- Thread starter
- #41
Another profound post by PC. Imagine if you had to make an economic argument. You would be TOAST.
PC is zero for 30,974 so far. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a cogent argument from PC on any topic, not just economics. Her grasp of history is even worse. Add to that the fact she can't write.
Its always the same - the long and disjointed OP shredded by those who can actually read and think, followed by pages of childish name calling.
Why do some rw's work so hard to keep others down?
1. The only thing you've ever shredded is lettuce.
2. Liberal policies that encourage the behaviors that cause and maintain poverty are what 'keeps people down.'
3. Let's see you shred this, you moron:
The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf
[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME which represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year.
]Overview of the Final Report of the SIME/DIME: Report
a. Further results: dissolution of families: This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons.
First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase. http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf
b. When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.
Robert B. Carleson, Government Is The Problem, p. 57.
More proof that you are a moron:
4. The colloquial use of poverty implies a material deprivation, which hardly exists. But this is not to say that a poverty of social conditions does not exist, and this cannot be remedied with money.
In fact, the root cause of this poverty is the perverse, counterproductive incentives arising from the welfare system itself.
Charles Murrays Losing Ground documented this effect using social indicators such as work, marriage, legitimacy, crime, and alcohol and drug abuse, and showing how the massive increase in government welfare programs worsened the problem.
Over and over, proof that Liberal policies are the cause of the problem, not the solutions.