Quote:Abuses do occur.  We live in a society full of humans.  The point I'm making, and I think the rest of us are trying to make is that poor people are not all criminals and cheats.  As a matter of fact, the vast majority of them are law abiding citizens that for whatever reason are in need of help.  

 

If you don't want to help the working poor and the flat out poor because you hate the government (or think it bad, or whatever) then just say that.  But don't try and rationalize it by saying "all these poor people are a bunch of cheating thieves stealing our tax dollars, so let's stop funding social programs." 

 

Just be honest.  

 

Look, I get it.  We all bust our butts to support our families.  And I'm with you, people that slide by and cheat the system make be pretty mad as well.  I'm not trying to take that away from you.  I'm all about my class.  I'm a working chump, just like the rest of us on this website.  But I'm not gonna sit here and take an approach that isn't based on reality, especially when it comes from politicians that seem to bend us all over for the past 30 years.  

 

I've done the research, I've thought it through, and it makes sense that poor people, are a sub-set of the overall population.  They are not any more or any less likely to be law breakers and cheaters.  And they do it at about a 5% clip...  Let's say that some of them are even so good at abusing the system that they don't get caught.  Let's say it's as high as 20% (which it isn't, but just for the sake of the argument), that would mean 80% of the poor are doing it the correct way and really do need our help.

 

So do we just cut off all help for the 80%, just because some jerks--an overwhelming minority of them--- are abusing the system?  Maybe you think that we should.  But just admit that it's because you don't want them to get help.  Not because a few are abusing the system. 

 

I don't think anyone is advocating "cutting off" certain programs.  I believe that many people would agree that there is a need for some reform.

 

Reform should not include "throwing more money at the problem", which is a standard among liberals.  Their idea of "reform" is to spend more money and pay for it by taxing the rich.

 

Reform should include taking the steps necessary to reduce and ultimately eliminate the fraud that occurs within the system.

 

Reform should also include the steps necessary to influence people to make better decisions and better choices.  What I'm talking about is perhaps using the money that we currently put into these programs to perhaps further limit what could be purchased.  I'm not talking about just eliminating the ability to purchase alcohol or tobacco products, but also perhaps direct people to be able to buy say chicken rather than lobster or steak.  The WIC system somewhat does this.

 

Reform should also include drug testing.  In order to get a job in most places, a potential employee must pass drug screening.  Why should it be different if they are going to be "employed" and paid using my tax dollars?

---