Well, maybe i am wrong on it being purely a welfare effect. There are many other inputs in that system. Search youtube on how to make money for having babies as an example. Food stamps are another input. For quite some time Russian immigrants coming into Los Angeles had a reputation for piling into homes/appartments and milking every ounce of available government assistance, even to the extreme of keeping quiet when a relative died in order to retain benefits. In addition to that, they developed an extensive under the table cash black market. They would work for cash, earn government benefits, not pay taxes and make tons of money. They were quite fond of Cadillacs and Mercedes Benz. A couple of friends of mine were cops covering some of these areas of LA. They have stories that would make anyone's head spin.

My point, perhaps, is that people are resoursefull when it comes to these things and come up with amazing ways to game the system. Most recently the LAUSD has been handing out iPads to students. They quickly figured out how to unlock them. It also looks like some of them probably evaporated, surely making their way onto Craigs List or eBay.

What ends up happening is that those who actually live an honest life and end-up supporting untold layers of deadbeats created and empowered by the State.

My cop friends are Democrats to the bone but their "faith" regarding some of these programs was rocked a long time ago because they saw first hand what the programs can turn people into.

I really do want to understand your viewpoint. But in my state (Oregon) which typically ranks near the top of anti-poverty programs, the average one could receive from food stamps and welfare in a family of four is about 950 dollars per month. Assuming you were accepted (post AFDC, there's no guarantee of benefits: it's luck of the draw).

In Mississippi it's about 850 for a family of four with absolutely no income or assets (assuming you get accepted in a state that has one of the lowest acceptance rates).

Neither break 12K a year, and I honestly don't understand how that can be considered exorbitant or supporting the sort of excessive sedentary lifestyle that you suggest is common.

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?)

Edit: after five years of benefits, this would decrease to about 548 in Miss. and 558 in Oregon. However, I don't find either figure truly sustainable for that size of family in the long-ish term.

> 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.