Using your numbers, ~20,000 per poverty-stricken family is still being spent on them, which would apparently nearly double most of their income if transferred directly.
Also, I don’t think the article is being disingenuous, but I think the way it is represented here is. If you believe the point of this spending is to help those in genuine poverty, rather than to assist middle class families, the Pell grants and stuff are just as wasteful as whatever else the money is being spent on.
Are you being disingenuous or are you really unaware of the treatment of poverty as an acceptable justification for a social safety net among individuals generally opposed to such governmental spending?
Pells grants, food safety inspections, basic research, and a functioning judiciary are not part of the “safety net.” Benefit for those below the poverty line is not the primary purpose of those types of programs. Because the programs are (putatively) justified even without reference to poverty reduction, no one should rationally think “the point of this spending is to help those in genuine poverty.”
Frequently that’s exactly how things like Pell Grants are sold, however; as help for the poverty-stricken. A lot of people are considerably less supportive of the idea of their tax dollars paying for other people’s children’s college educations when those other people aren’t any worse off than they are when their children aren’t getting those benefits.
The opening description of the Pell Grant from the grant’s own web page:
“The Federal Pell Grant Program provides need-based grants to low-income undergraduate and certain postbaccalaureate students to promote access to postsecondary education.”
Using your numbers, ~20,000 per poverty-stricken family is still being spent on them, which would apparently nearly double most of their income if transferred directly.
Also, I don’t think the article is being disingenuous, but I think the way it is represented here is. If you believe the point of this spending is to help those in genuine poverty, rather than to assist middle class families, the Pell grants and stuff are just as wasteful as whatever else the money is being spent on.
Fine, but who thinks that?
Are you being disingenuous or are you really unaware of the treatment of poverty as an acceptable justification for a social safety net among individuals generally opposed to such governmental spending?
Pells grants, food safety inspections, basic research, and a functioning judiciary are not part of the “safety net.” Benefit for those below the poverty line is not the primary purpose of those types of programs. Because the programs are (putatively) justified even without reference to poverty reduction, no one should rationally think “the point of this spending is to help those in genuine poverty.”
Gwern and I had a parallel discussion here.
Frequently that’s exactly how things like Pell Grants are sold, however; as help for the poverty-stricken. A lot of people are considerably less supportive of the idea of their tax dollars paying for other people’s children’s college educations when those other people aren’t any worse off than they are when their children aren’t getting those benefits.
The opening description of the Pell Grant from the grant’s own web page:
“The Federal Pell Grant Program provides need-based grants to low-income undergraduate and certain postbaccalaureate students to promote access to postsecondary education.”