3 ms·

I think the insulting part is the subtle insinuation that the money is more likely to be used to buy drugs/alcohol than for the purpose of feeding the recipient

I think the insulting part is the subtle insinuation that the money is more likely to be used to buy drugs/alcohol than for the purpose of feeding the recipient or otherwise helping them out of poverty. Even if 50% of recipients go buy drugs with the money, does it really matter? It probably costs more to enforce these conditions than the percent of funding that would go to drugs. It also creates bureaucratic overhead at the point of distribution. Further, it’s unlikely enforcing criteria even filters out more drug users than non-restricted payouts do. These criteria are unlikey to be mutually exclusive with drug use. Someone can take drugs and also check all the boxes to meet the “criteria.” Given this consideration, it is clear that attaching conditions to a payout contributes little to no marginal gain in savings or efficency of individual outcomes. But as other comments note, the conditions themselves are beneficial to both the recipient and those around them. If one person gets preventive healthcare who would not have otherwise, isn’t that a good outcome? Is it a better outcome than if one drug user does not seek or get access to disbursements? Perhaps a better solution would create tiered payouts that get higher the more conditions you meet. The lowest payout would have no strings attached, but higher payouts would be available to those who fulfill certain criteria.

jstarfish 9y ago
> I think the insulting part is the subtle insinuation that the money is more likely to be used to buy drugs/alcohol than for the purpose of feeding the recipient or otherwise helping them out of poverty. > Even if 50% of recipients go buy drugs with the money, does it really matter? The libertarian dream, however the unfortunate reality is that where the money is supposed to do things like feed your children, you instead squander it on drugs. If the presumption of drugs is too harsh, replace it with something equally stupid like cigarettes, lottery tickets, rent-to-own furniture or some other predatory service that the poor disproportionately participate in. This is not a behavior beneficial to anybody or worth enabling. This is why we have systems like food stamps (disbursements that can only be spent on food), WIC (disbursements that can only be spent on fresh vegetables, baby food/formula, etc) and so on. Handing cash to people who don't know how to use it responsibly does not spontaneously teach them otherwise.
- icantdrive55 9y ago
  How about harsher regulations on the predatory businesses? Yes--I know regulations are not liked. Rent-to-own is basically extorsion. My biggest gripe is the payday loan type companies. Oh yea, federally insured banks should be required to cash checks, without a consumer being a customer. We have so many laws/regulations that protect businesses; While the poor have the BBC. This is not the America I put my hand over my heart as a kid. I ashamed at what we have become.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Banning that stuff doesn't solve anything except the guilt of the middle-class. People use payday loans because nobody else lends them money. If you want to help them, offer them loans with better conditions, and you'll see most of those payday shops go out of business.
- bcoates 9y ago
  Both Food Stamps and WIC are USDA subsidy programs for agriculture and food manufacturers. They require you to buy the particular things subsidized to ensure that the funds are directed to the right recipients in the correct ratio, not because of any particular human need.

jstarfish 9y ago

> I think the insulting part is the subtle insinuation that the money is more likely to be used to buy drugs/alcohol than for the purpose of feeding the recipient or otherwise helping them out of poverty. > Even if 50% of recipients go buy drugs with the money, does it really matter? The libertarian dream, however the unfortunate reality is that where the money is supposed to do things like feed your children, you instead squander it on drugs. If the presumption of drugs is too harsh, replace it with something equally stupid like cigarettes, lottery tickets, rent-to-own furniture or some other predatory service that the poor disproportionately participate in. This is not a behavior beneficial to anybody or worth enabling. This is why we have systems like food stamps (disbursements that can only be spent on food), WIC (disbursements that can only be spent on fresh vegetables, baby food/formula, etc) and so on. Handing cash to people who don't know how to use it responsibly does not spontaneously teach them otherwise.

icantdrive55 9y ago
How about harsher regulations on the predatory businesses? Yes--I know regulations are not liked. Rent-to-own is basically extorsion. My biggest gripe is the payday loan type companies. Oh yea, federally insured banks should be required to cash checks, without a consumer being a customer. We have so many laws/regulations that protect businesses; While the poor have the BBC. This is not the America I put my hand over my heart as a kid. I ashamed at what we have become.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Banning that stuff doesn't solve anything except the guilt of the middle-class. People use payday loans because nobody else lends them money. If you want to help them, offer them loans with better conditions, and you'll see most of those payday shops go out of business.
bcoates 9y ago
Both Food Stamps and WIC are USDA subsidy programs for agriculture and food manufacturers. They require you to buy the particular things subsidized to ensure that the funds are directed to the right recipients in the correct ratio, not because of any particular human need.