http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...receive-a-stipend/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 Fascinating case study on the Eastern Band of Cherokee. They opened a casino in the 90s, and an academic was working already on the Cherokee. What he found is that cash grants are very helpful. To me, it's just common sense. Sadly, the trend has been less and less money for welfare and more and more for bureaucracy-dominated programs. I'm pretty sure we'd be aLOT better off if we just eliminated all of those programs for families and just paid parents straight cash money (homey.) Thoughts?
My prediction: The GOP learns about a Cherokee who spent his cash grant on whores and whiskey, GOP candidates nationwide campaign against naive lefties who want to redistribute white people's hard-earned money to welfare kings and queens, and the GOP dominates 2016 elections. I don't see how this is politically feasible, although sure it might be sensible policy. OK, what Matt said.
Economists have already asked the question http://freakonomics.com/2013/11/27/...al-evidence-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ The conclusion is probably not the desired one for the thread
Well, we might get more trickle down if we gave the billions directly to the oil company owners, after all...
I should have seen that coming, this being a soccer board. Speaking of which, I just learned that the recently departed Doctor Who (Matt Smith) was in Leicester City's system through his teens. Here he is messing around at fan convention, looks a little rusty but as TV stars go he looks alright at the game -
OK, that was funny...it was a study of an 1832 land lottery. One of the metrics was literacy rate. Given the time period, that's a dubious metric.
I wouldn't have a problem with it except for Medicaid. Giving poor people a few thousand dollars a year doesn't help them if they get really sick. I would also find myself out of a job when section 8 goes away.
We would still need S8 for the elderly and disabled. It just would be a much smaller program, or alternatively, it would serve a much higher percentage of the elderly and disabled.
Those on the right who decry the "nanny state" think that the government knows how to best spend money when it comes to food stamps. But I learned to stop expecting consistency long ago.
There was an interesting idea that came out of the unemployment insurance extension debate. Rather than extend benefits another 3 months (or into perpetuity if the Dems had their way) why not simply give the chronically unemployed a lump sum payment and be done with the debate? After all, nothing is more detrimental to your job prospects than being out of work for 99 weeks.
Gosh, you must be way higher in the hierarchy than me, Fishy-- I thought it was just until the job creators got around to creating some jobs...
Actually Nancy P says unemployment benefits are a job creator, but that wasn't my point. Why pay people not to work? If you give them a check and say "that's it" they'll either go back to work or go won't, but you don't bankrupt the unemployment insurance program and you actually give people an incentive to take a job (any job if need be).
Unemployment benefits are in a sense a stimulus. If Pelosi referred to them as job creators somewhere, it was surely in an effort to translate the concept for those speaking only Republican. But anyway, when the lump sums are all gone and there still are no jobs, the unemployed will just evaporate or self-deport or something? Or maybe some will take to robbing banks and then we'll have an incentive to hire the rest to stop them?
I'd ask... 5 years into an economic recovery why are no jobs? I'd ask, if someone is out of work for 99 weeks... what are their job prospects? And I'll you ask you John, is unemployment insurance supposed to be a permanent entitlement rather than a short term stop gap? You and your ilk don't do the unemployed any favors. If I lost my job and hadn't found another in 26 weeks I'd gladly take a lump sum knowing it I couldn't find another job soon I'll probably be on the rolls of the permanently unemployed.
As opposed to an action that took place less than a generation ago. Given the lack of time distance that metric is equally as dubious. I'm assuming you only read the outline and didn't listen to the show because there was more in there.
No wonder you couldn't remember dialogue from your previous day-- you can't even keep track of two posts ago...
Uh John, initially I proposed that a lump sum payment might be preferable to perpetual unemployment payments. You’ll have to explain why that post doesn’t pertain to the next post that unemployment insurance shouldn’t be a permanent entitlement. Rather than attack me personally, why not address the issue?
A jobs program for the chronically unemployed would be a good idea. To soothe jobless-hating Republicans, we can hire people to investigate and recommend for prosecution those sneaky people who have been committing voter fraud all over America.