Welfare done correctly: a pretty good idea.

[Byrthnoth]

The American dream is based on the assumption of significant social mobility. Failure to advance is seen as a personal failure and those at the bottom of the pile are assumed to be trash and unworthy of pity or help. In fact, as the article shows, the assumption of significant social mobility is false. Social mobility is limited by education level, childhood nutrition, and a variety of other factors that are both unequal and correlated with parental income level. Anyone who has thought about this would agree.

In order to make the "American dream" a reality, we have to use social programs to give children an acceptable starting place. Good nutrition and health (including prenatal), good education (as high as they want to go), and a safe place to grow up. Without that, many children are damned to failure before they're old enough to vote.

Some more privileged people certainly do invest a lot of time in improving their children's personal chances. Private schools, tutors, instrument lessons, etc. This can't and shouldn't be stopped, as it may be the parents' motivation for working hard. I'd rather have a system where a few people are a little extra prepared than a system that wastes a large fraction of its population to malnutrition, violence, and educational failure at a young age.

[Ksandra]

kids cheat on tests, the school system doesn't work.

[aurik]

Don't say that too loudly, you already elected to congress a heap of people who want to abolish the Dept of Education.

[ZarakiKujata]

Gun's can be misused to kill innocent people, they should be banned too.

Spoiler: show

oh.

Spoiler: show

wait that would never happen

[Darus Grey]

I like how we always discuss the cost of these programs, when they almost universally generate a net return, even in the US.

As someone pointed out, once you strip the outright facade of "Fiscal Responsibility" it becomes an entirely (im)moral argument.

To which I say, Who cares? They clearly generate net tax revenue, why would you be against making money?!

Seems almost un-american.

[#686578]

Because I legit dont know, how exactly do they produce a net profit.

Is it just poor people have more money, poor people spend more money, higher GDP?

[Darus Grey]

Because I legit dont know, how exactly do they produce a net profit.

Is it just poor people have more money, poor people spend more money, higher GDP?

Homeless people never produce anything of worth(typically), they eat money and never return any. Most people who receive welfare eventually get off it and become productive members of society(crazy I know), productive people pay taxes(even just sales tax if they're still poor), and the lifetime gain in tax revenue from assisting them exceeds the cost to do so. Last I knew about $1.34 per $1.00 spent.

There's also the "jail" effect. Taking welfare away from poor people makes them something like 2000%(made-up, it's really high is all I remember) more likely to commit felonies for sustenance. It costs $50,000-$100,000 a year to keep someone in jail, but only $10,000~ to give them an "acceptable" quality of life.

Ultimately it is really simple to see that welfare programs ultimately save money and as this article is claiming, even make it over the long-term. Ours makes it as is, if we tied it to merit, we'd see an even bigger increase.

[Skyylya]

I'm all for helping people. But in order to qualify for welfare you should have to have your tubes tied.

[Rhinox]

I'm all for helping people. But in order to qualify for welfare you should have to have your tubes tied.

Dumb

[Olo401]

Most people who receive welfare eventually get off it and become productive members of society(crazy I know)

Someone's never been to Appalachia.

Edit: Or Derock's house.