countervailing studies are common, especially where there are mountains of data or where there are huge gaps in the available data (global warming for instance). Neither pertains to Olasky's "Tragedy".

Examples of fabricated research data are extremely rare, usually resulting in the total disaccreditation and dismissal of the researcher (Ward Churchill for example).

Quote:It's an interesting opinion paper, but is not a scientific or statistical study, and more to the point, it in no way refutes any of the statistics or methodologies in Olasky's study.

Quote:I disagree with your opinion of the paper I cited. I also disagree that the statistics and methodologies of Mr. Olasky have never been refuted.

In actual fact what Mathewson attempts in his own words isn't a refutation of Olasky's "Tragedy". It's an attempt to show that conservatives "such as Marvin Olasky" have used public choice (mostly non peer reviewed) literature to "argue for a specific vision of American government".

Quote:This paper critically examines the neoconservative argument for a type of federalism that promotes decentralization of government functions and urges close government cooperation with some segments of the private sector. We demonstrate that the type of federalism envisioned by neoconservatives increases social and economic inequality. Neoconservatives argue that such inequality is not only acceptable but essential for democracy and social progress. The paper is divided into four parts: First, we examine the neoconservative conception of federalism relying primarily on the public choice literature, in particular the work of Buchanan and Tullock (1962), Riker (1982), and Riker and Weingast (1988), and show how conservatives such as Marvin Olasky (1991) have used this literature to argue for a specific vision of American government.

Olasky's "The Tragedy of American Compassion" is a statistical comparison of the efficacy of different types and methods of private charities to each other from colonial times to the advent of government charity, and then a comparison of the efficacy of those private charities to public charity (welfare).

While he presumably argued for "a specific vision of American government" elsewhere (he was an advisor to then Gov. Bush) and his ideas hopefully had some influence on subsequent public policy, in the book (the immediate subject of this debate) he doesn't "argue for a specific vision of American government", he argues that private charity works better than public (welfare), and that religious private charities have historically worked better than secular private charities.

Mathewson's paper is a non-statistical (opinion) comparison of local vs centralized government welfare systems, examining the treatment and "equality" of individuals under each system. Other than in the abstract quoted above, the only reference to Olasky in Mathewsons paper is actually a quote of Charles Murray from the forward to Olasky's book.

Quote:Thus the “faith based” initiative in the Bush Administration was motivated by writers such as Marvin Olasky (1992). As Charles Murray stated in the Introduction to Olasky’s Book: “The error of contemporary policy is not that it spends too much or too little to help the poor, but that it is fundamentally out of touch with the meaning of those needs”

Don't you just hate it when those pesky facts get in the way?
 
You honestly believe Olaskys history of private charitable groups proves that modern social programs are ineffective? Maybe I simply lack the ability to comprehend what you are saying. To me, comparing private charities from 100 years ago to modern social programs is like comparing apples to oranges. I understand that you believe Olasky has provided an accurate history of these charitable groups. I simply don't understand how you reason that this statistical information translates into social theories that are somehow unassailable. I find nothing revelatory about the fact that private charities would be more efficient than our massive modern welfare apparatus. However, even if it is conceded that a private charity is more likely to provide a more efficient form of aid, my concern would be for the funding of these institutions. Clearly this is a subject about which you are passionate. I have truly enjoyed your post and value your comments.
 
Nice effort HB, I say that with sincerity.

Better to have fought and lost than to have never fought at all.

I'm afraid, however, that you just went up against one of the great minds of this board, lol.

(Leon also stars in the all time greatest ever coyote hunting music video:

)
 
Back
Top