But there exists a heated debate between whether entitlement programs or in-kind benefit programs are more effective at improving lives. As previously demonstrated, entitlement programs are superior to other structures because aid is more easily increased during an economic downturn and decreased as less people depend upon it. One of the largest obstacles in program success has been opinions surrounding what it means to receive a handout; characterizing the act as perpetuating laziness and encouraging illegal activity (Yglesias, 2014). Stereotyping in this fashion works counter to the fight against poverty, as these opinions can prevent people who would greatly benefit from government support from enrolling. Although not many studies exist showcasing the impact entitlements have on recipients their entire lives, author Matthew Yglesias’ research concluded that a rudimentary, inexpensive social welfare program called “Mother’s Pensions” positively affected incomes, health, educational attainment, and life expectancy (2014). Such remarkable effects from a check that amounted to $260 on average, which is only 37% of the average SSI check (Yglesias, 2014; McGarry, 2013, p. 185). SSI and EITC are clearly capable of facilitating these improved outcomes, and they speak to one of Yglesias’ main points: the government can fight poverty effectively by supplying the needy with direct monetary support. Ultimately, the government has done a remarkable job of working against poverty’s harmful side-effects, but it has a duty to its citizenry to refine its programs if it wants to create a more lasting