why do conservatives think social programs dont work? (they have helped millions of americans get backontrack)

Question

there are always going to be some people take advantage of these programs but a majority of people that use these programs benefit to make something of themselves. before these programs were passed by lbj and fdr we has a higher unemployment rate, less people in college, and more people without good housing. thanks to these programs over time many families have broken the cylcle of poverty. that is the goal of these programs to break a cycle of poverty that many families have endured for generations. source: im a social work grad student who has studied this subject extensively.

Answer 1

It's because they don't care- they're not poor, they don't need the social programs, so it's very easy to overlook them in favor of pork barrel-laden bills and programs designed to make the rich richer.

Look at some European countries that have a higher standard of living than the US... they are more socially-geared, with aid in the forms of healthcare and supporting large families. There is a much smaller gap between the top and the bottom. Conservatives in this country seem to favor that gap. :/

Answer 2

First of all, I think most conservatives would admit that the social programs work some of the time. I think much of their opposition comes from a critique of the efficiency and ethics of welfare, not from a failure to recognize the benefit it can have.

A number of conservatives see our welfare programs as an inefficient means of helping the poor. They believe they are administratively heavy, lack proper accountability, and could give stronger incentives to self-help. It doesn't mean they are totally agains the idea of social assistance. They just think it can be done better with less waste.

A number of conservatives (and libertarians like myself) also have ethical concerns about government assistance. In it's simplest form, welfare represents taking someone's rightful property under the force of violence or imprisonment, and giving it to someone else, without the donor's consent...all to assuage the moral guilt of some segment of society. This is using the force of government to advance a particular view of morality, and that's something a lot of people are against. I think a lot of conservatives are fine with assistance to the needy, as long as it doesn't come from the state. They recognize that people need a leg up from time to time, but think churches, voluntary organizations, and families are more efficient and more ethical means of proving help.

I'd also like to point out that things like the unemployment rate, housing rate, and college attendance rates are cyclical things. They are also affected by a variety of conditions in society, not just welfare programs. I mean, the unemployment rate is also affected by tax cuts, technological development, seasonal variation, etc. You haven't provided enough info to establish a causal relationship.

Answer 3

All one has to do is drive down Martin Luther King Jr Blvd or a trailer park in any city during the day and see people gathered in front of convenience stores and front porches not working. I doubt if they all have night jobs. Yes, you say some might abuse the system but it is becoming more rampant. Conservatives are not against these programs altogether but I must say it makes me sick to think my hard earned tax dollars are going to some scam artists and lazy bums who just don't want to work. They don't educate themselves (They choose to do poorly in school K-12 and then ***** about only making minimum wage). In it's present condition, many of these social programs just reward laziness and ignorance. I agree that there are many people who do have valid issues like losing a job or becoming handicapped etc where they need a hand up but not a hand out.

Answer 4

Conservatives set the bar too high. Unless the problem is completely solved, the social program is considered by them to be a failure. But when it comes to human problems, they never end because there are always more people being born to embody certain problems. But even if a problem isn't resolved once and for all, for the individuals who get helped, it does make a difference, and we should count that a success.

Actually, the present-day Republican Party has recently been converted to believing the efficacy of Social Engineering. They now attempt to use the government, but for "conservative" purposes, especially when it comes to Bush's "Faith-Based Initiative".

Answer 5

In your extensive studies, where is your evidence that these programs caused the beneficial effects that you are listing?

The demographics that receive welfare continue to be the struggling groups in our society. No one has ever become rich off of welfare. Those are the main reasons that conservatives think these programs don't work.

For those bashing the Republican party - the questioner referred to "conservatives" - and Republicans don't fit the bill there any longer. OK - except in stupid stuff like "social" issues. But economically, they are no longer conservative.

And what timm1776 said below.

Answer 6

I agree with you, the majority of people on it are just trying to get back on their feet and do so with this help. But conservatives think it the other way around, that the majority are just taking advantage of it (they believe some take it to get back on their feet but the majority are taking advantage of it) and so feel it would be wrong to take money from those who do work to support those who don't and don't want to. I don't know which is more accurate, but in the end I feel even if I help just one it is better than allowing them to die for no reason and without dignity. But it still isn't fair to take money from those who do work for sure, just to support those who don't (even when they could). It is a matter of what you think is more just and caring.

Answer 7

Please do not confuse Conservatives with Republicans, they're 2 different animals. As a conservative I oppose conserving a standing military in time of peace, would close ALL military bases outside the U. S. and safeguard an Air rigidity, army and marines as our first line of protection hostile to overseas invasion, the military Reserve would stand because the 2d line of protection with The nationwide look after - with governors of the respective states as Commander in chief would stand because the third line of protection. the perception being, the time it takes from the first line of protection to tapping the third line of protection will be sufficient for congress to declare warfare (if suitable) as required below the U. S. structure a military would properly be drafted and experienced. for countless the history of usa of america there became no enormous status military maintained in time of peace -- that in basic terms surpassed off after international warfare II. Social safe practices isn't constitutional, and with the help of mis-administration is merely no longer sustainable.

Answer 8

Even Clinton knew it was bad to have too many social programs. I was proud of him for Welfare Reform. And I'm proud of Bush for not changing it. In about 1997 I talked to two women mad because they hadn't gotten their welfare check yet, they acted like it was their right to get it and stay on it. They said they had been on it for 15 years and would stay on it. I said, "do you know it's other people's taxes paying for it" and they said "So what!" I love the 5 year program with the GED, and welfare to work .

Answer 9

Because many of the people that speak against them have not had the need for any of the programs and do not understand. People find it easy to ignore problems that do not effect them until they are put into those shoes.

Answer 10

they do work i have been in the program and it helped me to support my family.
They are rich and don't want to pay taxes. Don't want to raise minimun wage. While the rich raise there wages.
These are all lies. To show they are for something most people agree with come out against gay marriage or abortion.
Becuase it makes them look good and it effects very few people and probably not many voters.