They unequivocally made my life worse off than without them, and I know I'm not alone.
Us both being willing to accept that our respective experiences are polar opposites, but still valid and worth consideration, is key to making sure neither you nor I are so dedicated to supporting something for the sake of supporting it that we lose sight of why we're supporting it.
Just because it helped you doesn't mean something similar that you're supporting today can't also harm others. Likewise, just because I was harmed by something doesn't mean I should be closed off to the notion that something similar could help others.
If we can keep this in mind when dealing with people of opposing viewpoints, and acknowledge how individual experiences of otherwise similar things can be very different, then I think we'd reach better, less judgmental and vitriolic conclusions on how to solve these problems.
I think that most pragmatic people understand that they have to do something to help the poor. Even the most callous people still understand that doing nothing may affect them negatively (unless, perhaps, they're rich enough to flee to New Zealand). The thing at issue is how much to give to the poor and how best to administer it.
Because I'm a success story, I will continue to support the programs that supported me. However, I would gladly welcome improvements that make those programs more effective and efficient.
There’s a lot of scope for service design in government, and human-centered design. Of course, there are also lobbyists at every turn trying to hobble the process because there are profits to be made.
It would be amazing to see an America where its culture of innovation was laser focused on making life better for everyone. I wish we were there today.