Privately owned guns save more lives than they take

[C0ckney]

No, I think social welfare has not reduced poverty.

and why do you hold that view, based on what evidence?

please read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Effects_on_poverty

Empirical evidence suggests that taxes and transfers considerably reduce poverty in most countries, whose welfare states commonly constitute at least a fifth of GDP.[29][30] Most "welfare states" have considerably lower poverty rates than they had before the implementation of welfare programs.

At best it might be said to reduce disparity in wealth, primarily by reducing the affluence of the wealthy as opposed to improving the situation for the poor.

so giving money to the poor doesn't improve their lot. priceless.

[C0ckney]

Umm... you know we have Medicaid, right?

Everyone from the hood has Medicaid.

We already give free healthcare to our poor.

the welfare state is far more than just healthcare, and even on the issue of healthcare, poor people in america have less access to it than poor people in other developed countries.

[Jon Miller]

I got 20(vac)+10(personal)+10(holiday) last year so that's only one week less, but more is always better

33 + ?? + 11 is the average, I am sure you would have more (considering you have 2x the US average).

Additionally, when a couple has a child I think they both get a year? of paid vacation.

JM

[MRT144]

I got 20(vac)+10(personal)+10(holiday) last year so that's only one week less, but more is always better

I'm getting 21 PTO days this year and since I so rarely take them off I'm going to start losing them at the end of next year. Unless I snowboard every other friday for 4 months. Darn these problems!

[rah]

The only reason I'm on the upper end is because I've been at the same company more than 10 years. But yeah, of all the things the US gets wrong, this is always at the top of my list.

[C0ckney]

Obviously an effective social welfare system reduces poverty. The problem is, how do we make sure our social welfare system is effective? Throwing money at it doesn't make it work.

it's a difficult question but it's clear that some countries tackle poverty more effectively than others. it's also clear from the countries that tackle poverty effectively, that doing so involves spending a lot of money on public services, it means redistributing wealth and enforcing a greater equality between people than would otherwise be the case. now of course these ideas make many people (and not just in US) uncomfortable. the US is perfectly free to choose, as a society, to not do these things, or not do these things very well, but there are consequences to this (this is my point by the way albert). one of those consequences is increased crime.

[regexcellent]

Screw vacation days. I'd never use them anyway.

[giblets]

That is a syllogism.

Fun fact: In 2002 the average black American household earns more money than the average Swedish household. The study listed discusses income before taxes, which of course are significantly higher in Sweden than in the United States. The disparity has only increased over time. So please, don't claim that Sweden lacks poverty, because compared to Americans, Swedes are in poverty.

EDIT: reply to post 100.

If you're discussing income before taxes, you're probably ignoring the additional benefits that the poor in Sweden receive from the government that they wouldn't receive if they lived in the US.

[giblets]

There are state taxes in the U.S. that take another chunk, but I don't think they bring us to Sweden's level.

The government in the US currently spends ~40% of the GDP. Sweden just doesn't have a massive deficit.

[Al B. Sure!]

Screw vacation days. I'd never use them anyway.

When you're married with kids, you'll want vacation days.

[Al B. Sure!]

the welfare state is far more than just healthcare, and even on the issue of healthcare, poor people in america have less access to it than poor people in other developed countries.

Healthcare, food stamps, cash assistance... the poor get all that. What else is there?

I wonder if anyone's done a study on the families of criminals and what sort of assistance they receive. My anecdotal guess from observation in Philly is, almost every criminal in the hood has family that gets all the public assistance they can get.

I see no reason why public assistance would affect crime rates much. Our poorest still commit crime with all the assistance they get.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I can understand the desperation to look at anything other than the USA's high rates of homicide, but why fixate on money?

Give me a shout when the subject switches to comparisons of mean life expectancy or infant mortality. They're not relevant to the thread either, but it'll be another nice digression.

[Jon Miller]

I was thinking.

There is a difference.

In the US, the 'assistance' is mostly assistance to be poor.

In fact, if you start working and lsowing building your self up, you lose money/housing/possessions!

In Sweden it was more like a baseline, even if things were bad there was only so far you could fall. And building yourself up from there could just improve.

So I had one roommate who when I met him he was an unemployed street muscian, dreaming of being a best selling hiphop artist/rapper (I have one of his CDs). He would go about town trying to sell (and would perform a bit), and other times he would record, and on a few rare occasions he would have a gig.

But he still could survive.

Then later, he started a job (just to get a little bit of money), and shortly he was making more than I.

JM

[Wezil]

When you're married with kids, you'll want vacation days.

I'm single with no kids and I want every vacation day I can get.

I don't live to work.

[Guynemer]

It is my opinion that we have the best healthcare system in the world, not the worst.