hard working, productive, and responsible from people who are irresponsible, criminally inclined/violent, and lazy?

I ask this because not only does it not appear to be so (at least to any significant degree), it actually seems to favor the later group more. Issues like gaining more welfare income for generating more children while on welfare, this encourages those on welfare to produce more children as it becomes a source of income and not an economic burden, the rewards/punishment in this system promotes towards irresponsible behavior.

Another issue is separating those who engage in risky behavior (drugs, sex, spending, violence etc) but aren’t able to cash in if anything goes wrong requiring the diversion of tax payers money from going to more responsible individuals to them who are the most unlikely segment to make anything of themselves. Some states have drug tests but they are so spaced apart and limited in scope that they are easy to bypass/cheat, the info to do such is even displayed on TV and online. So substance abuse is still wide spread among those collecting.

Also one of the biggest ones that blows my mind has to be spending habits. There are many articles out about the lousy spending that goes on with a good portion of those collecting. Most recent came in New York under Obama’s Stimulus/welfare packages which were suppose to go to families to help children with their schooling expenditures, they followed the money and it went to cigarettes, drugs (powerful but legal), cloths, expensive shoes, and accessories.

I’ll probably rock the boat with this one, but many of the problems in some of the lower class communities are tied with broken families. I understand the reasoning for giving extra help for poor single moms, it makes sense, but I’m also cognoscente of the fact that it also provides a more comfortable environment and incentive for parents or out of wed lock couples to break apart. I know in the earlier aspect, fathers would pretend to be absent and then go back after inspection, but once the social stigma loosened, it needed not be imaginary. I don’t pretend to know the compromise on this specific issue, but this brings me to my next point.

Democrats may cry and push for billion dollar social nets, new ones all the time, but not once have I heard any concern to either improve or to rid the real and significant issues with our social nets, it is like placing building logs of unknown status upon known termite infested ones, without spraying the old logs.

Don’t you think there is some obligation for those collecting to comply to higher standards? Tax payers are giving up some of their rights by having a portion of their work siphoned from them to help the disadvantaged, the disadvantaged but responsible are working on trying to make good on that investment, despite all the institutional pulls to be anything but.

I don’t think this line of thought is too radical, but anyways, I’m curious on your opinions. What are your thoughts?
@joe

Not sure how it is for the last time considering I only got one answer and it wasn’t from you.

Also the question was asking about how effective it was at seperating them, not why don’t they seperat them.

And the content was pushing towards that I don’t believe the goal is being acomplished.

Tags: disadvantaged, effort, fiscally, into, nets, real, separate, social, The, think