Through a package of proposed reforms to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF, the administration plans to shore up the U.S. social safety net. The regulations are intended to ensure that more federal and state welfare dollars make it to low-income families, rather than being spent on other things or not spent at all.
The proposal, drawn up by the federal Administration for Children and Families, is open for public comment until Dec. 1. Once comments are reviewed, officials plan to issue final regulations that could take effect in the months after that, heading into the 2024 election.
I don’t get this reasoning. Whether some problem is the “direct” or “indirect” consequence of poverty does not matter for whether poverty reduction programs like TANF are effective. It’s a non sequitur.
You imply that improving the delivery of social supports like TANF will not be effective at helping the poor (who are, after all, the direct cause of their own problems in your experience!). But other rich countries with better social safety nets enjoy much better outcomes for the poor than the US. It’s strange that you criticize a systemic change to the delivery of welfare to the poor for not being “complex” or “systemic”. I’m not sure how blaming the poor for their problems is more “complex” or “systemic”. On the contrary, that’s highly individualistic and moralizing.
Oh, yes it does. TANF is a band-aid on poverty; it does not address the systemic issues that poverty creates at all.
With respect, I don’t think you’re using that phrase correctly.
I’m not blaming the poor, and if you think I am, you haven’t understood my comment at all. Other countries that have done better in terms of outcomes for the poor achieve those outcomes for a variety of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with government programs but rather culture or societal homogeneity. A lot of countries in Europe enjoy relative ethnic homogeneity compared to the United States and other countries, and champion their success falsely upon the neglect of the fact that they haven’t had to deal with the issues that stem from having a multi-ethnic population. Just look at the Netherlands and what happened to their celebratorily tolerant society when they started admitting Islamic immigrants into their population: they experienced culture clash and began isolating immigrant groups into effective camps to “educate” them in order to ease social conflict. In other words, mixing cultures always results in social conflict, and governments tend to abuse the newcomers to those conflicts out of a legitimate desire to preserve their own culture above that of the newcomers’. Egalitarians like to think acclimation is a neat process, but it’s anything but. It’s hard and difficult and messy, and there really isn’t any good solution to it. It requires continued empathy and tolerance, and willful assimilation by the newcomers; if there is resistance from assimilating populations, such as ghettoization, cultural conflict and violence are an inevitability. So, immigrants are sometimes part of the problem. That’s just the way it is.
Ah the mask comes off!
You’re actually claiming that the better outcomes of other countries has “nothing to do with government programs”?? Literally nothing? Even a hyper conservative rightwing ideologue, if they are intellectually honest, would admit that government programs have some effect. Such black and white thinking.
You say it has to do with “culture and societal homogeneity”? I’ve heard this racist dogwhistle before. And sure enough you go on to blame immigrants as “part of the problem”. Contrary to what you say, immigrants to the US commit fewer crimes than non-immigrant Americans. Contrary to conservative stereotypes, immigrants to the US fare very well on most metrics.
When you say “societal homogeneity” and lack of immigrants, how do you explain Canada, which is one of the most racially and culturally diverse countries in the world, more so, in fact, than the US? Canada has way more immigrants per capita than the US, and Toronto has about the same proportion of black people as LA. Canada has many more Muslim immigrants. And yet, poor people in Canada have much better outcomes than the US. Crime is a fraction of what it is in the US across the board. Universal publicly funded healthcare, one of the best public education systems in the world, and, as of a decade ago, a direct cash transfer program to poor families have all lowered the poverty rate. It is insane to claim that this has “nothing to do with government programs”, and that Canada is such an alien and different culture to the US.
I am not the cartoon monster you’re so keen on fighting, but I think you’re the type that looks for windmills to joust at online. I’m not interested in engaging in a pointless debate with someone who has already decided I’m evil. Go play Hero somewhere else.
I didn’t say you’re evil. Let’s not focus on hurt feelings. You made specific claims, and I gave arguments against them.
Better outcomes have nothing to do with government programs. That is an extreme position. I have never heard anyone endorse it with a straight face until now. Obviously, no economist left, right, or centre believes anything this extreme.
Immigrants cause problems in the US. The data does not bear this out. In the US, they commit fewer crimes and there’s no evidence that immigrants treat their children worse or educate them poorly. This is just false.
Other countries do better due to culture and societal homogeneity. I gave you a concrete counter example of a country that is as similar to the US as possible in almost every way. In fact, Canada is more diverse, and has more immigrants. And yet, the outcomes are much better across the board.
If you’re being intellectually honest, you should be willing to modify your beliefs based on argument and evidence, not just double down.