[jdminhbg]

This would be a more convincing argument if government assistance to the poor were in the form of some kind of UBI that its recipients could actually use as they wanted, rather than the current situation where it's a hodgepodge of social engineering programs filtered through layers of patronage jobs for administration.

[wolverine876]

> it's a hodgepodge of social engineering programs filtered through layers of patronage jobs for administration

Can you back that up? I know people who were in poverty and very much support many of those programs as lifesavers. It's wealthier people, who have no experience of them, who I see disparaging them.

Also, the criticism is cliche - I haven't seen much evidence of it. While nothing is perfect, the civil service in most advanced countries, including the US, are not patronage jobs; they are protected from such hiring and firing corruption. I know civil servants and they did not get the job through patronage and take their public service and professionalism very seriously. It's very easy to smear all those people in a few words.

[jdminhbg]

> very much support many of those programs as lifesavers

That doesn't really address the issue though, does it? Food stamps are better than nothing, but they do not in fact allow recipients to spend the assistance as they see fit.

It's fine to be in favor of social engineering programs, but it's not consistent to then complain that philanthropists' charity comes with strings attached. The government's charity does as well.

[wolverine876]

> It's fine to be in favor of social engineering programs, but it's not consistent to then complain that philanthropists' charity comes with strings attached. The government's charity does as well.

I don't know what you mean: This doesn't seem to fit the common definition of social engineering, or we could call stop lights and tax forms social engineering; so I can't say I'm in favor, against, etc. And 'strings attached' is much too vague, as everything has strings attached (e.g., legal requirements); the question is the degree and who the strings serve.

[jdminhbg]

I mean in the sense that it's not cash assistance to the poor; instead, it's the government saying "these are the things you need to buy" and providing a voucher system for those particular things. You cannot decide that you want to economize on food and spend half your SNAP benefits on liquor, and so you cannot decide that you want to economize on food and spend half your SNAP benefits on a car repair to upgrade to a better job that you'd have to drive to.

> we could call ... tax forms social engineering

Tax forms are obviously social engineering. The government incentivizes (having kids, having a mortgage, saving for retirement, charitable giving) and disincentivizes all kinds of things via the tax code.

[wolverine876]

I think that stretches the definition of social engineering to the point of meaninglessness. Everything government (or other powerful actors) does or doesn't do will influence people one way or the other. One could also say that we don't limit SNAP spending, we enable it or certain items. The money also can't go to building supplies.

[lmm]

> a hodgepodge of social engineering programs filtered through layers of patronage jobs for administration

That's somewhat true as a description of the average government programme, but it's far more true as a description of the average 503c.