What is your evidence that welfare is bad?

What is your evidence that welfare is bad?
As far as I can tell most economists are Democrat so I'm going with them for now.

Other urls found in this thread:

forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/08/02/surprise-70-of-economists-support-hillary-not-trump-but-70-of-economists-are-democrats-anyway/
truthrevolt.org/news/sacramento-giving-15-million-murderers-stop-killing
archive.is/WNKQ8
forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/09/16/us-poverty-rate-is-still-14-5-but-yes-the-war-on-poverty-worked/#7501f1f5b16f
youtube.com/watch?v=v0dSuCm7yYo
forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/08/02/surprise-70-of-economists-support-hillary-not-trump-but-70-of-economists-are-democrats-anyway/#2c5f93cd3fba
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Some black AF armpits

That's the best part.

So the well-paid economists that say welfare is good are democrats, who continually push for more welfare?

Number 1, welfare recipients never get off welfare.

Yes... I think you got mixed up? If they're well paid they should support tax cuts and less welfare

Source?

Welfare isn't inherently bad but is used to control certain populations/voter blocs and is often used as a crutch to not have to work or be productive and instead live off of.
Most economists are Democrats primarily for other reasons.

the fucks wrong with her arm pit

It promotes lazyness, it's a "safety net" that keeps you stuck there

Not exactly evidence. How many people turn down jobs compared to if there was no welfare?

.....

>paying an economist a lot of money to say "welfare is good"

>What is your evidence that welfare is bad?

My paycheck.

Unlike your Koch brothers funded Heritage / CATO publications, most economists work for universities and are on tenure

Only faggy liberal economists work for think tanks and write policy, meanwhile all the conservatives are on wallstreet making mad money. I should know I am an economist myself, you stupid closed minded liberal faggot. Are you even physically capable of having a discussion without bringing in "social issues"?

US dept of labor.

Reason #2, why work when welfare pays 15$/hr?

E-fucking-xactly, one of the principles of economis is people respond to incentives. What does welfare do? Incentivize failure.

Look at that nasty armpit skin

Democrat economists are sperglords.

I don't like making broad statements like "welfare is bad," "all socialism is bad."

I prefer to look at welfare programs and all social programs one by one. Some have been fairly successful- like EBT and social security. While others are complete messes with so many unfunded liabilities and so much waste like Medicare and section 8.

Link to the study the graph was taken from then. Image search doesn't come up with it.

>CATO Institute
That's a little suspect. These are the people who have tried to show that passive smoking doesn't kill. They aren't very respected

iphones are nigger technology

>As far as I can tell most economists are Democrat so I'm going with them for now.

What autist made this? You're showing your biases already by putting tax cuts as a positive and tax cuts as a negative

>ask for sources
>don't like the source
Typical liberal cock monger.

So they're job consists of producing nothing while earning a paycheck. People on welfare told you welfare was good.

My almonds are activated.

Because its stealing someones money to give it to someone else.

Surely you're still printing lots of money even if you're bringing inflation down.
If you're printing lots of money and putting prices higher, the economy is going to seem to grow when it isn't. You need to account for that.
Is there something I'm missing? Adjusting for actual inflation seems irreplaceable

>What is your evidence that welfare is bad?
Niggers

Inflation is a product of the money supply, holy shit you are retarded.

I'm fine with them in a limited state, but there should be mandatory drug tests. Also, it should have a limit of how long you can be on at a time.

You would be skeptical of openly left wing think tanks. Both are essentially paid to reach the right conclusions

>What is your evidence that welfare is bad?
do you like riots? cause its how you get more riots.

>What is your evidence that welfare is bad?

Ancient rome. Free grain and games. Increased size of mob. Economic and social decline. Focus on urbanite mob politics. Collapse.

Jersey shore and food stamps, increased number of welfare recipients and dependents. Economic and social decline. Focus on urbanite left win politics.
Collapse.

That's exactly what I said, you fucking waste of space.

Reason #3: Welfare spending continues to increase every year yet poverty is not decreasing

>Most economists are democrats

Ill need a source please

Outside of financial reasons (the govt has nothing to gain from it and we just lose money), It kills incentive. There are videos of people on youtube and interviews on the web explicitly saying that they dont work because they can collect welfare instead.

Also, of course the democrats want more welfare. How do you think they get minority votes?

>Vote for me and ill make sure to give everyone welfare
Why wouldnt they?
>Kills incentive
>waste of money
>Buying votes

Probably because official poverty rates are fairly useless and don't actually measure poverty.

so what about the part where welfare spending increases every year?

With that logic, how can you argue that welfare does the opposite of what user is saying? How can you make any argument at all if you will deny the only evidence he has shared and dont have any other ones yourself? Youre blind to any facts at that point and are admitting its all opinion based.

How do they not measure poverty properly?

Its not that its bad, its just that its given to the bad people.
The retard and disabled get a shitty life while lazy and criminal enjoy a extra paycheck

If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you tell a man to fuck off he is no longer your problem.

forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/08/02/surprise-70-of-economists-support-hillary-not-trump-but-70-of-economists-are-democrats-anyway/

>get nothing out of it
I suppose you just reject the idea that reducing poor people's suffering is a 'thing' that we should support?

Oh yea, also.. California is actually giving welfare to people in gangs if they dont kill people now.

>In a unanimous 9-0 vote, the Sacramento city council approved a new measure that allots a $1.5 million payment to gang members as an incentive to stop killing other people.

Fox News reported that it is part of the California capitol’s “Advance Peace” program meant to tackle the violent crime spike around the city. With the money, council members hope to attract gang bangers to stay in school, graduate, and do their best to stay out of trouble.

In response to five people being shot at a park in a single day, Mayor Darrell Steinberg moved up the vote scheduled two weeks out in order to “get going on doing everything we can to save innocent lives.”

truthrevolt.org/news/sacramento-giving-15-million-murderers-stop-killing

Democrats are AMAZING economists

Let's archive that
archive.is/WNKQ8

I am skeptical of all think tanks, they are paid to come up with suggestions for law makers. Anyone with enough money can buy favorable results. That being said, you seem to only favor liberal thought. I don't need a chart to tell me wellfare is bad, if you had the slightest idea of how economics works you would realize why wellfare is inherently bad for an economy.
GDP is gov expenditure, consumption, total imports and investment. If you give government money to people to consume the tax payer money that would have otherwise increase GDP, goes to absolute waste and the economy does not grow.

Thats actually funny, because during the campaign, Trumps economic proposals were actually just as left as Hillary's.

I think we should make the poor less poor but i disagree that welfare will do anything to help. I argue that it actually hinders their ability to grow. Idk what the logic is in which it would help.

>Give them welfare and food stamps
>They dont get a job
>Spend the welfare
>Get more welfare

Its a neverending circle and they become dependent on government. They have no personal responsibility at that point.

Im in favor of helping out the disabled and stuff. I just dont think a huge spike of increase for ambiguous demographics is helping anyone.

>how can you argue that welfare does the opposite
You could start by measuring poverty post-welfare, rather than pre-welfare. People are less poor when they have more money.
forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/09/16/us-poverty-rate-is-still-14-5-but-yes-the-war-on-poverty-worked/#7501f1f5b16f

If people's POST-WELFARE incomes are going down, then you can plainly see that welfare is counterpdroductive. If not, not

welfare creates a lack of work ethic and accountability of holding a job for more than 5 months at wendy's to get weed money

If you are brining inflation down, then you are defintely not printing more money.
Do you see why you are wrong or do I need to explain it to you?
Money Supply x Velocity of Money equals Inflation times the demand for money. If the money supply goes up, then so does inflation.
Why do liberals always have to act like they know everything?

Most welfare actually goes to people in work, just to help them 'make ends meet'
Money to the unemployed is to prevent a sudden shock in income which means they can't pay the bills. And to give them time to find a job / find a job suited to their skills

Reason #4: Why should a single parent (most black families) work?

That isnt solving anything, man.

>Give someone money
>they are less poor than they were before


Youre thinking in very short term and relying on the obvious statistics too much. OF COURSE thats going to be true. It doesnt SOLVE the problem though. They will STILL be in the poverty line or lowest class by recieving that welfare. They will not ever dig themselves out of the hole they are in since they are depending so much on welfare.

The conservative argument is that welfare
(socially)
>Kills incentive
>Creates a culture dependent on govt and pushes away individual responsibility

(economically)
>hinders growth as nothing is being built off of the welfare capital
>drains the taxpayers dollar where it could otherwise be used for the better

You're really desperate for me to be wrong, but I'm just not.
Last month you tripled the money supply.
This month you double the money supply.
Inflation is recorded as going down. But you are still printing more money.

Going down doesn't mean negative, it means 'getting lower'

INCENTIVES
People only react to incentives, if you are not incentivized to work because you can get a source of income and food through food stamps without working you perpetuate the wellfare state.
I am not saying wellfare is bad, but the fact that there isn't a limit to how long you can claim wellfare is what's detrimental to the economy.

...

I love that man

Reason #5: Most poor families have excessive luxuries

If it kills incentive and they end up being more poor, then that should show up in their post-welfare income.

If pre-welfare income is stable, and welfare is increasing, then it seems to me poverty is going down

This. People also forgot the poor families in America live better than the upper classes in most of Africa, Middle east, rural Asia, etc. and they dont even have to work for it.

Forgot image

When did i ever say they end up being more poor than pre-welfare? Theres got to be some miscommunication between us.

Why would welfare increasing imply that poverty is going down? In what respect do you mean that welfare is going up? The amount of money being put into it? If thats the case, then youre proving my point even more.

>Give people money
>They will be less poor than they were before

Still not solving the underlining problem.

It is an equation
MS x V = Y x P where P equals inflation and Y equals the demand for money through the demans for goods. If Money supply goes up then something has to change to equalize it. You literally said if Y is going down then MS will go up.

Not evidence. Is it fair or accurate to class people on welfare as parasites?

Reason 6. In most states, TANF families do not participate in the work force. Most states where participation is up are republican states that require it.

Wellfare recepients are literally the textbook definition of a leech.

Well i mean.. most of them are parasites.. look up the definition. Would you be offended if i said retards are retards? Its not a derogatory term, you just somehow thing it is. Were trying to be literal and specific here.

Parasite

>1. (Biology) an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it
>2. a person who habitually lives at the expense of others; sponger
>3. (formerly) a sycophant

>What is your evidence that welfare is bad?
youtube.com/watch?v=v0dSuCm7yYo

Yep -->Hes fucking stupid.

Good bait user, but you are too retarded to keep it interesting. For that reason I'm out. I was a liberal like you, the best arguments are done when both people know both sides inside and out. You have never stepped our of your liberal paradigm, that is why your arguements are solely emotional with barely any substance. You are no better than a jew.

It's good for rich people.

Corporations like Walmart make all the money from food stamps. Tax dollars pay for food stamps, the. They get spent at a big corp

>When did i ever say they end up being more poor than pre-welfare? Theres got to be some miscommunication between us.
That's what would happen if welfare increased poverty. As the welfare state got bigger people's income would get smaller even after you counted the programmes.

>The amount of money being put into it?
Yes. If people's pre-welfare incomes are stable (they aren't quitting their jobs for example) but they're getting more money from the government then they must be getting less poor

>Still not solving the underlining problem.
Maybe, but that's not the function of welfare. You would have other programmes for that

Not true des, even your own chart proves it.

>As far as I can tell most economists are Democrat so I'm going with them for now.
I understand that this is bait, but there's been WAY too much of it lately and golly gee does it make my blood boil anyway.

I come to Sup Forums to get angry at the world, not angry at attention-seeking imbeciles.

>Majority of people are on gibs for over 8 years
How?

this x100

Wait, hold the fuck up? Are you saying these fucking leaches get paid More than hard working Americans for doing nothing? That is fucking nuts.

Welfare is alienating, people usually want to get off form it. But it is necessary thing in capitalism where we cannot have full employment due to variations in labor markets.

8 years is a short time form your national life expectancy average. Also it shows that american welfare is inferior to that in Europe.

He was comparing them to the animals who feed on people's blood. Implying that it's always people's fault that they're on welfare, and they're selfish and lazy.
Pulling out dictionary definitions is missing the point.

>it is necessary thing in capitalism
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PLEASE KILL YOURSELF
The only reason we can't have full employment is because the government interferes in the economy. Central banking run by globalist liberal jews. Artificially low interest rates. Minimum wage laws. Inflation.
The anti-capitalist meme isn't even funny at this point. I bite every time.

>As far as I can tell most economists are Democrat so I'm going with them for now.
It's true
forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/08/02/surprise-70-of-economists-support-hillary-not-trump-but-70-of-economists-are-democrats-anyway/#2c5f93cd3fba

>Maybe, but that's not the function of welfare. You would have other programmes for that

So then why is welfare the governments functio at all?

I agree with minus the Jew part.

You are stating the same things.
>Welfare goes up
>Poverty goes down

Which isnt really the argument first of all.

You and i have completely different views on what the governments job is. You want money for welfare and money for other things to "solve the problem"

Its really not that hard. Why have welfare if its not going to solve the problem? Why is it the governments job to give people free money while feeding their lack of other essentials?

The government has an obligation to help people come out of poverty, but it shouldnt be through these programs where they give citizens free money. The reason this country had so many booms and dominated world markets in the past wasnt from govt putting their foot in our doors. It was from staying out of the life of Americans and stressing the importance of individual hard work ethic and labor. Government hand outs undermine the very virtues which made this country such a boom.

>Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.

Thats relevant to most things as well. Liberals have this idea that we havent peaked yet and we are safe and secure from the government having too much power or the country collapsing. They dont understand that the exact type of welfare and government policy eating away at citizens were all a factor in the collapse of other countries.

>As far as I can tell most economists are Democrat so I'm going with them for now.

Most democrats think they can self-identify as whatever they feel like. Even if they don't qualify.

Looks like scrotum skin

No, he wasnt. He was asking if its fair that were classifying them as parasites. Thats all he said. No implication, just saying its fucked up were doing it. Likely because he thinks even people who get welfare, contribute.

Our response was appropriate.

>So then why is welfare the governments functio at all?
Because government's the one that can tax people.

>Why have welfare if its not going to solve the problem?
To reduce absolute material want.

>The government has an obligation to help people come out of poverty
In the long term. And also to stop them suffering too much poverty in the short term.

>As far as I can tell most economists are Democrat so I'm going with them for now.
welfare encourages well informed geniuses like you to spread their opinions on the internet, seeing as their talents and insight are too worthy of gainful employment

>If you're printing lots of money and putting prices higher, the economy is going to seem to grow when it isn't. You need to account for that.
That chart does account for that. When President A takes inflation from 4% to 12% prices are rising faster than under President B who drops it from 12% to 8%.

>academic economists
Holy fuck, holy god damn fuck. ACADEMIC ECONOMISTS ARE ALMOST NEVER ACCURATE. They don't bet on the economy for a reason, its why they are in academia.

What do you think is the role of government?


>To reduce absolute material want

I have no fucking clue what you mean by this.

To me, calling a person a parasite implies they just sit there and drain resources, rather than working. A working person who gets some benefits so they can afford to pay the rent isn't a parasite.

They might fit the definition but that's not what the word conjures up.

Look at the incentives and how society function prior to the welfare state.
Then you will realise how welfare destroys families, communities and infantilises individuals.

God dam user, I am about to erase my history just to stay away from your god dam retardation. I am truly disgusted by how brain washed you are, the only thing you have been saying is pure leftist rhetoric. Repent please.
HAVA HAVA NAGILA HAVA NAGILA

>When President A takes inflation from 4% to 12% prices are rising faster than under President B who drops it from 12% to 8%.
I don't think so. Surely it would depend on the average growth in the money supply?

President B has high inflation for his entire tenure; President A starts with low inflation. Prices rise faster under B

Break down by race please.

>why is giving money to people who are terrible with money bad?
Gee I don't know. Also never trust a Keynesian. He'll tell you the best way of getting out of a hole is to keep digging.

...

this

>What is your evidence that welfare is bad?

Go on safari in Detroit or Baltimore and see for yourself.