I would never say anything as politically incorrect as “the poor are lazy” but mostly because I believe if anything it would be the other way around… how about “the lazy tend to be poorer than the industrious”? Is that more acceptable?
Many scandals with food stamps being used illegally have been uncovered and yet the politically correct view is that these are exceptions and people on welfare are mostly honest people trying to get back on their feet. With food stamps the situation may be more dificult to judge but let us look at housing.
There were some apartment buildings near where I live. Built some 25 years ago as a housing project for the “economically disadvantaged” they had become all run down, full of crime and drugs. Finally they have been torn down and the occupants moved somewhere else (to start the cycle all over again I would think).
This seems to be the norm rather than the exception in most of these housing projects. As a whole they are utter failures, never achieving their stated goal of helping people get back on their feet. Rather, the places get worse and worse until they have to be destroyed.
It seems to me if you have to pay for your house you tend to take better care of it than if someone else paid for it. You see poor people who buy an old house and rebuild it with their own work. And yet, all these people on welfare, move into perfectly good and new buildings and a few years later the social conditions there are appalling and the buildings are ready for wrecking.
Now, it cannot be a tiny minority of those people who are the cause of all this. It seems to me if you had a large group of perfectly good families living in a building, one or two bad apples could not achieve this sort of destruction as they would be kept in check by the rest.
So, it seems what you have here is a situation where most of these people just cannot take basic care of their homes even though someone else paid for it and they cannot built a decent social environment which is not even a question of money.
There is a debate in another thread over whether people are entitled to welfare or not but, even assuming they are entitled to welfare, aren’t there any limits?
Suppose we agree as a society we should help those in need because we are decent people. But those who we are helping have no responsibility or obligation? They can waste the help they are getting without responsibility? They can commit crimes against the society that is helping them and continue to receive help? Does that make any sense? If they aren’t willing or able to do some useful work shouldn’t they at least be required to not be destructive or commit crimes?
In Washington DC they tried some laws to evict tenants from units in public housing where they were dealing drugs but it turned out not to be so easy. The grandmother would say “how could I know it was crack my grandson was dealing?” etc. and with due process and such they could not evict them. Never mind that if they had owned their home they would lose it faster than you could say “forfeiture”.
It seems like common sense to me that something is wrong when people who did not earn something have more right to it than people who did.
At minimum I would propose laws that say:
A- If you commit a serious crime, you forfeit any right to get help from society in the future (if not in perpetuity say for X decades depending on the severity of the crime)
B- If you commit a serious crime while receiving help from society that would be considered an aggravating circumstance which would increase the punishment.
C- If you live in public housing you are responsible (at least) for the cost of maintaining the buildings and common parts in good state of repair.
These laws would be pleasing to those of us who complain about the waste that the welfare system has become and should find no objection from those that defend that welfare is to help good people get back on their feet. Good people will not be affected by this.