107
I don't understand why conservatives can't see this as an economic issue .... sure you can play the socialism is bad card and paint a terrible picture of people living freely off the government but it doesn't work like that.
No matter where you are on the political spectrum .... the government will always pay for the poor.
Either ....
-
be a conservative and take away all benefits for the poor and let them live on their own ... and your government will end up paying for more policing, more security, more judicial services, more social services, more health care and more emergency services as people fall below a livable level and can't take care of themselves any more ... or they just fall into more crime and drug abuse as their lives degrade over time.
-
be a liberal socialist and give funds and supports directly to the poor and you'll save money by reduced crime, reduced number of people drifting towards crime and reduced number of unhealthy people accessing your public and private health care that the government would have paid for any way.
It's all the same money ... either don't pay and you'd end up paying for the consequences later ... or pay it now and you'll have less of a problem to pay for later.
And no ... it won't create a utopia where people will be holding hands in unity afterwards ... there will still be problems, there will always be problems with any human system no matter how well meaning it is ... it's just that taking care of people makes the most economic sense. If you have a healthy nation full of functional people, they are all more likely to take part in the economy to make those wealthy capitalist leaders even more rich .... by not helping people, all our energy is spent just trying to take care of people as minimally as possible and keep the system from falling apart.
