Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
That's shockngly ignorant. Not everyone is "able bodied," and not everyone who is "able bodied" is able to "fend for themselves." Also, people can fall on hard times and need temporary help. I guess that's never happened to you, otherwise you might be more sympathetic.
There's another consideration that might not have occured to you. Let's say that Person X is an iconic (to Republicans) no-good mooching welfare bum, too lazy to done git a gol-durn honest living. We doesn't wants to send that bum free money! But that person has children. What's more productive from a societal standpoint, to let those children starve or to give their families free food?
I guess that's what makes me a no-good bleeding-heart liberal. I'm happier with some people who don't "deserve" social welfare getting it than some who do "deserve" it not getting it. Assuming we even determine what "deserve" means.
Give me an example of an able bodied person who worked hard to gain a good education (this doesn't include history, or underwater basket weaving), worked hard at their job, and can't fend for themselves.