I've always been skeptical that there was much at all and a new encounter I had over at Sumner with one of his commentators who calls himself TallDave confirms my skepticism. We were having a debate over the question of welfare-he was absurdly claiming that we're the most generous in the world. Of course, his definition of 'welfare' is problematic from the start, Here it goes:
"Mike — The U.S. has the highest per capita government spending in the world, and the highest per capita private charity spending to boot."
"Mike — The U.S. has the highest per capita government spending in the world, and the highest per capita private charity spending to boot."
"I don’t know where you got the idea food stamps or any other welfare programs have been gutted. All welfare reform did was create some minimal work requirements that Obama has been unwinding.:
"The only way anyone can claim the US system isn’t “generous” is to ignore private contributions and measure proportion of GDP rather than the actual per capita spending (which is obviously misleading, e.g. Lebron James’ food budget is obviously relatively tiny compared to his income but he’s clearly not underfed)."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=28282&cpage=3#comment-374479
As Krugman says there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. A lot of conservative lies are told by the use and misuse of per capita. jMy answer to TallDave-who I now call ShortDave for reasons you might understand further down.
"My idea food stamps has been gutted comes from a few sources. One is I know some people on food stamps here in NY and that’s what they tell me. One friend of mine-who for the record is mentally ill-got $182 a month in food stamps 4 years ago. Now he gets $139."
"I think a 30% drop in food stamps can qualify as ”gutted.’"
"Also the GOP keeps cutting food stamps, in fact have ‘deeply cut’ it.
In his answer to me he went beyond the pale.
"Maybe anecdotes from the mentally ill aren’t a great data source, Mike. Food stamp spending is still near record highs. In fact, it’s doubled just since 2008."
That vile insult to a good friend of mine who has some issues but is not retarded or brainless by any means got my goat. I mean my friend definitely knows what he gets in food stamps I can tell you that as he's really anal about money. So had to call ShortDave on his vile bigotry.
"Look Dave you want to have a debate fine. You have no business attacking a friend of mine. To say ‘mentally ill’ doesn’t mean he’s drooling in his porridge all day you pompous twit."
"I know he’s an intelligent and worthwhile person-otherwise he wouldn’t be my friend- and you got no business snickering at him. If anyone who has mental health issues is somehow not worthy to speak about what they receive in food stamps why don’t we just take away their votes as well? I know the GOP is working on it in their states."
"You crossed a line there and I do not take kindly to it. The irony is you call yourself ‘Tall Dave’ when you are pretty small even for a GOPer."
I really hope to meet ShortDave some day and let him try to be so smart to my face. It's clear that conservatism is just a euphemism for bigotry. I mean try debating a conservative and see how long it takes for them to start with racial slurs, talk of welfare queens, etc. So I don't see the difference.
I mean why should Jeff Sessions be treated credibly but someone who is actually on food stamps and know what they get be dismissed as 'an anecdote?' At the end of the day conservatives are just people with lots of prejudices that they have to veil in talk of a 'poverty gap.' As if they care about anyone in poverty. As if they care about anyone period but their worthless selves. Here is Cato that ShortDave appeals to:
"A new study from the Illinois Policy Institute analyzes the welfare benefits package available at different levels of earnings in that state. The authors find that low-income workers have limited economic incentive to increase their earnings from the minimum wage, and at some higher levels of earnings these workers actually see a reduction in net income. America’s complex welfare system can too often create these perverse situations where beneficiaries are financially worse off as they increase work effort and earned income. In these poverty traps, lost benefits and increased taxes outweigh any additional earnings, making it harder for beneficiaries to escape from poverty and reach the middle class."
http://www.cato.org/blog/new-study-finds-more-evidence-poverty-traps-welfare-system?utm_content=buffera8ec5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Here's my response to Shorty:
"Now among those things called ‘the poverty trap’ I might agree that disincentives exist.
Like for instance people on SSDI-I know Dave doesn’t think we can believe anything they say though we can believe his buddies at Cato or Jeff Sessions-are forced out of working more in that if they start to make more than like $400 a month they’re SSDI starts to get cut and once they hit $850 in income they lose SSDI altogether."
"However this doesn’t mean that we should do away with SSDI or cut it-though I know that’s going to disappoint Dave-we could simply increase the amount you can earn until your benefits begin to phase out."
"Even on UI one way that some have suggested in the past to make up for disincentives-as someone who has been on UI in the past I can speak to that even if it’s another ‘anecdote’-would be to allow people to continue to collect UI while working a new job for about 8 weeks. Actually some GOpers have even suggested something like this in the past. Predictably, though when Obama suggested this as part of his Jobs bill in 2012 they suddenly were not interested."
The answer is not to take a meat cleaver to benefits but actually raise the the level of the phaseout. That's not what Short Stuff wants. He wants his meat cleaver. More from Cato:
"Author Erik Randolph finds that a single mother with two children who increases her hourly earnings from the Illinois minimum wage of $8.25 to $12 only sees her net income increase by less than $400. For many low-income workers striving to climb the ladder of prosperity, our welfare system takes away almost all of their incentive to move up from an entry-level job as they do not get to realize almost any of these gains. Even worse, someone in this scenario who works hard and increases her earnings all the way to $18 an hour, a wage level which would place her in the middle class, would actually see her net income decrease by more than $24,800 due to benefit reductions and tax increases. Instead of making it easier for beneficiaries to become independent and achieve a level of prosperity, the welfare system traps them into low levels of earnings. This parent would have to increase her earnings all the way to $38 an hour in order to replace the lost benefits and achieve the same standard of living."
I'd like to see the math of all these claims. What amount is this mother of two assumed to get through Tanf? I'd love to see how someone who gets a raise from $8.25 an hour to $18 an hour sees a drop of $24,800 due to a loss of Tanf. Just like Sumner this Cato piece doesn't show it's work. I mean what do they claim the annual income is of single mother on Tanf 2 kids? It sounds like Cato is assuming it's $50,000 or something.
If anyone can actually show the work behind these figures I'd be impressed. Sounds like this woman was the same 'welfare queen' Reagan dreamed up.
UPDATE: "Another thing that’s I find irritating. Why can’t conservatives just be honest about what they want? Like that Cato paper says ‘welfare needs to be reformed.’
UPDATE: "Another thing that’s I find irritating. Why can’t conservatives just be honest about what they want? Like that Cato paper says ‘welfare needs to be reformed.’
"Why not just say what they mean? They want it to be cut, but they can’t even bring themselves to say it-they have to pretend to want ‘reform’ rather than what they want: a meat cleaver."
First of all, you declared your friend mentally ill, not me; I merely pointed out that anecdotes from the mentally ill are not a reliable data source. Secondly, you clearly had the facts completely wrong. Third, the math was clearly explained in the study, with many charts and tables. Fourth, this narrative is mostly fantasy, especially your contributions. Fifth, I'm sorry if you're upset by the facts but your vitriolic response is rather juvenile, and frankly I have better things to do. I won't bother reading anything else you write.
ReplyDeleteDave this piece was literally written on New Years so you're late to the party. Still good to know you did read it finally. I'm sorry if you don't want to read anything more. Obviously most of my posts aren't about you.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes his anecdote worthless-that it's an anecdote or that he''s mentally ill? First of all 'mentally ill' is a pretty broad category. For anyone just to dismiss anything that someone says because they are MI I think is way too vast a net.
The only facts I sited were the fact that my friend's food stamps he gets from the State of NY have been cut over the last 6 years.
When I met him he received $185 per month in food stamps now he gets $138. That's a significant cut. That was my whole point. You say it's an anecdote but it's just a fact.
He may be MI but he's not mentally retarded and actually got a high school diploma-and went to Berkley to boot. If you knew anything about the MI you'd know that many of them despite some basic problems and neurosis are also often very creative and talented in the arts, etc.
For you to assume that anyone MI has a 48 IQ and drools in their porridge all day struck me as rank bigotry.
My response was more vitriolic because struck me as kind of sad that an apparently intelligent adult like yourself can be so ignorant and small minded.
I was angry because I took this as an insult to my friend who MI or no, is a fine man and human being.
I am glad that you finally read this-I had no expectation that you ever would-but am disappointed that you don't want to come again. I'm not angry at you anymore even if you don't like me.
I guess it goes back to my whole point-conservatives and liberals can''t converse together in an intelligent and civil way.
I watched an episode of Morgan Freeman recently-I don't know if you've seen his Through the Wormhole before but it's pretty good if you like the subject of time travel which I do-and one interesting suggestion was that liberals and conservatives literally have different structured brains.
If so, it explains a lot.
Overall, my point is not to insult you. To tell you the truth you strike me as an intelligent guy overall-as many of you do at Money Illusion. I actually think Scott himself is. But when you made these comments about the MI I felt you were better than that. That's all.
I wish you the best and hope maybe you'll reconsider. I hope you understand that my point wasn't to attack you but defend my friend.