1: There were several concrete suggestions there. It's not mere "concern trolling".

2: Ending wasteful or very low value-add spending vis-a-vis "better outcomes for the poor" is useful regardless. Whatever your priorities, we can allocate those resources better.

3: Just because the economic and social woes of the poor are tough problems that admit of no easy solutions does not mean that we cannot speak frankly about the nature of the problem. Yes, the issues are substantially genetic and, to lesser degree, cultural. Today people with sub-par cognitive skills (not to mention other issues) have limited market value, which leads to unemployment and lower incomes, which further encourages social breakdown (above and beyond that which we'd otherwise find), which leads to other problems. Deluding ourselves about the nature of the problem isn't going to get us any closer to helping the poor.

So it's a moral argument of what you want to do with the "genetic inferiors" and how much resources you actually want to allocate helping them. That would require making a judgment call about their utility curve.

Got it.

"Genetic inferiors" is your phrase, not mine, pal. I do not quite think of it in those terms and I am not advocating that we end the welfare state in its entirety. Quite the contrary actually, realistically assessing the evidence has lead me to be significantly more sympathetic to non-market remedies of various sorts. The main idea I am trying to communicate here is that if you actually want to help the poor, instead of just protecting your ideology from information not congenial to your world view, you are best advised to grapple with the evidence.