Originally Posted by
W3WN
I don't know about that. It may depend on the location, too, as some states have different rules regarding how they distribute welfare funding.
I think the real issue, though, is simply this: No matter how lofty and noble the proposed laws are, and no matter how lofty and noble (and constructive) the goals are... the actual rules and procedures are written not by the law makers, but by the bureaucrats that run the agencies. Too many of these rules are written to actually serve THEIR needs -- to keep their jobs, to keep their control & power(such as it is), and to make their lives easier.
So, for example, a desired outcome of a rule might be that no one with significant assets should receive public assistance... as they clearly have the means to support themselves. Sounds like a good idea, right? But -- where do you draw the line? What is "significant" in this situation... a house? a car? a savings account with $50,000 in it? $5000? $50?
Better & easier -- for the bureaucrats -- to frame the appropriate regulations to just prohibit a savings account, period. Besides, if you're saving money, then The Government must be paying you too much, right?
It just takes a few rules based on fractured logic like this to set up a system that is designed to keep people in, instead of giving them the means to find a way out.