New study shows welfare prevents crime, quite dramatically

[mastermind]

Reality keeps lining up with our takes against the pro-corporate establishment.

History is alive

Find out more about the shows on Sky HISTORY's TV channel, with plenty to read and watch on your favourite historical topics.

www.history.com

Clinton-era welfare reforms haunt America's poorest families, critics say

Hillary Clinton’s support of 1996 welfare law thrust into 2016 election after Sanders attacks reforms for driving up number of people living in deep poverty

www.theguardian.com

Not just Clinton, liberal and governors mayors throughout the 80s and 90s were on that "lock 'em up" shyt while ignoring poverty.

 

[acri1]

No doubt.

But Americans tend to vote against social safety net policies because they see them as benefiting other groups more. I can't see studies really changing that.

 

[Hood Critic]

Good observation...but unless those individuals are mentally handicapped, they can work at McDonald's or something.

In my experience, they don't want to work a 9-5. I know a guy that's scamming instead of working at Amazon making $18 an hour.

This assumes there are enough low paying jobs to go arorund.

 

[mastermind]

No doubt.

But Americans tend to vote against social safety net policies because they see them as benefiting other groups more. I can't see studies really changing that.

They didn't for a very long time. When neoliberalism and corporations defeated the labor movement in the 70s and 80s, that's when things changed. You can see a correlation between the decline in union membership and social safety net attitudes changing.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

No doubt.

But Americans tend to vote against social safety net policies because they see them as benefiting other groups more. I can't see studies really changing that.

As @mastermind points out they once favored it, even in the 1960s at the height of the Civil Rights Movement when the money going to "those black people" would have been at the top of everyone's minds. Even after 40 years of Millard Fillmore, Reagan, Clinton, trickle-down and neoliberal propaganda, strong majorities still support taxing the rich more, and a clear majority of Americans (including most independents) believe that the current wealth distribution is unfair. It's not difficult to get support for social safety net policies if you frame it right. Even Reagan signed off on the EITC. The biggest issue isn't American opinion, it's a combination of the corporate backing of our two parties and the uneven political representation that allows minority rule.

I don't think the solution would be increasing welfare as currently designed, which still can risk certain perverse incentives, but rather replacing welfare, SSI, and the EITC with a more robust Universal Basic Income for pre-SS individuals, perhaps even with a marriage incentive rather than penalty.