Is This Bernie Sanders Campaign Ad Problematic?

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,175]

On April 22, 2016 at 2:53 PM, just4fun said:

First of all what do you mean $2 a day. How many family members? Is it per family or per person in the family and where are you getting your info? Even a 16 year old with a part time at 5 hrs per week making $7 and hour is making. $1,820 a year. $2 dollars a day is only $730 a year. A whole family on $730 a year is ridiculous. 

This is how poverty actually behaved during the Clinton Presidency. Guess when it went up again?

Unemployment rate in the United States from January 1993 to January 2001. The orange line indicates the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. 

Data from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

The fact that you are not mentioning that poverty actually went up during the Bush admin and not the Clinton administration is doing a disservice to your arguement, the Democratic Party and the Bernie campaign for possibly embellishing the truth to fit its narrative.

Here is another graph just drive the point home. If more Americans are living on $2 a day it happened after Clintons presidency. The C.P. actually saw poverty decline in the US. The greatest times of poverty have been during Republican Presidencies. 

http://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-since-1990/

 

For the record, it's households living in extreme poverty where they are only taking in $2 per person. "The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that, while the official rate among families declined in the early years of welfare reform, when the economy was booming and unemployment was extremely low, it started increasing in 2000 and now exceeds its 1996 level...nearly 70 percent of poor families with children received cash assistance in 1996; in 2009, less than 30 percent did. And the families who are able to access benefits aren’t getting much. Their purchasing power is below 1996 levels, adjusting for inflation, in every state but two. They fall below 50 percent of the poverty line in every state" (sources: http://www.thenation.com/article/clinton-touts-welfare-reform-heres-how-it-failed/ and http://www.cbpp.org/tanf-cases-have-declined-dramatically-including-in-years-when-poverty-has-increased. 

Another chart to consider as well: http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/09/news/economy/welfare-reform/index.htm

The cash benefits have been more than sliced in half and less than two thirds he people who used to receive benefits receive them, despite a notable spike in extreme poverty. 

Even if the decrease began during the Bush presidency, it's the welfare program created under the Clinton administration. The welfare reform lacks a safety net and didn't build in mechanisms to ensure long term success.

 

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

48 minutes ago, zebulonpyke said:

For the record, it's households living in extreme poverty where they are only taking in $2 per person. "The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that, while the official rate among families declined in the early years of welfare reform, when the economy was booming and unemployment was extremely low, it started increasing in 2000 and now exceeds its 1996 level...nearly 70 percent of poor families with children received cash assistance in 1996; in 2009, less than 30 percent did. And the families who are able to access benefits aren’t getting much. Their purchasing power is below 1996 levels, adjusting for inflation, in every state but two. They fall below 50 percent of the poverty line in every state" (sources: http://www.thenation.com/article/clinton-touts-welfare-reform-heres-how-it-failed/ and http://www.cbpp.org/tanf-cases-have-declined-dramatically-including-in-years-when-poverty-has-increased. 

Another chart to consider as well: http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/09/news/economy/welfare-reform/index.htm

The cash benefits have been more than sliced in half and less than two thirds he people who used to receive benefits receive them, despite a notable spike in extreme poverty. 

Even if the decrease began during the Bush presidency, it's the welfare program created under the Clinton administration. The welfare reform lacks a safety net and didn't build in mechanisms to ensure long term success

 

The problem with your analysis is that it makes the implication that welfare reform is the only factor to consider.

In fact, the dip after Welfare reform can be attributed to it because it was the only policy chance in that interval. Over time, new policies and socioeconomic changes may have occurred that had their own influences.

In fact....wasn't the USA recently in a depression?...twice?

You forget how much Bush ****ed up the country just saying.

You could argue that it was a trigger (doubtful) or the nudge that pushed stability off the cliff (maybe) but that requires a deeper analysis of the individual factors in play. At present, you aren't making a convincing argument that Welfare Reform is the culprit.

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,175]

2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

The problem with your analysis is that it makes the implication that welfare reform is the only factor to consider.

In fact, the dip after Welfare reform can be attributed to it because it was the only policy chance in that interval. Over time, new policies and socioeconomic changes may have occurred that had their own influences.So you aren't making a convincing argument.

In fact....wasn't the USA recently in a depression?...twice?

So you are not really presenting a convincing case that Welfare Reform is the culprit.

I'm not saying that Welfare Reform is the only culprit. I think that the rise in extreme poverty has to do with the unequal distribution of wealth, low wages, exportation of American labor and corporate welfare when there is lack of general welfare. So, with that in mind, though welfare reform is not the sole cause, it plays a role in effecting those in extreme poverty. With that in mind, Clinton, in addition to the welfare reform, also supported trade agreements, tax policies and the deregulation of Wall Street that have created the current landscape we see today.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, zebulonpyke said:

I'm not saying that Welfare Reform is the only culprit. I think that the rise in extreme poverty has to do with the unequal distribution of wealth, low wages, exportation of American labor and corporate welfare when there is lack of general welfare. So, with that in mind, though welfare reform is not the sole cause, it plays a role in effecting those in extreme poverty. With that in mind, Clinton, in addition to the welfare reform, also supported trade agreements, tax policies and the deregulation of Wall Street that have created the current landscape we see today.

No.

Trade agreements had very little impact on the present economic state. They brought in many positive things as well, such as high paying jobs. Granted, they did not have the intended effect.

Hillary has not made any legislation on tax policies, nor has she made any bills towards Wall St.

The situation isn't as simple as you are implying.

If you're inclined, read these. They're long, but if you are truly interested then they are worth the read, even if you disagree with some points.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/03/17/are-trade-agreements-good-for-americans

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/sanders-dont-break-up-the-big-banks-000054

 

 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

5 hours ago, zebulonpyke said:

For the record, it's households living in extreme poverty where they are only taking in $2 per person. "The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that, while the official rate among families declined in the early years of welfare reform, when the economy was booming and unemployment was extremely low, it started increasing in 2000 and now exceeds its 1996 level...nearly 70 percent of poor families with children received cash assistance in 1996; in 2009, less than 30 percent did. And the families who are able to access benefits aren’t getting much. Their purchasing power is below 1996 levels, adjusting for inflation, in every state but two. They fall below 50 percent of the poverty line in every state" (sources: http://www.thenation.com/article/clinton-touts-welfare-reform-heres-how-it-failed/ and http://www.cbpp.org/tanf-cases-have-declined-dramatically-including-in-years-when-poverty-has-increased. 

Another chart to consider as well: http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/09/news/economy/welfare-reform/index.htm

The cash benefits have been more than sliced in half and less than two thirds he people who used to receive benefits receive them, despite a notable spike in extreme poverty. 

Even if the decrease began during the Bush presidency, it's the welfare program created under the Clinton administration. The welfare reform lacks a safety net and didn't build in mechanisms to ensure long term success.

 

 

So I what you are saying is that poverty grew in the Bush administration and the states policies in who receive the money set by the federal gov't is horrible. Yeah thanks I already knew that. Also did you read the CNN article or just look at the graph. From what I read the fed gov't already spends 695 billion dollars on gov't aid to poor house holds. Are we really going to start giving people cash. Also the $2 doesn't include food stamps or Medicaid or even housing. TANF was always meant to be temporary.

i also find it quite alarming that when you research Texas TANF they tell you exactly how much you are going to get per person per family yet Vermont's page is vague. I wonder what Bernie is hiding.

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

5 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

The problem with your analysis is that it makes the implication that welfare reform is the only factor to consider.

In fact, the dip after Welfare reform can be attributed to it because it was the only policy chance in that interval. Over time, new policies and socioeconomic changes may have occurred that had their own influences.

In fact....wasn't the USA recently in a depression?...twice?

You forget how much Bush ****ed up the country just saying.

You could argue that it was a trigger (doubtful) or the nudge that pushed stability off the cliff (maybe) but that requires a deeper analysis of the individual factors in play. At present, you aren't making a convincing argument that Welfare Reform is the culprit.

You know I am glad he got me started on the TANF argument. After doing a little research I found that Vermont is one of the states whose requirement for getting TANF is that the family is making less than the "Poverty Level." Bernie can't even take care of the people in poverty in his own home state. While states like Texas requirement is ridiculous because of its gov't, Vermont applicants still have to make about $500 less than the poverty level to even qualify for assistance. Vermont also requires the family to have less than $2,000 in liquid assets thou there is no limit on liquid assets set by the federal gov't and there is 6 states that do not have a cap on liquid assets and about 19 that have a higher cap than $2000. What bothers me the most is that there is several states like VT that can toot there own horn by saying they give more money in TANF than other states but because there requirements of applicants fall below the poverty line so in reality they are just giving them enough money to be $40 or $50 above than the poverty line. Then there is WI whose requirement for receiving TANF is above the poverty line by a $300. Then WI gives an additional $600 to make sure those families are not at the poverty line and on top of that give them SNAP (Food Stamps). In other words they are doing what the program was meant to do. Yet the Senator from VT is saying that the Clintons are at fault for Welfare reform in 1996. This whole argument is crap and the fault lies with the states. Unbelievable, if one state can keep its families out of the poverty line so can all the others. If thats what they really wanted to do. 

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43634.pdf

 

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, just4fun said:

You know I am glad he got me started on the TANF argument. After doing a little research I found that Vermont is one of the states whose requirement for getting TANF is that the family is making less than the "Poverty Level." Bernie can't even take care of the people in poverty in his own home state. While states like Texas requirement is ridiculous because of its gov't, Vermont applicants still have to make about $500 less than the poverty level to even qualify for assistance. Vermont also requires the family to have less than $2,000 in liquid assets thou there is no limit on liquid assets set by the federal gov't and there is 6 states that do not have a cap on liquid assets and about 19 that have a higher cap than $2000. What bothers me the most is that there is several states like VT that can toot there own horn by saying they give more money in TANF than other states but because there requirements of applicants fall below the poverty line so in reality they are just giving them enough money to be $40 or $50 above than the poverty line. Then there is WI whose requirement for receiving TANF is above the poverty line by a $300. Then WI gives an additional $600 to make sure those families are not at the poverty line and on top of that give them SNAP (Food Stamps). In other words they are doing what the program was meant to do. Yet the Senator from VT is saying that the Clintons are at fault for Welfare reform in 1996. This whole argument is crap and the fault lies with the states. Unbelievable, if one state can keep its families out of the poverty line so can all the others. If thats what they really wanted to do. 

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43634.pdf

 

 

 

[Yves 1,891]

How is this thread still alive?