| SciFiBoy said: why not give them vouchers for food and stuff rather than cash, that way they cant spend it on drugs you shouldnt take someones welfare away just because you dont like there lifestyle |
Even if you do that (and in America, that is what we do), it doesn't prevent them from spending their earned income on drugs, nor stop them from making or using drugs.
Its not a matter of liking or disliking lifestyles. Its about enabling or disabling people from making bad choices. If the government gives someone resources (lets say cards to purchase food), which allows them to in turn, use what income they still had coming in (as most people on welfare may have some way of earning a menial income) for really bad purposes?
Example:
A man makes $10,000 a year - well below the poverty line. His expenses are $10,000 a year for food and shelter. The government gives him aid of $5,000 to help out. This doesn't change the fact that living still costs $10,000 and he still makes $10,000 a year. So he has $5,000 of discretionary income.
What if he spends that discretionary income on drugs? Alcohol? Tobacco? Child porn? Pork rinds and twinkies? A flat screen TV? Season 3 of the Golden Girls on DVD?
So what happens is that the government not only provides for his welfare - his ability to survive - but also allows him to have discretionary income if he has any source of income (which in most cases, the person will have some sort of income). That is where the danger lies. You do want to help people, but you want to ensure that the money isn't enabling them to do bad things.
Also, for that very reason is why private charities are usually a better source of distributing funds and help for needy people. With smaller, more local distribution points for help, attention can be paid to individuals to ensure that they are being taken care of, and charity isn't bankrolling bad behavior.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
