• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cato caught lying again

JP Hochbaum said:
Where are you getting this idea that the source I posted made a big deal about relative poverty?

The source made a big deal about Cato creating a misleading study. I just read it twice more to make sure I didn't miss it so please post where you see them mention anything about "relative poverty". Or explain to me how a thread and OP on Cato is now being transformed into a debate on a topic you want to focus on?

Seems to me if you want to debate the difference between relative and absolute you should do a thread on it.
Click to expand...
Did you read/comprehend the EBook chapter? You sound so confused on this point that I would have to assume you have not read it. It was apparently sufficient for the author to reference it as part of her argument...

So why are you accusing me of hijacking the thread when the information for my query comes directly from the sources you put up? That is either ill informed... or it is disingenuous.
 
phattonez said:
Oh you made the claim:



MORE prevalent BEFORE hand outs existed. You made the claim, now prove it.
Click to expand...

I doubt there are any studies about this since before welfare existed. You are asking me to prove something that would be impossible to dig up. How about you prove the initial claim you made? That handouts cause violence and crime, I was afterall just responding to your claim, seems to me that ball is in your court not mine.
 
phattonez said:
The poor can't buy produce or go to the library? Fascinating. Your paper should be a smash.
Click to expand...

There is an area in Chicago, totaling 44 square miles where health food options just don't exist. And they have no way of getting there unless they had several hours to kill. These kind of food deserts exist in most major cities.

Not to mention that heavily processed food and fast food is more cheaper than buying healthy food.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Did you read/comprehend the EBook chapter? You sound so confused on this point that I would have to assume you have not read it. It was apparently sufficient for the author to reference it as part of her argument...

So why are you accusing me of hijacking the thread when the information for my query comes directly from the sources you put up? That is either ill informed... or it is disingenuous.
Click to expand...
What Ebook Chapter? Honestly have no idea what you are talking about here.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
What Ebook Chapter? Honestly have no idea what you are talking about here.
Click to expand...
Remember your first post on the thread?

JP Hochbaum said:
"Sharon Parrott and LaDonna Pavetti at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities provide some solid evidence against some of the claims made by Tanner and Hughes. They provide detailed statistics on how little overlap there is in the assistance families receive for multiple programs, and how few eligible families actually receive any benefits at all.

What’s striking to me is that even Cato’s overblown and exaggerated welfare benefits would leave families in eight states with incomes below the federal poverty line. I’d add that it’s a bit odd to look at hypothetical data, when real data on what low income families actually receive from welfare and work is available. The Congressional Budget Office provides comprehensive data on sources of income for households by income fifths. We looked at this in some detail in the poverty chapter of State of Working America (see here). These reputable data tell a very different story about how low-wage workers live their lives. They are getting far less from government assistance than the Cato report implies and are relying much more on income gained from working.
Click to expand...
...blah blah blah....

Well look, and I have bolded and put it in red so as to again draw your attention to where this material comes from in the article you quote...go back to the original article and then click on the see here... then the Ebook should magically appear...read the Ebook chapter on Poverty in which the author asserts she looked in detail at her poverty information as opposed to that in the Cato report.

Here is the part of the Ebook so indicating the bogus inequality of incomes and then on to the relative poverty argument that is also bogus.



Capture anti cato 1.jpgCapture anti cato 2.jpgSo, we got it now, do we?

Seems you really should be on top of your own sources and what is asserted within them...should you not?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Remember your first post on the thread?

...blah blah blah....

Well look, and I have bolded and put it in red so as to again draw your attention to where this material comes from in the article you quote...go back to the original article and then click on the see here... then the Ebook should magically appear...read the Ebook chapter on Poverty in which the author asserts she looked in detail at her poverty information as opposed to that in the Cato report.

Here is the part of the Ebook so indicating the bogus inequality of incomes and then on to the relative poverty argument that is also bogus.



View attachment 67155208View attachment 67155209So, we got it now, do we?

Seems you really should be on top of your own sources and what is asserted within them...should you not?
Click to expand...

Ahhh, so it wasn't from my source after all. Thanks for sharing that though!
 
JP Hochbaum said:
Ahhh, so it wasn't from my source after all. Thanks for sharing that though!
Click to expand...
Wow, so you explicitly post the see here upon which the author of the article you rely upon relies upon...and that is somehow not your source? Things YOU should have looked at before you posted the damn silly thing? Sure as heck are not my sources, except to use your own sources against you... what could be better, eh?

Dude, what a joke position, you do not expect anybody to take your "opinions" on this seriously after, do you?

And as to your food desserts in major cities... I dunno, if I were in a real dessert, devoid of water, I think I could not blame another soul if I did not, myself, make some move, try to get out of there to where there are places in which I could survive. I think even non-sentient beings, animals, know enough to move towards where they will best survive. There is responsibility by people for their own lives... I cannot, and absolutely do not want to, parent these people through the auspices of my government...

Then my government starts thinking it can also parent me. So, those of you who want out of the dessert, get off your butt and get out... if not, well....
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Wow, so you explicitly post the see here upon which the author of the article you rely upon relies upon...and that is somehow not your source? Things YOU should have looked at before you posted the damn silly thing? Sure as heck are not my sources, except to use your own sources against you... what could be better, eh? [/I][/B].
Click to expand...
The topic here is about how Cato mislead people in their paper/study. I don't know why you continue to harp on relative poverty, which has nothing to do with what I mentioned in the OP.

Like I said earlier, if you want to discuss relative poverty, feel free to do so on another thread. Otherwise you are just distracting with side issues unrelated to the OP.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
The topic here is about how Cato mislead people in their paper/study. I don't know why you continue to harp on relative poverty, which has nothing to do with what I mentioned in the OP.

Like I said earlier, if you want to discuss relative poverty, feel free to do so on another thread. Otherwise you are just distracting with side issues unrelated to the OP.
Click to expand...
You mean like you were with discussing crime, and lead, nutrition deserts in major cities... you jumped off the thread way earlier, bud... and my points actually relate to the articles you, YOU, put up, so get over yourself...

What the problem is, we now know, is your sources are not credible in contradicting the Cato report... you just cannot admit it with all this embarrassing stuff you invested in without knowing what is was...
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
You mean like you were with discussing crime, and lead, nutrition deserts in major cities... you jumped off the thread way earlier, bud... and my points actually relate to the articles you, YOU, put up, so get over yourself...
Click to expand...
Wow, someone has some serious attention problems. Just because I post a source doesn't mean I agree with every little detail that source ever posts. I am not a Bible thumper that has one strict belief or thought. This thread is still about Cato misleading people, not about relative poverty. And you are asking me to get over myself? Look in the mirror.

I tend to ignore people who try to make the argument about me, which you have done, and not about the data, which you haven't done. Stay on topic and you may come to learn a thing or two on economics.

Last chance to revert to the OP.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
Wow, someone has some serious attention problems. Just because I post a source doesn't mean I agree with every little detail that source ever posts. I am not a Bible thumper that has one strict belief or thought. This thread is still about Cato misleading people, not about relative poverty. And you are asking me to get over myself? Look in the mirror.

I tend to ignore people who try to make the argument about me, which you have done, and not about the data, which you haven't done. Stay on topic and you may come to learn a thing or two on economics.

Last chance to revert to the OP.
Click to expand...
I argued the data early on, you just ignored it, had to have my post pointed out to you, so don't start that crap. You have yet to show where, specifically, what data by Cato is misleading, just a hand wave in the direction of the report saying its misleading.

So tell us, specifically.

Least you can do after making me jump through all kinda hoops just to get you to read the bogus basis underlying your article's thrust [ how many posts was it explaining the information and then how to access it from your own sources before you finally figured it out? I am not quite sure if you really ever have ]. Your positions for what you believe are, indeed, the equivalent of what you call bible thumping...except most bible thumpers know their bible. You seem to not really notice much of anything except your own illusory declarations. You try to ignore people, arguments and any information that does not fit your program. Quite apparent with the attempt on crime vs poverty argument on here as well.

Oh and last chance? That suppose to be a threat or something? F.U...yes, that is probably about your position on that.
 
Ok so for those who really have a lack of reading comprehension skills here is the crux of why Cato was wrong:

"In 2009, average transfer income for the lowest fifth of workers was $4,633 and average labor income was $12,871. (To be comparable with the Cato report, I’m not including Medicare and Social Security income.) Two things are clear here: government transfers are far less than what Tanner and Hughes claim, and labor income far exceeds government transfers for the lowest income group, meaning that real-world low-income families don’t feel so coddled by lavish welfare benefits that they don’t need to work."

The response to Cato dug in and found out that this kind of data actually existed, that we could actually find out if what CATO says is actually true. And it was 100% false, and a lie!
 
JP Hochbaum said:
I doubt there are any studies about this since before welfare existed. You are asking me to prove something that would be impossible to dig up. How about you prove the initial claim you made? That handouts cause violence and crime, I was afterall just responding to your claim, seems to me that ball is in your court not mine.
Click to expand...

Here is a short summary discussing exactly that.

http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/relationship-between-welfare-state-crime-0
 
JP Hochbaum said:
There is an area in Chicago, totaling 44 square miles where health food options just don't exist. And they have no way of getting there unless they had several hours to kill. These kind of food deserts exist in most major cities.

Not to mention that heavily processed food and fast food is more cheaper than buying healthy food.
Click to expand...

There are no markets within a 44 square mile radius? Interesting.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
Wow that is such a great example of correlation implies causation fallacy. You do realize that the more poor you are the more welfare you likely need. This only shows that higher poverty rates = higher crime.
Click to expand...

Um, try reading more than the first line:

For example, research by Dr. June O’Neill’s and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.
Click to expand...
 
phattonez said:
Um, try reading more than the first line:
Click to expand...

I am not questioning it, but if someones takes in more welfare it means they are more poor. SO all this tells me is that the correlation of poverty to crime increases with more poverty.

You inadvertently just gave another example of CATO tricking its fans.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
I am not questioning it, but if someones takes in more welfare it means they are more poor. SO all this tells me is that the correlation of poverty to crime increases with more poverty.

You inadvertently just gave another example of CATO tricking its fans.
Click to expand...

They are talking about increasing benefits, not becoming more impoverished.
 
phattonez said:
They are talking about increasing benefits, not becoming more impoverished.
Click to expand...

And what do you think getting more benefits means? It means you are qualified for more bennies because you are more impoverished.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
And what do you think getting more benefits means? It means you are qualified for more bennies because you are more impoverished.
Click to expand...

Is that what the paper said?
 
JP Hochbaum said:
I am not questioning it, but if someones takes in more welfare it means they are more poor. SO all this tells me is that the correlation of poverty to crime increases with more poverty.

You inadvertently just gave another example of CATO tricking its fans.
Click to expand...
So, you are saying that those who take corporate welfare means they are more poor? Interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom