On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:13:21 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:

> "John Kane" > wrote
>
> On Sep 14, 1:46 pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
>>> Where I live they put a 5 year lifetime limit on welfare. Last
>>> I heard, you didn't get extra funds if you had additional children
>>> after you were on welfare. That's a simple overview, but you
>>> get the idea. Training programs were set up for people who
>>> needed it.
>>
>>> It might not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
>>> Nothing wrong with If you can work, work.
>
>>Where do you live and has anyone actually looked at the results of
>>this idea?
>
>>Every once in a while some state or province or country tries
>>something this dumb and it flops because it is a stupid political
>>response to a complex socio-economic problem.
>
> You really seem to like the welfare solution. I wonder why.
>

as someone upthread pointed out, welfare payments don't amount to much of
your tax bill:

Summary

The two largest welfare programs for the poor, AFDC and food stamps, each
take up only 1 percent of the combined government budgets. Attempts to
expand the definition of "welfare" to make this figure larger will
inevitably include popular middle class programs like Medicaid and student
loans.



Argument

One of the most popular myths is that welfare is a serious drag on the
economy. Actually, it barely registers on the radar screen. The most
vilified form of welfare is Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC),
which allegedly gives poor mothers a financial incentive to avoid work and
have babies. Yet in 1992, AFDC formed only 1 percent of the combined
federal and state budgets. Food stamps also took up 1 percent. Both
programs cost $24.9 billion each, comprising 1 percent each of the combined
federal, state and local budget of $2,487 billion. (1)

<http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-runawaywelfare.htm>

....so why not think of it as a 'spite tip' for a really cruddy waiter?

your pal,
blake