People may not choose to become poor, but they choose to stay "poor", because our social services enable them to. I am a little biased; I grew up in Olympia, WA; which is a very liberal/socialist area (not necessarily a bad thing). The problem was; people learned to "rotate" through social services; spend a quarter at the Salvation Army, the next at Union Gospel Mission, a and couple of local shelters. There was a program where they could turn in their clothes and get brand-new (or lightly used) clothes; no need to do laundry. There was even a program where they could learn to fix donated car, and then keep it.Danny Ocean said:I was always under the impression that America was very harsh to its poor. Is that assumption in any way justifiable? I mean I've been to America twice now (Once to Florida, when I was very small, so I'll discount that) and once to Washington, D.C. (On a school politics trip.), and I can definitely see there's more beggars about than in the UK.Nuke_em_05 said:
=P
Every social service program's requirements are at most that you are "looking" for work; not necessarily "getting" it. Some people learn where to apply where they can get credit, but not get a job.
There are subsidized housing programs like Habitat for Humanity. At a low enough income level you get food stamps. There are thousands of food banks. The more kids you have the more "benefits" you get. Disability is a big one; people will claim or fabricate all kinds of "disabilities". There was a woman I knew in Hobbs, NM who maintained enough weight to stay on "obese" disability.
It isn't a luxurious life, but it is a pretty comfortable life considering how much effort needs to be put into it.
I'm not saying all people who use social services are like that. Many, if not most, are not. Those are the ones who eventually get out of it, and are the reason we maintain such programs.
