I believe there are certain basic needs that people should have met, regardless of how lazy or irresponsible they are. This includes food, health care, shelter, and education. Everyone should be entitled to a basic standard of living that ensures we have just outcomes in terms of chronic illness, child mortality, and employment and educational opportunities. I believe this in part because all evidence we have indicates that poverty in the U.S. affects a child’s neurological development and diminishes the likelihood of succeeding. I also work in a poor urban neighborhood where some crazy shit goes down, and it kills me the odds these kids are up against. I’m just flabbergasted this shit isn’t on the front page news every day and it’s not in the forefront of political consciousness.
But I digress.
I’m growing increasingly disenchanted with welfare programs. I see no indication that they are effective at pulling people out of poverty. The amount of cash assistance isn’t really sufficient to make much difference financially. While I don’t think fraud is rampant or anything, I can see there are some pretty strong incentives to receive government aid. I’ve read a few studies indicating that people really do become dependent on government aid. I support Universal Health care and a complete overhaul of our educational system as well as some kind of comprehensive housing-first model for the homeless (which research shows is cheaper than shelters.) But if we had those things in place I’d probably vote to do away with cash assistance programs altogether.
My overall political goal would be for fewer people to live in poverty. I really don’t care whether the solution is private or the solution is government-implemented, I just want everyone to have a fair shot at life. Same thing for fixing the educational system. I don’t care how we do it, I just want it done effectively.
As for ‘‘trickle down’’ economics, I’m not completely convinced that giving more money to business owners is a bad idea. I don’t think it would kill some multi-billionaires to pay a little more in taxes, either. I freely admit I have no formal education in economics but it seems to me the right way to go would be… somewhere in the middle. People need help, but not so much help they take it for granted. I recognize as a country we are structured in a very fiscally conservative way, so I’d still be voting Democrat based on fiscal policy.
I know that I am extremely socially liberal (NOT open for negotiation), and I often just describe myself as a liberal, but is what I’m describing a form of fiscal moderatism? Or am I just moving from extremely fiscally liberal to slightly less fiscally liberal? Most of my friends are liberal and they would take issue with some of the things I’m saying here.
What are your impressions? Also, feel free to argue with anything I said.
Just remember, Democrats in this country are fiscally conservative. Republicans are insanely so. So, if you recalibrate that by saying that anything the Democrats support is “liberal”, then it sounds like you are liberal too, in that sense.
That’s one reason social programs don’t help that much, because people with competing viewpoints have say over how they’re implemented and how much of a budget they’re given. Nearly everyone agrees we don’t want children or adults dying in the street, but when it’s pointed out that this must be paid for many become reluctant to give up the needed cash. So the programs limp by on ‘compromise’.
Ok, I should specify I am speaking more in terms of American notions of liberalism and conservatism.
This might very well be an expression of the confusion I’m currently feeling about the best fiscal policies for our country. Perhaps I’m fiscally confused!
You sound like a liberal pragmatist instead of a liberal idealogue. You seem to support liberal end results of more equality of outcome, but fundamentally want the most pragmatic solution even if it goes against textbook liberal orthodoxy (redistribution systems, privatizing schools, etc). If someone could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that supply side economics created tons of decent jobs and that privatizing health care drove down costs I’d be all for it. But the evidence if anything seems to show the opposite.
There have been studies on drunk homeless people, if you give them an apartment and let them drink themselves to death it costs less than having them do it on the street and have tons of police and medical interventions for them (something like 3k a month vs 8k a month if you leave them on the street). On the surface it makes perfect sense financially, but in a decision like that you run into tons of cultural, moral, etc. arguments. It is like harm reduction in the drug war, it makes sense but people don’t like it because they feel it rewards drug use.
Wait now, you think that tax dollars should be used to cover the living expenses of people who are just plain lazy? Leaving aside the idea that people on welfare are lazy (which I do not agree with) I think it’s a mistake to think that simply providing food and shelter for their parents will save any children. What’s more likely is that future generations will learn that work and self improvement aren’t necessary, and so they will create lives of their own on the dole.
Rather than just covering the basics and patting ourselves on the back for being generous, why not push for a system where every citizen deserves more than food and shelter? One where kids are guaranteed good role models and encouraged to become educated and create financially independent lives for themselves? Poor kids from bad neighborhoods have a better chance to move out of poverty if they’re given a map to do so, and even the best paying welfare system doesn’t provide that. A system that allowed you to suffer no consequences for being too lazy to work certainly wouldn’t offer anything close to that.
I’d recommend just ignoring phrases like “fiscally conservative” or “fiscally liberal,” which have very little to do with the issues you focus on.
“Fiscally conservative” started out meaning “favor a balanced budget;” please note that “tax-and-spend liberals” can favor a balanced budget, as long as they tax as well as spend! Unfortunately, “I’m a fiscal conservative” has mutated to mean “I don’t like paying taxes, have contempt for government, but want to pretend I have an intellect.”
I agree. No matter what one’s system of morality, the right-wing urge to let children reap the consequences of their parents’ irresponsibility is despicable.
A key argument against welfare is that it creates a disincentive, but this is true only if welfare is means-tested. Public schools are free to the public – prosperous children can still attend for free (but may afford private schools instead). A similar comment would apply to systems of genuine UHC. One of SDMB’s more intelligent right-wingers agrees with me here, at least in part – Welfare programs should not be means-tested.
(But in post-rational America, just changing a tax rate from 23% to 24% is treated like a Selden’s Crisis, with commentators shrilly blaring out charges of Communism. Don’t expect to see major improvements to social welfare any time soon.)
I don’t even know what “fiscally moderate” even means (or could possibly mean). One either wants smaller government as a policy goal or they don’t. You don’t, so you are a fiscal liberal.
A. Favoring smaller government is not what it means to be a fiscal conservative. It’s not surprising that many are confused about the definition of the term given the state of U.S. Politics, but the phrase refers to whether you want zero deficits or not.
B. Even if that’s your idiosyncratic definition, the moderate version is pretty obviously just wanting slightly smaller or slightly larger government.
Nope. That’s a currently favored strawman version of fiscal conservatism. As in “Sure we raised taxes 2000%, but there’s no deficit, so you should be happy!” No.
Nope. One is either a theist (i.e., they believe in the existence of at least one god) or they are an atheist (i.e., they don’t). There’s no middle ground.
I don’t think people on welfare are lazy. I just said that because it’s a favorite talking point of many conservatives. It’s my way of saying, ''So what?" I’m not in the business of judging others for their life decisions.
I don’t see how these things are mutually exclusive. Any serious effort to improve the prospects of these children would have to involve changes in policy. I don’t favor a system in which people would suffer no consequences if they didn’t work. I just don’t think those consequences should involve basic food, shelter, health care, and education. I do not think these things should be denied to any person, ever, because the simple matter of fact is that without them it is too damned hard to turn your life around. The homelessness one is a good example. Most housing programs for the homeless require them to be drug free before they are offered services. Overcoming an addiction when you are living on the street is damned near impossible. It’s much more likely that someone will overcome an addiction after they have a secure place to live.
What we do at the organization where I work is focus on community building in these areas. We try to create roles for teens where they can act as mentors for younger kids, and we focus on things like leadership and civic engagement. We expose them to examples of people from their neighborhood who have succeeded and become major forces for good. We also work on renovating the areas most affected by blight and decay and exposing these kids to other cultures, so their worldview isn’t so limited by what’s in their backyard. Of course this isn’t a complete panacea - we’ve still got kids being shot in the street. I don’t know what this kind of intervention would look like at a policy level, I’m just saying I think the solution to helping these kids is a lot deeper than just giving their parents money.
I like the idea of a liberal pragmatist. It is true, I am not an ideologue. I’ve just never gotten a straight answer from anyone conservative when addressing issues of poverty. I want to see evidence that something works. If cutting taxes for the rich is what’s best for society as a whole, then why did the Bush-era tax cuts not improve things for everyone? Why did our rates of poverty increase? Why have wages stagnated? Why did deregulation result in economic collapse? I feel like many conservatives just don’t care about the poor. Whenever I try to broach these issues, I just get the same old song and dance about how poor people really don’t have it that bad anyway, and how it’s their fault at any rate. Well, I know better on both accounts.
What is the equivalent of a god in this analogy? Wanting the government to spend just 1 penny less than it is currently spending? “Smaller” government has to be smaller in relation to some standard. Suppose I want just one program eliminated, but all others to remain at their current size? Am I a fiscal conservative?
The problem–and it’s a real problem, I’m not being rhetorical–is that what you just described counts as “wealthy” for almost any time and any place in the history of the world. If basic food, shelter, health care and education–even very basic–were taken care of, lots of people would be content. Hell, a life of very basic material goods–provided they were 100% secure–and a home full of babies sounds pretty good even to me. I can certainly see that as a rational choice. It’s not a lack of stuff that makes poverty miserable, it’s a lack of security.
We need people to work. Not out of any Puritan work-ethic bullshit but because we all need some amount of stuff, and that stuff has to come from somewhere. We can support more non-producers than we could 200 years ago, but we still need a large portion of the adult population to be making stuff. So how do we create incentives to work without threatening the security of having all your basic needs met? I really don’t know the answer to this question. Massive social stigma is one way, but there are problems with public shaming.
It’s a start. I didn’t see any evidence of a causal relationship between work/marriage and poverty, just that these things were indicators of poverty. And I have no idea what they mean when they say they ran “simulations” to come up with their data, however I am interested in learning more about the Canada program that they claim decreased poverty. As I stated above, I don’t think welfare as it is currently structured is really the best approach.
The statement about 1996 welfare reform impacting poverty however, is arguable. TANAF is tied to work, or at least looking for work, but our poverty rates are higher now than they have been in decades. They declined slightly until 2000 but since then they have been rising precipitously. You know, since right around the time of the Bush era tax cuts…
Your citation argues that people wouldn’t be poor if they would just finish school, get married and work more hours. I think it vastly underestimates the complexity of the problem. People in this country do not have equal access to education, marriage is not always the ethical or safe choice, and unemployment rates for minorities are generally twice what they are for whites, indicating that they are at a serious disadvantage when looking for work.
I read an article recently about kids in Philly - 70% of those who had been exposed to violence exhibited symptoms of PTSD. That is a huge percentage - to put it into perspective, I think combat veterans generally have rates of 30% or less. It is estimated that the prevalence rate of PTSD among the general population in certain neighborhoods is as high as 40%. So this is just one statistic - right off the bat you’re wanting psychologically traumatized children and families to behave in the ways you find rational. Then there is the fact that in urban communities, most kids’ academic fate is sealed by the time they leave 8th grade, since the quality of the high school you are eligible for depends upon your junior high performance. Then there’s the sheer luck involved with the lottery system. Then there is the impact of food security on IQ and school performance. Then there are the fourth graders who are being threatened with violence if they don’t join gangs.
Yeah, to say that it’s only a matter of work and education completely misses the mark.
If you want to convince yourself that it’s pure coincidence that people with the same background are poor if they are single but non-poor if they marry, knock yourself out.
Then you must not have read the article. They described what they did in detail.
Wrong. Bush was not President in 2000, and the tax cuts were not fully enacted until 2003.
You are correct that the poverty rate has risen recently, but it correlates with the Democratic takeover of Congress and the election of Obama. If you want to play the game that way…
Let’s see some hard figures from an unbiased source - no “it is estimated”. Hard figures, that show that causality you dispute above.
The Bush tax cuts were not primarily for the rich, 85% of the tax cuts went to the middle class. As to why they did not improve things for everyone, tax policy is only a part of the economy. At the same timeframe there was the end of the internet bubble, the recession of 2000, and 9-11. All of which were blows to the economy. Economic growth came back and was okay after the tax cuts until the great recession hit. Even an optimal tax policy is not a panacea, the economy is just too big and too complicated to blame everything good or bad on the tax rate. The difference is at the margin and at the margin the tax cuts helped the economy.
Why did poverty rates increase? They increased because a stagnating economy hurts the poor the most. That is why economic growth is the best anti-poverty program. Good jobs will cure poverty much better than welfare. Thus in 2000 when the internet bubble burst the poor were hurt the most and the poverty rate climbed for a few years and then stagnated.
Wages have stagnated because most of the increase in compensation has been in benefits. The rising costs of health insurance have eaten up most of the increase in compensation. The economy has also been changing as automation and international competition have increased the demand for knowledge workers and decreased the demand for unskilled labor. The world economy is always changing.
Why did deregulation result in economic collapse? There was no significant deregulation during the Bush years. Sarbanes-Oxley was a significant new regulation that many blamed for some of the sluggishness of the economy. In terms of the mortgage meltdown the only deregulation was the repeal of Glass Stegal during the Clinton administration. That was not a cause of the crisis since it did not affect the ability of banks to invest in mortages and mortgage backed securities. Fannie and Freddie both have their own regulatory agencies which were working the entire time all of the subprime loans were being underwritten and never did anything about it. The only regulatory response to the subprime loan industry was concern over whether enough subprime loans were being offered to poor people.
Conservative care about economic growth, and family values because economic growth and family values are what will help the poor. As you said welfare does not help people escape poverty, and it breed dependence.