Just a hint, the people causing this dysfunctional state of affairs are probably not the ones who are trying to expand government benefits to cover as many people as possible.

1. Drag their feet until Democrats reluctantly agree to include something guaranteed to cause dysfunction (uneconomic means testing, perverse incentive cliffs, adverse selection, etc).

2. Point at the dysfunction they created as a reason to kill the program.

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to #2 if I didn't see so much #1.

But according to TFA, this $2000 policy limit has been in place since 1989. What have the Democrats done? Have they not been in any position of power in the last 30 years?

Probably they have just also sat around and blamed the other party too. Sick of this passing the buck bullshit that literally gets nothing done.

* The 1993 - 1994 congressional term[1], during which they tried and failed to do healthcare reform, but succeeded in passing bills for medical leave, NAFTA, gun control, violent crime, taxes, and education.

* June 30, 2009 - February 4, 2010 (72 working days total)[2], during which they passed a major healthcare reform bill, the Affordable Care Act.

From 1981 - 1992, 1995 - 2008, and 2011 - 2020, Republicans have held the presidency or at least one house of Congress. During 2009-2010 and 2021-present, they have also abused the Senate filibuster to obstruct almost the entire Democratic agenda, with the goal of making the public perceive Democrats as ineffective. (As you have seen for yourself, it worked!) In the current term, the Democrats have a bare 50%+1 majority, which means that the most conservative Democrat (usually Joe Manchin of West Virginia) effectively has a veto.

On top of that, the Supreme Court has been controlled by Republican partisans since 2006, when Samuel Alito was appointed. Currently there is a 5-vote majority of extreme Republican partisans. This creates an additional Republican veto point for effectively any Democratic legislation.

One can (and should) criticize the Democrats for not ending the filibuster when they had the chance. But the reality is that the American legislative process involves a lot of veto points, and it only takes control of one to kill a bill.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103rd_United_States_Congress#M...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

NAFTA doesn't really count here since it was passed over strong (but not unanimous) Democratic resistance with almost unanimous Republican support.

Or maybe it does, since while it was a break from the existing and prior policy orientation of the party, it was a Clinton policy which presaged the emergent dominance of the anti-worker neoliberal capitalist wing of the party that dominated the party from after it's defeat in the 1994 midterms until now (weakening a bit in the last several years.)

This isn't to let the Democrats off the hook, only to explain that Democratic voters are not uniformly behind improving these policies.

The democrats in office simply do not represent their constituents. The democrat-voting population is farther left than the democrat politicians. However, outside of the more radical democrats like Sanders and AOC, most democrats have been bought by the wealthy just like the republicans.

That is your opinion, and based on your experience in your cohort, and additionally does not really address what "more left" actually means. There are many different types of people that vote Democrat at many different stages of life, in many different industries and in different states/areas where certain things have more support than others. And that's before we even start breaking things out to being "left" socially or fiscally.

I don't think the answer is "quite simple" at all, at least not in the way you explained it.

Couldn't it also just be that there's a lot to keep track of for our current government (of laws and making/updating/enforcing them)? As society grows, you inevitably will have issues that fall through the cracks if administration doesn't also grow accordingly. Maybe they haven't gotten to updating this $2,000 thing because they're focused on other more important things? Hell, I doubt there's a single politician, that knows at the top of their head, all the laws and policies we as a government have in effect, along with all their nuances...

And then the other problem is that the majority has to come to agreement for things to actually change. This is often a slow process. Sometimes you have politicians trying to change stuff like this, but they alone don't quite have enough power, and it takes time for them to convince others that it needs addressing, let alone the proper way to address it.

I notice we have not had Bernie Sanders on the Presidential ticket, despite two runs; and there is surely some reason for that.

Possibly the voters have identified that those candidates will not gain sufficient independent or Republican support to actual win in general elections.

In any case, it seems likely to be a lot more nuanced than you're suggesting.

Assuming that the primaries represent who will actually win a presidential election is as much of a mistake as assuming that polls are accurate when it comes to election day.

On the other hand, the far right thinks anyone left of Trump is a socialist and will vote Republican just to try to keep away socialism.

While there is that, welfare traps are not limited to the US, and through countries with very different levels of “social democratic” focus, so they are clearly a broader and more compelling thing somehow.

Government programs don't need Republicans to add the dysfunction.

They tried to do so in January but Manchin and Sinema voted against it.

In fact they've already done so at least once:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/585192-senate-passes-bil...

At least here in Europe. Speaking from experience.

We have several people directly profiting from several ineffective policies targeting disadvantaged in the local Parliament.

This pov is exactly what I was describing. It's always "more money will fix it." More control, more money, and then things will be better. I promise. Compulsive gamblers have a term for this: "chasing losses"

>How would you solve this without the government?

The problem of people with disabilities needing help? Do you believe people never received help before the government came along? They were helped at a local level by charitable people who cared about each other and knew that taking care of each other was part of a healthy society. Neither business nor government replaces that.

Depends on the time period, and honest we simply didn't have modern medicine either. Your disabled child might have been left on the streets, left in the woods to die, or sold to someone else (other children might have been sold too). An infant? Infanticide was a thing at different times. Sometimes you'd be sent away to a home, where you'd be abused.

You were often an outcast and a beggar and your life was a lot worse. And even worse, folks might have treated you like you deserved it because it was a sign of god's wrath.

In short, folks with disabilities have it better than they did in the past because we started banding together as a society and taking care of folks (government). And we still fail folks.

"more control" ?

"Expanding welfare programs = more control" is some tinfoil hat thinking.

I want you to pause for a moment and think critically for a moment and consider the context of the conversation.

Right now, if you're disabled, you're given a paltry $841/month, and you're told that if you ever have more than $2,000 in cash, that $841 will be taken away. The government is forcing you to live in poverty. You can't save money. Imagine you found a way to start a business despite your disabilities, and single $2000 month of income takes all your benefits away. Any attempt at improving your situation becomes an all-in endevour, so you better not fuck it up, or else the government kicks you into homelessness after the $841/month gets taken away.

How is improving this program by lifting the $2K limit expanding control? Seems like it would reduce control if you ask me by giving you the freedom to make the attempt at improving your life without worry of failure.

It takes a special kind of mental gymnastics to call that a tinfoil hat theory when we're literally in a comment section discussion all the stupid things people on .gov aid have to do/avoid in order to ensure continued income. If that's not control what is?

I'm literally arguing in favor of increasing the asset limit so people don't have to jump through hoops to avoid losing their benefits. I'm arguing against those controls. How are you twisting this around?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/the-con...

https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/great-depression/...

You can leave off "it never existed" if you immediately acknowledge that it did exist, but with constraints.

If the constraints/scaling are what you care about, then make the case that everyone is better off with an inefficient system of coercion and perverse incentives, versus a system where people are giving their time and money willingly out of the goodness inside them.

I do. Especially when people who need the help are from poor communities who can’t spare much - much less provide things like in home care, transportation, etc.

If you say gov doesn’t need to be involved then please show me who is gonna help. The only ones I know of are the same that throw queer kids or male domestic abuse victims out on the street. People are more charitable when they’re rich (or more accurately, on rising incomes), but they only help out people close to them. Poor people are dehumanized. That’s why we need the gov.

Or did you not like see the lines of cars 20 miles long during covid for food assistance?

There are plenty of stories about religious programs refusing to help those outside of their religion which presents a pretty big problem if we're supposed to rely on them for universal charity.

One recent story: https://www.propublica.org/article/utahs-social-safety-net-i...

There's plenty of easy answers to these problems if we'd look to just emulate what other countries do for welfare, healthcare etc instead of pretending that we're better than them while failing at every aspect.

I can see from your very uncharitable reading of my comment how you could see that I was saying that. I was saying that many people have not and currently don't have receive help from those charitable institutions, and also its not enough.

Look around you to see whether charitable programs are enough to solve these problems. If they were, they'd be solved. They are /helping/, but they're not enough, and often they come with strings attached like hide that you're LGBT, which some people literally can't do.

People need actual security - if charitable programs gave it to people then there'd be no problem, but they can't or won't.

Yes. These people simply died. Charity helps a few of them but is woefully incapable of helping all of them.

> They were helped at a local level by charitable people who cared about each other and knew that taking care of each other was part of a healthy society.

My aunt has a brain injury. She needs trained help as well as expensive doctors. Charity has done fuck all to help her - except the countless hours my parents have spent helping her. Where are these magical charities she can go to?

In the Middle Ages, monasteries often had healing clinics and hospitals, though the hospitals were for the dying, usually. And sometimes food for people in want.

Of course, in the Middle Ages, the Church was really part of the government, parallel to the kings, dukes, etc etc.

Now medical care has gotten so expensive that it's beyond the capacity of any charity except for isolated cases. Similarly for housing. Food there's some support for.

Wouldn't you be happy if more people were like your parents? If there were "expensive doctors" who felt in their hearts the need to help your aunt, free of charge? It's not an imaginary world, it just takes work to build. But the further we replace the spirit of charity with an impersonal, dysfunctional system of coercion, the harder it is to realize that world.

What’s even better is, this system already exists and is being utilized beyond its breaking point.

How do I know? Well, it takes 1 to 2 YEARS to be approved for SSI or SSDI and, if you can’t work, someone has to pay for your basic cost of living. Or you become homeless.

Anyone who is applying for SSDI and isn’t homeless is being supported by someone.

My parents wanted to retire another state. My aunt needed to come with them because they handle a large amount of her care. She was unable to apply for medicaid in the new state until dropping medicaid in the old state but there was no guarantee that she'd get medicaid in the new state. So moving was incredibly perilous.

In all seriousness, I appreciate it. No snark, I don’t care if we don’t see eye-to-eye from a policy perspective, I appreciate what you’re doing.

Disability is a really hard experience. I can’t describe what it’s like to lose these things we take for granted. Being without pain. Making choices for yourself. Going to a movie.

By giving a disabled person a home, you’re giving some of that back to them. If you’ve never done this before, you might be surprised by how hard it is, the rewards for the disabled person aren’t necessarily always visible, but what you’re doing is important.

This is a pretty dishonest strawman on many levels. First, taxation-based disability support is "spirit of charity" at scale.

Second, local charity is not mutually exclusive with disability support and talking about "replace" makes a strawman.

Third, local charity is in no way guaranteed. Something happens and suddenly charities run out of funds and disabled people can die of hunger.

I invite you to not pay your taxes and watch what happens.

As a society? Societies are perfectly free to decide to stop taxation.

Even if you could make that argument that coerced individual decisions could result in non-coerced societal decisions, you need to consider the entire implication: society is being "charitable" to itself, which isn't charity, it's selfishness. Charity is giving to others. So your point is nonsensical on multiple levels.

I would, yes. But just hoping that the world is filled with people who are willing and capable of helping in this manner is not productive. Almost nobody has the time and resources and will to help in the ways that my parents have.

> If there were "expensive doctors" who felt in their hearts the need to help your aunt, free of charge?

That'd be nice too. I do not expect this to be a thing I can rely on.

Hard to do when malpractice lawsuits are a thing.

Can you please point me to these charities that help the disabled afford to live that I keep hearing so much about?

The process of applying for SSDI is horrible and demeaning and I’d really love to go with one of those organizations instead!

They get disgusting looks & “we’ll pray for your soul” (saying it as if they believe it’s already been damned to hell)

Over 12 years of dealing with things myself & making friends along the way in person & online.

Spending countless nights trolling through comments in countless amounts of old threads of very vulnerable people trying to get away from things like domestic violence while also facing severely disabling medical issues (often but not limited to younger people with abusive parents somewhat controlling their lives via their disability) & reaching out to/begging quite literally wherever they’re able & overwhelmingly being turned away.

Of course, you can always say that they/I are LARPing & there’s not much I can do about that unfortunately.

If you’d like a bright side/silver lining to any of this - places that attract minorities/marginalized groups are often the most helpful (geeze, wonder why) & if shit ever truly hits the fan in your life, make your way to your nearest Sikh Gurudwara.

As long as you show the most basic humility & respect the few things they ask you to observe in their place of worship, they will go so far out of their way to try to help you in every way they can. Unfortunately, malicious people tend to take advantage of this in bigger cities & some are starting to get slightly jaded. I cannot blame them, such is life.

I’m not trying to say all religions orgs & charities are shit across the board. Perhaps it seemed that way. I’m just saying that they’re very much not as much of an answer that some of society seems to think they may be, & there are some truly awful people among them that will kick you harder when you’re already at your lowest point. (As with everywhere/everything)

Prior to such programs, level of help was far more variable and often dependent mostly on family.

I've seen clerks actively discourage people from asking for the benefits even before the official evaluation.

They just need to fix the qualifications at the margin, but that is often met with hostility from other voters for the misguided reason that people are just leeching off these programs, when the reality is exactly what is described, that the paperwork and punishment for extra earning is exactly what makes that happen, to the extents that it does.

For the record I absolutely don’t want the government handling everything, I’m just tired of hearing that everything the government does is disfunctional and everything private enterprise does is great and noble, cause it’s not true.

She'd be dead in the ground if conservative policies ran everything.

See for example, drug testing of assistance recipients. It turns out, as the testing has proven, that most of the people who get a little bit of cash are most likely to use it on food and essentials. Oh, and the people who run the for-profit drug testing happen to be cronies of the politicians who advocated for the testing - such a surprise.

Another example: Don't let people withdraw all their money at once or they will waste it. Instead give them debit cards with a small withdrawal limit. Oh, and there's a withdrawal fee that eats into the meager cash ... and cronies of the politicians who advocated for the policy own the ATMs in the stores which collect those fees.

It is not surprising that the government functions like the people that elected it. If your community is comprised of assholes, you get cruel policies.

Welfare traps are definitely a thing in countries and cultures with “safety nets that works”, fwiw.

It's like if we shut down Home Depot because there's people stealing merchandise.

Welp, buncha fuckin freeloaders stealing tools again! Better get rid of all the Home Depots so nobody can steal.