[succ] Go directly to the solutions tent, do not collect 600 dollars

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [succ] Go directly to the solutions tent, do not collect 600 dollars

«‹›10783 »

Deified Data: Nov 3, 2015; Fun Shoe

TheIncredulousHulk posted:

of loving course

yeah I was bummed during the primary to find that when their guy was coerced to drop out to prop up Biden, they were all basically ecstatic that about it giving Pete a shoe-in somewhere in Biden's cabinet. You can't troll these people, their expectations are so much lower than any of us would believe. I bet the Pete subreddit still gets hundreds of new posts a day.

# ? Mar 12, 2021 13:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 18:00

spacemang_spliff: Nov 29, 2014; wide pickle

gradenko_2000 posted:

the lmaocrats

# ? Mar 12, 2021 14:03

Corky Romanovsky: Oct 1, 2006; Soiled Meat

Stringent posted:

i don't know who nix panicus is, but this is a drat fine post

What a maroon! Double is a bald-faced lie; everyone knows it was only reduced by 31%, so this represents up to a 45% increase from the temporary low.

-Person who insisted it was halved

# ? Mar 12, 2021 14:05

Salean: Mar 17, 2004; Homewrecker

0 rows returned posted:

remembering two months ago is traumatic though

Its doxxing, helldumping, and even arguing in bad faith. Instant permaban imo

# ? Mar 12, 2021 14:12

Mike the TV: Jan 14, 2008; Ninety-nine ninety-nine ninety-nine; Pillbug

gradenko_2000 posted:

if you define being in poverty as "has an income of less than X dollars per day", then giving people more money, such that they're brought over that line, no longer makes them impoverished by definition

criticisms over this form of discourse tend to revolve around the fact that the line drawn to define poverty is usually way too low, combined with the fact that we now count people in poverty as a percentage rather than as an absolute number (because the latter will almost assuredly demonstrate that progress is going backwards in that respect), but that's not even the problem with the claims being laid out with regards to the bill

to say that a bill will "cut child poverty in half" as a function of their families being given enough money through the bill to drag them over that line that defines poverty would be technically just fine if they'd actually be getting that kind of money, but:

* it's only for a year
...

So in a year, Joe Biden plans to double child poverty.

# ? Mar 12, 2021 14:16

Asproigerosis: Mar 13, 2013; insufferable

Look if child poverty was bad we would have gotten rid of it. We really need to get more child cages and you're worried about poverty? Get a clue you leftists, there could be a dang cheeto in the white house right now.

# ? Mar 12, 2021 14:26

Stringent: Dec 22, 2004; image text goes here

do you have any idea how hard it would be for me to go into my job sending emails for 3 hours a day without seeing some story of a child selling lemonade for a relative's medical care?

besides, if we get rid of child poverty, what the hell are democrats going to run on???

# ? Mar 12, 2021 14:30

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

ending 100% of child poverty? GUESS YOU LIKE TRUMP!!!

# ? Mar 12, 2021 14:30

Excelzior: Jun 24, 2013

gradenko_2000 posted:

the lmaocrats

# ? Mar 12, 2021 14:46

Excelzior: Jun 24, 2013

they latched on to "cut child poverty in half" SO HARD you knew there had to be something in there

but this?

:lmao:

# ? Mar 12, 2021 14:47

Excelzior: Jun 24, 2013

democrats will cut the number of kids in cages at the border by 31% for one year and call Biden the most progressive president of all time on immigration

# ? Mar 12, 2021 14:49

Nichael: Mar 30, 2011

silicone thrills posted:

One thing that Biden offered is his deep experience with grief and loss. He lost a wife and a son, so he understands emotional loss in a way that few presidents have. The psychic wound to this country caused by Covid (and really the last four years) is deep, and we do need someone to be the consoler-in-chief. That he can engage retail politics mode while standing at a WH lectern is probably his greatest asset as a politician.

in a way, we should be thankful his idiot wife and bound to be lovely baby died, as they saved america through their empowerment of joe biden

# ? Mar 12, 2021 14:52

Stevie Lee: Oct 8, 2007

Mike the TV posted:

So in a year, Joe Biden plans to double child poverty.

pretty impressive

# ? Mar 12, 2021 14:53

Nichael: Mar 30, 2011

gradenko_2000 posted:

if you define being in poverty as "has an income of less than X dollars per day", then giving people more money, such that they're brought over that line, no longer makes them impoverished by definition

criticisms over this form of discourse tend to revolve around the fact that the line drawn to define poverty is usually way too low, combined with the fact that we now count people in poverty as a percentage rather than as an absolute number (because the latter will almost assuredly demonstrate that progress is going backwards in that respect), but that's not even the problem with the claims being laid out with regards to the bill

to say that a bill will "cut child poverty in half" as a function of their families being given enough money through the bill to drag them over that line that defines poverty would be technically just fine if they'd actually be getting that kind of money, but:

* it's only for a year
* it's going to be handled by the IRS, which so many poor families do not interact with that there's guaranteed to be millions falling through the cracks
* the study that argues that it will cut child poverty in half assumes that it was partnered with a minimum wage hike, which didn't happen

like, if the Dems passed a bill that was to the effect of "every person in America gets 300 dollars mailed to them by the Post Office, every month, in perpetuity", and then they use that to claim that so many million people are no longer in poverty just from the statistical effect of a person receiving 300 bucks a month is no longer underneath the poverty line, that would be far more credible even if you don't tackle all the issues of "is the line defining poverty high enough to begin with?", or "what if your landlord just raises the rent?"

but this bill that the Dems just passed has so many caveats to it that you can't even make that simple claim

lol I didn't know this bit that it includes a hypothetical minimum wage increase that didn't happen

jesus christ

# ? Mar 12, 2021 14:54

galenanorth: May 19, 2016

gradenko_2000 posted:

if you define being in poverty as "has an income of less than X dollars per day", then giving people more money, such that they're brought over that line, no longer makes them impoverished by definition

criticisms over this form of discourse tend to revolve around the fact that the line drawn to define poverty is usually way too low, combined with the fact that we now count people in poverty as a percentage rather than as an absolute number (because the latter will almost assuredly demonstrate that progress is going backwards in that respect), but that's not even the problem with the claims being laid out with regards to the bill

to say that a bill will "cut child poverty in half" as a function of their families being given enough money through the bill to drag them over that line that defines poverty would be technically just fine if they'd actually be getting that kind of money, but:

* it's only for a year
* it's going to be handled by the IRS, which so many poor families do not interact with that there's guaranteed to be millions falling through the cracks
* the study that argues that it will cut child poverty in half assumes that it was partnered with a minimum wage hike, which didn't happen

like, if the Dems passed a bill that was to the effect of "every person in America gets 300 dollars mailed to them by the Post Office, every month, in perpetuity", and then they use that to claim that so many million people are no longer in poverty just from the statistical effect of a person receiving 300 bucks a month is no longer underneath the poverty line, that would be far more credible even if you don't tackle all the issues of "is the line defining poverty high enough to begin with?", or "what if your landlord just raises the rent?"

but this bill that the Dems just passed has so many caveats to it that you can't even make that simple claim

Can I have a citation on the third bullet point, if you have one, to save for later?

# ? Mar 12, 2021 14:56

Asproigerosis: Mar 13, 2013; insufferable

Lol oops dems did a fucky wucky and forgot the important wage boost to make the child poverty actually happen

# ? Mar 12, 2021 14:58

BitcoinRockefeller: May 11, 2003; God gave me my money.; Hair Elf

TIL that the power lobbiests have comes not from money or the interests they represent, but from the amount they get to talk to politicians. They're the only ones politicians hear, but if we all band together to call our fantastic democrat representatives, thank them for their service, and offer kindly words of encouragement, the amount of speech from constituents will exceed the speech of lobbiests and they will be defeated. I'm glad d&d is here to light the path forward, I thought electoralism was dead but it's actually as easy as clapping for tinkerbell to bring her back to life.

# ? Mar 12, 2021 14:58

Nichael: Mar 30, 2011

Wait a minute... If tragedy is necessary to make someone a good, empathetic president, is anyone concerned that the parents of all those kids Obama, Trump, and now Biden locked up might all run in the 2028 Democratic primary and steal Kamala's destiny away from her?

Oh dear god... what about the parents of all the children we killed abroad? They might come to America en masse and totally take over our political system. :ohdear:

Nichael has issued a correction as of 15:03 on Mar 12, 2021

# ? Mar 12, 2021 14:59

Nichael: Mar 30, 2011

BitcoinRockefeller posted:

TIL that the power lobbiests have comes not from money or the interests they represent, but from the amount they get to talk to politicians. They're the only ones politicians hear, but if we all band together to call our fantastic democrat representatives, thank them for their service, and offer kindly words of encouragement, the amount of speech from constituents will exceed the speech of lobbiests and they will be defeated. I'm glad d&d is here to light the path forward, I thought electoralism was dead but it's actually as easy as clapping for tinkerbell to bring her back to life.

lol

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:00

Acelerion: May 3, 2005

'Child poverty' is a great target for dems because they can play definition games to make it to where whatever they are doing also solves child poverty without any material change to the people involved

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:10

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

galenanorth posted:

Can I have a citation on the third bullet point, if you have one, to save for later?

https://twitter.com/JerryBuchko/status/1370027264029515777

So this is the page linked in that tweet:

https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/news-internal/2021/presidential-policy/biden-economic-relief-proposal-poverty-impact

if you go to the PDF, you'll find this:

so I used the Wayback Machine and picked out a snapshot from March 2, 2021: http://web.archive.org/web/20210302...-poverty-impact

On the second page of the paper, we find this:

But if you go back to the live version of the paper:

???

no minimum wage!

EDIT: To be clear, the note does make it clear that they updated the paper to reflect the effects of only the things the bill is actually doing. I'm not accusing the authors of necessarily trying to HIDE the minimum wage point. I'm saying they had to revise the numbers downwards once they took it out.

gradenko_2000 has issued a correction as of 15:17 on Mar 12, 2021

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:14

Cromulent_Chill: Apr 6, 2009

I'm so glad its settled that 50% of kids were pulled out of poverty because some loving douchebag with a star two towns over says so.

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:14

Excelzior: Jun 24, 2013

look we created a program where people can engage in gladitorial combat to the death for the chance to win exactly enough income to meet the poverty line

child poverty reduced by 100%

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:15

Pryor on Fire: May 14, 2013; they don't know all alien abduction experiences can be explained by people thinking saving private ryan was a documentary

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/JerryBuchko/status/1370027264029515777

So this is the page linked in that tweet:

https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/news-internal/2021/presidential-policy/biden-economic-relief-proposal-poverty-impact

if you go to the PDF, you'll find this:

so I used the Wayback Machine and picked out a snapshot from March 2, 2021: http://web.archive.org/web/20210302...-poverty-impact

On the second page of the paper, we find this:

But if you go back to the live version of the paper:

???

no minimum wage!

goddamn this is some lol

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:15

The Pussy Boss: Nov 2, 2004

Nichael posted:

I really don't get how they're arriving at the "cut childhood poverty in half" number. To actually do that would require a massive restructure of American society. Did that happen?

It's so dishonest. Does anyone actually believe that giving families 3K per kid is "lifting them out of poverty"? $3,000 is a couple month's rent, a car repair, a trip to the ER. After the money is spent, people will still be working for starvation wages. They still won't have good health insurance. They'll still owe on their student loans and credit card debt.

Not to mention that this bill is supposed to be pandemic relief, compensating people for what they've lost due to massive unemployment and the economy going in the shitter. And it's not even adequate for that. I'm sure there are people who've been unemployed for a year who are in the hole way more than $3,000 even with unemployment, right? This is a band-aid, and of course it's better than nothing, but "ending poverty" lol come the gently caress on.

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:16

spacemang_spliff: Nov 29, 2014; wide pickle

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/JerryBuchko/status/1370027264029515777

So this is the page linked in that tweet:

https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/news-internal/2021/presidential-policy/biden-economic-relief-proposal-poverty-impact

if you go to the PDF, you'll find this:

so I used the Wayback Machine and picked out a snapshot from March 2, 2021: http://web.archive.org/web/20210302...-poverty-impact

On the second page of the paper, we find this:

But if you go back to the live version of the paper:

???

no minimum wage!

lol so they just took out the minimum wage which was used in their study and didn't change the calculations at all.

so basically the 50% reduction is just made up and not based on anything

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:16

Pryor on Fire: May 14, 2013; they don't know all alien abduction experiences can be explained by people thinking saving private ryan was a documentary

The Pussy Boss posted:

It's so dishonest. Does anyone actually believe that giving families 3K per kid is "lifting them out of poverty"? $3,000 is a couple month's rent, a car repair, a trip to the ER. After the money is spent, people will still be working for starvation wages. They still won't have good health insurance. They'll still owe on their student loans and credit card debt.

Yeah that's sorta the whole point of these criticisms, it's a very temporary boost. Dems are claming this is a historic win by just selectively playing games with the time axis.

Cuomo recently cut nursing home deaths by over 90%, you have to support someone with data that good!

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:19

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

The Pussy Boss posted:

It's so dishonest. Does anyone actually believe that giving families 3K per kid is "lifting them out of poverty"?

They want to believe. And that's all that matters.

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:21

Asproigerosis: Mar 13, 2013; insufferable

Uh the economy is booming, dow never higher. How dare you suggest people aren't making enough money to live!

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:22

galenanorth: May 19, 2016

spacemang_spliff posted:

lol so they just took out the minimum wage which was used in their study and didn't change the calculations at all.

so basically the 50% reduction is just made up and not based on anything

It was "in half" before they added the minimum wage change in February, after which they changed it to "by more than half". The percentages from the three versions are -51.1%, -57.8% (after inclusion of the minimum wage raise and child tax credit expansion), and -56.0%. However, it's suspicious that each change in the study includes "to account for small adjustments in our simulation model", yet somehow even if they realized the model needed adjusting, it only needed adjusting when the law itself changed.

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:26

Stringent: Dec 22, 2004; image text goes here

gently caress the haters i'm still glad i was all in on bernie

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/12/sanders-amazon-union-bezos/

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:29

Nichael: Mar 30, 2011

https://twitter.com/sirDukeDevin/status/1370357900997238784?s=20

got him

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:44

alarumklok: Jun 30, 2012

galenanorth posted:

It was "in half" before they added the minimum wage change in February, after which they changed it to "by more than half". The percentages from the three versions are -51.1%, -57.8% (after inclusion of the minimum wage raise and child tax credit expansion), and -56.0%. However, it's suspicious that each change in the study includes "to account for small adjustments in our simulation model", yet somehow even if they realized the model needed adjusting, it only needed adjusting when the law itself changed.

the 1.8% drop is the removal of 2 bucks an hour (2-4k a year depending on hours) and 400->300 on ui. while apparently adding the child tax credit is 5%. not really sure if I buy that poo poo even under the timeframe of 2021 and not a second longer

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:47

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Nichael posted:

https://twitter.com/sirDukeDevin/status/1370357900997238784?s=20

got him

Every one of these non media guys doesn't have a clue that they didn't care about child poverty before last Tuesday and how weird it is they are regurgitating the exact same phrase.

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:49

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Nichael posted:

https://twitter.com/sirDukeDevin/status/1370357900997238784?s=20

got him

so when people ask why Joe hasn't sent out the 2k checks yet, they say it's up to Congress

but when Congress passes a bill that "cuts child poverty in half", it's Joe Biden that's behind that???

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:49

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

Euphoriaphone posted:

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1370171671852748801

lol you didn�t cut poverty in half because you gave up on the min. wage

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:52

Nichael: Mar 30, 2011

Poverty is over!

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:53

Blockade: Oct 22, 2008

https://twitter.com/djrothkopf/status/1370354783719194631

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:53

Organ Fiend: May 21, 2007; custom title

WampaLord posted:

"but he cut child poverty in half!"

https://twitter.com/JerryBuchko/status/1370027264029515777?s=20

This needs to retweeted/posted absolutely every time someone here or on twitter uses the "cuts child poverty in half" talking point.

I was thinking "how do these checks cut poverty in half??" and then the punchline is this study.

Lol

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 18:00

RealityWarCriminal: Aug 10, 2016

they could have ended child poverty entirely but it was too expensive. krysten sinema did a little dance while voting to keep child poverty. Joe's bros from delaware did a tag team thumbs down at the thought of parents being able to buy new clothes for their kids.

# ? Mar 12, 2021 15:55

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [succ] Go directly to the solutions tent, do not collect 600 dollars

«‹›10783 »