Why is it?

The problem is defining lazy, because this qualifier seems to present in most arguments against welfare. Is someone who is out of work, can't find a job, and with children to feed... lazy? If so then no food stamps, but if not then what? Plenty of debate IMO. If your fundamental belief is that the gov should never help anyone out with tax money because it's taking from someone else, then you will be out of the debate.

I use lazy generically. IMO it isnt laziness thats the problem, its a math problem. The system "assists" so well that assistance is a "better life" than working. Its not that they are lazy, its that working isnt a better income stream. We have moved from a society of ethics to a society of practicality.

IMO, charity is where this help needs to come from, not the fed govt. The fed cannot look at it granularly and keep assistance going to those who need it and away from those looking for the free ride. They have the ability to look at this at an individual level and refuse service to those who are looking for a free ride in their community.

However, ending the free ride will not be popular for those benefitting from it. While its the right thing to do for both parties and America as a whole, its political suicide. it will only happen when one party has such a firm grip on the country that they dont need the "lazy vote".

Originally Posted by jason_ssr

it will only happen when one party has such a firm grip on the country that they dont need the "lazy vote".

And that isn't going to happen under our economic model. That's been my point all along. Out economic model is turning the middle class into the poor and enriching the wealthy. The result is the party that has the firmest grip will be the party representing the have-nots.

Ever wonder how the Fed (monetary fed not federal govt) can expand the money supply? How does it do this without giving money to somebody. If it's a loan and has to be paid back that cannot ultimately be an expansion. The Fed can't get anything in return for money because what does it need in exchange? Yes I know the Fed makes a profit on loans and pays some or most of that to the govt. But who gets the money in an expansion? If it buys troubled mortgages then investors and banks get the money. Free money. Must be nice.