Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (246412)	3/4/2014 12:55:45 PM
From: Alex MG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542202

you've probably been getting your info from Paul Ryan House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) has conducted his own analysis of anti-poverty programs and concluded that they actually make poverty worse. To rectify this we should implement his Path to Poverty budget right away, obviously. What the poor need isn’t a handout, it’s a little motivation to pull themselves up by their boot straps and escape the “poverty trap.” This idea what there is even a such thing as a “poverty trap” is one of most bullshit conservative economic ideas today. As if receiving SNAP or WIC assistance during a time of need prevents someone from taking advantage of economic opportunities that, as you know, magically materialize for average people on a daily basis. ‘I was going to start my own business, but food stamps are just too good.’ Paul Ryan’s Audit Of Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Finds Many Are Actually Very Effective

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (246412)	3/4/2014 12:55:49 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542202

Nope, I already did over on "President Barack Obama' cite about 6 months ago and I got plenty or response, but none of it spoke to the studies main thesis--that married people produce more children "successes" then unmarried people. That's unfortunate. If these studies did proper methodological controls for income level, urban/suburban/rural location, and geographic location, and were properly modest about the strength of the indicator for the dependent variable--out of wedlock birth rates--they could be quite interesting. If they did not, they may well have been discounted by serious researchers. At the end of the day it 's probably what we want to believe about it. We've been conditioned, I think, by our backgrounds to look at it in a certain way. Perhaps that's true in your case. I don't know you. But if you could produce credible evidence to support your views, I would be willing to take a look. Who knows? Evidence always counts.

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (246412)	3/4/2014 3:13:22 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 542202

Pay people more to be married than to be single. Simple. You don't need to hurt poor stupid women who get pregnant, often as teens- but you might be able to entice people to marry- and who knows? Maybe you can even stop them from having kids if they have little money. Pay them MORE to marry and not have kids, than to just marry. And pay them least if they are unarried with children- but still enough to subsist. IMO that would be the smart thing to do.