T persons in Poverty

This seems to be shaping up as a dominant T arg on this topic, Stefan posted a pretty insightful article about it over at planet debate (http://www.planetdebate.com/blogs/view/334)

I will post some more thoughts, but right now have to gear up for whirly ball.

6 thoughts on “T persons in Poverty

  1. Nick Bubb

    One thing that I’m surprised that Stefan didn’t address is that there’s no reason why the topic means we are exclusively talking about individuals living at our below 100% of federal poverty guidelines. If you make 200% of the federal poverty line, chances are you are poor or a part of the working working poor and stand to benefit significantly from additional social services. To the individuals affected by the programs, it makes little difference to them if they are at 100% of the FPL or if they are 125% of the FPL – they are still worse off than others. It’s probably worthwhile to read some of the critiques of the federal poverty line.

    I’m not at camps and I haven’t heard this T debate, but if the aff is expanding an existing means-tested social service that has an eligibility determination tied to the federal poverty line (100%/125%/185% – whatever it may be), isn’t that sufficient enough to be topical? The federal regulations already specify who is a person living in poverty specific to that program (some one at or below the designated percent of the FPL). My guess is that most affs don’t do this, making my question irrelevant.

  2. Andrew

    @Nick Bubb

    No, because your income per number of children in your family has to be 100% or less than the poverty line to be officially classified as “poor”. The rez says the plan must effect only poor people. If your interpretation is that any program that effects people with any multiple of the poverty line, then literally every single person on earth would be “poor” based on some multiple of the poverty line.

  3. Nick Bubb

    @ Scott. Agreed and I’ll repost there.

    @ Andrew. I think you misunderstand my question. If an aff is expanding an existing means-tested social service that defines its eligibility at 125% – why would this not be topical? I suppose it probably depends on what it means to “expand” a means-tested social service, but assuming that does not mean increasing the eligible population, I can’t see why there would be a significant challenge to the aff’s topicality. I think Stefan is right that these affs don’t have much strategic value in that they’ll lose to states/don’t have much offense – but that doesn’t mean they are non-topical. If your arg is that these affs are xtra-T because they go 25% above the poverty line; I think you’re going to lose that argument not only on a reasonable basis, but also in the real world. These folks are poor and my point is that considering the federal poverty line as the end all-be all definition of poverty is stupid. There’s significant literature out there that talks about other measures of poverty beyond the “line” measure. To the point that federal and state regulations specify an amount that exceeds 100% for means-tested welfare programs is conclusive evidence that poverty exists above the poverty line.

  4. Michael Hester

    Those interested in this topicality argument should focus on the way that “for PLIP” may be different than “to PLIP.”

    the discussion so far seems to assume there’s no difference, thus the notion that the plan has to increase – social services – TO persons living in poverty. under that interp, then yes, Andrew is correct to state, “The rez says the plan must effect only poor people.”

    BUT actually, the rez states no such thing (i.e., it doesn’t use an exclusionary term like “only,” e.g., “increase social services ONLY FOR persons living in poverty.”)

    there’s a debate to be had! and one example of an alternative interpretation is this:

    social services FOR persons living in proverty” means the plan must (insert synonym for ‘increase’ here) the SQ social services that intentionally address the people who live in poverty (however that’s defined).

    a) social services is a broad term and there are definitely USFG social services which are accessed by people who are not living in poverty. but SOME of those USFG social services ARE just for folks “living in poverty.”

    b) the AFF is limited to the TYPE of social service (those FOR PLIP), not the recipient of the SSFLIP.

    c) thus, AFFs could deal exclusively with non-PLIP by augmenting/expanding those SSFLIP in such a way as to make them available to non-PLIP.

    not saying this would be a strategic AFF case (haven’t done the research), just arguing that the T debate that gets so caught up in defining “social services” and/or “persons living in poverty” but fails to address the distinctions between FOR (purposed) and TO (directional) could be easily be defeated by a counterinterp that does highlight the differences.

  5. Dylan

    I think they’re Couple problems with exclusive interpretations of for:

    1. 95% of social services target the near poor; This means the only cases allowed are either new agencies or something not grounded in the literature. Forget the aff for a second, try cutting politics links to cases like that, it wont be easy.

    2.Justifies picking ANY social service and putting the word “persons in poverty.” Majority of social services aren’t targeted at the poor — for example, elderly services, there are tons of social services.

    3. Case list anyone/ can anyone create a reasonable list of Squo social services that are exclusive?

Comments are closed.