It's obvious the people who make all the rules have no clue how hard can be to make ends meet.
I totally disagree. The system is designed to keep people in it and those who run it, know that. They also know that the majority of people are not cheaters by law - if the law permits a woman to have a relationship with a man and still get assistance, then the law should be changed and we can go back to the spying and calls that happened to women 50 years ago.
I know a couple who had difficulties when they were both out of work. They went through the job hunt, used up all the cash and savings and finally looked at government assistance...they didn't qualify because during their employment days, they had accumulated some nice furniture and a couple of cars. The cars were debt free because they had paid them off by working hard, they had no large debts and one kid. The only way they qualified for help, is if they sold one of the cars because the value of the car was more than the two thousand bucks that was allowable. They not only sold all their stuff, but they did sell the car for $3,000. and were forced to live off that before attempting to qualify again.....and of course, living in a small town with little chance of employment, it set them back even further.
For every person you see on the dole, there are a hundred more than are ashamed of the stigma - as we see here - they are labelled freeloaders and thieves when in fact they may just be the victim of circumstance.
Not to be harsh, but every person who has an issue with a freeloader on government assistance, can't divide it up - you can't hate the single mother and then make allowances for the disabled..you can't hate the disabled and then make allowances for the elderly - it's all equally open to repulsion - the very fact that leeches would take anothers hard earned money to pay for their own obligations. Isn't that what libertarianism is all about? Being responsible for every part of your life so you don't leech off others - wean yourself off of any outside help?
I do not believe that all people on assistance are freeloaders - I believe that there is a small percentage who abuse the system, but I believe the system itself could be a good one if managed effectively. I believe that before we keep smashing into the poor as leeches and freeloaders, that we should always start at the top because the amount of corporate welfare and subsidies are the greatest thieves. Rather than bitch about the woman and kid at the bottom using your money, the vast majority of whom will never have a pension plan or a mutual fund or despite what you think, a really easy life, wouldn't we be better off addressing the career politicians who will leave office after a few years and earn a pension of $5,000/month from your tax dollars? After all, what has the politician done for you long term that deserves your money when he leaves? Wouldn't we be better addressing the benefits we pay out to politicians - from Cadillacs, to hundreds of thousands in living costs, jet service and all the other perks that come with working half a year? In your house you lead by example - mom and dad are supposed to set the budget and teach the kids - if your leaders are corrupt and greedy, then we would be better teachers if we addressed their abuses first before we pick on those less able to defend themselves in our society.
I too would like to see the abuse stop - and it could be stopped - but politicians and corporations have too much to lose if it did... sammieswife