Certainly some things to think about but the main problem I have with the article is that it lists statistics (many of which are obvious) and assumes cause and effect without sufficient evidence. For example,
There is no discussion of any other factors that may have contributed to this condition. It simply assumes it must be caused by social welfare.Originally Posted by article
This is a rather obvious statement (no job = poorer) but they gloss over how social programs are mainly responsible for this.Originally Posted by article
Once again, it is obvious that a two parent family is more economically viable than a one parent family, still they fail to relate this to social programs. It also implies that economics are the only factor in whether people should be married and presumes that people must be married in order to get any of the economic benefits.Originally Posted by article
No one honestly believes dropping out of school, not working, and having kids are paths to financial success. They may choose that path for many different reasons but thinking it is the road to riches is not one of them.Originally Posted by article
After a few paragraphs of trying to convince us that Republicans care about poor people (could have done without the politicking), the writer finally gets to some suggestions for moving forward:
I think this is worth considering and he actually provides some evidence that it may have worked to some extent. However I worry that allowing the states to keep any extra block money is an incentive to provide less service for those who need it. I would like to hear a more robust discussion of this option before accepting or refuting it.Originally Posted by article
Lol