Search results for query: *

Ask @S'task to link one of his big, long posts on the subject. He's covered it so well, there's no point in me burning time doing it again.

You really don't know much of the history of these things, do you?

Then society starts falling apart. As we've already seen by the result of government efforts at 'family planning' in the latter half of the 20th century, if it tries to 'help,' it just makes things worse.

That's not the government's job. That's the job of the family, community, and church.

Generally speaking, yes. Any attempt on the government's behalf to try to incentivize or actively support certain behaviors almost always causes a whole host of problems. Generally speaking, law enforcement to deter crime is the only appropriate attempt at 'behavior modification' the government...

1. You are taking money from some people, and giving it to others if they do what you want. That is an attempt to control their behavior, albeit with the carrot rather than the stick. 2. Abortion is murder, so yes, that counts as a eugenics program that resulted in mass-murder.

1. The government trying to give 'incentives' is the government trying to control who you do or do not reproduce with. 2. No. This is someone claiming 'history totally happened like this,' and nothing more.

You seem to be missing two important factors: 1. There is a huge difference between individuals choosing their mates, and the government trying to do it for them. 2. Can you show an instance of an attempt at a nation-scale eugenics program that hasn't ended in either mass-murder or the program...

...It's actively talking about using it for social engineering, and you don't see the dangers present in this? You don't see the problem with giving the government control of the overwhelming majority of financial transactions? I have an alternate solution for banks getting bailed out: The...

Okay, I'm curious as to how you think this would actually improve anything?

Some states already practice open primaries, but that isn't enough to defeat the spoiler effect in and of itself. I went and did some research on nations that actually make use of Ranked Choice Voting, and Australia and Ireland are also functionally two-party states, while India was verging on...

If you literally physically put food into the hands of every single person without it, and physically walk them to a home they can stay in that has running water, yes, that would eliminate poverty. I'll agree with this part. With a reasonable implementation it'd be better than what we have...

The links for the footnotes are broken. The actual references are at the bottom of the page, and as I said in my last post, you can just look at them there. I went and searched the first three papers linked, and here's what I got: https://www.jstor.org/stable/146134...

If you were either conversant with the history of welfare programs, or actually read the articles that I linked, you'd know that before the 90's welfare reforms, there was little to no work-requirements or similar for welfare. It was just the government gives you money. And as has been my...

No, you can't. Because people will sell food stamps for drug money, and will damage and destroy government-provided residences. Not to mention going into much nastier criminal activity and behavior. I'll grant that you'd have some temporary decrease in effective poverty, because not everybody...

You're not as clear a communicator as you think. "During the debate over of Welfare reform in 1995 and 1996, reform opponents shrilly predicted that the reform would produce large increases in child poverty. In reality, decreases in dependence would have had beneficial effects on children's...

You asked for a cite in this post: In response to a post where I said this: "...I already told you how I can say eliminating poverty is a pipe dream. Because the problem is people making bad decisions. No matter how much money you give some people, they will fritter it away on luxuries and...

https://www.heritage.org/testimony/the-effects-welfare-reform https://www.thoughtco.com/welfare-reform-in-the-united-states-3321425 There's two cites for you.

...I already told you how I can say eliminating poverty is a pipe dream. Because the problem is people making bad decisions. No matter how much money you give some people, they will fritter it away on luxuries and vices, then before their next paycheck or government handout, be broke all over...

Me? I'd define 'poverty' as a condition where someone lacks the money/other means of acquiring to consistently have all three of these available: 1. Water. 2. Food. 3. Shelter. I'd call 'abject poverty' a place where more often than not you don't have all three. This is just off the top of my...