That is a good question of what really qualifies, and what is "really need it".  Considering what I have run into, I swear that people will say stuff like "we will always need to help the poor" and "we" in that case refers to anyone but them.  The line from Scrooge sums it up ("I help the poor.  I pay taxes").  But, out of the other side of the mouth will come the cutting of welfare to people, or like the guy replies in the blog to me, "He should kill himself, so my taxes will be lower...".  People will say "need to help" because they really don't want to look like a sociopath they really are.  You will even get an Objectionist saying this in public, to others.  People don't want to look uncaring.  Well, if not that, it is they have guilt that maybe, just maybe, someone may end up dying from their lack of concern, so they speak of "the poor must be helped", out of guilt.

And then people want to have everything means tested, and also doesn't like the size of government growing.  Because it isn't a negative income tax, that goes out to everyone, you end up hiring people to judge whether or not the person is "worthy" of help.

You don't have a right, and are not entitled to someone else's money. Private charity exists to help those who are in need, and for the most part people are generous and will help if they can. What is immoral is forcibly taking money from someone against their will and giving it to someone else.

Cell phones are not a right. There's just nothing else to say about that. No one, anywhere, should be given a free cell phone. That money should be used for roads or infrastructure. I work for a living, don't make much, and I have to pay for a cell phone on my own. Why should you get one for free? That offends me.

And you cannot argue that there are a lot of people on the welfare rolls who would lose money if they were to get a real job and start living in the real world. That is why so many people stay on welfare, because if they were to take a job, they would make less and therefore the welfare itself becomes a disincentive to working. That also offends me.

In Michigan, where I live, it used to be that the more children you had while on welfare, the more money you would receive every month. Thank God that law was overturned several years ago, and now there is a cap. There were literally lazy mothers who would deliberately have more kids just to get a bigger check every month, and then they would use the extra money on themselves instead of their children.

In Michigan, food stamps are called the "Bridge card", and until 2010 it was possible for college students to apply for one and receive hundreds of dollars a month for food. Guess what happened? People started taking advantage of it and used the bridge card to buy steak and shrimp, drink mixers, and expensive, high-on-the-hog things, and used their cash to buy alcohol. So it was overturned, because the abuse was so rampant.

Do you see where I'm going here? You've done nothing to convince me that welfare is a good thing. All you've done is proven that many people on welfare feel entitled and take advantage of others who work hard for a living and themselves are near-poor but somehow still manage to not be on welfare. I don't get any welfare, I work hard for a living, and I barely make ends meet. I'd rather live like I am now for the rest of my life than ever become a leech.

That's not a time limit, that's just a standard "you can't refuse a job offeered to you" thing.  You still get paid if you can't find a job.  "Register for Work" is signing up for a job finding program with the government.  The third should be self explainitory.

Foodstamps is a differnet issue though yeah.

Also, if you can't lift because of your back, why can't you get on disability?   Refuse you because of your IT degree or something?  As I recall not only SS disability, but NY has there own disability program.

What you are defining there is a state issue.  If you don't like your tax payer funds going to people buying alcohol, then your state is fully capable of preventing it.  Especially since they are using a credit/debit card.

Also, since 1996 no able bodied male can live on welfare.  For a male to qualify for welfare, you either have to be disabled or your state must be below a threshold for unemployment, and you must be unemployed.  Then and only then can an able bodied male get any kind of welfare.  Unless I'm mistaken and that's also by state.

Women on the other hand either need to have a child, or be disabled.  They don't even need to be unemployed to receive welfare.

Care to come out and speak of your level of tolerance of the number of people you find acceptable dying because you believe those in need shouldn't be helped.  Considering I believe a rights-based ethics system a pile of BS, I won't argue people have a right to anything.  However, I do believe that if people want to have a semblance of a social contract they there are obligations people have to make sure society functions a certain way.  You are free to disagree.  But there is fallout from whatever you do.

In your case, what is your level of acceptance of infant mortality, children and elderly dying, and able bodied people ending up living under bridges because no one pays for shelter and then dying from a shive in their side because no hospitals will take them in?   If individuals aren't entitled to any help, then why should hospitals, by mandate of law, be forced to not be able to turn anyone away?

Reality is that the welfare state exists because people don't like to have people go neglected.  It has something to do with collective guilt over problem situations.  Kudos to you for lacking this compassion, but you do need to address the level of death you find acceptable, for lacking this compassion.  And no, you can speak of some sort of magic free market answer that makes poverty disappear.  Humans have always had poverty.

I got back this: Your back isn't bad enough to work, and your depression isn't severe enough, that you can't find work.  Hey, isn't there helpdesk you can do?  One factor they overlook is that in my field I have been out of work so long, I am not employable.  And no funding is available to fix it.  Even then, because it isn't permanent, the fact I can't sit long isn't permanent.  

But look up how the federal program for welfare works.  It is two years total if you are single, and five if you have children.  And this is NY state.  If other states are different, then it is on a state issue.  For me, there is no get paid for not working at all.  But there is the look for work.  That is in contrast with the normal complaints, "But people sit around on their butts all day and don't get out and look for work, and get free hand outs" which isn't correct.

Unemployment benefits are most definitely time limited.  If you are the best employee, and have worked 30 years at a company, and you were making a million dollars a year, the most you will get per month is less than $70 a week for six months.  Period.  The only exception if you were fired with cause (i.e. you egregiously or maliciously violated company policy).  If you were terminated "at will", then you still qualify for unemployment.

The point I'm making is that under a certain threshold of income you get less than $70 per week, over and you don't get any more.  And the amount of time you get it is up to six months, based on the time you work.

Now, the federal government has extended unemployment relief, which has meant for those who qualified for the extension they continued to receive it AFTER their unemployment terminated, but that's still an extension approved by legislation and it's only for a set period of time before that extension runs out or the government decides it must continue it.

I too have a recurring back problem, but because my problem isn't a continuous issue I do not qualify for SSI.  SSI is not something easily qualified for simply because abuse of it runs rampant.  So people claiming disability are thoroughly vetted.  Even then there are still people who fraudulently claim it.  Typically they had a legitimate claim, but after getting better continued to claim SSI while working.

I just explained myself very clearly.   You say you don't believe that people have a right to other's money, yet you clearly do if you accept the welfare state.  That is hypocritical. 

There is no acceptable number of deaths.  People will always fall through the cracks, and if your approach of doing more centralized welfare to curb poverty actually worked, then there would be less of it right now.  The opposite is true, though.  There are over 70 federal welfare programs, and there are more people in poverty than ever before.  If you wanted to be truly compassionate to the elderly and the poor, you would be more concerned with how the value of our currency is continually declining, which affects the poor more than any other group because they're the ones on fixed incomes who get hit hardest by the inflation that raises the price of everything we buy.

If you subsidize something, you get more of it.  So the more federal or state welfare is given out, the more people will use it and either stay poor or become poor just to qualify.  The only answer that is moral is to allow churches and other private charities to help those TRULY in need.  Before the government got involved in taxpayer-funded welfare in middle of the last century, that used to be how charity was handled.  Politicians came in and messed it all up.

I both think it's a moral duty to help the poor and needing, but it's obviously a responsible policy for every state to try to avoid smart and lazy people exploit the system, so the solution could be that those living on welfare and not totally handicapped do at least part time jobs of public utility and follow retraining courses if their current jobs and skills offer too few workplaces. Moms with little children should follow courses and receive temporary jobs that made for them easier to follow their kids when they aren't at school or kindergarten.
Let's not forget that with fierce competition from emerging countries, unskilled workforce isn't anymore a resource but a burden, and the true richness of developed countries is good education and skilled workforce. Overlooking this for greed and avarice is horribly shortsighted.

There arn't as many aboriginal people as you may think (maybe 2%-3% of the population). Majority living on the east coast that are on the dole are white people who have no intention of working.

I agree that the welfare crackdown won't make much of a difference, but that is not the point. The point is people are exploiting the system, whilst people who work to contribute to the country and try to better their life get penalised with additional taxes because they choose not to take private health cover (one example), which costs a fair chunk of money. Why should people be forced to take priavate health if they dont want it? People already contribute to the puvlblic health system via taxes. Taking additional money as penalty is ludacrist. Then there is the new carbon tax coming in, which only distirbutes the wealth back to disadvantaged people. Why not use the carbon tax what it was intended for? which was research and development of renewable energy resources other than solar or wind, which relies on weather conditions to operate)

The point I was making about infastrucutre was a general example of one issue. The boom  has provided a false sense of financial security (as itwill eventually end) which has resulted in wasteful spending without results or no improvement to the country.