Quote:
Originally Posted by Conan
There will always be those who abuse a system, but if, according to your own words, those who abuse welfare are in the minority of those who use it responsibly, why should you make it more difficult for those who genuinely need it to obtain/hold onto those benefits? You're punishing many for the acts of a few.
I don't know the percentage of people who genuinely need welfare vs. those who could do without. It's a tough thing to gauge considering all of the factors involved. But to me, the benefits of the current system far outweigh the faults -- and if there were one person genuinely in need to 10 who weren't, I'd still advocate the current system or an even easier one.
|
If a system can be more efficient, then it should be. You're making it seem like money grows on trees, and this day where the economy is completely ****ed, it's ignorant to just look at it in a humanitarian way. Granted, it's equally ignorant to just look at it from a business POV.
The problem with welfare is that when people misuse it, then they're essentially spending more money than they have (it's the taxpayers' money) and that's a huge problem. When you're spending other people's money, you're hurting them financially, and that hurts the economy.
How much money was spent on welfare this year? How much will we be spending on it for 10 years? 20? It doesn't matter, but let's pretend you're in charge of welfare, you're being paid essentially to make sure your program works, and that it's not wasting money. You sound like you would be pretty bad at that job, and you sound like you'd just pull a laissez-faire on welfare reform. You don't seem very bothered at all by whether or not it's efficient.