I broke down page by page the report where you said it addressed the data. You said the data was started on page 51 and that was not the case. There seems to be some miscommunication there, so fair enough.
I never made that claim. You might be confusing me with someone else, which everyone has done at some point. Go back and you will see that I never took a stance.
Oh but you did.
This you just said is wrong, and I will explain why. The percent of the population that receives welfare is pretty flat. Its true that people are on it for a few months, and then go off. The problem, is that they then go back on. To say that the average user is only on it for 4 months is misleading, if over a 5 year span the person would have been on it for 20 months in 4 month increments. Its late and I am not going to look up the actual figures right now, but you can find them pretty easy. I know its something pretty close to 30% who leave welfare come back around 1 years, time, and over 50% come back in 5 years.
Also, the major people leave welfare is because they find a job. I see why you would make the assumption its for more money, because it could be, but that is not 100% correct either. When you look at after tax income, it is often that they end up making less money.
The implication of your statement was that people are not on welfare for very long, but that is not true. If you wanted to say that people were not on welfare for long consistent periods of time, then maybe.
What I did do was to say that the data you were using was not providing a counter to that claim which I think was made by Rudeguy. The original report you posted was about spell duration mainly, and never addressed the long term outside of spell duration.
Actually it did, you just didn't bother reading it.
This I don't quite understand. Your original report only really looked at single mothers on this topic. Your original claim was...
No, just those particular charts looked at single mothers, you know, the largest users of assistance programs.
I then said...
My claim was that it was not for an increase in real pay, but for other reasons. Page 57 seems to support my claim, but I think you are confused about what my original claim was.
I never claimed to agree with Rudeguy. What I did was to point out the flaw in your argument with the data you provided. What I can say is that there are people who have become dependent on welfare programs. I wont go into what would happen if those programs were not around, but I think even you would agree that there are people who live off of the programs. Where I jumped in was when Rudeguy said the following.
No that's not what rudeguy claimed, his post:
Poverty should be a temporary circumstance. Welfare should be a system to get people out of poverty. Instead society has made welfare a lifetime source of easy income and people have discovered that a lot of times it's easier to be poor than to work.
So welfare is indeed a temporary circumstance and it certainly isn't some societal institution for easy money.
In that comment from post 245 he did not make a claim of how many people are like this, but it is in the data that shows that some do live off of welfare. Your response in post 246 did not in any way counter this statement which was the implicit purpose in your response.
Fanfuckingtastic! And some people fuck goats? Your point and his about some people means exactly what to the discussion? It certainly doesn't mean shit in the context of his post! You can claim it does but you'd be lying to yourself.