While I do agree with you that there is much excess gristle to be trimmed from the meat that is the welfare system, I would gently remind you, Starwing, that many among the poor really can't find or are unable to work and take care of themselves. There are always people who will try and exploit the system, and all of us should do what we can to make this exploitation difficult. However, I argue that most of the poor, come by their poverty "honestly". Some people have crippling psychological and physical disabilities which make it hard or impossible for them to hold down a job. There is also much prejudice against the poor and unemployed. The longer someone goes without a job, the harder it is to find one, because employers will assume that a prospective employee is somehow undesirable, incapable, or inept, since nobody else has touched them. There is also much trepidation in hiring the poor, because they are generally considered to have an unhealthy living style, with bad habits, unsanitary living arrangements, with far too many children (as you observed), and are a potential insurance liability. I'm not trying to deny that there are far too many dishonest folk sponging off government aid, but the great majority of the poor, are poor for a good reason. People make mistakes, they get knocked up, or addicted to substances, or commit a crime which spoils their life, and they pay for it, and they ask for help. But, most don't do it out of a spirit of malice, or slothfulness, which you seem to imply. I think it would shock all of us to discover exactly how much money is siphoned away to the 1% of the population because of backroom deals, private agendas, pork-barrels, and special interest groups. Perhaps if politicians weren't so interested in lining their own pockets, and cared more for the citizenry than maintaining their own positions, there would be a bit more money to go around. But, now my idealism is showing, so I'll hush. Also, my family is part of the "lower middle class", so I'm afraid I'm a bit biased. Sorry to preach at you, Starwing, I didn't mean to imply that you were ignorant of these ideas, or prejudiced, or wrong in any way. I was simply trying to be a Devil's advocate and express my opinion as well. I respect you, and think you are a wonderful satyr, and if I have offended [substitute obvious Shakespeare quote here] I apologize.

I understand that there are people who need these programs, which is why I didn't mention getting rid of them but to rework them. Make it harder for people to abuse instead of take advantage of. It's gotten to the point, that even though I myself could use a month or two of support (gods know I qualify for it) I refuse to simply because I feel that if I do I'm just doing it to be a thief. Its gotten to the point that my family talks about welfare like a disease. Having grown up in an area that was 90% welfare, and 99% of those people didn't have any real problem, this has become the outlook. Some states now require a drug test to qualify for these programs, and it has helped a lot. That would be one step closer to helping our economy. The more people that work, the more jobs there will be. The less services people demand to be free, the easier it will be for the rest of us to afford them instead of having to pay extra to make up the difference.

I was raised with the ideal that if you want something, you have to work for it. That you get nothing for nothing. My parents and grandparents instilled in me a strong work ethic and good spending habits (such as it's sometimes better to pay a little more for better quality that will last, instead of going for something cheap that you will have to replace after a short while). I'll admit, we are probably considered to be upper middle class. Or middle middle class. Still, I was denied for nearly any federal funding because my parents made too much money. Even though putting me and my siblings through school put them into horrendous dept.

Am I biased? Yes. Are my opinions informed? Yes. Am I a jackass? 100% Yes. But I'm right. It's not the people who NEED the programs that I'm complaining about, it's the people who ABUSE them.

On the subject of the 1%, if they didn't feel so threatened they wouldn't hold onto every penny so tightly. Yes, some of them are backroom blackhearts. However there are those who earned their wealth through legal and honest ways. So what if they have more money to spend than the rest of us? Let them. Encourage them to spend it. If someone isn't worried about people trying to take their money from them, they're more willing to part with it. I'm probably not articulating this very well at this late hour and how tired I am. But it's called the Trickle Down theory. The rich spends a lot of money on a yacht to look cool for his peers cause he isn't being hounded for additional taxes. The people who built that yacht (most likely not part of the 1%) get paid for it. They in turn spend money on simpler, less expensive things. So on and so forth. Eventually that money would make it down to the lowest rank. Or at least it should. Now it won't.

Of course, Starwing, I didn't mean to accuse you of bias, and I will admit to being under informed on this issue. All I have to recommend my arguments is a personal interest in them, I'm afraid. I certainly don't mean to provoke you, especially at such a late hour. Personally I, with what little I know of economics, distrust the Trickle Down theory. I would rather see tax breaks go to the middle class, who, as I understand it, spend a far greater percentage of what they earn than the rich, who seem to hold back most of what they have from circulation. There are also more of the middle class, than the rich, and so a greater number of people, like your family, would benefit from those tax breaks. I see that I did broadly paint the rich as Machiavellian robber barons, and I apologize for doing so, it wasn't my conscious intention. I agree that many among the wealthy have worked hard for the fortunes they possess, but I don't believe that asking them to pay what they can afford, which is a great deal more that what you or I could, will break them, or threaten those fortunes appreciably. However, as I said, I am largely ignorant on this subject, and a terrible romantic, and that may invalidate my opinions entirely. I'm certainly not about to deny what you have personally experienced, and I understand that middle class, and upper middle class families bear the brunt of the suffering, where college tuition is involved. I agree, that strong steps need to be taken in order to prevent the abuse of the welfare system. In short, I defer to an opinion far more enlightened than my own, good sir. And no one could mistake you for a jackass, Starwing, you're far too handsome a satyr for that.

I think you may be straw-maning a bit there, Starwing, dear. It may be easy to say all of that when you aren't down here in the bottom, barely surviving, needing the gov't assistance just to make ends meet despite being employed and intelligent. It's a steep pit the bourgeois have put us in, all because their pwecious money means more than human life and well being. And this alleged fraud doesnt really happen. It just doesn't. It's made hard enough for people with legitimate claims to get assistance, there isnt any ways for fakers to get through. I know, I'm down here in that bottom rung. *Gives the satyr a big hug* I hope you feel less angry soon. cause carrying rage like that isnt good for your health

Er, in retrospect, Starwing, I feel like a bit of an ass. I mean, you were just trying to express a simple opinion, and then I jumped down your throat like we were in some kind of forum. I apologize, I get even weirder at later hours. I'll leave my pedantry elsewhere, when I visit. :3