Lyin Ryan: govt should micromanage lives of the poor

[Luddly Neddite]

Paul Ryan's New Poverty Proposal Would Have Government Micromanage Poor People's Lives | ThinkProgress

On Thursday, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) released his much-anticipated proposal for reforming the way the federal government tries to alleviate poverty. The core part of his proposal, the Opportunity Grant, would give participating states a lump sum of money rather than funding virtually all the current anti-poverty programs. And states would be instructed to hand that money down to community groups that work with poor people, because, as Ryan writes, “They are more effective than distant federal bureaucracies” and have “intimate knowledge of the people they serve—as well as their ability to take the long view.”

The underlying thesis is that those who are closest to actual poor people will be best able to figure out how to help them. But Ryan fails to take this idea to its end conclusion: that poor people themselves, being the closest to their own situations, are the most knowledgable about what they need to improve their lives. Instead, his proposal calls for low-income people to meet with providers to create a “customized life plan,” a contract that includes goals and benchmarks, as well as penalties for missing any steps.

In describing what this would look like, Ryan outlines the minimum requirements:

• A contract outlining specific and measurable benchmarks for success

• A timeline for meeting these benchmarks

• Sanctions for breaking the terms of the contract

• Incentives for exceeding the terms of the contract

• Time limits for remaining on cash assistance

...

An entirely different approach would take out the middle man of the providers and let poor people decide for themselves how best to improve their lives. This could be done by simply giving money, without strings attached, to the poor. While it may sound radical, there have been experiments that have done just this and found positive results.

In Uganda, the government gave about a year’s worth of income, or about $380, to a group of applicants, and denied it to the other half. There were no conditions on the money, but those who got it invested most of it in “skills and business assets,” ending up 65 percent more likely to practice a skilled trade. Recipients worked an average 17 hours more than those without the money. And compared to the group that didn’t get the cash, those who did saw a 49 percent increase in earnings two years later and a 41 percent increase four years out, indicating that the effects last.

A similar study in Kenya found that after poor families in rural Kenya were given an average of $513 by an NGO, their assets and holdings were 58 percent higher than a control group a year later, incomes were 33 percent higher, hunger was significantly reduced, and their psychological wellbeing increased.

Similar programs in South Africa, Mexico, and Liberia have all found similar results.

 

[Mad Scientist]

The core part of his proposal, the Opportunity Grant, would give participating states a lump sum of money rather than funding virtually all the current anti-poverty programs. And states would be instructed to hand that money down to community groups that work with poor people, because, as Ryan writes, “They are more effective than distant federal bureaucracies” and have “intimate knowledge of the people they serve—as well as their ability to take the long view.”

The underlying thesis is that those who are closest to actual poor people will be best able to figure out how to help them.

That's exactly right.

And with Obama making cuts to the SNAP Program, local control will eliminate needless layers of funds draining management.

 

[Mathbud1]

Paul Ryan's New Poverty Proposal Would Have Government Micromanage Poor People's Lives | ThinkProgress

On Thursday, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) released his much-anticipated proposal for reforming the way the federal government tries to alleviate poverty. The core part of his proposal, the Opportunity Grant, would give participating states a lump sum of money rather than funding virtually all the current anti-poverty programs. And states would be instructed to hand that money down to community groups that work with poor people, because, as Ryan writes, “They are more effective than distant federal bureaucracies” and have “intimate knowledge of the people they serve—as well as their ability to take the long view.”

The underlying thesis is that those who are closest to actual poor people will be best able to figure out how to help them. But Ryan fails to take this idea to its end conclusion: that poor people themselves, being the closest to their own situations, are the most knowledgable about what they need to improve their lives. Instead, his proposal calls for low-income people to meet with providers to create a “customized life plan,” a contract that includes goals and benchmarks, as well as penalties for missing any steps.

In describing what this would look like, Ryan outlines the minimum requirements:

• A contract outlining specific and measurable benchmarks for success

• A timeline for meeting these benchmarks

• Sanctions for breaking the terms of the contract

• Incentives for exceeding the terms of the contract

• Time limits for remaining on cash assistance

...

An entirely different approach would take out the middle man of the providers and let poor people decide for themselves how best to improve their lives. This could be done by simply giving money, without strings attached, to the poor. While it may sound radical, there have been experiments that have done just this and found positive results.

In Uganda, the government gave about a year’s worth of income, or about $380, to a group of applicants, and denied it to the other half. There were no conditions on the money, but those who got it invested most of it in “skills and business assets,” ending up 65 percent more likely to practice a skilled trade. Recipients worked an average 17 hours more than those without the money. And compared to the group that didn’t get the cash, those who did saw a 49 percent increase in earnings two years later and a 41 percent increase four years out, indicating that the effects last.

A similar study in Kenya found that after poor families in rural Kenya were given an average of $513 by an NGO, their assets and holdings were 58 percent higher than a control group a year later, incomes were 33 percent higher, hunger was significantly reduced, and their psychological wellbeing increased.

Similar programs in South Africa, Mexico, and Liberia have all found similar results.

Social experiments from Uganda and Kenya are supposed to show that just giving money straight to poor people with no requirements attached would work here? This is what you are using to attack Ryan's plan? Really?

 

[whitehall]

Bad photos are often the only basis of low information opinions. Ask yourself what your feelings would be if the photo was a heroic version of Paul Ryan. The inconvenient truth is that LBJ's failed "war on poverty" has been the law of the land going on fifty years and it has been proven to be a failure on monumental terms. Ryan is just a Us Representative. The median income of the Middle Class had dropped 6% since Obama took office.

 

[Idadunno]

The problem with that brilliant plan is that government does not provide the jobs needed to lower poverty rates. It also does not control pricing so that those who are working at minimum wage can afford to feed themselves. People on minimum wage are below poverty levels, but the answer is not in raising minimum wage because that also raises prices, which defeats the purpose.
A woman making $2 an hour more than minimum wage cannot pay rent and living expenses. There are no social programs for those women either unless they have children living with them. This applies to women making minimum wage as well. Shelters stay full, or these women live in dangerous situations. I would imagine it is the same for the men.
Another problem with that idea is the assumption that those who will manage the lives of the poor are honorable people. Yes, raise your hand if you are Jesus. "You need more money? You have such a pretty little girl." That opens the door to so many more problems. Really, let us all join hands as we regress a few hundred years.
It is great to say "I have a plan!", but meaningless if it is unrealistic or nonsensical. Government allows the farming out of jobs, constant increase in prices, and then complain when they have to make up the difference with providing for the people. Government's job is to care for the people by providing legislation that serves the people and allows them to live a decent life. They cannot create the problems and then toss the people to the wolves as a simple solution.
Don't dig a ditch and then bitch when it fills up with water after a rainfall.

 

[Stephanie]

lying luddy thinks people like him and his party should micromanage TAXPAYERS so he can just give money to anyone he deems poor, and ask they do nothing for it..

used to be your earned your keep for your bread and butter

not today..how would they use them if they asked them to do anything?