I used to think the same thing until my sister had to go on food stamps. A series of events, dead beat ex husband, sued by a former employer who via the court system, forced her to change jobs (non compete clause in a contract), etc. etc. And she is a raging Republican, but she needed the assistance for a while and while I was able to give her money, it wasn't enough to suppliment her needs. 2 kids and a 2 year old grand child, another long story.
I grew up in a small town in Maine. There was a community-type aid program funded by the town itself.....handup, not handout, etc etc etc. It was called "going on the town" and there was a huge stigma to it. It was the absolute last resort for a family.
Interestingly enough, there is now a huge Somali population in Lewiston, ME. I believe that they were attracted there by much the same type benefits. Whatever you subsidize, you get more of, now in this age of self-esteem.
she is the EXCEPTION, not the rule...she probably hated it that she had to take the assistance, whereas most people on 'stamps feel like "its owed to them" you know what i mean.
My opinion is that there should be and end to welfare and a start of innovative insurance. If you don't pay insurance, you don't get benefits. It used to be if the breadwinner died, there was insurance for that. Now, maybe there should be dead beat husband insurance, divorce insurance, etc.
Your sister paid taxes and should get some back. There are a lot of people who never pay taxes and those should get nothing back. Perhaps on your 1040 there should be lines where you can pay into all kinds of bizarre insurance funds at varying rates for varying benefits.