I think a lot of conservatives think that it is -- not easy -- but reasonably achievable for people to pull themselves up out of poverty and get off government support. I think this is a somewhat understandable but misguided takeaway from the fact that it is very very easy to become poor. The threat of poverty hangs over the majority of americans at all times, especially during a recession. It's only natural for someone to think, I could lose my job at any time, but I would never be one of those people on welfare for the rest of my life. I'd find something to do to pay for necessities, without government help. And that is probably true.
But the fundamental misunderstanding is that the people who are stuck on food stamps and other social programs are not like you at all. Conservatives should ask themselves what type of work they would be able to find without their college education (and probably not even a high school diploma), without the influence of educated parents, without any substantial connections to people of more than minimal status or wealth, without any disposable income, without any credit history, without a reliable means of transportation, and without any work experience at a job other than delivering pizzas, washing dishes, working at the equivalent of a fast-food restaurant, or being a janitor. Add to that the possibility that you may suffer from questionable decision-making abilities, stemming from any number of problems, from lack of education to some sort of actual mental problem. What type of opportunities can such a person create for himself? Then maybe you should subtract some of the government services these people get, from food stamps to educational loans, and then ask yourself the question again.
There is an overwhelming sense among the poor that it is pointless to work hard and try to achieve success, I don't dispute that. But I think that feeling stems more from the overwhelming obstacles of their situation than it does from their satisfaction living on government benefits. The fact that there are so few people who have made it from the bottom to the top is not because poor people don't want to work hard. It's because their future was largely decided before they turned 18. The people who rise up from poverty, almost exclusively, are those who either worked hard from childhood or those who fell into poverty late in life.
I submit to you that the reason we have so many people who can't support themselves is not because we effectively incentivize them to remain in poverty, but because we don't provide/mandate enough opportunity for them to rise out of poverty. The amount people get from the federal government in most cases is enough to survive, but not enough to remedy a lack of education and work experience. The choice, in my mind, is either to cut benefits and eradicate poverty by eradicating (literally) the poor, or creating/mandating opportunities for them (focusing on the education of children) so that we don't end up paying for their food and housing for the rest of their lives. But that will cost more, not less, than we are already spending, at least in the short-term. Or you can continue with the current system, which I agree is ineffective in any way other than keeping people alive.
thanks for the history lesson. I notice a couple of errors (that last part should read "one man, one vote, so long as that one man is a minority, and his minority is the majority in the district"), but over all very good.