Popular vote ramblings

[Dallas Tex]

He asked for you to name the program that incentivises women to have more children they can afford, not to list programs which take into account the number of dependents the recipient has when calculating the amount received.

CORRECTION: You're an out of towner and may not recognize that the names of those programs are the initials at the beginning of each sentence, and the incentive is the numbers with the dollar sign.

[Dallas Tex]

Education is a key to equality and providing proper funding to educate people is critical (including on things such as sex education, maths, finances). .

Agreed. This could be another whole thread, but is it really funding? Do you think tripling the funding to a failing school would improve performance? Are the books any better at a 'good school'....maybe a little. Are the teachers better, probably somewhat. Is the building any better.....maybe a bit. Whats the main difference?? The kids in 'bad' schools have not been prepared to be successful in the classroom since grade one. Think about fixing the kids, not the building or the funding.

[Matthew Strongin]

come up with a question that makes sense and I'll try to answer it.

I asked a clear question. I think you're conflating programs that, understandably, account for the number of dependents with an incentives program. But I guess it's a matter of perspective. I think that people who are in poverty and need assistance should get that assistance in amounts that are proportional to their need. You seem to see these programs as their end goal. I'm sure there's a study out there that evaluated how many people abuse these programs with the sole intent of cashing in by making babies vs. people who are trying their best to scrape by, but you've made it clear that you're not interested in reading studies and view them with a hearty does of skepticism.

[ABiCi]

CORRECTION: You're an out of towner and may not recognize that the names of those programs are the initials at the beginning of each sentence, and the incentive is the numbers with the dollar sign.

I don't think you got my point. A person receiving a welfare payment of a few thousand dollars per dependent is not being incentivised to have have more children they can afford. These amounts don't come close to the cost of raising a child. The idea that people are having more children simply to obtain a small fraction of the cost of raising that child is nonsensical.

[Dallas Tex]

I don't think you got my point. A person receiving a welfare payment of a few thousand dollars per dependent is not being incentivised to have have more children they can afford. These amounts don't come close to the cost of raising a child. The idea that people are having more children simply to obtain a small fraction of the cost of raising that child is nonsensical.

You may simply not have much interaction with this portion of the population to base much of an opinion on.

Whats 'costs of raising a child' are you speaking of? Education? Government paid. Housing? Government paid. Food? Government paid. Medical care? Government paid. Phone? Government paid/subsidized.

[Dallas Tex]

I asked a clear question. I think you're conflating programs that, understandably, account for the number of dependents with an incentives program. But I guess it's a matter of perspective. I think that people who are in poverty and need assistance should get that assistance in amounts that are proportional to their need. You seem to see these programs as their end goal. I'm sure there's a study out there that evaluated how many people abuse these programs with the sole intent of cashing in by making babies vs. people who are trying their best to scrape by, but you've made it clear that you're not interested in reading studies and view them with a hearty does of skepticism.

Your question was perfectly clear as was my answer. My answer that you quoted above wasn't posted in response to your question, it was posted to someone else's question. Maybe things got crossed up.

[King Of Dirk]

It's honorable to assume people will spend the money on raising the child. Sadly, this is often not the case. Regardless of the cost of raising a child, there are those among us who simply won't pay any of said cost, taxpayer largesse notwithstanding.

[theflashunc]

Back somewhat on topic, 538 had an interesting story today about the state compact to commit electoral voters to the popular vote winner, regardless of who wins the state. This would not require amending the Constitution as electors are making their own commitments to how they would vote, and there's no binding requirement they vote for who won their state -- a few states currently dispense their electors proportionally rather than wholesale, to say nothing of faithless electors.

This wouldn't kick in until 270 is hit, but they're creeping ever closer:

The Movement To Skip The Electoral College Is About To Pass A Major Milestone | FiveThirtyEight

[Matthew Strongin]

It's honorable to assume people will spend the money on raising the child. Sadly, this is often not the case. Regardless of the cost of raising a child, there are those among us who simply won't pay any of said cost, taxpayer largesse notwithstanding.

How do you define often? What percentage of assistance recipients are not spending money on raising their children?

[BBB]

Agreed. This could be another whole thread, but is it really funding? Do you think tripling the funding to a failing school would improve performance? Are the books any better at a 'good school'....maybe a little. Are the teachers better, probably somewhat. Is the building any better.....maybe a bit. Whats the main difference?? The kids in 'bad' schools have not been prepared to be successful in the classroom since grade one. Think about fixing the kids, not the building or the funding.

Yes in part it is funding. More funding to train teachers. More funding to ensure schools can deliver programs properly and so forth. The "fixing the kids" issue is a much harder task. In part it will be through teaching, or better teaching. A teacher that can unlock the joy of reading or inspire a child to learn is worth their weight in gold. Another part of this equation is a much broader social fix. Broken homes, drugs, alcohol, disadvantage and so on....they require money, thought and long term patient implementation.

[theflashunc]

Sorry to poke my nose in, but I find it interesting that as you accuse Daltex of "paternalism" you go ahead and assume that moms would be the ones packing a kid's lunch.

I think there's more than a strong enough implication from his prior posts that he's assuming the responsibility to the subtler Welfare Queen dog whistle -- and by extension unmotivated single mothers. But hey, if he meant equally single mom's and dad's, then sure. The Doris Days and Ward Cleavers of the world. The paternalism still applies.

If this is the best you've got to try to deflect my critique of the point, it's pretty weak sauce.

[GrantM]

Do you think tripling the funding to a failing school would improve performance? .

Well, maybe funding all schools to the same level would be a good start.
Currently, the low income school districts get on average about $1k less per kid,
according to a recent report.

report

-g

[zachateseverything]

Because I acknowledge them as two separate entities. Do you have a different view?

Yes. government is just the rule set a community has elected to play by. The community is the government and when people (ie. you) lose sight of that and treat it as some kind of adversary is when we get bad policies.

[zachateseverything]

You may simply not have much interaction with this portion of the population to base much of an opinion on.

Whats 'costs of raising a child' are you speaking of? Education? Government paid. Housing? Government paid. Food? Government paid. Medical care? Government paid. Phone? Government paid/subsidized.

Child care, transportation, clothing, opportunity. Assuming that SNAP, Welfare, Section 8, and medicaid will over everything is asinine.

[joosttx]

Well, maybe funding all schools to the same level would be a good start.
Currently, the low income school districts get on average about $1k less per kid,
according to a recent report.

report

-g

Wow, I am suprised it is that close. In California the average $/student/district is ~$10,500 (Im going off my head from 2016/17 numbers). National average is around $12,200. What we do in California is have a parcel tax in school distircts that supplement the state funding. For example, Ross School District = $20,000/student, Kentfield = $14,500 (combined this area has the 4th highest median home prices in the US). And the numbers are actually lower than reality because there are non-profit school fondations that raise $1-3 million dollars annaully which go into school programs such as the arts and computer science.

I think I am presenting a different comparison than what the study you cited but affluent vs the average may be even more out of whack

[joosttx]

I just finished reading Cadillac Desert by Mark Riesner for like the 4th time in my life. It is an excellent book to read. One thing that he harped on was the massive amount of money spent on water projects and how those projects were basically the grease that got the congress work together. He argued these water projects were the social welfare of the US while welfare, etc were just pocket change in comparision.

[GrantM]

Wow, I am suprised it is that close.

I think one of the main things to keep in mind is the extra resources that would be required to deal with the outside issues of low income communities.
The fact they're getting less money, not more, should be a scandal. That report suggests it should be 40% more, just to deal with challenges.

-g

[King Of Dirk]

I think there's more than a strong enough implication from his prior posts that he's assuming the responsibility to the subtler Welfare Queen dog whistle -- and by extension unmotivated single mothers. But hey, if he meant equally single mom's and dad's, then sure. The Doris Days and Ward Cleavers of the world. The paternalism still applies.

If this is the best you've got to try to deflect my critique of the point, it's pretty weak sauce.

No need for implications or dog whistles with your post, though. Sexism on clear display. Lash out at me if you want, but you put those words in your mouth, I didn’t. Nor was I deflecting anything. I was pretty explicitly calling you out for your assumption. Your sauce could use a little spice, too.

[bcm119]

EITC, work 10 hours per week at Walmart: with one kid get a $3,400 'tax refund'. Two kids, $5,700. Three $6,400.

WIC, SNAP, etc. increases in relation to head count. In texas section 8 rent vouchers are linked to head count.

I understand where you're coming from. But I think your concerns aren't supported by facts. First, the per person benefit decreases as family size grows, so this doesn't seem like an incentive to have more kids. Second, Snap benefits are difficult to "game" such that one can continue receiving them beyond the 3 month time limit, or 60 month lifetime maximum. To continue to receive benefits takes some work, or cheating/fraud. The "welfare state" rhetoric you seem to be concerned about is largely a scenario of fraudulent welfare benefits, which account for a tiny portion of all benefits. For instance, usda estimated in 2016 that 0.9% of snap benefits were fraudulently applied for. Your opinions on welfare seem disproportionately based on exceptions rather than averages.

Aside from that, I completely disagree that safety net programs are responsible for persistent poverty over generations. People born into poverty have a lot of things working against them, including poorer education and networking opportunities, but government programs are not part of the problem, on average. The best resource you can provide the poor with is time ... time to gain skills and education. Government benefits provide that time and opportunity by replacing low wage work hours with money. Not everyone uses that time to their advantage, but most do, based on the fact that the majority of welfare recipients are short term. You see generations of poverty and you see welfare and you assume a causal relationship. Generational welfare exists despite welfare programs, because there are so many structural and social barriers to upward mobility.

[ericpmoss]

Poor people didn't ship the jobs to China in order to boost corporate profits. Poor people didn't ask to have their neighborhoods demolished as gifts to the developers. They didn't keep wages stagnant since 1980 while productivity doubled. They didn't get to buy the ear of politicians and fund favored candidates during primaries. They don't get off on charges with fancy expensive lawyers. They don't have offshore tax havens. The business elites call all the shots, and have us debating whether to enforce basic austerity on the working class or extra harsh austerity in the guise of "making the hard decisions". The super wealthy are parasites, and the working poor are subsidizing them with underpaid labor. No one *earns* a billion dollars. That kind of money only comes from skimming from the labor of others. I don't mind if Amazon makes a trillion $, but if it does, everyone there should be well off, not just the guys in the C-suites.