Alexander E Jones
Jul 27, 2017 · 2 min read

That is simply not true .

It might be true if your version of “anti-poverty program” is too narrow. Anti-poverty programs include far more than merely welfare. They include public education, federal student loans, military scholarships, prison reform programs, just to name a few.

The fact of the matter is that poverty is not a monolithic problem. This article describes one of thousands of ways somebody can become poor in the United States (it’s very easy to slip into poverty due to little to no fault of your own). Programs that address those potential avenues have reduced the amount of poverty in the United States.

And when we have rolled back those programs, poverty has increased, without fail.

In regards to motivation to help the poor… Noble? Personal responsibility? What value does any of that have in this matter? Reducing poverty isn’t something to do because it’s “good”. It’s something to do because poverty causes problems.

That felon who didn’t get job training for after his release? He is less likely to find a job, and thus is more likely to add to his local crime rate when he leaves prison. That effects our entire society, so why would we leave it up to a particular person feeling charitable one day?

That person who can’t afford basic healthcare? Well, he won’t go in for cheap checkups that can catch issues while they are still small, because he can’t afford them. But he will be treated by a hospital for a preventable illness that has gone way to far, due to the hippocratic oath. That treatment will be far, far more expensive than just funding his ~$150 checkup. That bill will be passed on to all of us, so why shouldn’t all of us be preventing that issue from occurring as much as possible?

Those are just a few examples that hopefully explain how the reduction of poverty is way, way above “nobility” and “personal responsibility”’s respective pay grades. This is a societal matter, as all of society will either reap the benefits or pay the price of failure.

Now as for whether or not the government can completely eradicate poverty… Well, it probably won’t be able to, but that doesn’t mean efforts to reduce the level poverty should be dropped because “what’s the point”. And yet that seems to be the exact argument this representative is trying to make.

Alexander E Jones

Written by

Programmer/Artist, with a passion for slick design and technology.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade