Yes, anti-poverty programs do keep some people poorer than they should be

Kudos to the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof for not only daring to question whether anti-poverty programs might actually harm some people more than they help them, but for doing some on-the-ground reporting about how that happens in specific individuals’ lives. His entire piece from Sunday is well worth reading, but here’s the crux of it:

This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.

Some young people here don’t join the military (a traditional escape route for poor, rural Americans) because it’s easier to rely on food stamps and disability payments.

Antipoverty programs also discourage marriage: In a means-tested program like S.S.I., a woman raising a child may receive a bigger check if she refrains from marrying that hard-working guy she likes. Yet marriage is one of the best forces to blunt poverty. In married couple households only one child in 10 grows up in poverty, while almost half do in single-mother households.

Most wrenching of all are the parents who think it’s best if a child stays illiterate, because then the family may be able to claim a disability check each month.

Charles Murray, about whose book “Coming Apart” I wrote earlier this year (I’ve also previously noted the importance of marriage to ending child poverty, as Kristof did), argues the problems Kristof identifies are due to three laws of social programs, which he describes as:

1. The Law of Imperfect Selection. Any objective rule that defines eligibility for a social transfer program will irrationally exclude some persons [leading them to expand constantly]. …

2. The Law of Unintended Rewards. Any social transfer increases the net value of being in the condition that prompted the transfer. …

3. The Law of Net Harm. The less likely it is that the unwanted behavior will change voluntarily, the more likely it is that a program to induce change will cause net harm [by encouraging more people to engage in the bad behavior in the first place, so that they can profit from making the desired change]. …

Read Murray’s entire comment for a fuller explanation of these three laws. And, yes, the proper emphasis here should be on some people being worse off sometimes — the argument made by most conservatives is not that government should provide no safety net, but that it should not catch and even ensnare people who can and should be responsible for their own well-being. Even marginal increases in dependency have long-term consequences because they accumulate over time — most often as generation after generation within particular families grow up seeing nothing but dependency. Kristof is right to focus on the effects of dependency on children.

Taken together, Murray’s post and Kristof’s column give us an important understanding about the fallibility of even well-intentioned government programs for the poor, and some ways that we ought to think about these programs as we try to end unnecessary dependency and get our nation’s finances under control.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

217 comments Add your comment

DeborahinAthens

December 11th, 2012
5:44 am

It’s sad that a poor young person has a choice to either join the military, with the potential to die in battle, or go on a government giveaway program. Why can’t we spend more money on getting to these kids when they’re in pre-school? Educate them. Why can’t there be tax incentives for corporations that, right now, are swimming in money, to help train kids that can’t and shouldn’t go to college? Our country has slumped into the sea of despondency, seeing all poor people as people who want a hand out. While there are people that game the system, taking from every charity and agency, there are many more that just need a boost. The last twenty years it seems we have stripped away many opportunities that used to be available to lower and lower middle class people.

Karl Marx

December 11th, 2012
6:35 am

The last 20 years? Not hardly, really you need to go back to the late 1950’s to see the change starting. Corporations once had something called apprenticeships but now they rely on government to train their workers for them. Companies don’t want “employees” any longer. Corporations don’t want to provide benefits and soon we all will be considered “Part Time”. That started With ESRIA act of 1974, later NAFTA, and cumulated the (un) Affordable Health Care Act. All corporate welfare and that was all it is.

mountain man

December 11th, 2012
6:40 am

“The last twenty years it seems we have stripped away many opportunities that used to be available to lower and lower middle class people.”

No, a lot of those opportunities are still there, but our “lazy” generation won’t stoop to take these jobs. When my son was sixteen, he made the statement that if he couldn’t make $10 an hour, he wasn’t going to work. ( I said that was fine, but he would have no car, no gas, and no money to go out with – he changed his mind) There are still jobs picking vidalia onions – they are rotting in the fields without people picking them. In Dalton, the carpet mills used to be the source of jobs for the under-educated. Now it is Mexicans. Why? Not because they have decided to pay less – no, because the Mexicans work HARD for the money, and are glad to do it. Our spoiled kids whine and snivel about manual labor.

I once worked for a company that employed manual laborers – many of Mexican descent. We would have a couple of openings and hire a Mexican and an American. After two weeks the American would quit, saying the job was too hard and too dirty. These were GOOD jobs with full benefits. Where were the welfare recipients for these jobs?

Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories

December 11th, 2012
6:43 am

Destroy the person?

What about the Nation that lies in total ruins?

Joel Edge

December 11th, 2012
6:45 am

“ought to think about these programs”
We ought to, but we ain’t. The Democrat party has painted itself into a corner. Even a minor course correction now would fragment the party.

zeke

December 11th, 2012
6:52 am

This is news only to left wing, socialist, progressive, liberals, commies and democrats! They are ignorant of the stupidity of their own political agenda! By trying to coddle everyone cradle to grave, they actually promote poverty and tax away money from the economy just to redistribute it FOR A FAILED AGENDA! The war on poverty has created an ever increasing level of those on poverty! So how do they fix it? They promote more and more of the same failed policies thereby creating more poverty! But, they have also created a larger constituency and brain dead voters for democrats! me thinks that was the purpose and outcome they wanted all along! Does not matter how many are in poverty as long as they vote democrat!

Their policies should be classified as criminal!

Skip

December 11th, 2012
6:56 am

And some go to the hospital and die, is the solution not to go ?

JF McNamara

December 11th, 2012
6:56 am

This is absolutely true, and I would love to see some changes. The problem is that we don’t know the percentage of people that are caught in the web or taking advantage of the system. If its 5%, then we don’t have a problem. If it’s 25%, then we need serious changes. I doubt its that high though.

Either way, I think most reasonable people would make changes if the argument was made in a intelligible manner.

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

December 11th, 2012
7:11 am

“This is painful for a liberal to admit”
——————

No surprise there. Libs generally have a problem with truths that don’t support their various power-grabbing, vote-buying, money-grubbing schemes.

Jefferson

December 11th, 2012
7:11 am

You don’t sound caring, kinda sound greedy.

Jefferson

December 11th, 2012
7:12 am

Mayb selfish not greedy, but not caring.

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

December 11th, 2012
7:13 am

JF McNamara: I think most reasonable people would make changes if the argument was made in a intelligible manner.
———————

The problem isn’t the argument, it’s the counter-argument…”Republicans want to push Granny off a cliff”…”Why do conservatives hate brown people”…etc. Libs are incapable of an intelligible argument when it comes to entitlements.

In any case, the recent election proved you wrong.

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

December 11th, 2012
7:17 am

Karl Marx: Corporations once had something called apprenticeships…Companies don’t want “employees”…Corporations don’t want to provide…
———————-

Wow, do you really rely on corporations to provide for you? Sad. I suppose if the corporations don’t provide, then your fellow taxpayers should? Extra sad.

HDB

December 11th, 2012
7:30 am

Conservatives would have better grounds to affect change if they didn’t persist in calling the poor “parasites”, “leeches”, or “takers”. Conservatives would have better grounds to affect change if they wouldn’t persist in wanting to GUT anti-poverty programs! Conservatives would have better grounds to affect change if they didn’t persist in wanting to eliminate public education and replace it with the theological-based private paradigm which does nothing that indoctrinate rather than educate!!

Granted, there are changed that need to be made in anti-poverty programs; granted, there have been unintended consequences in many of these programs. If you want to affect change, then change the rules so that MARRIED people can partake of the programs….and incentivize it! Focus on job-training and education….which are the pathways to growing the workforce! Get CORPORATE AMERICA to bring jobs BACK to the US by eliminating the offshoring tax break!! THAT’D be the start……

hoodtechie

December 11th, 2012
7:32 am

Congratulations to the Democrats and Young People! You now own it and you can’t blame Bush.
The next terrorist attack you own it.
Can’t get a job after graduation, you own it.
Sky rocketing energy prices due to Obama’s EPA shutting down the energy producing states, you own it.
A nuclear Iran, you own it.
Bowing to Russia, you own it.
Another severe recession, you own it.
A volatile border with Mexico, you own it.
Trouble getting good health care, you own it.
Higher health insurance costs and health care costs, you own it.
No budget, you own it.
Our allies mistrust, you own it.
Another trillion of debt, you own it.
More Benghazi situations, you own it.
No one willing to join the military, you own it.
Trouble getting a loan to buy a home, you own it.
More dependency on food stamps, you
own it.
Trouble finding good employment, you own it.
Several part time jobs instead of a good job, you own it.
A World Government, you own it.
The UN governing the United States instead of ourselves, you own it.
A Senate that will not bring any legislation to the table even if it is “Dead on Arrival”, you own it.
China controlling our world trade trampling all over us, you own it.
Loss of our freedoms as we have known it in the past, you own it.
A dictatorship instead of a democracy that follows the Constitution, you own it.
Less take home pay and higher living costs, you own it.
Driving a car that looks like a toy, you own it.
More government corruption and lies, you own it.
More toleration of extreme and fanatical Islamists, you own it.
Terrorist attacks called work place incidents, you own it.
Your revenge instead of love of country, you own it.
President
George Bush is out of it now, and
there is not another good man for you to vilify and lie about. In a way
I am relieved that another good man will not be blamed when it was
impossible to clean up this mess you voted for. Have a good day. God
bless the United States! God is our hope now.

Georgia

December 11th, 2012
7:33 am

Only three Murray laws? This is such a great example of writing to stir the pot. Mr Kristof has a very pedantic way of describing the despised 47%. If he wants to investigate fraud let him get a job with the watchdogs. The absence of a viable GOP has obligated some writers to speak for them. Where was he during the campaign? Ghostwriters for Romney. These disenfranchised poor people are lucky our laws prevent the Wingfields from acting out these invented vendettas. If this were China those vulnerable folks would be in deep voodoo.

Rightwing troll

December 11th, 2012
7:34 am

Amen mountain man… Amen.

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

December 11th, 2012
7:40 am

HDB: Conservatives would have better grounds to affect change if blah blah blah
——————–

Conservatives don’t run the government…Democrats do.

Where is Obozo’s plan to reform entitlements?

The Republicans have one. Why don’t the Democrats?

Rightwing troll

December 11th, 2012
7:41 am

I love this place… It’s always good for a gut busting laugh. It’s like a clown car, each emerging clown is just a little bit more humorous… I was worried for a while that all of the overt hate and blatant lies told here were indicative of how a majority of Americans felt… But Mittens’ drubbing in the election reaffirmed that our great nation is just that, great. And that a handful of angry, hateful, racist, lying cranks who live to spew their venom and lies on anonymous blogs do NOT represent true Americans…

Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories

December 11th, 2012
7:58 am

The closest definition of selling your soul for pennies without actually getting Lucifer involved in it.

Oh wait, what do obama’s buddies the islamic lunatics call the United States? The “great satan.”

Maybe they’re on to something.

Ivan Cohen

December 11th, 2012
7:58 am

“Some young people here don’t join the military…because it’s easier to rely on food stamps and disability payments.” It seems like it was only yesterday that news stories came out about military personnel having to apply for food stamps to sustain their families because their pay grade put them in the poverty catagory. The aforementioned might have changed through the years but the preception could still exist. Might be possible that the”lazy” generation won’t stoop to take “these jobs” such as picking vidalia onions because they seen as “dead end jobs.” The GOOD jobs with full benefits were mentioned but I found missing was whether there was any GOOD pay to go along with them. Man does not live by full benefits alone.

Thomas Heyward Jr

December 11th, 2012
7:58 am

“most often as generation after generation within particular families grow up seeing nothing but dependency”
.
I read somewhere that Warren Buffet has a solid……….gold………….EBT card.

HDB

December 11th, 2012
8:01 am

Lil’ Barry Bailout – OBAMAPHONE!!!

December 11th, 2012
7:40 am

Excuse me, LBB….but who controls the PURSE STRINGS of the government? The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES….which is run by conservatives!! Who controls the preponderance of state governments? CONSERVATIVES!!

Conservatives plan for entitlements: ELIMINATE THEM, VOUCHERIZE THEM, PRIVATIZE THEM! That’s been the battle cry for over 50 years! That doesn’t work….won’t work!!

If you REALLY wanted to make substantive changes, here’s what you need to say:

1) Reduce the costs of loans for education
2) Maintain a persistent funding source for public education and job training
3) Eliminate the tax incentives of offshoring jobs
4) Allow married persons to use the welfare system rather than de-incentivizing marriage by paying more for singles
5) Eliminate duplication in government services
6) Maintain the current service level for SSI, Medicare, Medicaid…since it’s being paid for by payroll taxes
7) Start repairing the nation’s infrastructure…that would create multiple levels of employment….from high-tech to entry-level
8) Quit depressing the labor market!! People don’t want to work because they make MORE in benefits than in employment!! Make minimum wage and education a more attractive proposition than a welfare check

That’d be a great beginning……

That’ll be the beginning!!

Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories

December 11th, 2012
8:03 am

I love this place too, where else can you witness, first hand, hysterical, guilt ridden, kleptomaniac, angry human trash sell whole generations of people into government slavery, while thumping their scrawny chests proclaiming how much more they “care” than anyone else.

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

December 11th, 2012
8:05 am

HDB, looks to me like your idea of “reform” is to increase spending and dependency!

And your poutrage about conservatives running the House doesn’t square with what we’ve heard in the media and this very blog…Democrats won the election. Well, why don’t they get busy passing the laws and spending the money that Americans want?

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

December 11th, 2012
8:06 am

HDB, can you explain the alleged tax incentive for offshoring jobs?

SBinF

December 11th, 2012
8:11 am

I say end corporate welfare. It breeds generations of companies dependent on government handouts to exist.

How does it go, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander?

Del

December 11th, 2012
8:12 am

The Democrats as a party have been pretty much taken over by the far-left in this country. We have a president that believes more in fostering dependency than he does working toward creating an environment for the American private sector to recover and thrive, so as to create jobs for people rather than safety nets for people. As the federal government continues its uncontrolled growth therefore requiring an ever greater share of the nations wealth the population that’s dependent on government financial assistance will continue to grow. The so called fiscal cliff is a mole hill in comparison to the mountain we could fall off in the not too distant future. Maybe falling off this fiscal cliff could be what’s best for our nation as a far less painful wake up call than the pain should we go off the looming fiscal mountain.

will-o-the-wisp

December 11th, 2012
8:13 am

so what is new here?

HDB

December 11th, 2012
8:14 am

Lil’ Barry Bailout – OBAMAPHONE!!!

December 11th, 2012
8:05 am

You don’t have to INCREASE spending….you have to FOCUS it!!

This nation needs to repair its infrastructure…that is a given!! If we start there, this nation can come back to where we all desire it to be!

The preponderance of poverty is in places like Appalachia where education has been de-emphasized!! Focus on getting educational/job training facilities where they NEED to be!!

Elimination of governmental DUPLICATION would save money….and there is so much duplication….particularly in the MILITARY (start with procurement!)…………

Lest you forget, LBB…ALL governmental appropriations START in the House, changed in the Senate, and merged in conference committee….then re-voted upon by both chambers! Obstruction in the HOUSE is the greatest barrier now!!

Thomas Heyward Jr

December 11th, 2012
8:14 am

I think Arthur Blank might have a Platinum EBT card.
.
I’m not sure.

SBinF

December 11th, 2012
8:15 am

Here we go again Del, with the makers vs. the takers.

Keep it up, you know….since it worked so well last election.

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

December 11th, 2012
8:16 am

And what Democrat proposals to reform entitlements have been bottled up in the House?

Didn’t think so.

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

December 11th, 2012
8:17 am

SBinF, truth doesn’t always do well in elections.

Giving away candy borrowed from the Chinese does, apparently.

Thomas Heyward Jr

December 11th, 2012
8:18 am

Hey HDB———–while you are designing your Obamatopia—————–dig this——————————–
.
..If “Progressives” Didn’t Exist, Big Business Would Have to Invent Them
by Kevin Carson ———————————
“My favorite, for sheer liberal naivete, is the highway system, “created for all of us to use”: “That’s right, a republican president created our taxpayer funded, national highway system. This was a different time, before the republican party came down with a vicious case of rabies that never went away.”

Would this be the Interstate Highway System created under the supervision of Defense Secretary (and former General Motors CEO) Charles Wilson, famous for the phrase “What’s good for America is good for GM?” The main effect of the Interstates was to lower the cost of distribution, artificially increasing the size and market area of the typical firm, and enabling national big box chains to drive local retail out of business. Or the local freeway systems, the top priority of local governments owned lock, stock and barrel by real estate developers? These subsidized freeway systems are the main culprit behind suburban monoculture, sprawl, and the car culture.

Farm subsidies? Only the most naive goo-goo thinks the USDA serves any interests other than those of Monsanto, Cargill and ADM.

Public schools and prisons? The first state public school systems were created in the 19th century to produce factory workers conditioned to show up on time, line up on command, eat and pee at the sound of a bell, and take orders from authority figures behind desks. Their primary purpose is to process children into docile human resources sufficiently skilled to undertake the labor demanded of them, but not educated above their station in life.

When the schools fail at creating an easily manageable work force, the criminal justice system takes over in maintaining social control. Thanks to the Drug War, one of the most potentially radicalizable segments of the population — inner city blacks — are kept under tight surveillance (something like one third of black males are entangled in some component of the criminal justice system). The United States has a larger prison population than China, much of it providing slave labor for corporations.”
.
lol

HDB

December 11th, 2012
8:19 am

LBB…..here’s part of it!

….from USA Today:

“At issue is the U.S. tax code’s treatment of profits earned by foreign subsidiaries of American corporations. Profits earned in the United States are subject to the 35% corporate tax. But multinational corporations can defer paying U.S. taxes on their overseas profits until they return them to the USA — transfers that often don’t happen for years. General Electric, for example, has $62 billion in “undistributed earnings” parked offshore, according to recent Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Drug giant Pfizer boasts $60 billion. ExxonMobil has $56 billion.

The deferral clause has been in the tax code for more than half a century and has outlasted numerous reform efforts. In April 1961, even as U.S.-backed rebels were dying at Cuba’s Bay of Pigs, President Kennedy asked Congress to rewrite tax provisions that “consistently favor United States private investment abroad compared with investment in our own economy.”

In 2004, the Democratic nominee for president, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., railed against “Benedict Arnold” corporations that exploited the tax system to outsource jobs to low-wage countries such as India.

Now, with ever-larger volumes of capital surging across national borders, corporations’ foreign earnings are emerging as part of a broad Democratic critique of globalization. States such as Ohio, where Clinton scored an important primary victory on March 4, and Pennsylvania, which votes April 22, have lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs in recent years. Trade agreements and a tax code that encourages corporate flight are to blame, many Democrats say. “We’re going to close every tax loophole that still gives one penny of your tax dollars to any company that exports a job,” Clinton promised last month.

From 2000 through 2005, U.S. multinationals eliminated 2.1 million jobs at home while adding 784,000 to their payrolls abroad, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. At the end of 2005, the most recent statistics available, U.S. corporations employed almost 9 million people outside the United States.

Whatever the employment impact, the deferral provision is costing the U.S. government money. A new study published in Tax Notes this month concludes that multinationals shifted almost $50 billion in income to low-tax countries in 2004, depriving the government of $17.4 billion in tax revenue. To recoup some of the lost cash, Congress in 2004 allowed corporations a one-time opportunity to repatriate profits at a special 5.25% tax rate. In 2006, corporations paid $354 billion in federal taxes.”

SBinF

December 11th, 2012
8:20 am

“SBinF, truth doesn’t always do well in elections.”

Indeed, Rmoney and the like lamenting the 47%…..this “maker” cast a ballot for Obama, as did millions of folks like me. I don’t suppose you got the implication, but insisting to insult those who don’t support your philosophy is a sure way to descend into irrelevancy.

Skip

December 11th, 2012
8:24 am

Why do you call the Ronnie Raygun phone an Obama phone?

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

December 11th, 2012
8:26 am

I didn’t–an Obozo receptacle did. I merely adopted the language of the left.

Darwin

December 11th, 2012
8:27 am

Let’s add corporate welfare to the list. If corporations didn’t have the government to help sell their products overseas and give them the subsidies and tax write offs they currently get, maybe they would be more competitive in the global marketplace. To try and justify the elimination of safety net programs by trotting out some examples of negative result;, shows the true nature of the conservative movement. You have never been able to accept the New Deal. To you, government is a tool of the rich and the powerful. The constitution of “for the people” doesn’t mean everyone. 47% was not a statement made inadvertently.

HDB

December 11th, 2012
8:29 am

Thomas Heyward Jr

December 11th, 2012
8:18 am

Intriguing….I don’t agree with a lot of what was said, though!!

Georgia

December 11th, 2012
8:30 am

Entitlement reform? Good luck. Man its hard to text on a mobile ajc smartphone. The stupid thing “corrects” your text, and replaces entire words that it thinks you should have used! Texting software has been written by a clown act for the ages. We can’t edit every single mobile spelling over-ride that texting programs have built in. Especially if were multitasking while we’re multitexting.

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

December 11th, 2012
8:30 am

I didn’t think you’d be able to articulate it in your own words, HDB.

Did you know that the U.S. treatment of foreign profits is the same as most every other industrialized nation? Of course, our corporate tax rate is higher than every other country, so our corporations repatriate less of their profits than other countries.

If we want to put our corporations even further at a disadvantage than we already do, we can adopt the proglodyte approach and tax foreign profits at the U.S. rate. I’m sure that will create LOTS of jobs here in the U.S.! Not.

Ex-Mountain Woman

December 11th, 2012
8:33 am

Mountain Man “In Dalton, the carpet mills used to be the source of jobs for the under-educated. Now it is Mexicans. Why? Not because they have decided to pay less – no, ”

I grew up in Dalton and worked for a summer at one of the factories before starting college. I was considered unskilled and my job was pulling scatter rugs off a conveyor at the end of a latex spray oven. Today, those jobs still exist in Dalton and to get even money to what I was paid, the jobs would have to start at $10.47 per hour. I have family in Dalton and I KNOW FOR A FACT that those low skill jobs do not pay anything near that. So you are wrong about why the jobs are being filled with immigrants rather than those lazy mountain folks who do not want to work for a living. It is always about keeping wages and benefits low and profits up. Not that there is anything wrong with profits, but let’s at least be honest about it.

Del

December 11th, 2012
8:33 am

The ignorance on the left is indeed something to behold. First they think that they’ve won a mandate for a socialist state and are having multiple cerebral orgasms in celebration. Obama actually lost support in his reelection and the national vote was a mere two point margin. The difference was getting the uninformed voters to the polls in the swing states where many wouldn’t have otherwise bothered to vote. Next they go on as though we don’t have a looming debt crises. They think everything can be solved by continuing to raise taxes on 3 percent of the population and spending it on stimulus programs that fail and on growing financial assistance programs that only increase our national poverty. Talk about brainwashed people approaching a brain dead condition.

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

December 11th, 2012
8:33 am

Darwin: To [conservatives], government is a tool of the rich and the powerful.

FDR: “Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect”.

FDR was a conservative? Who knew!

Uncle Billy

December 11th, 2012
8:44 am

Nicholas Kristof’s column was very insightful. But keep it separate from Charles Murray’s “Laws.” With better design the malign consequences of the current design of SSI could be avoided. Appalachia has been a problem for many years. It was JFK’s reading of Michael Harrington’s “The Other America” which launched the anti poverty programs of the 1960’s. Is the only response the kind of purposeful cruelty as seems to be recommended by people like “Lil’ Barry? Eliminate the New Deal. Every man for himself and the Devil take the hindmost.–What would you propose Kyle?

Taxed Enough

December 11th, 2012
8:49 am

“Disability” is becoming a joke. Anybody who has a couple bad days can be declared bipolar and get signed up for disability. And yes, I do know several who have done just that. Their checks just keep rolling in. And they are all in their twenties, so the checks will be rolling in for a long time.

carlosgvv

December 11th, 2012
8:50 am

For some reason, there will always be a number of hard core poor people who will not respond favorably to any social experiment to bring them out of poverty.

That has been the reality for many years now.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

December 11th, 2012
9:06 am

Here is the key line in Kyle’s post:

“…can sometimes…”

So, we scrap all social programs and rely on the church and the tax-break deductions tied to charitable giving? Give me something – whether it be eternal life or a tax cut – and I will help these poor poor people.

That whole bible chapter where Jesus got his tax breaks too, that chapter was lost?