@georgeob1,
Quote:That is merely a slightly deceptive way of saying they (the "beneficiaries") have become dependent on the government program, and are no longer willing or able to fend for themselves. That's hardly a beneficial result.
You're sort of fixated on the "aid and dependence" thing — and leave out the "government responsive to their needs" element. Workplace safety, consumer protection, banking regulations, clean air and water statutes, laws to insure public health, and funds and agencies to provide disaster relief — these are all reasons why people might choose to support one party over another and have nothing to do with becoming government dependents. They have everything to do with the role of government in general, anywhere, anytime.
The problem of poverty is a different order of business. Unwilling or unable to address the causes, we apply band-aids. But these band-aids are an important component of a healthy society. Allowing portions of the population to remain hungry, sick, and penniless causes even greater problems in the long run. It's unconscionable to ignore such conditions and allow them to fester. I'd like to see more than the application of band-aids but for now it's all we've got. I still hold that welfare expenses do more good than harm but if we're really serious about breaking the cycle of generational and community dependence, structural changes to our economy are in order. If you want people to work to earn a living, they need education, training and, most importantly,
actual jobs.
