Pardon this un-thought-out, spur of the moment thought... Would a welfare system be acceptable to the society overall if it supported only those that were incapable of supporting themselves? For example... Joe goes to work every day as a retail warehouse worker. He has no health insurance because if he payed for health insurance, he wouldn't eat. He has no wife or children, but he hopes to one day. As he's walking to work, he's the victim of a hit and run accident. The driver was clearly at fault, but is never found, therefore no lawsuit or insurance claim can be filed against them. Joe's paralyzed now, and can no longer do the only work he was able to get in his life. He wants to, he's just not physcially capable of it any more. He still needs to eat and pay rent, and now on top of that, he will have many medical bills to pay, with little hope of receiving the best treatment available. Joe's last hope for keeping a roof over his head and food in his belly (at least sometimes) is hoping the government can subsidize the rest of his life. Should Joe receive enough monthly cash via welfare to pay his rent and put a little food on his table? What if he had a wife and kid? On the other hand, take Joanne. She grew up in the ghetto, and was thrown out of her house at 18 by her crackhead mother. She moved in with a drug dealer, got pregnant, and had kids. She left the drug dealer and she also seems to keep getting pregnant without knowing who the fathers are. She's asked the government to pay her rent and grocery bill... Should she receive the monthly survival cash?