My point was to illustrate that you cherry pick the boundary case, while conveniently ignoring all other uses of the SAME system while trying to justify dooming the whole SYSTEM. You aren't making the argument that the programs are inefficient, or are helping the wrong people, you've lumped all uses of the program together and damned the whole system as a burden on those who have actually worked for where they are. If you want to cherry pick examples, you have to face all uses of the system you are judging.
How about instead acknowledging that helping others has value to the greater good, but the existing programs allow for creating incentives for the wrong behavior? That was the premise of the Welfare Reform Act signed by Clinton.
And I'm still waiting to hear what your alternative is... what should society do with these people?
I never said such a thing. Also, nobody is against helping people, and I have helped many people in various capacities, not just financially. I just made a comment that there are programs in place, funded with tax payer dollars, that are designed help the poor. Most personal donations I make are localized to our fire department, school district, or causes such as cancer research. This is not the blanket to help all.
Second, I believe everybody in this world has an opportunity to make a contribution and a decent living. Finding the focus is sometimes blurred, and results in underpaid, unhappy people. For example, if you were a great singer, you shouldn't be a cashier at the local supermarket waiting for your big break that may never happen. You should focus your talents and interest in the music industry. Maybe you will never become a star, but you can be a music teacher, a local band, or other professions that utilize that talent. This applied to all fields. I talk to unemployed people and ask them what they are qualified to do, and I rarely get definitive answer. Disney used to be unique when it employed mostly retired teachers, and were not interested in a career, but took the job as personal satisfaction.
I am suggesting that everybody has some responsibility to do good, contribute to society, and this includes the poor. The second half seems to always be overlooked. The alternative, as you are seeking, starts with making decisions based on right and wrong, opposed to making decisions based on your feelings. Sometimes we need to be firm, tell people to get involved, and work harder, even if that hurts feelings. I understand there is hardship, but that does not eliminate the need to try.
