This is a really interesting issue for conservatives, and we need to think about it. I will admit that my thinking on the matter is changing. Used to be, I would have said, "their fault, it's on them." But, our society has changed dramatically over the last 150 or so years.
In the past, families and small communities would care for those in need not due to their own faults. We still have some of that, but not for the vast majority of people.
Also, there were some serious self-limiting factors in play, as in, you didn't work, you didn't eat. Real simple and a strong motivator. It forced people to think about and plan for the future. Now, we know that that safety net will catch us if we fall, and there is little stigma attached to tapping into it.
And, then we need to look at how our world works. The Pareto Principle, for instance, which basically states, that in many cases, 80% of the available resources go to 20% of the population. It's not a left/right thing, it's a thing.
And, then there's IQ. That's one we don't like to look at or admit to, because it denies a basic belief that everyone can do well in our society if they just try. It's a lot more than just trying. For instance, if your IQ is below a certain point, you simply can't see far enough ahead to know that you need to plan and how to do it.
So, we can take several positions here:
1. People need to take care of themselves, and we need to cut tax-payer support so that they will have to develop the skills they need to survive.
2. The system is rigged from the start and smart bureaucrats need to be able to help those on the bottom of the system through life by taking resources from those on the top and redistributing them and by "educating" members of society so that they do what they should do.
There's obvious problems with both of those approaches.
The absolute best way to deal with people is to use the closest entity to the affected people you can. Not the bureacracy at the state or federal levels, down to county, city or smaller. A charity is the best so no public entity is involved.
Case in point: My wife served as a volunteer of a charity that handed out to needy people groceries, clothes, even paying some of the gas or electricity bills. She would be designated to go to the home to assess the position of those applying for charity.
If cigarettes or booze was present, or if cable tv, then they would give them nothing.
If kids were starving due to the parents' habits, then CPS would be called to take the kids.
Suck it up or starve is the message.
