The intersection of race, gender and class:  How did reading DeParle change your perception of the ability of social policy to combat poverty?  In thinking about Stone’s definition of the goal of liberty and the problem of equality, describe how DeParle’s book discusses the liberty-welfare trade off.  Do you think DeParle believes there is a trade off?

I’ve always felt that poverty would always be our never-ending battle.  At times it seems like the government is not doing enough.  At one point I felt as if the government was spending more money aiding poverty overseas, rather than aiding poverty within their own country. Reading DeParle’s American Dream has not made me feel any different than what I’ve always been feeling when it comes to this topic.  The current poverty issue will always remain the same when you have political figures focusing on having money and power rather than putting in plans to help the poor and needy.

There are definitely two sides to liberty-welfare trade off as noted in the Policy Paradox:  The Art of Political Decision Making by Deborah Stone.  DePaul describes one side by illustrating how the three women needed assistance from the government in order to survive.  These women were constantly hiding and changing parts of their lives, just to have the opportunity to live off the minimum aid received from the government.  Based off of that alone, along with Stone’s definition of the liberty-welfare trade off, one might think that DeParle believes in liberty-welfare trade off.  These ladies are exactly what the definition describes.  They are dependent on others for welfare, which makes them subject to their control (Stone, 2004).   However, these ladies also lack ambition and drive to want more for themselves, which is why I said there were two sides to liberty-welfare trade off.  Without neither them mentioning a stable career or goal for themselves, I can see why DeParle may perhaps not believe there to be a liberty-welfare trade off.