HappySqurriel said:
Most social spending is well intentioned but misguided efforts to change outcomes without addressing the conditions that led to these outcomes. The reason this approach is taken is that it is politically easier. For example, creating an economic environment where households with 1 or 2 individuals working full time can cover their basic expenses with adequate cash left over for small luxuries is much more difficult than giving out food-stamps to those individuals who can't achieve this. |
Any well intentioned aspects of it are tied to placating the guilt of society regarding the poor. The intention is to try to make the problem go away. End result is that it doesn't go well. In short, people feel guilt and want the government to do something about it, or try to do something about it. Well, at least they want it done, and a politician then campaigns on it.







