> we are seeing the ill effects of how public policy BY THE MAJORITY adversely affects all those in the minority.
That is true. But not in the way I think you meant it. The majority has made a political choice to implement a much weaker safety net than is needed end poverty. Our safety net full of holes is far from the best we could do.
> It is a problem caused from the US being a welfare state. It pays more to be homeless.
On the contrary. It's a problem caused by not enough welfare state.
People are homeless because programs like Section 8 are underfunded and horribly means-tested. To get public housing you often have to sit on a waiting list. And many people who need public housing can get kicked off the waiting list for a whole range of stupid reasons. More funding and less means-testing would get more people off the streets. Section 8 would be a better program if it was made unconditional, funded at rates which tracked with demand (to prevent waiting lists), or if it were simply replaced by an unconditional basic income.
A similar issue exists for people experiencing food insecurity. SNAP too is means-tested. Many people who qualify don't sign up because they're worried they don't qualify. Others can't get past the paperwork. If the program were universal and unconditional - if everyone had a SNAP card regardless of income, people wouldn't starve.
Those are clear ways in which more welfare state would totally end poverty. But we've made a political choice not to care because the majority of us are insensitive to poverty.
That is true. But not in the way I think you meant it. The majority has made a political choice to implement a much weaker safety net than is needed end poverty. Our safety net full of holes is far from the best we could do.
> It is a problem caused from the US being a welfare state. It pays more to be homeless.
On the contrary. It's a problem caused by not enough welfare state.
People are homeless because programs like Section 8 are underfunded and horribly means-tested. To get public housing you often have to sit on a waiting list. And many people who need public housing can get kicked off the waiting list for a whole range of stupid reasons. More funding and less means-testing would get more people off the streets. Section 8 would be a better program if it was made unconditional, funded at rates which tracked with demand (to prevent waiting lists), or if it were simply replaced by an unconditional basic income.
A similar issue exists for people experiencing food insecurity. SNAP too is means-tested. Many people who qualify don't sign up because they're worried they don't qualify. Others can't get past the paperwork. If the program were universal and unconditional - if everyone had a SNAP card regardless of income, people wouldn't starve.
Those are clear ways in which more welfare state would totally end poverty. But we've made a political choice not to care because the majority of us are insensitive to poverty.