this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
315 points (97.0% liked)
Politics
1025 readers
1 users here now
@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Again: because there's more PEOPLE than there has ever been. Yes, there is more suffering. I have no idea what you expect, the political climate is such that we can't just eradicate their suffering. But to pretend like these policies are a failure is going to cause more suffering. How do you not see that?
That 20% is the number that aren't suffering because of these policies. If you were to remove them, that 20% is the added suffering you are causing.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not.
Have they accomplished everything they set out to? Absolutely not.
Are they failing? Absolutely not.
See, in my world, percentages are real numbers of real people. I know, that's crazy. And I'm not going to pretend like there's some number that's acceptable, or enough, because that's not the point. The point is that the policies we're discussing have reduced the suffering.
You calling them a lie can only lead to more suffering. Hopefully you realize that some day.
I expect less suffering, just as was promised for the money spent on these programs.
That’s not what’s happening
So then suggest a better plan? Your point is the total number of people living in poverty has increased and that the money we're spending is ineffective. If we do nothing poverty at best stays the same or at worst increases. So, for your argument to make sense, just cutting programs meant to reduce poverty doesn't make sense. Unless you have your eyes on a better plan, your whole position and point here is to whine and cry about government spending without any care for solving the actual problem.
It’s complex for sure, and I’m sure if I had all the answers I’d be in a position to actually propose them.
The idea that handing out money is working is wrong though, I think it should be pretty clear to anyone paying attention that’s the case.
We need to continue creating jobs, in order to do that we need to make it as easy and painless (and affordable) for small businesses to exist and succeed.
We should probably lean heavier into the market in that way, pull regulations back, pull government further out of the markets further out of our everyday lives in general (government isn’t good at …. Anything, really. The less they are involved in my life and you’re the better imo).
There should certainly be some kind of social safety nets, but nothing to the extent as what we have now. You’ll always have people who legitimately cannot work, who do not have family or community to help support them (think children caring for their parents in old age).
Charity would be easier for people to voluntarily give to if their taxes were less. As it stands now, a lot of people feel like if they are already paying 30% of their income to the government to take care of people who need help, then that’s all of a sudden the governments job and not the communities, or the individuals.
People would have a hard time making less working everyday than they might make from the government, but even having a low paying job is growing. You learn how to even have a job, how to show up on time, how to work with others, you learn some sort of skills just being at work and trying everyday.
Many would think relying on family and community and individuals to take care of each other and themselves instead of the government is somehow insensitive, but that’s always been how humans have done it.
There will always be a certain amount of the population who refuse to participate in the system, there isn’t much you can really do about those people. You can’t force someone to live a way they don’t want to live, but for those who want to improve their station in life, you can give them the opportunities to do that by making competition and small businesses more appealing.
Right now, a lot of the issue is that people often don’t feel like it’s ‘worth it’ to get off the governments teat. They lose benefits and have to …. Work. And that’s okay.
But if you look up welfare's effect on poverty you will see in many cases increased spending on welfare leads to decreased levels of poverty. Why get rid of programs that are consistently proven to reduce poverty across many countries?
But the market doesn't fix everything. When a companies interests oppose those of the public we've seen time and time again that a company will opt for the choice that leads to the greatest profits over the interests of the public. Arbitrarily cutting back regulations and letting the market figure things out is a poor strategy. The market hasn't solved this issue already. So, what would incentivize the market to actually help those living in poverty? Keep in mind that businesses already commit more welfare fraud than individuals.
It's not really an either/or situation where you either are poor, unemployed and doing nothing on government benefits, or you have a job and are a productive member of society. There are people relying on benefits who are also working, who know how to show up on time, who know how to work with others, who are working on developing employable skills and so on. There are people who are employed who suck at showing up on time, work poorly with others and are general drains on society.
To drag this point further the majority of households receiving snap benefits already have one or more working members (this figure specifically). It's not like those on benefits doing nothing are absolutely the rule, they're more likely the exceptions.
Yeah, I don't think people are arguing against enabling others to improve their station in life when they argue in favor of things like welfare. The notion that being on welfare implies people aren't trying to improve their station or that they just don't want to work and so on is a big claim that needs real evidence beyond just being asserted to be taken seriously. Even if that is the case, it doesn't successfully argue that we ought to totally dismantle or even reduce welfare systems to begin with, just that we need to better tool welfare systems to incentivize different sets of behavior.