Why Isn't Clarence Thomas Facing Impeachment Hearings?
Why Isn't Clarence Thomas Facing Impeachment Hearings?
The disgraceful Supreme Court justice should be held accountable for his actions but probably won't.
The disgraceful Supreme Court justice should be held accountable for his actions but probably won't.
You're viewing part of a thread.
What statistics show that social safety nets lead to those things?
I’ll save you time: they don’t exist
which safety nets? are they in the room here with us right now?
You’ve never heard of social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, housing opportunities, mental health services, food banks, soup kitchens, etc etc etc
Like Jesus Christ with that comment. How fucking stupid are conservatives? Go hit your head with a hammer and see if it helps. Seemingly it couldn’t hurt.
so practically speaking not much of safety net unless you are old, or single poor mother, which i support no doubt but that is [not] a safety net a vast majority of the population.
also, note mental health services, food banks, soup kitchens >>> federal government and states hardly provide these, they are provided by private sector...
even those have been steadily eroded under successive administration since 1980s, which share of taxes paid by working people have been increasing. so working person pays more taxes and gets no safety net for the most part.
You need to get educated instead of vomiting generic talking points, it would help this country if everyone did the same.
You know one of the parties keeps voting to take away the safety nets/keep us from getting them right? I'm all up for getting a third forth and even fifth party but its just not going to happen unless we can fix the current system and the gop is never going to let that happen.
so what is your solution, vote for the GOP and pray they will suddenly decide NOT to gut every social program they can find?
Voting for either party is providing legitimacy to the regime. you are better off voting with your feet and money since that's the last place you still have some agency. political process is captured, voting third party is the only logical decision but none of them are really inspiring any confidence since they shill degeneracy.
Just look at the amount of people living in poverty in the 40’s and early 50’s, then the democrats started the “war on poverty” and started these programs and 70 years later, the number of people living in poverty has continued to rise
Just look at the number of people living in poverty those stats aren’t hard to find.
More people are living in poverty in the US today than they were 70 years ago
You’d think after 20+ trillion dollars spent, the record on poverty would be much much better
And yet the percentage of the population that lives in poverty has dropped by more than half.
Funny how that works.
Somehow you’re arguing that more people starving is …. Better?
No, I'm pointing out that your argument is specious at best.
How is it specious? Do you know what the word even means?
Fact: there are more people living in poverty after the war on poverty was started than there were before those policies were put in place.
There’s nothing specious about that
Fact: there are double the number of people in the country after than there were before.
Fact: social status tends to have generational inertia.
Specious: "misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive."
It's absolutely specious, because you're somehow suggesting those policies failed because the absolute number of individuals went up, disregarding the fact that had those policies not been in place, the number would've been double what it is.
And I said at best, because it's far more likely you're just trolling. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, let's work through this.
If a family in poverty that's 2 people, has 3 children, that's now 5 people.
If this is the only family that exists, 100% of people are in poverty. If one of those children winds up getting out of poverty, you've gone from 2 people in poverty, to 4 people in poverty. However, you've gone from 100% poverty to 80% poverty.
And you're saying that's a failure.
You’re being spacious right now, trying to cover up the fact that there are demonstrably MORE suffering people than there has ever been.
You need to talk about real people, not statistics. What’s 20%? Who gives a shit. More suffering is more suffering, no matter what the percentage is.
The reason these programs were introduced was supposed to lead to less suffering. That’s been a lie
I mean, what is an acceptable number of people living in poverty to you and when are there too many? Is it a percentage? Or is it a real number of real people?
Again: because there's more PEOPLE than there has ever been. Yes, there is more suffering. I have no idea what you expect, the political climate is such that we can't just eradicate their suffering. But to pretend like these policies are a failure is going to cause more suffering. How do you not see that?
That 20% is the number that aren't suffering because of these policies. If you were to remove them, that 20% is the added suffering you are causing.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not.
Have they accomplished everything they set out to? Absolutely not.
Are they failing? Absolutely not.
I mean, what is an acceptable number of people living in poverty to you and when are there too many? Is it a percentage? Or is it a real number of real people?
See, in my world, percentages are real numbers of real people. I know, that's crazy. And I'm not going to pretend like there's some number that's acceptable, or enough, because that's not the point. The point is that the policies we're discussing have reduced the suffering.
You calling them a lie can only lead to more suffering. Hopefully you realize that some day.
And yet somehow your claim is that doing less would have been better?
You need to talk about real people, not statistics. What’s 20%? Who gives a shit. More suffering is more suffering, no matter what the percentage is.
We track the change in the number of people living in poverty to the total pop via these statistics. For example if last decade we had 20% of people living in poverty and this decade we have 10% of people living in poverty, that tells us relative to the total population there are less people living in poverty. In other words previously if we had randomly sampled 100 people we would have expected to find approx 20 living in poverty vs now we would expect to only find approx 10 if we randomly sample 100 people.
Bringing poverty down from one percentage to a smaller one as described above describes a success in the sense that poverty is more uncommon compared to the total population.
If P is the total number of people living in poverty, T is the total population and R is the ratio of people living in poverty to the total population then we have R=P/T, in other words P=TR.
Your issue is just that the number of people living in poverty P is too large. But if that's your concern then we either need to decrease T (the total population) or decrease R (the ratio of people living in poverty to total population) or decrease both T and R.
You're arguing that our efforts to decrease R aren't working (or aren't working well enough). So, then what should we do? If we do nothing, R remains fixed (or even increases) and P increases due to the increasing population T, which makes your issue worse. Decreasing the total population T seems tricky too, if that's a viable solution to you, them how do you suppose we should accomplish it? As far as I can tell the only plausible solution is decreasing R, which is exactly what the person you were replying to was talking about?
Note: I'm also ignoring that the rates of change in T and R matter a lot. If you care to argue that we're not decreasing R fast enough, then what would you suggest in order for us to decrease R faster?
Have you ever heard the term “lies, damned lies and statistics”?
When I say that 40 million people in the USA live in poverty, is your response going to be “well, that’s only 11%!” And feel good about yourself?
Or are you going to think “shit. That’s more than the entire population of Canada.” And then rethink on these social programs, their cost and their effectiveness?
It’s fairly clear, when you start digging into these numbers that the more money spent to fight poverty doesn’t correspond to less people living in poverty. And if throwing money at the problem doesn’t help, it’s probably pretty scary for you to try to sus out what the alternatives might be.
In all honesty, with the amount of dollars spent over the last 70 years (an entire generation of US citizenry), poverty should be absolutely eradicated.
The interesting question to get to here, is why hasn’t poverty been eradicated? $20 some odd trillion dollars have been spent.
If you spent $20 trillion on 11% of the population, or 40m people …. That’s what? $500,000 spent per person living in poverty?
How do these numbers work out? How do you spend $500k for every person living in poverty right now, spread over a generation? And how is poverty still a thing?
Have you ever heard the term “lies, damned lies and statistics”?
When I say that 40 million people in the USA live in poverty, is your response going to be “well, that’s only 11%!” And feel good about yourself?
Did you read my actual post? My point is about how actual accurate statistics work and the logical conclusions that must follow from them. Not about whatever particular statistics you've read and chosen to disagree with today. My points still hold regardless of whether we're talking about statistics you agree with or not.
Or are you going to think “shit. That’s more than the entire population of Canada.” And then rethink on these social programs, their cost and their effectiveness?
If you read what I actually said you'll notice part of what I was asking you was what is your suggestion for what to do in place of these programs you're claiming are failures? You disliking a particular statistic doesn't address that question.
It’s fairly clear, when you start digging into these numbers that the more money spent to fight poverty doesn’t correspond to less people living in poverty. And if throwing money at the problem doesn’t help, it’s probably pretty scary for you to try to sus out what the alternatives might be.
Yes, basic familiarity with ratios and the fact that the population is increasing also leads us to this conclusion i.e. basic elementary school math also tells us this. I addressed this in my previous post to you actually.
Why even bother to respond if you're going to address none of my points, answer none of the questions I've asked you and instead whine and moan about statistics that are entirely irrelevant to my point? If you would read what I said you'll notice that my points and questions don't change whether the population is 10 people or 10 million people, or whether the ratio of people living in poverty to the total pop is 100% or 1%.
Fact: The percentage of people that are in poverty is significantly lower than it was multiple decades ago.
if you use federal definition for US... sure, but you are a bootlicker if you use that definition.
We just need to tip more…