It wont go easy, particular with the numbers as they are today. Mooching, in my opinion, is learned. What I suggest weans them off the government teat and installs a sense of self-worth and accomplishment. You have 3-4 years to get your life in order or you have no help from there. One time. No exceptions.

The only thing I would take issue with is that proponents of welfare have good intentions. A lot of money is siphoned off between the taxpayer and the welfare recipient.

Well said, Eyecu2

In the past we as Americans have always prided ourselves on being individuals and self reliant. If someone was having a hard time the local governments as well as charities, funded by Americans at their own discretion, helped those less fortunate. They provided relief in the form of
food and sometimes cash to poor residents. In many cases those capable were required to work for the town or county were given jobs for the earn the money and food they received.
In special cases where those needing help were not capable of working: widows, children, the elderly, and the disabled were helped without thought of return. In the philosophy of objectivism Ayn Rand pointed out "Don’t try to be your brother’s keeper or to force him to be yours. Live independently". This to me means we should have the moral duty to decide as individuals (as they did in the past) whether we will help others and in what way.

Maybe the best thing to get rid of the moocher mentality is when mooching doesnt get you anything !! My cat learned to bang the special moist food dish against the wall to indicate he wanted more. But the moist food was supposed to be a special thing, and the cat used to bang the dish every day. We fixed tht by stopping the moist food thing for a couple of weeks until he gave up banging the dish. Now he appreciates an occasional shot of moist food and doesnt bang the dish.

Agreed. And something must be done to stem the Moocher mentality, the best thing I can think of is personal pride in accomplishment.

I take your argument as trying to limit the giving to those in real need and to stop the giving when their real need is over. I do think your approach is the more likely to be implemented. I would LIKE to see no more giving at all paid for by taxes if that were possible.

If the fundamental nature of the giving is not changed, if the term of the giving is not changed, then the minds of the people receiving will not change.

I'm not talking of a philosophical utopian idea, I'm talking about to make reality come to exemplify what it should have been from the beginning - a helping hand, not a hand out or a long term career. You can say all you want about the perfect society but taxes aren't going anywhere. I'd rather see the money used productively and in such a way as to reduce the problem.

I agree, however that is not how its happening today.

I live in Las Vegas. From my experience, welfare doesn't help recipients here get independent. It just enables the very behavior that got them there in the first place. The idea of helping people is fine, but shouldn't be done by taxation. If you or others want to donate and help the "needy", you are free to join a group to do just that. I think the recipients should feel the need to repay the welfare money received. Here in LV, they just come back again and again to get more. It's pretty sad. I watch the lines at the local Lutheran food bank grow larger each week as people realize it's free food

Yes, Pirate

AJ, that hand up should be voluntary charity, and not administered by the government.

On local level, money given can be monitored and those receiving be held accountable. I see being taxed as something vile, but not something we can eliminate or avoid anytime soon. Since that is the case, why not invest in people so they can make something of themselves, stand on their own feet and no longer be dependent? I'd much rather see tax money do that, with a very limited term of one-time help, than government throwing endless tax dollars into a never ending pit that lasts decades and yields nothing but another, larger group of self-entitled moochers.

If we are going to be taxed and we're going to be forced to fund welfare I'd rather a constructive hand-up that lessens the welfare rolls than a wasteful hand-out that only expands it. You?

and, with their own un-adulterated wealth, they can
contribute to charities at will, using discretion which
the government cannot use. . productive charities! -- j
.

rationality carries with it a "blind justice" clause which
smells like coldness but is just reality at work! -- j
.

But they are awarding money to these "needy" people that they steal from me and other citizens who have it

Local governments, State, country, town and city, are in the perfect position to make those determinations.

I certainly agree with #3. Otherwise it's a conflict of interest. As to #2, u would argue that governments can't effectively make those determinations

To my way of thinking ALL forms of Governmental assistance are funded via THEFT and NO MATTER how one tries to justify it, IT IS WRONG!

Unless you were having a hard time even making money. There are always circumstances or bad choices that leave people screwed and set them on a path of dependence (long or short). This is why I suggested what I did, a full but temporary 1 time hand up, after that, if you hadn't taken advantage of the help, then they are own their own without any sympathy from me.

Welfare should not be tolerated. It just theft in a fancy frock. My state increased the medicaid roles by 70K people this year (there are less than 1M people in the entire state). Some of these people are employed full time.

Wizards Rule #2: "The greatest harm can come from the best of intentions."

Truth. *1

Thank you.