> The "all poor people are personally irresponsible" argument
[1] I am almost certain I did not make that argument. Rather, people are responsible for their actions - no one else.
> It's pretty cold to tell the minority that actually is sympathetic
[1] Again, your logic seems flawed here. "You did everything right?" According to whom? The majority? That is a very my myopic viewpoint. Your entire argument proceeds to tell me what I said when in fact, that is clearly not the case.
> Protecting people from other people sounds like a great way to describe a government-guaranteed lifestyle floor, such as a universal basic income, or some other combination of safety net programs that are aimed at unconditionally ending poverty with no means testing...
[1] To be honest, you are making some broad assumptions here. You mention means testing, please explain.
[2] Personally, I feel like you are saying a lot of pretty, flowery things here, but what ("It") would protect you from what exactly?
[3] "Against your will?" Are workers not currently being forced against their will to work? Are Mexican immigrants who flee Mexico to work at the wineries in Southern California not being forced to work against their will?
> because policymakers we elected set it up that way. So, yeah, basically majority rules.
[1] And where do lobbyists fit into this equation? Is it really "public" policy if a majority is deciding what is best for the minority? Doesn't this contradict your argument above: "That protects poor people from other (richer) people pretty effectively." What about liberals from conservatives, right vs left, christians vs muslims, LGBT vs straight, white vs black, etc. You see my point here...it is not the governments responsibility to police people but rather the responsibility of people to police themselves. Yes, there will be outliers, however, we are seeing the ill effects of how public policy BY THE MAJORITY adversely affects all those in the minority.
> I would argue that San Francisco is an excellent study in what can happen when a majority...
[1] Insensitive to poverty? San Francisco is a sanctuary city and as such has laws in place to protect the rights of those who are homeless, illegal, etc.
[2] You can't have it both ways. When you do (as with the case of liberalism) you argue where it makes sense in one context and fail to see how those actions directly impact policy across the board.
[3] In my opinion, it is not a policy problem. It is a problem caused from the US being a welfare state. It pays more to be homeless.
> we are seeing the ill effects of how public policy BY THE MAJORITY adversely affects all those in the minority.
That is true. But not in the way I think you meant it. The majority has made a political choice to implement a much weaker safety net than is needed end poverty. Our safety net full of holes is far from the best we could do.
> It is a problem caused from the US being a welfare state. It pays more to be homeless.
On the contrary. It's a problem caused by not enough welfare state.
People are homeless because programs like Section 8 are underfunded and horribly means-tested. To get public housing you often have to sit on a waiting list. And many people who need public housing can get kicked off the waiting list for a whole range of stupid reasons. More funding and less means-testing would get more people off the streets. Section 8 would be a better program if it was made unconditional, funded at rates which tracked with demand (to prevent waiting lists), or if it were simply replaced by an unconditional basic income.
A similar issue exists for people experiencing food insecurity. SNAP too is means-tested. Many people who qualify don't sign up because they're worried they don't qualify. Others can't get past the paperwork. If the program were universal and unconditional - if everyone had a SNAP card regardless of income, people wouldn't starve.
Those are clear ways in which more welfare state would totally end poverty. But we've made a political choice not to care because the majority of us are insensitive to poverty.
[1] I am almost certain I did not make that argument. Rather, people are responsible for their actions - no one else.
> It's pretty cold to tell the minority that actually is sympathetic
[1] Again, your logic seems flawed here. "You did everything right?" According to whom? The majority? That is a very my myopic viewpoint. Your entire argument proceeds to tell me what I said when in fact, that is clearly not the case.
> Protecting people from other people sounds like a great way to describe a government-guaranteed lifestyle floor, such as a universal basic income, or some other combination of safety net programs that are aimed at unconditionally ending poverty with no means testing...
[1] To be honest, you are making some broad assumptions here. You mention means testing, please explain.
[2] Personally, I feel like you are saying a lot of pretty, flowery things here, but what ("It") would protect you from what exactly?
[3] "Against your will?" Are workers not currently being forced against their will to work? Are Mexican immigrants who flee Mexico to work at the wineries in Southern California not being forced to work against their will?
> because policymakers we elected set it up that way. So, yeah, basically majority rules.
[1] And where do lobbyists fit into this equation? Is it really "public" policy if a majority is deciding what is best for the minority? Doesn't this contradict your argument above: "That protects poor people from other (richer) people pretty effectively." What about liberals from conservatives, right vs left, christians vs muslims, LGBT vs straight, white vs black, etc. You see my point here...it is not the governments responsibility to police people but rather the responsibility of people to police themselves. Yes, there will be outliers, however, we are seeing the ill effects of how public policy BY THE MAJORITY adversely affects all those in the minority.
> I would argue that San Francisco is an excellent study in what can happen when a majority...
[1] Insensitive to poverty? San Francisco is a sanctuary city and as such has laws in place to protect the rights of those who are homeless, illegal, etc.
[2] You can't have it both ways. When you do (as with the case of liberalism) you argue where it makes sense in one context and fail to see how those actions directly impact policy across the board.
[3] In my opinion, it is not a policy problem. It is a problem caused from the US being a welfare state. It pays more to be homeless.