For the simple reason that all programs, public or private, will be abused and no system is perfect.
Social programs should be designed to help out the bulk of target population with safeguards in place to help protect against the worst abuses of the system. You could spend a lot of time, money and effort trying to prevent and root out any possible violation of a system but it runs up against the law of diminishing returns. The more you spend on nit picking the little things, the less you have to spend on improving the system as a whole. As someone that grew up in and out of the welfare system I can certainly agree that there are lazy and ungrateful people who want nothing more than to just slide through life and not have to do much of anything. The bulk of the people I knew however had pride, they wanted to make something of themselves. Sometimes they couldn't shake drugs and alcohol enough to do it. Sometimes they just didn't have the self worth to keep going on when people told them they were too worthless to ever do anything good. There are lots of reasons people failed to advance. And then there were people like my mother who did succeed, get out of poverty, get training and do something. As a social policy I propose spending more time, money and effort helping people succeed than we spend ferreting out every instance of people gaming the system and slacking off. Yes, it is true, some people are going to end up coasting along on your dime. And my dime. They aren't going to get rich but they may not be working the way you think they ought to either. But I'm more concerned about making sure we help all the people that can be helped than I am about the tiny minority of people that refuse to be helped and just want a hand out. It is a matter of priorities. judah On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Jerry Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why "a majority"? Why should there be _any_? > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> well, Gruss wants facts so let's start here. Can you demonstrate to my >> satisfaction that a majority of those using social programs are >> "irresponsible teens"? >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Cameron Childress <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> > >> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > I agree, but if our tax dollars are going to be given to someone, maybe >> > its >> > > not too much to ask that they don't do drugs, or engage in other >> illegal >> > > activity. >> > >> > That's the least an irresponsible teen's mommy and daddy would want, >> > even though the government shouldn't be that teen's mommy and daddy. >> > >> > -Cameron >> > >> > >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:290675 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
