[speechlesstx]

The states don't go looking for deprived people, they have to come in and sign up. Then they are evaluated. The process has been around for a while. The best way to fight propaganda, spin, agendas, and lies is with deeds, actions, and accomplishments.

And you propose a government that has an already 13,000 page health care law is the most efficient way solve poverty?

You HAVE to expand the welfare class, because it IS growing!

That's easy when it's intentional.

[speechlesstx]

Like Tal said, they sign up and then get checked up on. If they can jump all the hurdles, they qualify.

That's not criteria, that's method.

[Wondergirl]

The method is check the eligibility against established criteria, like we did at Catholic Charities before allowing clients to get services on a sliding scale.

[talaniman]

Critera is a function of individual states. Not the federal government.They all have a procedure in place.

[speechlesstx]

So the federal government never imposes its will on the states. Bwa ha ha ha!!

[talaniman]

Obama has said on many occasions that any plan that meets the criteria of his plan can be done, and he sent EVERY state the money to evaluate, and formulate any plan that they deemed effective. That was in 2010, and they have until 2014.

Yeah sounds like he is a real dictator all right. More like the CEO of the worlds biggest economy, trying to get the job done. Many states have already done this, some are just plain lazy, or reticent.

Hospitals will make sure Perry gets on board, kicking or screaming he will comply. They all will or lose one helluva savings. It's a great deal for the states, especially the poor ones.

[TUT317]

Tut, the report is from a conservative perspective so I would expect a conservative slant, but it's far from dishonest.

From the beginning you stated "In this case the facts are not the facts. I didn't get much past the preamble and the first graph to realize this" and ended with "That's as far as I wanted to go into that report."

In between you made judgements based on a lack of knowing the full content so what kind of fallacy is that, Tut?

I said the report was a counter to the prevailing narrative which is dishonest and agenda driven. I also said the report does not dismiss the needs of the poor:



Again, do we want to be effective and efficient in dealing with the needs of the truly distressed, or do we want to just throw money everywhere and have a nation of dependents based on the gospel of Obama and bankrupt the country in the process? Do we buy the lie that the 12 year old girl who shares a tiny home with 11 other people and her drug addicted mother is typical of poverty in America?

Al Jazeera and others buy the propaganda...



Sorry, but that's not America and we're all more than willing to help the deprived, but we need a little sunshine on the agenda driven lie being propagated about "poverty" in America.

Steve we are talking past each other on this issue my. Criticism is aimed at the academic side of the report. I'll leave the politics of the report up to you. You know more about the politics than myself when it comes to this matter.

What I am saying is that I am critical of the methodology and notably, the lack of secondary research found in the paper.

Perhaps you are right, 'dishonest' was a bit strong. Perhaps I can replace that with, 'conveniently neglected information and research'.

Where is the distinction between ,'relative poverty' and 'absolute poverty? Easily accommodated in most reports in the form of secondary research results.

Where is the analysis of the poverty threshold? I would have though that some type of critical analysis of this would be an important prerequisite.

"Yet if poverty means lacking good adequate warm housing and clothing for the family, relatively few of the 30 million identified by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor"


The average person's understanding of poverty would make no distinction between absolute and relative poverty. It is clear the average person understands poverty in absolute terms. So the working definition of the report becomes 'absolute poverty' or what the average person understands by poverty Relative poverty is ignored because chances are most people in relative poverty have all the amenities.

The conclusion is that these people cannot be regarded as poor because if you have all the amenities.

This conclusion could be true but it was never put up for testing. If they are unhappy with relative poverty then they should have said so rather than ignore it. While not necessarily being correct, relative poverty is statistically significant.

If you don't believe me then compare this report to the one you posted.

http://www.epi.org/publications/webf...y_and_poverty/


P.S. If as you say the research has a political slant then it is bad research. The idea is to minimize the bias as much as possible

[cdad]

Dumb idea 101:

Since churches are not subject to tax. And the Health Care Bill is declared a tax. Then the churches are not subject to it because of taxation.

That would settle everything.


P.S. Note to Tut your link didn't work for some reason.

[NeedKarma]

P.S. Note to Tut your link didnt work for some reason.

AMHD messes it up for some reason.

Economic Opportunity and Poverty in America | Economic Policy Institute

[excon]

Since churches are not subject to tax. And the Health Care Bill is declared a tax. Then the churches are not subject to it because of taxation.

That would settle everything.

Hello dad:

Couple things.. The "Bill" wasn't declared a tax, only the mandate was. The mandate/tax is for INDIVIDUAL freeriders who want other people to pay for their health care.. Church's don't qualify.

So, let me ask you guys. Is it the PAYING for it you don't like, or the idea that everybody is going to be covered?? I STILL can't figure out WHY you guys DON'T like it. It's got to be cheaper than what we're spending now.

excon

[speechlesstx]

P.S. If as you say the research has a political slant then it is bad research. The idea is to minimize the bias as much as possible

Good luck with that. One of the primary - misleading - mantras of the left in this country is they're not ideological. Nonsense, their ideology permeates everything they do and the majority of our media and I believe there is a legitimate place for research that counters the narrative.

And your EPI? Check out how much commentary is revealed under their publications link.

Here's a report, Black metropolitan unemployment in 2011. Tell me there's no bias in the conclusion:

While the country as a whole needs the federal government to provide more economic stimulus, African Americans—who currently experience the highest unemployment rates among America’s major racial and ethnic groups—are especially in need of such assistance. There is broad agreement among economists that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act worked; the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the act created more than three million jobs (Montgomery 2012). Additional federal aid to state and local governments is particularly important to black workers, who have suffered the biggest proportional losses of good public-sector jobs as state and local governments responded to budget shortfalls with layoffs (Cooper, Gable, and Austin 2012). While the Obama administration has proposed providing more aid to state and local governments, conservatives in Congress have blocked such efforts (Pear 2011). The time to act is now.

That is a distinctly progressive view of things.

[TUT317]

Good luck with that. One of the primary - misleading - mantras of the left in this country is they're not ideological. Nonsense, their ideology permeates everything they do and the majority of our media and I believe there is a legitimate place for research that counters the narrative.

And your EPI? Check out how much commentary is revealed under their publications link.

Here's a report, Black metropolitan unemployment in 2011. Tell me there's no bias in the conclusion:



That is a distinctly progressive view of things.

Below may failed link is NK's post. Apparently he has fixed it.


The primary and secondary sources I am referring to are those sources found in a research paper. Both papers put up for examination contain primary sources. It is the lack of secondary sources relating to absolute and relative poverty that I see as a problem.


I was actually suggesting a comparison of the methodologies used because of the similar nature of the papers. In other words, I was asking which of the papers is most thorough in terms of methodology. I am on about the quality of the research, not the politics. As I said before, I will leave the politics( primary or secondary) up to you.

The conclusion you have presented above in relation to unemployment may well be bias. I don't know because the only papers I read was the one I cited and the one you originally posted.

I can read it and get back to you if you like, but I am not sure what it has to do with the poverty papers. They probably have different authors.


Tut

[speechlesstx]

"If as you say the research has a political slant then it is bad research."

I believe those were your words.

[talaniman]

Why are your neighbors so poor and live as they do? I ask because you see it upclose, so I just wanted your thoughts.

[speechlesstx]

I don’t recall my neighbors saying they're poor, and that's my point about "poverty" in America. Some are content with what they have. Some, like my neighbor across the street and the little old man on the corner I watched out for until he passed, need help. But mostly, they don’t stay stagnant.

Like the guy that bought the little old man’s teeny house has worked on it and expanded until it’s a nice looking place. Another neighbor across the street that barely speaks a lick of English took a place that was run down, bought it cheap and has done the same.

I’ve seen it countless times in my neighborhood and with friends I’ve known all my life, they kept at it until they bettered themselves. I admire that, that’s the spirit we need to foster again in America instead of gathering as many as we can under Nanny Sam’s wing because they’re too helpless to do any better for themselves.

[talaniman]

I have seen the same thing and believe that people can do better if they have a mind to. I also think that most have a mind to, and sometimes just need a chance, and that's what the social safety net is about. Not a life choice to do nothing, or an excuse to do wrong.

But during hard times for many is NOT the time to withdraw help from those that need it, and I bet they are grateful to the NANNY state for getting them through it. Like there is shame that they have fallen on hard times.

This ain't good times for people who have nothing after their foundation has been ripped from them. You have to give them more than gloom, and doom, and blame game, dontcha?

I mean the guy who takes a shack and makes it better had to have a bank, or a job to hang his hat on, doesn't he? I don't think any of us succeeds in a vacuum.

[speechlesstx]

The gospel of Obama is not about giving someone a chance, it's intentionally expanding the welfare class to hold a dependent constituency hostage to the liberal oligarchy. I would think you could see that given your rants about corporate America preying on others.

I'm all for giving people a chance and helping them when they're down, I'm not for keeping them down.

[talaniman]

That's almost funny, that you think helping those displaced by the results of corporations extracting the wealth and moving overseas, is some kind of socialist plot. Go ahead, give Romney and his running buddies more than they have already, and see if you ever see it again.

LOL, unless you move to Switzerland.

[speechlesstx]

Ditto that in giving the federal government more of your money to waste and see if you ever see it again.

You can believe the exponential expansion of IRS or HHS jobs is the preferred method of "job creation" if you want, but in reality the private sector is where jobs are created. The federal government produces nothing but debt. What are we going to do when they suck us all dry?

[cdad]

Thats almost funny, that you think helping those displaced by the results of corporations extracting the wealth and moving overseas, is some kind of socialist plot. Go ahead, give Romney and his running buddies more than they have already, and see if you ever see it again.

LOL, unless you move to Switzerland.

Do you really think that big brother isn't doing the same kind of things ?

http://msbusiness.com/2010/08/panel-...went-overseas/