
The Myth of Welfare’s Corrupting Influence on the Poor - __Joker
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/business/the-myth-of-welfares-corrupting-influence-on-the-poor.html
======
projectileboy
Getting average citizens worked up over welfare is a standard way for the
extremely wealthy and powerful to distract those same average citizens from
noticing where their tax money gets squandered the most - large corporate
subsidies, infrastructure projects that benefit the richest neighborhoods, and
so on, and so on. The largest welfare programs I know of are unneeded weapons
systems, which very intentionally subcontract work out to nearly every
congressional district in the land (see the B-2 as an example).

~~~
snarfy
The amount paid to corporate subsidies is pretty obscene:

[http://imgur.com/ttNcwHA](http://imgur.com/ttNcwHA)

~~~
legutierr
Is this accurate? It basically says that middle class people spend six times
as much paying for corporate subsidies than they spend paying for things like
defense, welfare payments, medicare, etc., combined. The fact that the
information is conveyed using a poor-quality jpeg screenshot of an
unattributed infographic from two years ago, however, does not inspire
confidence.

The two sources at the bottom of the graphic are redirected to the following:

[http://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/09/23/add-it-
average-...](http://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/09/23/add-it-average-
american-family-pays-6000-year-subsidies-big-business)

[https://www.whitehouse.gov/2014-taxreceipt](https://www.whitehouse.gov/2014-taxreceipt)

It looks like this claim is based on aggregating direct subsidies, inflated
profits enabled by government mandates and protections, and lost tax income
resulting from preferential tax policies and tax shelters.

~~~
IkmoIkmo
No it's not accurate. I mean hell, $7 of your $50k goes to welfare? That's
0.014%. In reality, depending on what you want to call welfare (republicans
like to call everything welfare and pretend it's bankrupting the country in
order to scale it down, for example, so you have wildly different definitions
in the political spectrum) it's around 5-8% of GDP. So this is just laughably
inaccurate. Defense spending of $250, in reality it's closer to $2k.

Then there's the corporate subsidies, they're more interesting because they're
not necessarily wrong. Perhaps this number is but in general they're very
high, but not in the way people normally think about subsidies. I see numbers
thrown around all the time with murky definitions and it's misleading.

For example, the IMF did a study that showed $5.3 trillion in oil subsidies
worldwide. Gigantic number, consider world GDP is $75 trillion, US a little
under $18 t.

Now I'm sympathetic to the study, agree with it, and think we should take that
number seriously and do something about it. I also think it constitutes a form
of subsidy.

But it's a bit misleading to say this means we're all paying thousands of
dollars to corporate subsidies on this basis from our actual paycheck. There
are different forms of subsidies and there's value in not muddying the
semantics too much.

What the study measures are externalities that aren't priced in. A person dies
in motorised traffic? You can combat it by pricing that into the price of oil.
A climate change related natural disaster happens, or we have to pay for CO2
cleanup, or healthcare costs rise due to oil-industry fumes causing lung
cancer somewhere, you can price all of that in. Not pricing that in is a form
of subsidy, but it's not like we take thousands of dollars from our pay check
and send it to the companies to support them, very little money goes to these
companies, the issue is we don't extract enough from them that we should once
we look at the damage they cause, and this is technically a subsidy. The IMF
measures the missed revenue from taxing fossil fuels at a lower range than it
should if it prices in all externalities.

Yet I've seen renowned green energy pundits in my country (the Netherlands)
talk about these $5.3 trillion subsidies as if we're sending that money to
corporations every year. I'm completely on their side, yet I don't think this
is helpful, there's too much misleading information thrown around.

~~~
projectileboy
You bring up many excellent points. There are worthwhile corporate subsidies,
just like there are worthwhile social "welfare" programs. I've known many US
citizens who criticized "welfare" (i.e., food stamps for the urban poor), who
were perfectly happy to pick up unemployment checks. My original point wasn't
really to criticize all corporate subsidies per se, but simply to point out
that when US citizens criticize "welfare", it's often a result of their having
been cynically manipulated away from focusing on their own real interests.

------
err4nt
I grew up in Canada and went to school with rural kids, military kids, and
french kids. My family wasnt in poverty but we didnt have many of the nice
things others had.

Around grade 5 I began to notice how we never had money for a TV, but all the
welfare kids I knew had TVs in their rooms. i noticed how I had to do chores,
work, save, and help neighbours to afford to buy a game console and video
games, and all my friends on welfare had every system and every game.

I would wonder why my lunch had an apple in place of their Fruit Rollups and
Cookies. One kid even got a pack of starbursts in his lunch every single day,
if I was lucky, he would share or trade one with me.

Now that Im an adult I can see that my parents priorty with their limited
finances were GOOD food, GOOD clothes, and the necessities we needed for
success.

I kind of wonder how many kids that grew up on welfare are packing Fruit
Rollups in their kids lunches today, how many welfare kids walk around with
iPhones when lower middle class families cant afford it, etc.

It has been my observation in Canada that what seems to work with cash
assistance is a cushion to break your fall, not an IV dripping just-enough to
not have to work.

Where I lived you also had to prove you were applying for work to stay on it,
but if you got a minimum-wage full-time job you would lose your welfare but
not have as much money, so of course everybody's parents applied as often as
they needed to, only went to work when they absolely needed to, and quit as
soon as they possibly could to regain or keep the welfare status. And of
course they modelled this to their kids.

So I do think welfare can totally short circuit personal success, Ive seen
many lives reduced to manipulating a aystem instead of becoming something
beneficial to others. Its sad but I believe its human nature

No matter how much assistance you provide, it cant be so much that it
disincentivizes you from rejoining the work force without facing a 'penalty'.

~~~
rayiner
Look at it this other way: is there something we could afford to provide for
the cost of those TVs and iPhones that would ensure a good chance of those
people lifting themselves out of poverty? If the answer is yes, then you've
discovered a game changer: for a few thousand dollars per person, we could end
poverty! The government should just buy those things for people directly and
watch the magic happen.

If the answer is no, then it's stupid to complain about poor people buying an
iPhone or TV. It's calling for a meaningless gesture of piety. They're not
making those purchases in lieu of something that would advance their
condition.

~~~
mikeash
What if there is such a thing, but it only works if the people themselves do
it, not the government?

For a concrete example, it seems to me that one thing that helps people get
out of poverty is having some savings. Being poor is expensive, often because
large expenses compound due to financing, late fees, or even just an inability
to make bulk purchases. Having a financial cushion can make life a lot
cheaper. But there's no way (that I can see, anyway) that the government can
provide such a cushion for someone who wants to spend it right away on
irrelevant stuff.

~~~
rayiner
The few thousand dollars you might save not buying a TV or cell phone isn't
going to do shit to get you out of poverty. You can't save your way out of
being poor a nickle and dime at a time.

~~~
mikeash
It means you can stop wasting money on buying necessities constantly in small
quantities, not pay massive interest on credit cards or payday loans because
your needs a sudden repair, etc. Will this solve the problem? Surely not for
everybody. But a big problem (even if far from the only problem) with getting
out of poverty is that it's a trap because it's so expensive to be poor.

~~~
Frondo
Except it doesn't mean that. It means that when you have $300 in the bank
instead of buying a cheap TV set, and suddenly your car needs $500 in repairs,
you're _still_ going to a payday loan place, except you're on the hook for
$200 instead of $500. Still paying the fees, still stuck in the let's-rip-off-
the-poor cycle, except you also don't have a tv set.

I know, I know, now you'll say "well you're poor, what do you need a tv set
for, you should sit in your dank apartment with just the road noise for
entertainment," and that's where the compassion kicks in: these folks are
poor, they're not animals, and if TV lets them be less miserable, it's about
as cheap a way to do so as is reasonable.

~~~
jazzyk
Except that sitting all day watching TV is CERTAIN to keep them on welfare for
the rest of their lives.

Perhaps buying them books instead would work better? Community colleges are
very inexpensive, there are state grants available to the poor. Why not create
incentives to learn a skill/trade, perhaps a degree?

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you
feed him for a lifetime"

~~~
jazzyk
Instead of down-voting a relevant, on-topic comment, please provide a counter
argument.

------
xacaxulu
I was born into a single parent family in a trailer park. I worked my way out
of that situation including serving in the US Marines in order to pay for
college. Even coming from a background that should have led my family to use
welfare (mom was too proud and cleaned houses instead) I tend to lean more
towards the idea that welfare and the nanny state in general hurt more than
they help. The CATO Institute does a lot of research into this.

[http://www.cato.org/blog/how-welfare-state-traps-poor-
depend...](http://www.cato.org/blog/how-welfare-state-traps-poor-dependency-
british-version)

~~~
lazyant
Some may argue that the US military is a big provider of welfare, handing out
"fictitious" jobs to almost anybody in a "socialist" way.

~~~
xacaxulu
I'm very aware of this argument and even agree with it in some cases. I will
say that it's still 'work' in a very real sense. In my case, it was the most
respectable ways for me to earn my way out of poverty and eventually have
enough money for college.

~~~
justifier
but do you see the subjectivity of your opinion?

> was too proud

> the idea that welfare and the nanny state in general hurt more than they
> help

> the most respectable ways

you are placing your own morality on other peoples' choices with definitive
and hostile rhetoric

you speak of pride, respect, and hurt, but have you examined these ideas for
yourself?

perhaps someone on welfare is more proud that they stayed out of the military,
an entity often acting as a machine of violence used to enable politicians'
often dubious goals

perhaps someone on welfare thinks it is more respectable to accept aide from
others than support military effort

perhaps someone on welfare thinks it is less hurtful to accept aide from
others than to accept work supporting goals that often lead to direct hurt
being inflicted on others

so, by your own criteria those accepting welfare are in the right as well
because they are: too proud to join the military, think it is more respectable
to stay out of the military, and think the military causes hurt more than
welfare

i think it's dangerous to question a person's character lest you be prepared
to have your own questioned

------
tremols
I think that either the author got it wrong, or its just cheap socialist
propaganda.

Corruption is not about buying alcohol and tobacco or avoiding work, it is
about becoming dependent on nanny estate to a point of:

a) blindly supporting the populist politicians even if they are corrupt.

b) ignoring the consequences of unsustainable public spending like debt and
inflation. (Again, while corrupt bankers and bureaucrats become richer
creating a greater inequality).

------
tonomics
>Many governments have economic advisers with degrees from the United States
who share the same ideology

He's right, but the ideology is social democracy, not free market capitalism

~~~
abalone
Hey guess what? Silicon Valley is a product of massive amounts of government
funding too.

DARPA's budget is about $3B this year alone. You can thank Uncle Sam for
autonomous vehicles, Siri and the Internet, to pick just three.

So if investing taxes in people isn't "free market capitalism" then neither is
the tech industry.

~~~
orangecat
_DARPA 's budget is about $3B this year alone._

Compared to $10 billion in R&D for Microsoft and Intel and $8 billion for
Google: [http://fortune.com/2014/11/17/top-10-research-
development/](http://fortune.com/2014/11/17/top-10-research-development/)

~~~
abalone
...in late stage development which is MUCH less risky. Super risky early stage
tech development mostly happens in the public sector at taxpayer expense
through government agencies like DARPA.

~~~
zo1
A lot of things are easier when it happens with _other_ people's money. A lot
of those projects didn't necessarily have the expectation to make/turn a
profit.

------
bko
> no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs discourage work

The article might as well be titled: "The Myth That Those in Lower
Socioeconomic Classes Respond to Incentives".

Maybe it's true, but I think a higher bar has to be set to disprove a
fundamantal building block of modern economics.

------
nraynaud
I come from a country where the thinking is that people gets minimal helps for
the government in exchange for them not voting for the nazis, like the Germans
did (that's the shorter, but I think it's fair). Every country has its story
and point of view on welfare.

I just hope they don't go too American here, because I have not been employed
in the last 3 years.

------
jorge-fundido
When I was growing up and mom on welfare (80's & 90's), there was a
disincentive to work harder: the more income earned, the less the subsidy at
roughly a dollar per dollar. I believe that poverty is not seen as a problem
by our nation's leaders but instead an opportunity to exploit & control the
masses.

------
caseysoftware
Money in politics corrupts!

Money in the financial markets is evil!

Money in health care taints decision making!

But money going to poor people? Nah, there are no downsides at all.

If money encourages bad behavior and poor decision making, then it shouldn't
apply in _all_ of these situations?

Or alternatively, maybe it's not the money at all but the people themselves?

------
damagedcake
Just because there's "no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs
discourage work" doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Speaking from personal
experience there is a whole branch of my family (and it's spread over 3
generations now) that lives off of gaming the welfare system (and suing
people...that's how they get money...oh and one is an illegal alient). Note
that I am not saying we should abolish welfare or even that the problem is
widespread, but that the problem is real.

------
PythonicAlpha
Given, there is a corrupting influence of undeserved money on people ...

Something similar would be interesting to know (but I guess, will never be
researched):

How corrupting is the influence of state-money poured into many industries of
western nations, because those states want to support their own big industries
(like military industry, energy, ...) and are lobbied into doing so ... the
result: Money goes on and on into the same corporations, but small companies
get nothing.

------
jostmey
The cash assistance programs being cited were carried out in poor countries,
from what I can tell. Maybe that works in a country where you never have
enough. I'm not sure the results apply here to the United States.

I could not disagree more with the title, based on my own observations. I
mean, aren't most of the people in this country poor because of mental illness
or addiction?

~~~
chongli
_I mean, aren 't most of the people in this country poor because of mental
illness or addiction?_

No! They're poor because their parents were poor or because they grew up in a
poor neighbourhood and lacked access to a proper education.

This article highlights one egregious myth but far more pernicious is the one
you just highlighted: that poverty is a personal or moral failing rather than
a lack of opportunity.

It's really simple: people are poor because they don't have enough money.
Don't let yourself fall into the Just-World Fallacy.

~~~
merpnderp
"lacked access to a proper education". How does that explain Washington DC
with the highest levels of funding per child in the country? Every kid has
access to a well funded school with well paid teachers.

I think it's easier to defend the claim that the kids lacked guidance and
support to take advantage of the education provided for them.

In the US a single mom who homeschools, with only a high school education,
will have her child place in the top 70% of public school kids.

Parental involvement is so important, it's the only factor that matters.

~~~
msbarnett
> lacked access to a proper education". How does that explain Washington DC
> with the highest levels of funding per child in the country? Every kid has
> access to a well funded school with well paid teachers.

Education funding in the US is _wildly_ uneven. Spend some time visiting
inner-city schools. They are not even _remotely_ "well-funded".

Property-tax driven school funding formulas ensure that richer areas have
much, much better funded schools than poor areas.

~~~
rayiner
Inner city public schools are some of the most well-funded in the county.
Washington DC is almost entirely "inner city" public schools (I.e. Almost all
the student population is low income) and has the highest per student
spending.

The wealthy suburb of DC where I grew up spends $13,500 per student per year.
That's a lot less than DC or Baltimore or Chicago, all of which have 70-85%
low-income students, and only moderately more than Philadelphia, which is also
almost all "inner city" schools.

~~~
pen2l
So what's going on then? Exactly how are inner cities misusing funds, and what
are wealthy suburbs doing right that they're able to get such bang for their
buck?

Also, are you certain that wealthy suburbs are spending that little? I know
some rich families in NYC who are sending their kids in high school to schools
that ask above $50k. It's a straight pipeline to Ivy league, and from what I
understand there are good reasons this high school asks $50k -- they have top
of the line 3d printers, souped up computers, etc.

~~~
jazzyk
I wish people would understand that it is not ONLY about the money. I live in
an affluent suburb, our high-school is 40 years old, the roof is leaking, etc.
A few inner-city schools are brand new, modern, etc.

Yes, teachers are better in my town - but the most important difference are
the role models. IN my town most families are professional couples, typically
doctors, executives, etc. Kids are expected to not only go to college but good
college and then continue on to graduate school, to at least match their
parents' status. None of that, sadly, is at work in inner city families. It is
a difficult problem and not something that money alone will fix.

------
eivarv
I thought it was already widely known that this was a myth – it's not like it
was ever backed by a substantial amount of research, or even a particularly
convincing argument.

It also has the typical characteristics of demagoguery.

------
sageikosa
So why not charity? Why must helping the poor be a government function?

~~~
Futurebot
That's because it doesn't work on a large scale. It especially doesn't work
during periods of crisis:

[http://www.democracyjournal.org/32/the-voluntarism-
fantasy.p...](http://www.democracyjournal.org/32/the-voluntarism-
fantasy.php?page=all)

[http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/30/business/la-fi-
hiltz...](http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/30/business/la-fi-
hiltzik-20140330)

[http://www.salon.com/2009/03/16/turse/](http://www.salon.com/2009/03/16/turse/)

------
tsotha
Whenever I see a NYT headline that starts "The Myth of...", I know whatever
they're pooh-poohing is true.

------
kaa2102
Corporate welfare has a corrupting influence on democracy and capital markets.

------
ethagknight
Wait, confused how Bush brainwashed and manipulated evangelicals? The linked
article discusses the Bush whitehouse reaching out to constituents. Are
evangelicals really easy to brainwash?

~~~
rdtsc
> Are evangelicals really easy to brainwash?

Yes they are. They are in a way pre-brainwashed by their leaders so using just
the right rhetoric you can get them to act as a block and get them to do your
bidding. They also have a nice property that they congregate in large
megachurches, you really just have to convince the pastor to preach your
agenda, and you instantly got thousands of voters.

Here is an excerpt from the link:

"President Bush made his famous comment that his favorite political
philosopher was Jesus Christ because he changes your heart, I was a little bit
surprised by that. Surprised, because presidential candidates usually do not
make specific sectarian references to their beliefs. …"

Note, Bush Jr wasn't the only one who realized and exploited the potential.
The AIPAC (Pro Israel Lobby) is also using Evangelicals.

[http://www.aipac.org/connect/communities/yourchurch](http://www.aipac.org/connect/communities/yourchurch)

^ The strategy is pretty clear. Identify pastors of megachurges and cater to
them.

Here is an excerpt from AIPAC's mission page:

"Pastors and other significant community leaders have amplified their voices
by inviting elected officials to speak about the U.S.-Israel relationship in
church, organizing parlor meetings with members of Congress to lobby them on
pro-Israel legislation and participating in AIPAC’s annual Policy Conference."

I have seen the effect first hand, it was very effective. An elderly relative
was a member in one of those churches. Maybe 20-15 years ago they couldn't
show you where Middle East was on the map. And all of the sudden within 5
years they somehow started talking about supporting the state Isreal and their
house filled with trinkets built by settlers as "thank you"s from thousands in
donations she sent over there and so on. It was a bit baffling, at first. Then
I watched one the sermons by her pastor once (she had a recording) and it
become clear what's happening.

~~~
damagedcake
Evangelicals aren't any easier to brainwash than so called "Progressives,"
Libertarians, White people, Asian people, Athiests, Republicans, or any human
being categorized by any social group, demographic or other criteria you want
to pull out. That said, just like all human beings they can sometimes be
deceived, blinded by bias or just not put enough thought into their beliefs.
'Because, you know, we're human just like you and everyone else here.

~~~
rdtsc
One strike against them is they already believe in some magical deity who
created Earth in 7 day or some such thing. That serves as a singal to other
"predators" if you wish that means "I am easy to manipulate". Just say a few
words about Jesus and they'll follow. Look at some of the quotes he used and
language. It was very effective. Also, another plus, unlike other religious
groups they already belong to large congregations, that makes it easier.

> they can sometimes be deceived, blinded by bias or just not put enough
> thought into their beliefs

Sure but just more so than others. Looking back it seems Bush Jr's campaign
manager knew who to target and what to do. Maybe he was stupid, but people
working him weren't. Didn't mean they couldn't have some kind of tea party
following or something along those lines. But why work harder when you don't
have to...

~~~
damagedcake
"Evangelical" is a pretty broad term. You seem to have cherry-picked some sets
of beliefs and characteristics to support your belief.

For example, not all evangelicals are young earthers. Also not all, and
probably not even most, attend the type of megachurch you keep talking about.

"Just say a few words about Jesus and they'll follow" is another straw man.
There are plenty of Christians who wouldn't identify as evangelical who also
will try to use the words of Jesus to their advantage. Even Bernie Sanders
tried that tactic recently. I somehow doubt he's going to get a wide swath of
evangelical support.

Belief in God is not the same thing as giving up rationality; which you seem
to indicate. That's a common bias a lot of people have.

I think your post says more about you than the large group of people you want
to stereotype and marginalize.

~~~
rdtsc
> For example, not all evangelicals are young earthers

It was just an example.

> There are plenty of Christians who wouldn't identify as evangelical who also
> will try to use the words of Jesus to their advantage

Agreed. Used in the context of elections it is clear what the purpose was.

> Belief in God is not the same thing as giving up rationality; which you seem
> to indicate. That's a common bias a lot of people have.

It is one of the indicators. Most of all it is an indicator that they will
probably listen and follow whatever the pastor of the megachurch suggests.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter if I think they are rational or not,
but that those in power who need to mobilize their vote need to think. Think
of it as getting the lowest bang for your campaign buck. Who do you appeal to?
They are a nice group, and it clearly worked!

Obama did the same thing, so I am not really playing for the Democrat's team
or anything, liberals can be easily manipulated. Obama campaign for Hope And
Change for example was awarded AdAge award.

[http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-
market...](http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-marketer-
year/131810/)

That's an award given by a marketing agency for best marketing campaigns.
Usually given to Apple, Nike, Coke and so on. Well in 2008 Obama got the
prize.

> I think your post says more about you than the large group of people you
> want to stereotype and marginalize.

The fact that that group was used and used by a large lobbying group and that
Bush's campaign kind of support my idea though. It is not much of a
hypothetical.

Even the most conservative sources and Evangelicals themselves talk about
being betrayed and used by Bush. I don't know what other evidence we'd need:

[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121384/jeb-bush-not-
favor...](http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121384/jeb-bush-not-favored-
evangelical-leaders)

After all the promises and talks about Jesus they are wondering what happens
to outlawing abortions, why weren't same sex marriages stopped and so on. That
is what they were waiting for based on promises. Instead it was all about
handouts to the military industrial complex.

~~~
damagedcake
That's a very reasonable response for the most part, thank you. I still take
exception to the terminology "brain-washed" and the general premise. Your
point about Obama's advertising award actually makes my case for me. In that
sense, I could very easily make the claim that 50% of our country had been
"brain-washed." In fact, many people in more conservative parts of the
internet would make that kind of statement; and they would be wrong too. It's
a derogatory phrase.

As for betrayal...yes, of course. That explains a lot (not all) of what is
going on in the Republican primaries this year. Unfortunately, politics nearly
always involves compromise to achieve common ground. Also unfortunately,
evangelicals generally don't have a belief system that adequately addresses
politics in the setting of a democracy or republic.

Here's an interesting thought expirement...if 10 years down the road the
African-American vote left the Democratic party...would one go around saying
they had been "easily brain-washed"? Such statements would probably be
challenged (and should be) just as I've challenged it here.

------
JupiterMoon
> The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank –
> dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free
> markets and peace.

So no agenda there then.

~~~
bigforbritches
Agenda or not, data-driven or not, thoroughly studied or not, authoritative-
backers or not it all boils down to how people feel about welfare.

All else is largely pencil-pushing. If you want to shape economic policy that
is sustainable & impactful, it has to make a large allowance for how people
_feel_ about welfare.

Let me elaborate.

You can make well-reasoned arguments and appeal to the sound nature of people
and hope that they will understand & internalize your case for welfare. You
can back it up with scores of studies that have data stretching multiple
decades. You can provide touching anecdotes that tug at the heart strings. You
can do all that and yet people will not have a change of heart for more than a
fleeting moment.

I will give you an account of how workaday people - sensible people - really
think about welfare and handouts in general.

For this, I will stick to America & Americans although this could easily be
extrapolated to other parts of the world.

I strongly believe that most non-welfare dependent ( & even most welfare-
resenting ) Americans are like me. For this purpose let me also exclude the
portion of the population that are impetuously dismissive of the "freeloaders"
and "deadbeats". Including them would not be helpful here.

Having said that I think most sensible Americans are fine with some form of
"public assistance" ( lump into this whatever forms of unearned perks,
benefits, allowances, tax breaks, subsidies etc that the government lavishes
on the low income or even some middle income people ) for those people who
have fallen on hard times.

Most sensible Americans are also fine with those same forms of "public
assistance" being bestowed upon those same sections of the public for even
extended durations of their lifetimes. I think sensible Americans get that the
ill effects of an impoverished childhood & other social curses can stretch for
the better part of a generation, if not more.

What most sensible Americans won't stand for is when those benefits are still
lavished on those sections of the society even when those previously
disenfranchised people are now, well, no longer beggared.

Take the case of San Francisco.

It is not uncommon to find yourself dining at a restaurant where your fellow
diners constitute a good chunk of these previously beggared classes.

You think ,"good for them."

It is not uncommon to find them shopping at upmarket home furnishing stores.

You think,"hmm...okay..they share my taste in rugs."

It is also not uncommon to find them gushingly sharing photos & videos of
their fantastic vacations to Iceland or Namibia.

You think, "I wish I could take a month away from work. Well, perhaps next
year."

It is not uncommon to find your kids struggle to stuff their applications to
the same top tier colleges as these previously beggared classes who are
suddenly competing with your flock, to be one among the lucky 6% or 7% that
constitute the incoming class at a Yale, Columbia or Harvard.

Now you think, "screw all these welfare programs for deadbeats and moochers."

That's what it all boils down to.

Everyone's fine with handouts until it starts to get too close to home.

Your entitlements end where my feelings of hurt begin.

We can differ on the degree & scale but that's the general sentiment of most
sensible workaday Americans.

~~~
rdtsc
Except it is not that simple. People have opinions about welfare without even
interacting with individuals taking advantage of it.

Have you directly stopped and talked to those people buying rugs? Or at a
restaurant? Are you sure they are not just hipster kids wearing second-hand
clothes but who might work at Google or have a rich daddy with a trust fund?.
Maybe you did, but I doubt it.

So a lot of opinions and "feels" people have about welfare is what they are
_told_ to have. By their parents, teacher, media, friends, TV, magazines,
movies, etc.

I lived with a conservative family for many years, and I was of firm opionion
that welfare queens are everywhere wasting pulblic's money and that's where
all out taxes were. It was a very sincere and string opionion. But it was put
in not head not my socializing with "welfare queens" but by White Middle Class
Americans, who also didn't really socialize much with welfare recipients, but
instead listened to Fox News all day every day.

So to make story short, it is about the "feels" but the feels are often easily
updated/manipulated/used by whomever you let control your thought processes.

~~~
JupiterMoon
The OP's post when read carefully was actually a lot more nuanced than you
give her credit for.

~~~
rdtsc
Can you expand a bit on that?

~~~
JupiterMoon
> Most sensible Americans are also fine with those same forms of "public
> assistance" being bestowed upon those same sections of the public for even
> extended durations of their lifetimes. I think sensible Americans get that
> the ill effects of an impoverished childhood & other social curses can
> stretch for the better part of a generation, if not more.

This stuck out for me.

I got the impression that she has mixed feelings about assistance programs but
recognises their importance whilst wanting them to be applied fairly.

~~~
rdtsc
Thanks JupiterMoon!

Yeah I agree with that point they made. I just didn't explicitly say it. I
should have probably.

What I focused on was the idea that it often boils down to a feeling. And I
agree with that too, but I wanted to point that it is important how people
arrive at those feelings.

GP showed some example, but I didn't find those convincing. I think a lot of
what people believe and think gets acquired and filtered through 3rd party
sources (media, friends, parents, teacher etc). And even though a lot of
people have strong feelings about welfare, they might not have gotten those
from their own experiences.

And then of course there are whole industries (marketing, pr, propaganda)
whose goal is manage feeling, perceptions and ideas in others.

Anyway, to recap I didn't disagree with their main idea, just wanted to expand
on one part of it.

------
akallio9000
Just the photo alone made me facepalm. Why buy a riding lawn mower for five
times the price of a basic push mower that would easily mow a trailer park
lawn in 10 - 15 minutes?

~~~
baobabaobab
You're looking at a piece of equipment that can be used to generate income,
maybe that's what it's for. It also could have been cheap/broken/free, and
they intend to flip it.

