# Dishonest Rhetoric to Sell Tax Cut **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 11, 2003, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923 "2003-01-11T07:20:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/161 "2003-01-15T20:55:45Z")
If I’m recalling correctly from this Dateline report which interviewed the governor among others, Minnesota has a reputation as being a copassionate state, and having a comparatively nice welfare program. Thus, it is seeing an influx of welfare recipients, more than 2 moving in for every one leaving (I remember that figure.) This is a simple example of what I am talking about. Minnesota’s efforts to combat poverty bring more poverty. Again, without irony, I don’t understand why we’re having trouble with this. It seems self-evident that things proliferate in direct relation to the favorability of the environment. Minnesota is relatively favorable for welfare recipients, therefore it stands to reason, and to verifiable evidence that welfare receipt will proliferate in Minnesota as long as it remains relatively favorable. One might even hypothesize that the current problem with low income housing and homelessness might have something to do with this. One might further hypothesize that as long as Minnesota is percieved as being favorable to welfare recipients, you will continue to see welfare migration until either that perception changes, or the system breaks down from being overloaded, as it appears to be doing now. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/162 "2003-01-15T20:56:47Z")
Yes sir, without a trace of hostile intent, I fail to see how a finite, time limited course of benefits which adequately provide for neither basic needs nor educational improvement can be termed “active encouragement of failure”. The program certainly seems to _perpetuate_ poverty, and not by “throwing too much money” at the problem, but ISTM by inadequate funding and poorly conceived criteria for eligibility. Analogies to bandaids and head trauma are all well and good as long as one realizes that programs aimed at encouraging hard hats aren’t exactly efficacious treatment for those who need the gash in their scalp cleaned and bandaged. While we’re on the subject of me missing your points, I should mention that I can’t wrap my head around your statement that progressive tax brackets make being richer “unattractive”. Maybe my mind is easily boggled. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/163 "2003-01-15T21:13:42Z")
elucidator: > [@](#): > > Ms. Ivins point, which seems to have escaped unscathed, is that it is at best optimistic of the Pubbies to presume the efficacy of thier program in advance. Rather like upgrading a patients condition from grave to excellent in advance of the application of an unproven therapy. It depends. Dynamic accounting encompasses a lot. Some of it is pretty sound and rock solid and unimpeachable. For example the Vadim tranche of CMO takes a pool of mortgages that may get paid off or refinanced at any time, and creates an almost perfectly predictable bond out of them with defined payments and maturities. It’s an elegant and beautiful solution, and it works every time because it is founded on rock solid assumptions. There is nothing inherently wrong with dynamic accounting, and there is an awful lot that is right about it. The assumptions have to be sound and the margin of accuracy has to be defined. Reservations about its usage based on the soundness of the assumptions are often well-founded. The Republican party wanting to make use of some of these techniques (and the Gov already makes use of lots of them,) is neither inherently good nor bad. For example, remember that the budget surplus forecast during the Clinton years was a “future surplus” and not a present one, and was based on assumptions. That surplus is and was a product of dynamic accountingl, and was only as good as the assumptions that were made. Now I go find your cite. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/164 "2003-01-15T21:23:44Z")
I have trouble posting cites on this computer. If you go to google and search on “Minnesota welfare migrants” you’ll find what you’re looking for. The third, and the second cite support the contention that there has been an influx of welfare recipients into Minnesota and that that is due to Minnesota’s relatively favorable benefits. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/165 "2003-01-15T21:27:07Z")
Well, it seems like most of the support for the removal of taxes on Dividaneds comes from two groups here: 1. Taxes are bad- thus any thing that cuts taxes is good. OK, well, I can see your point- but it isn’t that we either get this tax cut or no tax cuts at all. We can argue that THIS particular tax cut is unfair, without saying that ALL tax cuts are unfair. And- just becuase a “tax cut” does cut a tax- does not really mean it it step one on the road to the elimination of all “confiscatory taxation”. 2. “Progressive Taxes” are either a redistibution of wealth, or just basicly unfair. Again- not really relevant here. Like I said- if the end result is “economic stimulation” then an across-the-board tax cut- where everyone gets the same % (not the same AMOUNT) is “flat” and thus does not add to the progresivity of taxation. This tax cut is: 1, Unfair. It cuts taxes to only one group of dudes. There is nothing that says it will stimulate the economy more than several other tax cuts. I am not argueing that all tax cuts must be “progressive”- but they don’t have to be “regresive” either. They can be FLAT. This is a “regressive” not a flat cut. Altho there are arguments for “progressive” taxes- they are not nessesarily “fair”. Flat taxes are fair. Adding to the unfairness is the fact it doesn’t apply to dividends in retirement plans- where most of us have invested in the stock market. Why not? 1. There is no solid evidence that it will help the economy as planned. 2. It could very well lead to tax scams. “Income is income from whatever source derived” stops most tax shelters. Making one dollar different than another leads to abusive shelters 7 scams 3. The stated goal of it being an attempt to stop “double taxation” is a smokescreen. As I pointed out- decades ago there was a deduction to stop “double taxation” for Sales taxes. IF the stated goal was really to stop the “evils” of double taxation, they’d bring this back, too (not to mention several other items). No mention of it has been made. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/166 "2003-01-15T21:45:33Z")
Dr Deth: You appear to have ignored our last exchange and just restated your earlier assertions. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/167 "2003-01-15T22:07:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\ ***ElvisL1ves** said: > > I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of wealth, if you think that just buying stuff is a ‘wealth generating activity’. It’s not. It’s a wealth CONSUMING activity. You have a fundamental misunderstanding there. If the things being bought are real, manufactured goods, or food, or any of the real things that go into them, then they have to be produced by someone, don’t they? That’s wealth generation. Maybe that works differently in Canada. If the money goes into jiggering stock prices or bond interest rates, that’s wealth redistribution. Any “trickle-down” effect that may be postulated from it remains undemonstrated in reality (except for the True Believer Reaganites). The former “makes the pie higher”, stimulates the economy and adds jobs on a broad basis, and is to be encouraged. The latter benefits only a small portion of the populace, and does nothing for the height of the pie except to drain capital away from where it can do the most good. _Capisce_? Now, that was a fine evisceration of the Bush tax rebates, including of their inflationary effect that oddly hasn’t appeared (although that might be attributed to their paltry size). For some odd reason, though, you’re calling it a “liberal” idea, and not a “compassionate conservative” one. Whatever suits you. The rest of your posts have all been about our old friend “supply-side” - that’s been tried down here, as you may have heard, and the effects were just the opposite of what you said, and we’re still hampered by paying off the debt it raised. But we’ve been over that before without your willing to consider facts or alternative theories, haven’t we? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/168 "2003-01-15T22:18:10Z")
**Scylla** , before you continue to paraphrase the new WSJ mantra that the poor are undertaxed compared to the rich, read [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A39211-2002Nov25¬Found=true]E.J. Dionne\*\*'s quick, easy-to-follow refutation of it. Considering _all_ taxes, the only honest way to do it (although you may want to disagree), their burden is higher in percentage terms. It has also been demonstrated to you that, with more money available to them, they will buy more goods than the rich on a marginal basis. Yet you continue to claim that refusing anything to relieve that burden is actually helping them. Why not just call them “lucky duckies” while you continue rationalizing? You continue to ignore **DrDeth** ’s posts, too, to no one’s apparent satisfaction but your own. Whatever. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/169 "2003-01-15T23:01:00Z")
First, I recommend we table the discussion of whether or not Ms. Ivins understands the mysterys of dynamic accounting or not. It’s neither here nor there relative to our continuing mutual hijack as to economic theory. As to whether or not Minnesota is being overwhelmed by outsiders flocking for the advantage of our benefits, that too is more or less irrelevent, and at the very least suspicious. Interviewer: Why did you move to MN? Outlander: Why, for the welfare benefits of course. Interviewer: Thank you. Hell, they might have moved here for the climate and the cuisine. Nobody said they were sane. Even if it were so, it no more proves the MN has too much benefit that it proves that everyone else has too little. I’m well aware that according to your economic othodoxy, this is dogma and need not be proven. As should be clear by now, I do not accept this orthodoxy as proven, despite your repeated assertions that it is so. Thus far, **Scylla** , you seem to content to simply state your conservative theory as though it were proven fact. It is not, nor will it be without some offering of evidence, regardless of how often you patiently repeat it. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/170 "2003-01-15T23:46:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > It seems to me a pretty basic assumption. Create a favorable environment for a thing, and that thing will thrive. > > Now Minnesota has a big homeless and poverty problem. > > Is this in any way a surprise, or does it follow logically? Scylla, surely noone is arguing that incentives are not important in encouraging behavior. I might even remind you that the concept of the “race for the bottom” as regards both individual states with welfare, and nations in regard to free trade without adequate protections for labor and the environment are issues that have been raised by liberals and largely ignored, as near as I can tell, by conservatives and the corporations pushing the free trade agenda. (Do they not believe it will happen or do they not care? I don’t know…And, it probably varies with the individual.) But, there are a few points here: (1) As has been noted, let’s assume that the problems in Minnesota with more welfare folks coming in are due to the better benefits. (My guess is that they may be in part, but I’m skeptical about how big a part.) Now, this may be bad for Minnesota but this idea of people moving is not creating more welfare folks as a whole, it is just moving them around. I think this is a good illustration of the dangers one incurs when one devolves too many decisions down to state and local levels (some folks now want to do it with environmental standards!)…i.e., you get the race to the bottom as you pit states or regions against each other. This is also how corporations have gotten extremely generous handouts to move into (or not leave) various regions. I’m glad to have you on-board concerning this very real problem of incentives. Some conservatives, I have found, tend to overlook it. (2) In general, I think differential incentives tend to operate more dramatically than overall incentives. For example, in the case of those with very high incomes, I have a hard time believing that their incentives change that drastically if you change their tax rate from 30 to 40 cents on a dollar, say. After all, at some point, it seems that money becomes more like a way of keeping score than of being all that useful. It’s kind of like changing the score for a touchdown from 5 points to 7 points…Will that give the teams less incentive to score ones? On the other hand, I think differential incentives at that level probably are important because I think the game at that level is still to maximize your income within the constraints of the current law (and the rich even hire accountants and such whose job it is to do these things). So, I do think you have to be more concerned about how different tax rates for different activities might affect things. (The analogy in football would be to whether you reduced the touchdown from 7 to 5 points while reducing the field goal and safety by the same amount or whether you didn’t and thus changed the differential incentives in which case I admit that there would likely be more field goals and fewer touchdowns.) (3) There are also reasons to believe that the incentives of very high rewards to a few people lead to a lot of wastefulness. This is the whole premise of the book “The Winner-Take-All Society”. Now, I don’t think this is more than a hypothesis but it is one with at least as much plausibility as the counterhypothesis that we need to make the income tax rates less progressive at the top in order to obtain more efficiency in the economy. > [@](#): > > There is little question that well-executed and prudent dynamic accounting is much more accurate, meaningful and useful than static accounting. It presents a truer model from which judgements can be made. I recently dug up on the web some letter to Congress from the head of the Congressional Budget Office explaining why he thought it was a bad idea to go to dynamic scoring. [After I read the umpteenth WSJ editorial on how this dynamic scoring ought to be done and only a blooming idiot or idealogue would believe otherwise, I was sort of motivated to find a different point of view.] The points he made are that they already use dynamic scoring in a microeconomic sense (which I guess would sort of maybe correspond to my differential incentives thing). For example, if the proposal was to raise gas prices by $1, they would not ignore the fact that this would cause less gas to be consumed in computing the amount of revenue that would bring in. How, on the macroeconomic scale they don’t do it for the simple reason that there just really isn’t good enough data and methods to know how to do it. And, they want to maintain their credibility and non-partisanship which would be impossible to do if they start throwing in assumptions that are more religious belief than anything else. (Remember how the credibility of the White House Office of Management and Budget plummetted during the Reagan years when they, in essence, used dynamic scoring in their budget projections!) ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/171 "2003-01-15T23:57:31Z")
Oh yeah…Another point I wanted to make on the “rewarding failure” aspect is, sure, I admit that will happen to some degree. If there is welfare, there will certainly be more people who need to rely on it than if we didn’t have any if for no other reason than that (1) some people who might starve to death otherwise will still be around, and (2) some people might not have the proper motivation of a near-death experience to find a job. However, I think the extent of this incentive stuff is overstated. The fact is that the U.S. has a quite meager safety net compared to other countries. It is hard to believe that many people really stay on welfare because that’s where they want to be or they have insufficient motivation to get off. It seems more likely to me that they are trapped by having insufficient other opportunities to earn money (one reason why it is so important to make sure taxes are progressive at the low end and why many conservatives as well as liberals have supported expansion of the earned income tax credit)…Or by competing issues like having to care for kids and not being able to afford day care. Let me just close by saying that, while I am by no means won over to the conservative side (quite obviously), I do think conservatives serve a useful function in helping to provide hard-headed critiques of what might works and doesn’t work as regards dealing with issues of poverty and inequality, although I like those critiques better when they are not saying that nothing compassionate will work or that the solutions are simplistic free market approaches. (E.g., to hear the Wall Street Journal tell it, there ain’t nothing with education that can’t be solved by simply having competition through vouchers for private schools.) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/172 "2003-01-16T00:37:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > **First, I recommend we table the discussion of whether or not Ms. Ivins understands the mysterys of dynamic accounting or not. It’s neither here nor there relative to our continuing mutual hijack as to economic theory.** I agree, although I do love to talk about Vadims. > [@](#): > > \*\*As to whether or not Minnesota is being overwhelmed by outsiders flocking for the advantage of our benefits, that too is more or less irrelevent, and at the very least suspicious. > > Interviewer: Why did you move to MN? > Outlander: Why, for the welfare benefits of course. > Interviewer: Thank you. > > Hell, they might have moved here for the climate and the cuisine. Nobody said they were sane. \*\* Of course, it may have been for the climate. I here the Minnesota winters are lovely for sleeping under bridges. :rolleyes: How about we say these benefits are an influence? > [@](#): > > \*\*Even if it were so, it no more proves the MN has too much benefit that it proves that everyone else has too little. I’m well aware that according to your economic othodoxy, this is dogma and need not be proven. As should be clear by now, I do not accept this orthodoxy as proven, despite your repeated assertions that it is so. \*\* Do not attribute attitudes to me. You have brought up a valid objection and I see jshore has mirrored it. I have no problem responding, and I will in my following post. > [@](#): > > \*\*Thus far, **Scylla** , you seem to content to simply state your conservative theory as though it were proven fact. It is not, nor will it be without some offering of evidence, regardless of how often you patiently repeat it. \*\* What proof would you like? My theory is just as good as yours. You have not proven that aid amelioriates poverty. All the social programs over the last 40 years and all the trillions of dollars that have been spent have not relieved poverty. In fact it is worse. The clear evidence suggests that aid does not work. This should be no surprise because it is simple logic to predict that it will not. It seems kind of silly to believe aid will ameliorate poverty. Any fool capable of picking his nose (and I am just such a fool) knows that if you feed something it is not going to shrink and go away. It is going to stay and grow. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/173 "2003-01-16T00:51:03Z")
Well, once again, you assert that you are capable of picking your nose, and yet, no boogers are offered in evidence. But seriously folks… Yes, indeed, your theory is just as good as mine own. Just as long as your recognize that distinction. I only wish to be clear that when you post theory with the solemn confidence of fact, that you do recognize that it ain’t necessarily so. > [@](#): > > …if you feed something it is not going to shrink and go away. It is going to stay and grow. My mamma fed me. I didn’t shrink, and I did go away. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/174 "2003-01-16T00:56:01Z")
> [@](#): > > You have not proven that aid amelioriates poverty. All the social programs over the last 40 years and all the trillions of dollars that have been spent have not relieved poverty. In fact it is worse. > > The clear evidence suggests that aid does not work. This seems to be based on several unstated assumptions. Among them:[ul][li]that the continued existence of poverty means welfare programs have not provided relief,[_]that besides social welfare, no other social changes have occured which affect poverty rates, and[_]that all welfare expenditures of any type target the amelioration of immediate suffering[/ul][/li]Would you either verify that these are your assumptions, or if they are not, provide your assumptions so that we can test them against your “simple logic”? Thank you, in all sincerity. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/175 "2003-01-16T01:27:20Z")
jshore: As I hope I’m clear on, I am by no means gung-ho on the idea of free-for-all dynamic accounting for the Gov. I too have reservations. As for the race to the bottom analogy that you and elucidator rightly bring up concerning Minnesota. It’s valid. But, that’s one example. Good cite here: [http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s187/s187d.html](http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s187/s187d.html) It cites several studies suggesting that welfare perpetuates itself by encouraging poverty > [@](#): > > A recent study by economists Anne Hill and June O’Neill found higher benefits directly correlated with increasing numbers of women leaving the labor force to receive welfare benefits. A 50 percent increase in monthly AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 75 percent increase in the number of women enrolling in AFDC and a 75 percent increase in the number of years spent on AFDC.33 > [@](#): > > Probably the most sweeping welfare study in history was conducted in the 1970s by the federal government’s Office of Economic Opportunity to examine the effect of welfare benefits on work effort. The study involved the provision of special welfare benefits to groups of recipients in Seattle and Denver from 1971 to 1978 and became known as the Seattle/Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME/DIME. The study was designed by advocates of expanding welfare who had hoped it would prove that generous welfare benefits did not adversely affect the degree of work by recipients. > > What the study proved, overwhelmingly, was just the opposite. It found that every $1 of extra welfare given to low-income persons reduced labor and earnings by 80 percent. 36 Compared to similarly situated families not on welfare, families who were given the extra income changed their behavior substantially: 37 > > ``` > * The number of hours of work dropped 9 percent for husbands, 20 percent for wives and an incredible 43 percent for young male adults. > * The length of unemployment increased 27 percent for husbands, 42 percent for wives and 60 percent for single female household heads. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/176 "2003-01-16T01:30:58Z")
Xeno: Those are not my assumptions. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/177 "2003-01-16T01:38:02Z")
OK… ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/178 "2003-01-16T01:49:24Z")
I don’t really have any assumptions outside of the rather lengthy piece I wrote this morning. Certainly I’ve been forthcoming. My basic thesis is that if you feed something it tends to grow. Why is that problematic? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/179 "2003-01-16T01:55:19Z")
I’m not trying to be obtuse or evasive. I’m not sure what you are looking for. Certainly welfare has eased suffering and saved lives. Certainly it has helped people in temporary difficulty get back on their feet and become productive. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/180 "2003-01-16T02:07:31Z")
Simplistic? “You feed something it grows” might be very useful in an agricultural context, or raising children and/or hamsters. In a sociological context, I frankly don’t see why we should give it any credence. Besides which, it rests on a article of conservative faith: that attempts to ameliorate poverty necessarily “feed” it. Obviously, if you give a man who has no money some money, he is less poor. Why then should we beleive that what is true in the individual is necessarily exactly the opposite in the aggregate? To directly contradict the obvious, one must present an equally powerful counter-principle. Thus far, none such has been presented. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923.md?page=10)