Correction: this is what happens when poor Cherokee receive a stipend, but let's not pretend that the Cherokee are the ones we're worried about here. There are differences between the subcultures, and those differences almost certainly extend to how they treat money.
Furthermore, the psychological and social difference between receiving money from a source which a population would consider to be 'theirs' cannot be overstated. If you're a poor black person (or latino, or Cherokee, or whatever), and you're living in a land that's dominated by a group that's not like you, you are less likely to respect that money than if a) that money came from a source that was yours, and b) you knew that if that source believed that you were disrespecting that money, they would cut it off.
Both stipulations apply here. Giving a small band of Cherokee profits from one of their own casinos =/= giving poor blacks and latinos federal assistance. They aren't even close.
Successfully repeating this experiment in poor black and latino populations a few times would go a long ways towards convincing the skeptical that free money for the majority of the poor is actually a good idea.
Anything else, as I said in another thread, is half-measures.
You left out poor white people in your discussion. While white people do have a lower rate of poverty than blacks or latinos, they actually make up a very large majority (68.5% as of 2009) of the people living under the poverty line in the United States. [1]
"... let's not pretend that the Cherokee are the ones we're worried about here."
"Successfully repeating this experiment in poor black and latino populations a few times would go a long ways towards convincing the skeptical... "
I'm all in favor of repeating the experiment in whatever populations, ideally the general one on a large enough sample size to tease out demographic information. I don't want to seem like I'm implying something here, so I will instead say overtly that I find the way you've singled out certain populations for skepticism with regards to whether they should be helped disturbing.
Poor white people were left out of that comment because the writer's point was about minorities with access to a payment that didn't feel like "theirs". A poor white person receiving welfare from a largely white government/authority might not be a good comparison.
Forgive me for offending your politically correct sensibilities, but it seems that I'm going to have to be even more blunt: if you want to convince white people in this country that doling out free money to the poor is a good idea, you're going to have to convince them that blacks and latinos aren't going to abuse that system en masse. The only way to do that is to try something similar in neighborhoods that are comprised predominately of minorities and cross your fingers that it is a success. It doesn't matter whether those below the poverty line are 65% or 5% white - it's the minorities that they're concerned with. That's just the political reality of the situation.
And while we're on the subject of statistics, I may as well go ahead and ask about yours: where did you get that figure from? Because I found something much different:
According to this, only about 25% of people living in poverty were white, and that includes the somewhat dubious category 'white, not hispanic.' (It's near the bottom, Table B)
That also includes white retirees, which inflates the figure as you're taking the number of retirees from a large category and sticking them into a smaller category, which means they will be over-represented in the smaller category.
And that's not even mentioning the rate of poverty or welfare participation, which is where the common perception that blacks and latinos abuse the welfare system comes from in the first place. It's much higher than it is or other races. When you dig into the data, it usually turns out that stereotypes exist for a reason, and this appears to be no exception.
To be fair, he’s describing “non-black, non-latino”, which I suppose most closely aligns with “white non-hispanic” in that table: 19,599/46,180 or 42%. No longer a majority, but still a plurality.
The whole argument is ridiculous, of course:
> If you want to convince white people in this country that doling out free money to the poor is a good idea, you're going to have to convince them that blacks and latinos aren't going to abuse that system en masse. The only way to do that is to try something similar in neighborhoods that are comprised predominately of minorities and cross your fingers that it is a success.
When did we have the double-blind controlled study showing that the mortgage interest tax deduction wouldn’t be abused by the upper middle class "en masse" as a tax-protected store of wealth, contributing to a wildly over-inflated housing market?
Perhaps you can point me to the literature showing that carried interest being taxed as capital gains wouldn’t lead to wealthy fund managers being able to claim zero “income”?
Budget policy in the US (or anywhere, really) isn’t set by enlightened scientists who carefully consider the sociological and economic consequences. Voters and politicians are swayed by pundits and lobbyists, not by scientific studies. Get the right people to endorse an idea with the right (specious but superficially convincing) talking points and you too can help set public policy.
> When did we have the double-blind controlled study showing that the mortgage interest tax deduction wouldn’t be abused by the upper middle class "en masse" as a tax-protected store of wealth, contributing to a wildly over-inflated housing market?
> Perhaps you can point me to the literature showing that carried interest being taxed as capital gains wouldn’t lead to wealthy fund managers being able to claim zero “income”?
It doesn't matter. Voters don't hate the upper-middle-class, and they don't hate fund managers enough to vote differently. And sure, it would be nice if the electorate were less racist (and I'd support efforts to change that), but in the here and now we want to introduce positive policies, and we have to do that with the electorate we have rather than the electorate we wish we had.
The right thing to do would be to test the idea before shoving it down voters' throats.
It would not only be morally correct, it would provide great ammunition for fighting against those who would be against it.
But that's not going to happen, because despite the rhetoric of the left, no one knows whether it would work or not, and a failure would be catastrophic for the left politically.
So we'll trudge on, doing the same shit, implementing the same policies not to fix actual problems, but to appease our consciences and to feel like we've won some kind of political victory against that evil other side.
Is it a shocker that I misread that table? Obviously, you meant that facetiously, suggesting that you believe that someone who espouses views contrary to popular liberal ideology is necessarily a stupid person. But the fact that I made a mistake no more means that I'm stupid than does the fact that I disagree with liberal ideology on many points; on the contrary, the fact that you believe it does says much more about you than it does me.
At any rate, the rest of my points stand. Now that you've pointed out my mistake, maybe you'd like to follow up with a quick 1-2 punch and knock the moron out of the ring, eh? Come on, it should be easy, right?!
> It's much higher than it is or other races. When you dig into the data, it usually turns out that stereotypes exist for a reason
You'll find blacks and latinos are overrepresented in all negative socioeconomic indicators. But I'm sure that they're all deliberately choosing to have die younger and spend more time in prison.
You could have probably gone with: a tribally (single culture or group) owned and operated business paying dividends to its members is likely to have different results than a welfare payment from a government where ownership is distant.
I'm actually fairly offended that people are equating dividends from a tribal business with welfare. It is a bit insulting.
>if you want to convince white people in this country that doling out free money to the poor is a good idea, you're going to have to convince them that blacks and latinos aren't going to abuse that system en masse.
Alternatively, rather than attempting to convince them, we could educate them.
> Correction: this is what happens when poor Cherokee receive a stipend, but let's not pretend that the Cherokee are the ones we're worried about here. [...] Successfully repeating this experiment in poor black and latino populations a few times would [...]
I can't be sure what you intended to say here, but the message it sounds to me like you are implying sounds quite racist to me.
I DO care about poor Cherokee -- and poor humans in general. I have little reason to believe that any particular racial group would behave differently. You seem to be implying that blacks or latinos have a "different subculture" particularly in how they "treat money". I have no idea why you would believe this and unless there is good evidence to support it I would speculate it is probably just prejudice. I say that because, historically, essentially every one of the "racial differences" (especially the mental ones) that have been claimed have turned out to be baseless and untrue.
You also seem to be suggesting that there's a psychological difference between money received as federal assistance and money received from "one of their own casinos" because of considering it "theirs". That's an interesting claim. If true, then perhaps it suggests that a stipend program, if one were to be set up, would best be presented as if it were an earned entitlement or payout -- rather like we do with Social Security.
You are correct. I should have said "nearly every one of..." instead.
(I want to avoid claiming that it's the racist claims that were proven untrue. For one thing, it begs the question: if they turn out to be true then I guess it wasn't racist after all.)
the psychological and social difference between receiving money from a source which a population would consider to be 'theirs' cannot be overstated
It can be overstated; you've overstated it. In contrast to the careful research described in the article, you've just made a bunch of stuff up. Your rush to assume race as the dominant factor is another example.
Do you know what the Swedes didn't have a problem with a decade ago? Welfare abuse. All of a sudden, they have a problem with it now. Do you know who are the ones abusing the system? Hint: it's not the Swedes.
Every other country which has accepted middle eastern immigrants in the last decade are experiencing the same problems.
If a population does not respect your system, they will abuse it, period.
If you can get over yourself for a second, I'm sure you'll be able to figure out why.
As a Swede I'm not sure there's any base for this claim, other than that we now have racist politicians who make populist statements like this one without shame, referring to cherry picked data at best.
Generally, if you're going to make racist statements, at least try to back them up with some data and/or source.
Currently I am at a cafe in Thailand, hanging out with a bunch of swedes from diverse backgrounds. Just asked them bout this. Apparently, notdrunkatall, according to my Swedish friends, you are incorrect, and that the welfare system is considered a massive success in Sweden and that the immigration problem is seen as a minor, short term issue that right wing politicians make a big stink out of to get nationalistic votes.
The welfare system in Sweden IS seen as a massive success because it HAS been a massive success, and didn't have many serious problems because people respected it as a temporary thing, and receiving welfare came with a social stigma.
That is changing as a direct result of increasing immigration, and welfare reform is on the horizon across Europe, not just in Sweden.
Instead of asking them a loaded question in order to receive the answer that you want to receive, why not try asking them an unloaded question? Something like: do immigrants treat the welfare system differently than do native Swedes? Obvious answer is obvious.
But you've already said enough to refute your own argument: the immigration problem. It's a problem, is it not? And it's a problem because those people respect the system less than Swedes do, thus necessitating reform. It's not a major problem because the Swedes are proud of their system which has worked so well, with so little abuse, until just recently, and they're certain that they can figure this problem out as well before it gets too bad. But it is a problem nonetheless because, well, I'll just let you go back and read my original assertion.
How the fuck is it that a forum of supposedly intelligent people have such a massive problem with basic fucking logic?
So, let me see if I have your position right: because some people will abuse a system that will improve things for many more people, we should not implement said system? Is that right? I think it is telling that you would rather not have one "type" of person benefit unjustly in the face of all of society benefiting greatly. Says more about your feelings about "types" of people than your willingness to participate in the heterogeneous society of modern civilization.
How do I have your position wrong? Please enlighten me. Telling me I suck at "this" is hardly informative or constructive.
You indicated how a) this was a special case and that other types of people wouldn't behave similarly and that b) because other types of people wouldn't behave similarly this type of social policy shouldn't be enacted.
Yes? What did I miss?
Additionally, it is telling that you consider me to be plural. As if I am speaking on behalf of some sort of group that is "other" to you. Methinks, perhaps, you've caught the identity politics meme. You and I, we are not on separate teams, in different groups, or of a different type.
I got over myself... is it prejudice? Because I'm pretty sure it's prejudicial interpretation of whatever data or anecdote you're making vague reference to.
As an alternative example to what happens when you give the poor a stipend, have a look at the government grant system employed in South Africa, and the absolute misuse and abuse that system is under.
I believe the South African example is a closer approximation to what a society would look like with a basic guaranteed income.
South Africa is a very close approximation of what happens when you impose decades of apartheid and then let a small elite class of blacks in on the fun without actually dismantling the inegalitarian economic system itself.
And what about the current owners? The state can't afford to buy them out. Disown them? Massive loss of international trade and investment trust as could be seen with other african countries (Zimbabwe is the most prominent example).
Ok I'm back. Just googling "South African grants misuse" will give you plenty of sources. I wont link the top results, but your more than welcome to look for yourself. The system is rife with corruption and abuse. Also of note is that about 2 - 3 million tax payers carry the burden of upwards of 12 million grant receivers. An unsustainable system collapsing under its own weight.
+1 for actually coming back, even if not with exact links. I must say that I find it hard to get a good picture from the links in a simple Google search, and your numbers seem weird. South Africa has a population of 50+ million, how do you end up saying that there are only 2-3 million tax payers? That makes no sense, given that typically everybody pays taxes, directly or indirectly.
Please note the variance in the sources (even communist party :D ), so not really a biased picture. Everyone knows the grant system is being abused on a massive scale. Also the amount of people on the grant system exploded from 80 000 people receiving grants in 1998 until today's 12 000 000 people. And South Africa is not exactly a rich country...
As for my taxpayer statement, you only pay taxes if you earn above a certain amount. But it is a sliding scale system, so about 2 300 000 people are responsible for 93% of all the collected taxes, supporting 12 000 000 people. Not sustainable.
That is an overly precious view of money. Do poor Cherokee with starving kids care where the money comes from? If they do care, does it change anything? Do we leave kids suffer because some rich folks care about what they're thinking?
The fact is, the 1st attempt worked stupendously well at alleviating a critical problem. Further study will likely cause real delay and suffering, and is an excuse for inaction indefinitely.
Furthermore, the psychological and social difference between receiving money from a source which a population would consider to be 'theirs' cannot be overstated. If you're a poor black person (or latino, or Cherokee, or whatever), and you're living in a land that's dominated by a group that's not like you, you are less likely to respect that money than if a) that money came from a source that was yours, and b) you knew that if that source believed that you were disrespecting that money, they would cut it off.
Both stipulations apply here. Giving a small band of Cherokee profits from one of their own casinos =/= giving poor blacks and latinos federal assistance. They aren't even close.
Successfully repeating this experiment in poor black and latino populations a few times would go a long ways towards convincing the skeptical that free money for the majority of the poor is actually a good idea.
Anything else, as I said in another thread, is half-measures.