> And I don't mean this to be offensive, but, are your cop friends sure that these "welfare" abusers that they witness aren't actually just using that as a front for an illegal pursuit (i.e. drug dealing, undeclared gifts/gambling/taxable proceeds?)
No offense taken. The picture that was painted for me was one where a segment of welfare recipients seem to be engaged in gaming the system any way they can by tapping into every available program out there. For example, single mothers having multiple kids by different fathers because each kid represents a monthly paycheck. On top of that there's work for cash and, yes, potential criminal activity.
Does this apply to all welfare recipients? Of course not. The vast majority of them probably wish they could get out of the nightmare they fell into through whatever circumstance.
Perhaps my greater point is that simply giving money away with no goals or conditions isn't good at all. It changes the way people think and behave. The most extreme examples of this are lottery winners who's life's are ruined even after winning millions of dollars.
When it comes to welfare I am a proponent of actually investing MORE money on the poor. How? Provide them with a reasonable living wage. The condition would be that they'd have to go to school (for free). The idea is the proverbial "teach a man to fish" concept rather than giving them fish. A one to two year trade education would be a solid stepping stone from which these people could pull out of their circumstances. Of course, there are cases where this would not work. I firmly believe we have a moral and ethical responsibility to take care of people who fall upon hard times and simply can't take care of themselves. We also have a moral and ethical responsibility to make sure that our help does not produce adverse effects (crime, abuse, dependency, devolution, societal decay). To be sure, the topic is wide and complex.
No offense taken. The picture that was painted for me was one where a segment of welfare recipients seem to be engaged in gaming the system any way they can by tapping into every available program out there. For example, single mothers having multiple kids by different fathers because each kid represents a monthly paycheck. On top of that there's work for cash and, yes, potential criminal activity.
Does this apply to all welfare recipients? Of course not. The vast majority of them probably wish they could get out of the nightmare they fell into through whatever circumstance.
Perhaps my greater point is that simply giving money away with no goals or conditions isn't good at all. It changes the way people think and behave. The most extreme examples of this are lottery winners who's life's are ruined even after winning millions of dollars.
When it comes to welfare I am a proponent of actually investing MORE money on the poor. How? Provide them with a reasonable living wage. The condition would be that they'd have to go to school (for free). The idea is the proverbial "teach a man to fish" concept rather than giving them fish. A one to two year trade education would be a solid stepping stone from which these people could pull out of their circumstances. Of course, there are cases where this would not work. I firmly believe we have a moral and ethical responsibility to take care of people who fall upon hard times and simply can't take care of themselves. We also have a moral and ethical responsibility to make sure that our help does not produce adverse effects (crime, abuse, dependency, devolution, societal decay). To be sure, the topic is wide and complex.