Poor people tend to be the ones on welfare. The children of poor people are more likely to be poor. Therefore, I'd say it would be pretty reasonable to have patterns where two generations in a row are on welfare. Poverty is the key thing linking them.
Now I am sure that there are some cases where people end up making more on social welfare programs than working a minimum wage job. Is that an argument for cutting aid? I'd say, rather, that it is an argument for raising the minimum wage. Life on welfare is not glamorous. If you can't do better in a minimum wage job, then something is seriously wrong with the job system. Cheers, Judah On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:53 AM, C. Hatton Humphrey <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:51 AM, C. Hatton Humphrey <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > Here's the thing, aside from the "hey I get to smoke weed all day" bit, > > AFAIK there isn't anything in the program rules saying that it can't be a > > generational use issue. > > > Wow that was badly worded. > > What I was trying to say is that I don't see anywhere that > multi-generational welfare dependency is considered scamming the system. > > I'm *sure* you could get that out of what I originally sent! > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:368726 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
