So the argument is that by creating (e.g.) a fixed-income, everyone that makes use of it will by definition become hopelessly dependent on it? I think that the

So the argument is that by creating (e.g.) a fixed-income, everyone that makes use of it will by definition become hopelessly dependent on it? I think that the parent post was arguing that cutting social programs disproportionately affects African-Americans. I see it this way. Taking away assistance that people are currently relying on is guaranteed to hurt them. Giving someone assistance with the goal of keeping them dependent on it forever seems less likely to have the intended affect. How do you guarantee that people don't use the assistance to better themselves? If the goal is to keep a group of people down, as a whole, this doesn't seem like a very effective strategy.