Sick of the Carping About Wal-Mart!

[Kimura]

Was there any specific part of your link that proved your claim?

Or have you given up trying already?

You didn't read it which is very telling. They chose Wisconsin as the state in their study because the data is the most up-to-date. This allowed them to utilize the state's Medicaid information to discern the government subsidy for providing food stamps and health care programs to the Wal-Mart associates who require such help.

They took into account the total number of Wal-Mart employees and stores in the state of Wisconsin and the total per-person costs of the state's Badgercare program. They estimated that total cost of government funded health care to be $252K per year per Wal-Mart store that has 300 employees.

They then calculated some of the other welfare programs available to these employees and their families on the state's Medicaid program (Badgercare). If we conclude that employees' families take advantage of some these programs, we go from $252K to over $900K

I will admit the study's secondary estimate is based the logical conclusion that employees who qualify for additional programs with take advantage of them. Either way, these numbers a reality check.

You didn't read it which is very telling.

It's telling that I didn't read your 20 pages of BS, hoping your evidence was in there somewhere.

If you'd like to tell me which page proves your claim, I'll have a look.

We can start with the BadgerCare+ employer report from 2012: Click Here

If you didn't read it, then you obviously don't know if there's any evidence in there.

 

[Ernie S.]

So the way I read your Badgercare report, WalMart is saving the state 2.7 million/ store. Seems like Walmart is subsidizing Wisconsin instead of the other way around.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You didn't read it which is very telling. They chose Wisconsin as the state in their study because the data is the most up-to-date. This allowed them to utilize the state's Medicaid information to discern the government subsidy for providing food stamps and health care programs to the Wal-Mart associates who require such help.

They took into account the total number of Wal-Mart employees and stores in the state of Wisconsin and the total per-person costs of the state's Badgercare program. They estimated that total cost of government funded health care to be $252K per year per Wal-Mart store that has 300 employees.

They then calculated some of the other welfare programs available to these employees and their families on the state's Medicaid program (Badgercare). If we conclude that employees' families take advantage of some these programs, we go from $252K to over $900K

I will admit the study's secondary estimate is based the logical conclusion that employees who qualify for additional programs with take advantage of them. Either way, these numbers a reality check.

You didn't read it which is very telling.

It's telling that I didn't read your 20 pages of BS, hoping your evidence was in there somewhere.

If you'd like to tell me which page proves your claim, I'll have a look.

We can start with the BadgerCare+ employer report from 2012: Click Here

If you didn't read it, then you obviously don't know if there's any evidence in there.

Thanks for another link that doesn't prove your claim.

 

[Kimura]

You didn't read it which is very telling.

It's telling that I didn't read your 20 pages of BS, hoping your evidence was in there somewhere.

If you'd like to tell me which page proves your claim, I'll have a look.

We can start with the BadgerCare+ employer report from 2012: Click Here

If you didn't read it, then you obviously don't know if there's any evidence in there.

Thanks for another link that doesn't prove your claim.

Thanks for obviously not reading the XLS. This is approaching hilarity.

 

[Kimura]

is also the biggest recipient of government aid.

What programs? How much do they receive? Show me.

Their associates, many of them paid such a pathetic wage, receive around a thousand per year in public assistance. These are large government subsidies.

Yes, the government gives subsidies to poor people.
Now what aid does WalMart receive?

The Low-Wage Drag on Our Economy: Wal-Mart’s low wages and their effect on taxpayers and economic growth

By the way, Wal-Mart gets away with it because they simply can, that's just reality. However, the answer to addressing poverty boils down to fiscal and public policies.

No! It boils down to accepting responsibility for your actions. If you got pregnant in high school and didn't graduate, you will probably end up with a Walmart job. If you didn't want to put in some work back in school or were afraid you wolud be accused of "acting white" if you did, you'll probably end up at best, flipping burgers at Mickey D's or selling drugs, taking drugs, going to prison or getting shot.

I got an education and I worked damned hard to make myself worth more to my employer. I'll be damned if I'll pay for you to enjoy the same life style I have when YOU fucked up.

Tough shit, Jack!

You're trying to connect dots that simply aren't there. Do you have any data sets demonstrating the percentage of Wal-Mart employees that dropped out school and end up pregnant?

Trust me, you're not paying for anyone's lifestyle. Do you think people on public assistance are living the lap of luxury or something?

I also find it amusing the same people that cheered and supported deindustrialization seem to support government subsidies for huge multinationals. I'm still attempting to wrap my head around the irony of it all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We can start with the BadgerCare+ employer report from 2012: Click Here

If you didn't read it, then you obviously don't know if there's any evidence in there.

Thanks for another link that doesn't prove your claim.

Thanks for obviously not reading the XLS. This is approaching hilarity.

I read it.

Let's try this this again: Wal-Mart, which is one of the country's largest private sector employers, is also the biggest recipient of government aid.

Let's try this this again: which part of any of your links backs up your claim?

 

[Ernie S.]

The Low-Wage Drag on Our Economy: Wal-Mart’s low wages and their effect on taxpayers and economic growth

By the way, Wal-Mart gets away with it because they simply can, that's just reality. However, the answer to addressing poverty boils down to fiscal and public policies.

No! It boils down to accepting responsibility for your actions. If you got pregnant in high school and didn't graduate, you will probably end up with a Walmart job. If you didn't want to put in some work back in school or were afraid you wolud be accused of "acting white" if you did, you'll probably end up at best, flipping burgers at Mickey D's or selling drugs, taking drugs, going to prison or getting shot.

I got an education and I worked damned hard to make myself worth more to my employer. I'll be damned if I'll pay for you to enjoy the same life style I have when YOU fucked up.

Tough shit, Jack!

You're trying to connect dots that simply aren't there. Do you have any data sets demonstrating the percentage of Wal-Mart employees that dropped out school and end up pregnant?

Trust me, you're not paying for anyone's lifestyle. Do you think people on public assistance are living the lap of luxury or something?

I also find it amusing the same people that cheered and supported deindustrialization seem to support government subsidies for huge multinationals. I'm still attempting to wrap my head around the irony of it all.

200 dollar sneakers? Flat screens? Smart phones? They live a whole lot better than I have at times in my life.

 

[Kimura]

No! It boils down to accepting responsibility for your actions. If you got pregnant in high school and didn't graduate, you will probably end up with a Walmart job. If you didn't want to put in some work back in school or were afraid you wolud be accused of "acting white" if you did, you'll probably end up at best, flipping burgers at Mickey D's or selling drugs, taking drugs, going to prison or getting shot.

I got an education and I worked damned hard to make myself worth more to my employer. I'll be damned if I'll pay for you to enjoy the same life style I have when YOU fucked up.

Tough shit, Jack!

You're trying to connect dots that simply aren't there. Do you have any data sets demonstrating the percentage of Wal-Mart employees that dropped out school and end up pregnant?

Trust me, you're not paying for anyone's lifestyle. Do you think people on public assistance are living the lap of luxury or something?

I also find it amusing the same people that cheered and supported deindustrialization seem to support government subsidies for huge multinationals. I'm still attempting to wrap my head around the irony of it all.

200 dollar sneakers? Flat screens? Smart phones? They live a whole lot better than I have at times in my life.

No anecdotes please. How many people on public assistance purchase $200 dollar sneakers, flat screens and smart phones?

 

[Kimura]

Thanks for another link that doesn't prove your claim.

Thanks for obviously not reading the XLS. This is approaching hilarity.

I read it.

Let's try this this again: Wal-Mart, which is one of the country's largest private sector employers, is also the biggest recipient of government aid.

Let's try this this again: which part of any of your links backs up your claim?

Is not the state medicaid system funded partially by the federal government and the state of Wisconsin? Wal-Mart isn't paying for their health care, it's the state of Wisconsin and the federal government, which means they're the recipient of a government subsidy.

 

[Ernie S.]

You're trying to connect dots that simply aren't there. Do you have any data sets demonstrating the percentage of Wal-Mart employees that dropped out school and end up pregnant?

Trust me, you're not paying for anyone's lifestyle. Do you think people on public assistance are living the lap of luxury or something?

I also find it amusing the same people that cheered and supported deindustrialization seem to support government subsidies for huge multinationals. I'm still attempting to wrap my head around the irony of it all.

200 dollar sneakers? Flat screens? Smart phones? They live a whole lot better than I have at times in my life.

No anecdotes please. How many people on public assistance purchase $200 dollar sneakers, flat screens and smart phone?

How many people do you even know that are on public assistance?

Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that in 33 states, welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job. In fact, in 12 of those states, welfare recipients make more than they would at a $12 per hour job.

LINK

The fact is that poor people's rate of consumption, one measure of poverty, is closer than ever to that of middle-class Americans due to such assistance programs as Food Stamps. Because as it turns out, when people are are permitted to eat, they try to live like other "normal" people as best they can. That's basic human nature. And that is what gives the Republicans fits. According to Republican logic, poor people are simply too lavish with their spending habits:

As a result, the differences in what poor and middle-class families consume on a day-to-day basis are much smaller than the differences in what they earn.

“There’s just a whole lot more assistance per low-income person than there ever has been,” said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “That is propping up the living standards to a considerable degree,” he said, citing a number of statistics on housing, nutrition and other categories.

From Daily Koos

According to analysis of amenities in poor households, more than 50% of “poor” households had the following 19 amenities:

air conditioning, a personal computer, Internet access, a computer printer, a ceiling fan, a cell phone or phones, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.
two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR.
a refrigerator, an oven, a stove, an automatic dishwasher, and a microwave.
a washing machine and dryer.

Again, does that sound poor to you?

LINK

 

[Ernie S.]

Thanks for obviously not reading the XLS. This is approaching hilarity.

I read it.

Let's try this this again: Wal-Mart, which is one of the country's largest private sector employers, is also the biggest recipient of government aid.

Let's try this this again: which part of any of your links backs up your claim?

Is not the state medicaid system funded partially by the federal government and the state of Wisconsin? Wal-Mart isn't paying for their health care, it's the state of Wisconsin and the federal government, which means they're the recipient of a government subsidy.

It only means some Walmart employees are getting assistance, but Walmart is likely providing 2/3 or so of these people's living expenses which by your logic, means Walmart is subsidizing the state of Wisconsin.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks for obviously not reading the XLS. This is approaching hilarity.

I read it.

Let's try this this again: Wal-Mart, which is one of the country's largest private sector employers, is also the biggest recipient of government aid.

Let's try this this again: which part of any of your links backs up your claim?

Is not the state medicaid system funded partially by the federal government and the state of Wisconsin? Wal-Mart isn't paying for their health care, it's the state of Wisconsin and the federal government, which means they're the recipient of a government subsidy.

Wal-Mart isn't paying for their health care, it's the state of Wisconsin and the federal government,

Correct.

which means they're the recipient of a government subsidy.

Yes, poor people are the recipient of a government subsidy.

Your claim was about WalMart.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thanks for obviously not reading the XLS. This is approaching hilarity.

I read it.

Let's try this this again: Wal-Mart, which is one of the country's largest private sector employers, is also the biggest recipient of government aid.

Let's try this this again: which part of any of your links backs up your claim?

Is not the state medicaid system funded partially by the federal government and the state of Wisconsin? Wal-Mart isn't paying for their health care, it's the state of Wisconsin and the federal government, which means they're the recipient of a government subsidy.

"Surprise! Walmart health plan is cheaper, offers more coverage than Obamacare

New Obamacare health insurance enrollees may feel a pang of envy when they eye the coverage plans offered by Walmart to its employees.

For many years, the giant discount retailer has been the target of unions and liberal activists who have harshly criticized the company's health care plans, calling them “notorious for failing to provide health benefits” and "substandard.”

But a Washington Examiner comparison of the two health insurance programs found that Walmart's plan is more affordable and provides significantly better access to high-quality medical care than Obamacare."
Surprise! Walmart health plan is cheaper, offers more coverage than Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com



Now....for clarity purposes.....are you a liar or an imbecile.


Both?

 

[Kimura]

200 dollar sneakers? Flat screens? Smart phones? They live a whole lot better than I have at times in my life.

No anecdotes please. How many people on public assistance purchase $200 dollar sneakers, flat screens and smart phone?

How many people do you even know that are on public assistance?


LINK

The fact is that poor people's rate of consumption, one measure of poverty, is closer than ever to that of middle-class Americans due to such assistance programs as Food Stamps. Because as it turns out, when people are are permitted to eat, they try to live like other "normal" people as best they can. That's basic human nature. And that is what gives the Republicans fits. According to Republican logic, poor people are simply too lavish with their spending habits:

As a result, the differences in what poor and middle-class families consume on a day-to-day basis are much smaller than the differences in what they earn.

“There’s just a whole lot more assistance per low-income person than there ever has been,” said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “That is propping up the living standards to a considerable degree,” he said, citing a number of statistics on housing, nutrition and other categories.

From Daily Koos

According to analysis of amenities in poor households, more than 50% of “poor” households had the following 19 amenities:

air conditioning, a personal computer, Internet access, a computer printer, a ceiling fan, a cell phone or phones, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.
two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR.
a refrigerator, an oven, a stove, an automatic dishwasher, and a microwave.
a washing machine and dryer.

Again, does that sound poor to you?

LINK

I've known some friends and family at one time or another were on public assistance. It's a meager and depressing existence which very few want to stay in.

The problem with that CATO study is the BS methodology they employed. I read it a long time ago but I have it on my external HD. The methodology they used was employed to achieve a desired result, it's nonsense and easily disproven if you understand how welfare works.

The authors of this study merged together 8 different safety net programs and then had the audacity to presume that a single mother with 2 kids is receiving the benefits from ALL those programs at one time. You don't have to be social scientist to realize that are no welfare receipts that would quality for all these programs at the same time.

I can get into details with flaws if you want.

In the meantime, here's the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities take:

Commentary: Cato Gets It Very Wrong: The Safety Net Supports, Rather Than Discourages, Work

And here's conservative Josh Barro calling BS:
There's A New Study That Says Welfare Pays Better Than Work — Here's Why It's Total Nonsense

 

[PoliticalChic]

No anecdotes please. How many people on public assistance purchase $200 dollar sneakers, flat screens and smart phone?

How many people do you even know that are on public assistance?


LINK



From Daily Koos

According to analysis of amenities in poor households, more than 50% of “poor” households had the following 19 amenities:

air conditioning, a personal computer, Internet access, a computer printer, a ceiling fan, a cell phone or phones, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.
two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR.
a refrigerator, an oven, a stove, an automatic dishwasher, and a microwave.
a washing machine and dryer.

Again, does that sound poor to you?

LINK

I've known some friends and family at one time or another were on public assistance. It's a meager and depressing existence which very few want to stay in.

The problem with that CATO study is the BS methodology they employed. I read it a long time ago but I have it on my external HD. The methodology they used was employed to achieve a desired result, it's nonsense and easily disproven if you understand how welfare works.

The authors of this study merged together 8 different safety net programs and then had the audacity to presume that a single mother with 2 kids is receiving the benefits from ALL those programs at one time. You don't have to be social scientist to realize that are no welfare receipts that would quality for all these programs at the same time.

I can get into details with flaws if you want.

In the meantime, here's the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities take:

Commentary: Cato Gets It Very Wrong: The Safety Net Supports, Rather Than Discourages, Work

And here's conservative Josh Barro calling BS:
There's A New Study That Says Welfare Pays Better Than Work — Here's Why It's Total Nonsense

"Commentary: Cato Gets It Very Wrong: The Safety Net Supports, Rather Than Discourages, Work"

Total fabrication.


The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for.
Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. ]Overview of the Final Report of the SIME/DIME: Report

 

[Kimura]

How many people do you even know that are on public assistance?


LINK



From Daily Koos



LINK

I've known some friends and family at one time or another were on public assistance. It's a meager and depressing existence which very few want to stay in.

The problem with that CATO study is the BS methodology they employed. I read it a long time ago but I have it on my external HD. The methodology they used was employed to achieve a desired result, it's nonsense and easily disproven if you understand how welfare works.

The authors of this study merged together 8 different safety net programs and then had the audacity to presume that a single mother with 2 kids is receiving the benefits from ALL those programs at one time. You don't have to be social scientist to realize that are no welfare receipts that would quality for all these programs at the same time.

I can get into details with flaws if you want.

In the meantime, here's the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities take:

Commentary: Cato Gets It Very Wrong: The Safety Net Supports, Rather Than Discourages, Work

And here's conservative Josh Barro calling BS:
There's A New Study That Says Welfare Pays Better Than Work — Here's Why It's Total Nonsense

"Commentary: Cato Gets It Very Wrong: The Safety Net Supports, Rather Than Discourages, Work"

Total fabrication.


The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for.
Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. ]Overview of the Final Report of the SIME/DIME: Report

You people didn't even read it.

Cato ignores the fact that low-income working families are eligible for, and receive, assistance through programs such as SNAP, Medicaid, housing assistance, and WIC. When considering the assistance that low-income working families receive, Cato assumes they receive none of these benefits and only get help from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit.

In fact, large numbers of low-income working families receive assistance through these programs — and fewer jobless families receive these benefits than Cato assumes:
In 2011, 86 percent of low-income children receiving health coverage through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) were in working families (see chart). (Although, in many states today, low-income working parents often are ineligible for Medicaid or other forms of health coverage even if their earnings are less than the poverty line, that won’t be true any longer in states that adopt the Medicaid expansion under health reform.)

More than half of able-bodied adults in households with children receiving SNAP work while receiving assistance, and some 87 percent worked in the prior year or will work in the subsequent year.[1]

Cato assumes that jobless families that receive TANF also receive SNAP, but that working families do not. In fact, just 16 percent of SNAP households with children received TANF in 2011.[2]

Similarly, CATO assumes that jobless families that received TANF also receive WIC, but that working families do not. In fact, in 2010, just 8 percent of WIC participants received TANF.[3]

While only a small share of TANF recipients receives housing assistance — less than 16 percent, according to Cato’s own data — those who do receive it remain eligible if they get a job unless the job pays substantially more than most former welfare recipients earn. Cato counts housing assistance for families that are not working but assumes that they lose this entire benefit if they find a job.

I'm more than familiar with SIME/DIME. I did a paper on it as an undergraduate. What other conclusions were reached?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've known some friends and family at one time or another were on public assistance. It's a meager and depressing existence which very few want to stay in.

The problem with that CATO study is the BS methodology they employed. I read it a long time ago but I have it on my external HD. The methodology they used was employed to achieve a desired result, it's nonsense and easily disproven if you understand how welfare works.

The authors of this study merged together 8 different safety net programs and then had the audacity to presume that a single mother with 2 kids is receiving the benefits from ALL those programs at one time. You don't have to be social scientist to realize that are no welfare receipts that would quality for all these programs at the same time.

I can get into details with flaws if you want.

In the meantime, here's the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities take:

Commentary: Cato Gets It Very Wrong: The Safety Net Supports, Rather Than Discourages, Work

And here's conservative Josh Barro calling BS:
There's A New Study That Says Welfare Pays Better Than Work — Here's Why It's Total Nonsense

"Commentary: Cato Gets It Very Wrong: The Safety Net Supports, Rather Than Discourages, Work"

Total fabrication.


The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for.
Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. ]Overview of the Final Report of the SIME/DIME: Report

You people didn't even read it.

Cato ignores the fact that low-income working families are eligible for, and receive, assistance through programs such as SNAP, Medicaid, housing assistance, and WIC. When considering the assistance that low-income working families receive, Cato assumes they receive none of these benefits and only get help from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit.

In fact, large numbers of low-income working families receive assistance through these programs — and fewer jobless families receive these benefits than Cato assumes:
In 2011, 86 percent of low-income children receiving health coverage through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) were in working families (see chart). (Although, in many states today, low-income working parents often are ineligible for Medicaid or other forms of health coverage even if their earnings are less than the poverty line, that won’t be true any longer in states that adopt the Medicaid expansion under health reform.)

More than half of able-bodied adults in households with children receiving SNAP work while receiving assistance, and some 87 percent worked in the prior year or will work in the subsequent year.[1]

Cato assumes that jobless families that receive TANF also receive SNAP, but that working families do not. In fact, just 16 percent of SNAP households with children received TANF in 2011.[2]

Similarly, CATO assumes that jobless families that received TANF also receive WIC, but that working families do not. In fact, in 2010, just 8 percent of WIC participants received TANF.[3]

While only a small share of TANF recipients receives housing assistance — less than 16 percent, according to Cato’s own data — those who do receive it remain eligible if they get a job unless the job pays substantially more than most former welfare recipients earn. Cato counts housing assistance for families that are not working but assumes that they lose this entire benefit if they find a job.

I'm more than familiar with SIME/DIME. I did a paper on it as an undergraduate. What other conclusions were reached?

Did you hear what that paper was used for?

 

[Kimura]

"Commentary: Cato Gets It Very Wrong: The Safety Net Supports, Rather Than Discourages, Work"

Total fabrication.


The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for.
Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. ]Overview of the Final Report of the SIME/DIME: Report

You people didn't even read it.

Cato ignores the fact that low-income working families are eligible for, and receive, assistance through programs such as SNAP, Medicaid, housing assistance, and WIC. When considering the assistance that low-income working families receive, Cato assumes they receive none of these benefits and only get help from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit.

In fact, large numbers of low-income working families receive assistance through these programs — and fewer jobless families receive these benefits than Cato assumes:
In 2011, 86 percent of low-income children receiving health coverage through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) were in working families (see chart). (Although, in many states today, low-income working parents often are ineligible for Medicaid or other forms of health coverage even if their earnings are less than the poverty line, that won’t be true any longer in states that adopt the Medicaid expansion under health reform.)

More than half of able-bodied adults in households with children receiving SNAP work while receiving assistance, and some 87 percent worked in the prior year or will work in the subsequent year.[1]

Cato assumes that jobless families that receive TANF also receive SNAP, but that working families do not. In fact, just 16 percent of SNAP households with children received TANF in 2011.[2]

Similarly, CATO assumes that jobless families that received TANF also receive WIC, but that working families do not. In fact, in 2010, just 8 percent of WIC participants received TANF.[3]

While only a small share of TANF recipients receives housing assistance — less than 16 percent, according to Cato’s own data — those who do receive it remain eligible if they get a job unless the job pays substantially more than most former welfare recipients earn. Cato counts housing assistance for families that are not working but assumes that they lose this entire benefit if they find a job.

I'm more than familiar with SIME/DIME. I did a paper on it as an undergraduate. What other conclusions were reached?

Did you hear what that paper was used for?

It's been used for years in conservative circles. Every time someone brings up a basic income guarantee, despite other programs that have demonstrated success, they trot out this study. I'm actually going to reread it over the weekend. Well.....parse through the important parts, particularly the cash transfer effects on labor supply and marital stability.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You people didn't even read it.



I'm more than familiar with SIME/DIME. I did a paper on it as an undergraduate. What other conclusions were reached?

Did you hear what that paper was used for?

It's been used for years in conservative circles. Every time someone brings up a basic income guarantee, despite other programs that have demonstrated success, they trot out this study. I'm actually going to reread it over the weekend. Well.....parse through the important parts, particularly the cash transfer effects on labor supply and marital stability.

"It's been used for years in conservative circles. Every time someone brings up blah blah blah....."

Actually, it had a more personal hygiene usage. Good thing it was biodegradable.


There is a far better use for your time.....brush up on the skills that got you the gig driving the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile.

 

[Ernie S.]

No anecdotes please. How many people on public assistance purchase $200 dollar sneakers, flat screens and smart phone?

How many people do you even know that are on public assistance?


LINK



From Daily Koos

According to analysis of amenities in poor households, more than 50% of “poor” households had the following 19 amenities:

air conditioning, a personal computer, Internet access, a computer printer, a ceiling fan, a cell phone or phones, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.
two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR.
a refrigerator, an oven, a stove, an automatic dishwasher, and a microwave.
a washing machine and dryer.

Again, does that sound poor to you?

LINK

I've known some friends and family at one time or another were on public assistance. It's a meager and depressing existence which very few want to stay in.

The problem with that CATO study is the BS methodology they employed. I read it a long time ago but I have it on my external HD. The methodology they used was employed to achieve a desired result, it's nonsense and easily disproven if you understand how welfare works.

The authors of this study merged together 8 different safety net programs and then had the audacity to presume that a single mother with 2 kids is receiving the benefits from ALL those programs at one time. You don't have to be social scientist to realize that are no welfare receipts that would quality for all these programs at the same time.

I can get into details with flaws if you want.

In the meantime, here's the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities take:

Commentary: Cato Gets It Very Wrong: The Safety Net Supports, Rather Than Discourages, Work

And here's conservative Josh Barro calling BS:
There's A New Study That Says Welfare Pays Better Than Work — Here's Why It's Total Nonsense

And the methodology used in your article is what? Sound? BULLSHIT. The federal and state governments do not subsidize WalMart.