• 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

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
4,456
Reaction score
2,549
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"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.

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."

- See more at: Welfare Isn’t Too Generous
 
A leftist think tank writing about a conservative think tank. Well, there's news you can use.
 
A leftist think tank writing about a conservative think tank. Well, there's news you can use.

exactly, it is the opinion of a professional socialist working for an obscure socialist propaganda site whining about a far better known and far more reputable pro freedom organization

Well known socialist Robert Reich was one of the founders and its basically a tax the rich parrot

it also has this in its background

Eight labor unions made a five-year funding pledge to EPI at its inception: AFSCME, United Auto Workers, United Steelworkers, United Mine Workers, International Association of Machinists, Communications Workers of America, Service Employees International Union, and United Food and Commercial Workers Union.[12] According to EPI, about 29% of its funding between 2005 and 2009 was supplied by labor unions and about 53% came from foundation grants

AFSCME and SEIU are two of the worst unions in the USA-full of slugs, those unions do nothing to teach a trade but do nothing but try to make the tax payers pay more for second rate work
 
Last edited:
Sharron Parrott was a good name for the author. "Polly want some welfare?"
 
"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.

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."

- See more at: Welfare Isn’t Too Generous

IF medicare and social security distributed benefits were included in that total, would the cato institute data then be found accurate?
 
"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.

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."

- See more at: Welfare Isn’t Too Generous
Have a hard time with the premise of the Ebook in the (see here) of the article. For instance it states that as income inequality increases poverty becomes less responsive [whatever that really means] to overall growth. Then it goes on to indicate, in a comparison to our international peers, we are "woefully inadequate"...going on to list factors that play a role in our higher poverty rate compared to other countries.

Then they slip in that it is the highest "relative poverty rate"... so because we in this country have a much higher high end, those at the bottom look comparatively, or "relatively", lower in comparison to our peers. That is just manipulation of data on its very own.

The author states that the Cato report was "wildly misleading" and is so because "For one, Tanner and Hughes make the assumption that these families receive simultaneous assistance from all..." the programs and goes on to list them. If you look in the Cato report's methodology, they clearly state:

"Clearly no one receives benefits from all of these programs. Indeed, many federal welfare programs are so small or so narrowly targeted that few receive benefits. Yet many recipients do receive benefits from multiple programs. For purposes of this study, we assumed that our profile family receives the following benefits:"
and then they list the three following: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid.


So, we are expected to take this author's view on the Cato data with anything but skepticism?

Besides which, What should be measured is if all needs are met...once all needs are met society is not obligated to do any more. Those who want, want being much distinct from a need, can go out and find a way to earn those things... not up to a middle class tax payer like me, or the rich tax payer to fund. That want provides incentive, motivation to acquire more skills and to take on more responsibility...all of which results in a more productive, efficient and content society. Income inequality is a bogus way of going about describing poverty [ its BS folks ].
 
"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.

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."

- See more at: Welfare Isn’t Too Generous

Why doesn't the government just print a few trillion and throw it out of helicopters over the ghettos? According to MMT there would be no negative consequences of any kind and then everyone would have plenty of money.
 
Remember, kids, check your sources or you might look like a foolish orc.
 
So... CATO must be "lying" because its estimates of welfare benefits for single mothers with two children do not match the findings of their own study, which examines the entire lowest quintile. Uh-huh.
 
Why doesn't the government just print a few trillion and throw it out of helicopters over the ghettos? According to MMT there would be no negative consequences of any kind and then everyone would have plenty of money.

Because they'd all kill each other trying to get that money.

Call me insensitive but deep in your heart you know that it's true.
 
Why doesn't the government just print a few trillion and throw it out of helicopters over the ghettos? According to MMT there would be no negative consequences of any kind and then everyone would have plenty of money.

According to Phatz, who is apparently a subscriber the Cantillon Effects theory, there may be no negative economic consequences, other than the getto dwellers killing each other while scrambling to get the money, up to the point that the country has maxed out it's production and import capability.

thats what I love about dp, I learn something every day!
 
Because they'd all kill each other trying to get that money.

Call me insensitive but deep in your heart you know that it's true.

THAT is the only consequence you can think of when the government throws trillions of freshly printed cash out of helicopters?

According to Phatz, who is apparently a subscriber the Cantillon Effects theory, there may be no negative economic consequences, other than the getto dwellers killing each other while scrambling to get the money, up to the point that the country has maxed out it's production and import capability.

thats what I love about dp, I learn something every day!

Yeah, I think it's kind of sad really. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Apparently what didn't work for Germany, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Yugoslavia, Angola, Argentina, Belarus, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Ecuador, Georgia, Madagascar, Peru, Poland, Romania, Turkey, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Zaire, or any of the others will somehow magically work for us.
 
A leftist think tank writing about a conservative think tank. Well, there's news you can use.

THe source wasn't being attacked, the study and its methods were.
 
Why doesn't the government just print a few trillion and throw it out of helicopters over the ghettos? According to MMT there would be no negative consequences of any kind and then everyone would have plenty of money.

Oh jesus, enough with the strawman already. I have been over this nonsense before. Never suggested helicopter money, Bernanke did, MMT never did such a thing not did I.
 
THAT is the only consequence you can think of when the government throws trillions of freshly printed cash out of helicopters?

No, I didn't say it was the only one. Where did I say that would be the only effect? However, these handouts create an underclass of humans much more prone to violence and crime, and people refuse to say it because they think it's racist and insensitive.
 
CATO, which is financed by the knownothing Koch Brothers, grinds out one disreputable study after the next, hoping quanity has a quality all its own.

Indeed the whole point of the CATO is to give grist to the rightwing noise machine mill, which repeats its nonsense ad infinitum. It's how conservative "economics" works.
 
Why doesn't the government just print a few trillion and throw it out of helicopters over the ghettos? According to MMT there would be no negative consequences of any kind and then everyone would have plenty of money.

Deflection. You're soaking in it. The fact is the CATO has produced another disreputable study. Your deficit fetish doesn't change that.
 
No, I didn't say it was the only one. Where did I say that would be the only effect? However, these handouts create an underclass of humans much more prone to violence and crime, and people refuse to say it because they think it's racist and insensitive.

This underclass of humans were more prevalent to violence and crime long before hand outs existed. IN fact the direct evidence indicates that poverty is the number one correlating factor to violence and crime.
 
This underclass of humans were more prevalent to violence and crime long before hand outs existed. IN fact the direct evidence indicates that poverty is the number one correlating factor to violence and crime.

Prove it.
 
Prove it.

"In the late 1970s and early 1980s, several important reviews of the literature failed to establish a clear consensus on the relationship between economic conditions and violent crime. The research presented here applies the procedures of meta-analysis to 34 aggregate data studies reporting on violent crime, poverty, and income inequality. These studies reported a total of 76 zero-order correlation coefficients for all measures of violent crime with either poverty or income inequality. Of the 76 coefficients, all but 2, or 97 percent, were positive. Of the positive coefficients, nearly 80 percent were of at least moderate strength (>.25). It is concluded that poverty and income inequality are each associated with violent crime. The analysis, however, shows considerable variation in the estimated size of the relationships and suggests that homicide and assault may be more closely associated with poverty or income inequality than are rape and robbery.

Poverty, Income Inequality, and Violent Crime: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Aggregate Data Studies

"Starting from the 1970s, studies in the US pointed more and more at the link between unemployment, poverty and crime. After that other connections with income level, time spent at school, quality of neighborhood and education were revealed as well. Fresh research from the UK even indicates that economic cycles may affect variations in property and violent crimes.

But most importantly, what reveals the unmistakable connection between poverty and crime is that they’re both geographically concentrated - in a strikingly consistent way. In other words, where you find poverty is also where you find crime. Of course this doesn't include "softer" crimes such as corruption which causes massive damage to people's lives but in a more indirect type of violence."

Poverty and Crime: Breaking a Vicious Cycle of Discrimination

"Studies have shown that poverty and income are powerful predictors of homicide and violent crime. We hypothesized that the effect of the growing gap between the rich and poor is mediated through an undermining of social cohesion, or social capital, and that decreased social capital is in turn associated with increased firearm homicide and violent crime. Social capital was measured by the weighted responses to two items from the U.S. General Social Survey: the per capita density of membership in voluntary groups in each state; and the level of social trust, as gauged by the proportion of residents in each state who believed that “most people would take advantage of you if they got the chance”. Age-standardized firearm homicide rates for the years 1987–1991 and firearm robbery and assault incidence rates for years 1991–1994 were obtained for each of the 50 U.S. states. Income inequality was strongly correlated with firearm violent crime (firearm homicide, r=0.76) as well as the measures of social capital: per capita group membership (r=−0.40) and lack of social trust (r=0.73). In turn, both social trust (firearm homicide, r=0.83) and group membership (firearm homicide, r=−0.49) were associated with firearm violent crime. These relationships held when controlling for poverty and a proxy variable for access to firearms. The profound effects of income inequality and social capital, when controlling for other factors such as poverty and firearm availability, on firearm violent crime indicate that policies that address these broader, macro-social forces warrant serious consideration."

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0277953698000975?via=sd&cc=y
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom