I Really Mean It

I really, really mean it. If someone is willing to live on just a few hundred dollars a month, because they are lazy, I am totally willing to let them. I wouldn't live that way, would you? Very few would. We spend more dollars every year subsidizing the rich than we ever spend on the poor. When we eliminate the small number of those misusing the welfare system because they are lazy, who is left?
There are the less intelligent, And I know that Ramsam or any of you would not find my own personal son undeserving of care, but where do you draw the line? My boy's IQ is 51. Is 60 considered smart enough? How about 80? To be able to hold down a job and earn enough to live on their own. I sincerely doubt that 80 is enough to be able to do that. What about the mentally ill? How do you decide who can and can't work? If you are bi polar is it that you only have 2 manic episodes a year? How do they afford their medications if they keep getting fired twice a year? What about the schizophrenic? Who? When? Under what circumstances? Who decides that some should go hungry and homeless because they deserve it? In my own personal thought system, it isn't ever right, no matter why. The poor are us, and when my brother goes to bed hungry so do I. I know we can do this, reduce poverty and hunger. Each and every one of you, particularly those of you I have met in person, I know would not turn a hungry child from your door. On this we can agree. You might disagree on my view of how we can work on this, and I might disagree with yours. But I know you care, and I do too. If we all work on this, in our own ways, the poor will be fed.
I just think it is important for you to understand how and why I came to my viewpoint.

Here is some info for you, on the U.S. and other countries and their poor. Do not forget that the children account for a large amount of those in poverty in our country.

Social expenditures and child poverty—the U.S. is a noticeable outlier
All advanced industrialized countries make an effort to reduce the number of children who live in poverty, but poverty remains a harsh reality for many children in every country. Child poverty is defined as children living in households where income is less than 50% of household median income within each country. Although children bear no responsibility for living in poverty, they are penalized not only in childhood but later in life if their health or education suffers from a lack of resources.

All economies face the trade-off between how much money should be spent and what level of childhood poverty is acceptable. The data used in the figure below compare social economic expenditures and child poverty rates of the United States to that of 16 other rich, industrialized countries that, like the United States, belong to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The United States and these other countries face similar global conditions with respect to trade, investment, technology, the environment, and other factors that shape economic opportunities. Thus, this comparison provides a yardstick for gauging the commitment of the U.S. government to reducing child poverty and its lifelong effects.

You will have to click on the link to see the graph
Link to study that I forgot to mark

The figure clearly illustrates that those countries with higher social expenditures — as a percentage of gross domestic product, or GDP — have dramatically lower poverty rates among children. The blue line in the figure shows the correlation between expenditures and child poverty rates for all countries. Individually, the Nordic countries — Sweden, Norway, and Finland — stand out, with child poverty rates between 2.8% and 4.2%. The United States stands out as the country with the lowest expenditures and the highest child poverty rate — five times as much as the Nordics.

The paucity of social expenditures addressing high poverty rates in the United States is not due to a lack of resources — high per capita income and high productivity make it possible for the United States to afford much greater social welfare spending. Moreover, other OECD countries that spend more on both poverty reduction and family-friendly policies have done so while maintaining competitive rates of productivity and income growth.