To quote the old line: Welfare is a hand up, not a hand out.
That unfortunately is not true as it is currently employed. It's so poorly managed that you can have a Top 10 single and still be pulling welfare. I would have no problem with it if we weren't handing it out on an unlimited basis to people that have no problem doing nothing all day but picking up their check, living in government housing, and leeching off of everyone else. I've seen the nonsense first hand. I worked on an Angel Tree/Toys for Tots deal for a radio station I was working with and part of it was delivering the toys and such that had been collected. Some of the people's homes I went to were legitimate: single moms trying to keep their kids in a safe neighborhood (decent rentals, but virtually no furniture and crappy when it was there), families living drug infested motels in 3rd world conditions, etc. Sadly, these were in the minority. I delivered to a lot more houses with DirecTV satellites on the roofs, big screen HDTVs, and $50,000 SUVs. All living in crappy neighborhoods with a minimum of four kids and "no money" for their kids Christmas. Same thing at a food bank I helped at with my grandmother. Plenty of genuinely poor people, but lots that we would see on the way out walking a few blocks to their SUVs, Cadis, and Beamers. There needs to be more regulation and oversight. If I thought that's what increased taxes for the wealthy would fund, I wouldn't mind so much, but instead it is going to keep the status quo. Sure it will keep legitimate folks fed, but it will also go to people who are too lazy to do anything about their situation. Sorry, but the government shouldn't be funding that.
