Still, Professor Banerjee observed, in many countries, “we encounter the idea that handouts will make people lazy.”


YUP :kewl:

No, I don't know that at all. Can you post a study that shows that corporations receive more freebies from the government, than individuals do? I'm curious. And what do the feds get back, in terms of federal income tax, from the employees of the corporations?

Bill Clinton, still a hero to blacks, instituted welfare reform, he kicked a LOT of poor people off welfare. Did they all starve to death? No, they went to work. That's what he intended, and it worked beautifully. And he is a hero to the left.

Today, if someone proposed that, they would be crucified by the left.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government...are-statistics



Here you go Jim.

thinkbynumbers? Now that sounds like a site an actuary would love :smokin:

You know. Logic ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i can see him now frantically googling this to prove that is is really wrong and blacks, Latinos and the poor are to blame.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You forgot the abortionists.

I didn't say he was wrong, I asked for the numbers and he provided them.

Now, what are your thoughts about the fact that the 10 best liberal states, are about as racially diverse as a Bing Crosby concert? I keep asking, you keep dodging. That doesn't stop you from logging on, hurling a baseless insult, and scurrying off.

I also asked how much of that corporate welfare we get back, in the form of tax revenue from the employees that have jobs thanks to the welfare.

Is corporate welfare spent so that CEOs can make 25M a year instead of 15M a year? Or is it used so that the company can increase the number of employees it has?

I have no problem whatsoever with ending corporate welfare that isn't used to help large numbers of working people.

I also have no issue with social welfare, which genuinely helps those who have no other recourse.

We need to tighten controls for both corporate welfare and social welfare, so that money isn't wasted, and so that we aren't incentivizing bad behavior.

I worked at a supermarket when I was a kid. Every single month, when food stamps came out, the same exact people would argue with me, trying to use their food stamps to buy cigarettes, makeup, things like that. I don't want my money being used for that purpose.

If you think that means I hate pooor people, I would disagree.

Spence posted a poll saying that the "best" states to live in, were states that had FAR fewer blacks than the national average. I pointed that out. How does that make me the racist, exactly?

I'm all ears...

I think it has a lot more to do with the history of slavery, migration caused by Southern segregation, disenfranchisement and industrial growth than liberal policy.

Huh??

I never said that liberalism was the reason why there are few blacks in those states. I said that it's interesting that every single state in the liberal top 10, according to you, is overwhelmingly white. I would think that to a staunch liberal, such white purity would be unattractive.

I suspect that if they moved the city of Chicago, or the Mexican border, to any of those states, they would immediately drop out of the liberal top 10. That is pure speculation on my part. But it's a safe bet.

Jim is a big believer in that correlation means causation theory.

Again, putting words in my mouth. You really take liberties there.

I am a big believer that when there is credible data, correlation usually, not always, implies some causation.

For someone who still claims that I am "speculating" that those 10 states are awfully white, despite the evidence, all of a sudden you are a stats expert?

Look at the 10 states that liberals identify as the top 10. Is there anytihng else that connects them so consistently, as their whiteness? i don't know. But when all 10 have 75% fewer blacks than the nationwoide average, anyone who took stats 101 would say that sure sticks out. You could also say that most are in the north. Those frigid winters tend to keep out the riff-raff.

Sorry that doesn't serve your agenda. Math doesn't care about such things.

That depends on who's analyzing the data.

I answered this question above yet you simply didn't understand it.

I liked your last sentence though. :heybaby:

Yuo did???

"history of slavery, migration caused by Southern segregation, disenfranchisement and industrial growth "

Please elaborate on why those things lead to extremely low black populations, in the states that liberals rank "best"? Even if those things explained low black population in those particular states (which they don't), it doesn't explain why all 10 of the liberal "top 10" happen to be so white? You didn't come close to explaining that.

"I liked your last sentence though"

Well, I presume there is a reason that the top 10 liberal states are not only very white, but also nowhere near the large border with Mexico. Why do you suppose that is? Here', I'll make it easy for you, I will make it fill in the blank.

I, Spence, think that the top 10 liberal states to live in, are almost all white, and not near the Mexican border, because _________.

Now, you go ahead and fill that in, please.

Call it what it is.....Jungle Fever :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not putting words in your mouth or taking liberties, that is exactly what your doing. You're speculating the poll was based on the % of whites. I don't believe you have ever asked for a link to see what went into the poll.

And any first year actuarial student would know correlation does not mean causation. Yet you continue to believe that while there is some correlation, there is causation w/o looking into it further. Would you do that at work?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"You're speculating the poll was based on the % of whites."

I asked him what he thought about the fact the top 10 states were so white. I didn't say the states were picked for their whiteness, but they sure weren't picked for their ethnic diversity.

"And any first year actuarial student would know correlation does not mean causation"

Correlation implies a pretty darn good likelihood of causation, though not a certainty.

"you continue to believe that while there is some correlation, there is causation w/o looking into it further"

I asked him to explain the whiteness of those states, and he chose not to. I asked him to post the poll so that I could see the criteria, and he chose not to. Not sure what else I can do there.