myths about welfare

Sadly, where I live, isolated rural, I can only get one radio station clearly.
And every day the #1 perpetrator of this stuff is the featured star.I have a friend who is a legal and political advisor to a prominent state government minister.
Part of her job is to read every newspaper every day to take the pulse of the print version of the jocks and to assess what,if any, political response may be required.
Each morning she reads transcripts, prepared for her, of the previous day's jocks' programmes to see if there is likely to be political impact on her minister's policies.
Proposed legislation has been altered, instigated and even dropped directly due to the enormous political influence these men [all are males] wield.

Of course it is over as far as you are concerned. you have been asked to support a position with more than your arrogant hyperbole. You can't, so you run like a whipped dog, metaphorical tail tucked firmly between your legs.Typical. It is a disgrace that you are a moderator on a board whose principles you so blatantly disregard..

here, here.oh, and bump!

It has now been 14 days since I asked randman to support or retract his claims.bump.

welcome to the fray watta.please note that there are two reply buttonsone for general reply (as you used here)and one form message reply (at the end of each message at the lower right corner)This one links messages to the one replied to, and if the person is registered to get emails of replies, they will get a notice of your reply.Never underestimate the power of large numbers of {stupid\ignorant\deluded} people ...Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

bump.

There is absolutely no attempt here at drawing out causal links; this is a simple-minded analysis that doesn't look beyond first-order correlations of an extremely limited sort. Almost nothing actually concerns whether social welfare programs cause out-of-wedlock births - it's only notes that at time X, welfare existed and out-of-wedlock births were high.What about cross-cultural analyses? What about reverse trends - do they track *reductions* of benefits? What are alternative explanations for the social trends? Are any considered? (No.)You have to understand one obvious thing to intelligently address this issue: if poverty is high, the need for welfare programs is high. Thus, the co-variation of the two in and of itself can't be used to argue that welfare causes social problems associated with poverty. The Preservation Institute apparently doesn't comprehend this basic idea, and so their analysis is embarrassingly off-base.

GDR has provided evidence. Shraf's link in the OP does not address the points you raised either and thus far, she nor anyone else, except GDR, has been willing to provide some data and evidence, and moreover has rejected any personal observations as well.As such, I don't see this thread heading anywhere. Shraf and the more liberal posters are not willing to even consider, it seems, that the program had detrimental effects. I think they are not even aware that often if a man lived in the house, benefits were cut, thus providing a monetary motive to remain unmarried with children, as oppossed to marrying with children, but then again, it's a wasted thread imo, because some here refuse to do any significant research on thier own, but want to waste my time and others looking up things they can easily do for themselves.You seem to want to respond substantively. Maybe you can see if there is anything out there one or another that properly addresses the concerns you raised and get back to us on it?
http://www.preservenet.com/studies/WelfareReform.html

quote:

---

Shraf and the more liberal posters are not willing to even consider, it seems, that the program had detrimental effects.

---

For the love of all that is good, randman, what the heck do you think this thread exists for?I have been BEGGING you to provide to me the facts which led you to believe that ADC was the sole or main cause of skyrocketing birthrates among poor single women.I am very sure that this program, as is true for all government programs, has detrimental effects. That is not under discussion. I never once claimed that ADC is a flawlwess program. What I would like you to support is your claim that ADC is the main or sole cause of the increase in birthrates among poor single women.What I would like you to address, IOW, is the OP.

quote:

---

but then again, it's a wasted thread imo, because some here refuse to do any significant research on thier own, but want to waste my time and others looking up things they can easily do for themselves.

---

But you made the claim, randman. That means that YOU are the one who needs to support it. Why should I do your work for you? If it's so easy, as you say, then it should certainly be no problem at all for you to post a few links, right? You seem very confident in your facts, so you must have some very reliable, reputable scholarly sources at your fingertips to help me understand that you are right about this issue.So far, you have not provided one shred of substantive, verifiable, reliable, quality evidence that your claim is true, and I really can't understand why.Teach me why you are right, randman. Please show me all of your facts and analyses so I can come over to your way of thinking. Why are you being so stingy with your information and wisdom?Please, I'm begging you, please, please provide the evidence that shows this program is the main or sole cause of the increase in birthrates among poor single women.So, here again is the heart of the OP. Remember, I'll let you off the hook on explaining exactly how the sats I provided are "twisted". I am mostly interested in you backing up your other two claims.

bump

bump

bump