Quote:
Originally Posted by HumanePain
One of the conservative arguments is that the need should be met for a very limited time, after which it is assumed the recipient has become accustomed to living on aid instead of using it as a bridge to their next job. In this argument, it no longer becomes a need after a set time.
So now, with the above definitions, AND with the beginning statement of finite resources, it becomes necessary to deny needs to conserve financial resources. The needs can only be provided for a limited time to help out until one is independent again. If you are newly poor, you are not denied, if you are poor for years, you're out of luck.
This is the argument I am facing.
Simplicity: Thanks, excellent ammo! History can teach us if we remember!
|
The problem with time limits is that they're too inefficient. I fully agree that there needs to be a check against the thought of someone abusing any welfare systems and limiting the time someone can be on the welfare system is probably a good idea. That being said, unless you conduct a massive study to determine the perfect "time", you're left with two options. You can either have too short of time limit and risk missing meeting the essential needs of those who are legitimately on the welfare system or you can risk have too long of a time limit and risk having a widely inefficient system.
The solution is to address things on a case-by-case basis. That way your only cost is the case workers, and you can optimize resources while still meeting the needs of those on the system. If you have a lazy guy who is just living on the social welfare system because it's cozy: kick him out and save the resources. If you have someone who is down on their luck but putting in their best effort: spend the resources on them and keep them in the system.
That should address their concerns.
And thanks.