The problem of the “Lucy” welfare-for-life entitled mindset

December 6, 2013: Welfare is political. If you are a liberal or a progressive, compassion means giving people enough money and benefits to live without having to work. As a result, the welfare can take away all incentive and motivation to work. With such incentive gone, far too many welfare recipients become welfare-for-life victims, a type of welfare abuse.

If you are a conservative, on the other hand, compassion means providing only enough welfare to cover basic needs temporarily until the person can find another full-time job, work part-time, go back to school or get retrained. As former Premier Mike Harris used to say, the best social assistance is a job. Yet, his government was criticized for getting 100,000 people off welfare between 1995 and 1999.

Well, to hear what a welfare-for-life mindset sounds like, check out the video at Zero Hedge.com post at the end of November. A woman, in her early 30s, named Lucy, calls into KLBJ Radio, an Austin, Texas radio program, about welfare abuse. (H/T NewswatchCanada.ca) Right off the bat she says:

“…To all you workers out there preaching morality about those of us who live on welfare… can you really blame us? I get to sit around all day,
visit my friends, smoke weed.. and we are still gonna get paid, on time every month…”

In other words, the suckers in society are all those people who are working so she doesn’t have to. What do you say to a person like that? Lucy’s defence? She keeps saying that we would all do the same if someone called us up and offered us a free million dollars. The problem is, no one is ever going to do that.  I mean, even if you win a lottery, you had to have purchased a ticket.

In any event, I found listening to Lucy very sad. She thinks she is free because she can do her hobbies and meet with her friends any time she wants. Yet, what happens when she has a family emergency and/or needs extra money so her children can attend a birthday party or go on a school trip?

The crux of the matter is, and where conservative politics comes in, to eliminate or reduce the welfare-for-life mindset, social assistance should not be so good that it takes away all incentive to work and the initiative to want to improve one’s life.

[…]

Endnote: On the type of conservative policies that would be empowering, check out this White Paper “Welfare to Work” by the Ontario PC Party.

12 thoughts on “The problem of the “Lucy” welfare-for-life entitled mindset

  1. Pingback: Sandy: The problem of the “Lucy” welfare-for-life entitled mindset | Jack's Newswatch

  2. Great post Sandy.
    I like the 12 highlighted paths that the Ontario PC Tim Hudak has “Welfare to Work” part of the White Paper
    I hope people follow the link you have provided to the White paper and take time to look at the highlighted in blue points.
    Tim Hudak has a great plan for Ontario

    Like

  3. I listened to that conversation when it was first aired. that woman is representative of the welfare voters that will keep socialists like obarma and the democrats in power. there are more takers than makers in the U.S. and Canada is not far behind.

    Like

  4. There needs to be a ‘means test’ or every person that is on welfare. PROVE each and every month, why you need it. Those that are on it but are healthy, should have to WORK at something, to earn the meager welfare payment. If you have to work for welfare, then working at a real job will not only be better, it will pay better, ergo, an incentive to get off welfare. There needs to be a re-training and education component to this as well. Welfare recipients must take re-training to continue payments. They must maintain perfect attendance and a 70% passing grade. By not holding them to account and being responsible, the cycle of dependency will never change. The same goes for the native population. Everybody has to work.. Everybody has to pay their own way. The elderly who have worked their whole life deserve a retirement. The lazy need to get a reality check.

    I know tattoos and dope are expensive. I shouldn’t have to finance them on my tax dollar.
    P.S. I don’t want to hear ‘how hard it is to live on welfare’ bull-crap. If it is hard.. go get a job. If you can’t get a job, then stop having children out of marriage, pregnancy is the most preventable condition there is. If there are no jobs where you live… MOVE to where there are jobs. If you need skills, then that is the ONLY thing the Government should do for you. Train you to hold down a JOB. The Government is ME and other hard-working people. The ‘Government’ is not a bottomless pit of dollars that you freeloaders can exploit forever. EARN YOUR KEEP!

    Like

  5. Harebell — Did you even read my post? What you wrote had nothing to do with what I was saying. Nothing. I deleted it. End of story.

    Please read the welcome widget on my sidebar. I state clearly that this blog is for those who are small “c” conservatives. As such, I am not interested in your interpretation of what a conservative does or does not believe about welfare — which is to say, you haven’t a clue. I would recommend you read the ONPC white paper in order to get a clue.

    Like

  6. I agree Warren except for people who can’t work because of a disability. Of course, there are lots of people with disabilities that do work but a few cannot. But, the Lucy’s of the world could be called freeloaders for sure. Very applicable. I also have been known to call them parasites because they live off of other people, even those who earn minimum wage.

    Like

  7. Sandy
    I dealt directly with your straw man construction of what a progressive believes about welfare. I understand this is a Conservative blog, but surely correcting you on your misapprehensions about what a progressive believes is part of the back and forth.
    If all this blog is to be is an echo chamber of approved views then surely you could be honest enough to state that in the side bar? If you get to state what progressives believe and then allow no corrections or even discussion how is that in anyway educational or facilitating understanding?

    As to the examples I gave, I used US examples of contradictory ideas because Lucy is a US example

    Like

  8. Harebell, I have approved your comment at 5:49pm only so that I can tell you that I don’t need you to tell me what or how a progressive thinks. My Ph.D dissertation was done on the role of teacher beliefs on practice. As a result, I did an awful lot of research on how world view (beliefs and attitudes) can affect what people do and say. So, I don’t need any advice from you on that either.

    I am a progressive conservative, always have been and always will be. I have voted both NDP and Liberal at one time or another. NDP when Bob Rae was elected — a mistake I will never make again. I also come out of a university setting. So, keep that in mind when I write something. I am NOT some far right wing ding. I also have an adult son receiving disability benefits.

    However, while I agree that, as a society we need to have a safety net to help people temporarily (even for a few years if necessary), I have no patience for lifestyle welfare recipients whether in Canada or the U.S. No one is doing them any favours by making it easier for them to be victims than internally motivated independent adults.

    Re arguing with you or anyone else, I am not interested. I say clearly on my sidebar welcome that this site is for small “c” conservatives. End of story. If you or anyone else think it is an echo chamber, that is your problem, not mine.

    While some progressives criticize me and even make fun of me, the reality is if there was a reasonable alternative to the Stephen Harper Conservatives, I would consider it. Thomas Mulcair? Justin Trudeau? Not a chance. The Liberals had a man of accomplishment in Marc Garneau and a woman of accomplishment in Martha Hall Findlay and they blew it. Just picture Justin Trudeau across the table from Putin. What a joke. He looks and sounds so immature, it is embarrassing. Findlay was right about him not knowing anything about the middle class. Yet, she had to apologize. I was so very disappointed. She should have stood her ground.

    Anyway, this is all off topic. I am just making my position clear to you that I run this blog, not you.

    Like

  9. Sandy
    this was the straw man:

    ” If you are a liberal or a progressive, compassion means giving people enough money and benefits to live without having to work.”

    Very few progressives believe this as most progressives are more “teach a man to fish” than that, hence their belief in education being made available to all.

    As for your evaluation of Garneau, I agree he would have been a magnificent Liberal candidate but in today’s world, it’s all about propaganda and/or style not reality and substance.

    Like

  10. Harebell, I totally disagree with your straw man. When I was in private practice (educational psychologist specializing in testing and helping those with learning disabilities overcome or compensate) working with people on welfare and disability, things were set up so as to keep them dependent on the state. I heard their frustrations daily. Even part-time work was discouraged indirectly when the total money made was deducted from benefits.

    In my opinion then, after the NDP raised welfare rates and welfare income to near or equal to minimum wage employment or better (because those on social assistance get prescription and dental benefits), it was not seen by most as compassionate in the long run.

    Plus, after the NDP “progressives” where thrown out in Ontario, I lived through the 21% cuts to social assistance working for an ONPC MPP between 1995 and 1999. I know whereof I speak. Welfare abuse was at its peak under the NDP.

    So, far more people benefitted from the Tories’ tough love that prior under the progressives. Perhaps because the Tories encouraged part-time work and allowed recipients to keep all or most of their p/t income. Eventually, once they got used to working all day, 100,000 people dropped out of welfare altogether. Now, that is progress. Yet, the Harris gov’t is seen as the bogey man. Bizarre!

    If you listen to Lucy, towards the end of the tape, she mentions how the social workers keep trying to give her more benefits. That is not compassion in the long run.

    Like

Comments are closed.