Spending on Welfare is 'unchristian'

[lismore]

Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition in the UK Parliament, a 'cultural Christian' says spending money on benefits is unchristian.

Kemi Badenoch says spending on welfare is 'unchristian'

Kemi Badenoch has said welfare spending could be considered "unchristian," following Rachel Reeves' Autumn Budget.

www.thelondoneconomic.com

Earlier this month, Badenoch quoted St Paul’s advice to Timothy in the Bible as she argued that the “responsibility and dignity of work” was a Christian imperative, the Times reports.
She said: “St Paul, we read, in the first Epistle to Timothy proclaims that ‘Anyone who does not provide for his own household … is worse than an unbeliever’.

“This is the Christian recognition that we all have duties … To ourselves, to our families and to the community we are part of. Conservatives believe in making work pay, in rewarding risk, in ensuring effort matches reward.”

She continued: “My message is let’s get people off welfare into work. Let us not leave debt for our children and grandchildren. That is the worst unfairness.”

When she was asked to elaborate on what she meant, Badenoch continued: “In early Christian times there was no state or welfare so I think that you can argue that, actually. The Christian tradition is about communities and families and charity, not about compulsory taxation in order to pay welfare.

Any thoughts?

 

[Nithavela]

Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition in the UK Parliament, a 'cultural Christian' says spending money on benefits is unchristian.

Kemi Badenoch says spending on welfare is 'unchristian'

Kemi Badenoch has said welfare spending could be considered "unchristian," following Rachel Reeves' Autumn Budget.

www.thelondoneconomic.com

Earlier this month, Badenoch quoted St Paul’s advice to Timothy in the Bible as she argued that the “responsibility and dignity of work” was a Christian imperative, the Times reports.
She said: “St Paul, we read, in the first Epistle to Timothy proclaims that ‘Anyone who does not provide for his own household … is worse than an unbeliever’.

“This is the Christian recognition that we all have duties … To ourselves, to our families and to the community we are part of. Conservatives believe in making work pay, in rewarding risk, in ensuring effort matches reward.”

She continued: “My message is let’s get people off welfare into work. Let us not leave debt for our children and grandchildren. That is the worst unfairness.”

When she was asked to elaborate on what she meant, Badenoch continued: “In early Christian times there was no state or welfare so I think that you can argue that, actually. The Christian tradition is about communities and families and charity, not about compulsory taxation in order to pay welfare.

Any thoughts?

In early christian times there was the patronage system of the roman empire, which very much was like welfare. Not to mention that of course there were states and taxes.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition in the UK Parliament, a 'cultural Christian' says spending money on benefits is unchristian.

Kemi Badenoch says spending on welfare is 'unchristian'

Kemi Badenoch has said welfare spending could be considered "unchristian," following Rachel Reeves' Autumn Budget.

www.thelondoneconomic.com

Earlier this month, Badenoch quoted St Paul’s advice to Timothy in the Bible as she argued that the “responsibility and dignity of work” was a Christian imperative, the Times reports.
She said: “St Paul, we read, in the first Epistle to Timothy proclaims that ‘Anyone who does not provide for his own household … is worse than an unbeliever’.

“This is the Christian recognition that we all have duties … To ourselves, to our families and to the community we are part of. Conservatives believe in making work pay, in rewarding risk, in ensuring effort matches reward.”

She continued: “My message is let’s get people off welfare into work. Let us not leave debt for our children and grandchildren. That is the worst unfairness.”

When she was asked to elaborate on what she meant, Badenoch continued: “In early Christian times there was no state or welfare so I think that you can argue that, actually. The Christian tradition is about communities and families and charity, not about compulsory taxation in order to pay welfare.

Any thoughts?

God's Law (TNK/OT) very clearly contains instructions to make sure the poor can gather food, and that wealth is redistributed every 50 years, debts are erased every 7 years, etc. Justice should be available to everyone equally (including the poor) etc.

To say that charity and care for the poor is only a Christian and not a societal duty is a misrepresentation of God's Law.

The Bible condemns laziness and leeching off others; so whenever a society cares for the poor, sick, orphans, widows, etc. sensible provisions have be put in place abuse is minimised. Diligence, hard work and initiative should be rewarded, but the genuinely sick or poor should be cared for.

Sometimes Christians love Christian charity so much they overlook society is badly organised and not obeying God's instructions for social justice.

 

[BCP1928]

Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition in the UK Parliament, a 'cultural Christian' says spending money on benefits is unchristian.

Kemi Badenoch says spending on welfare is 'unchristian'

Kemi Badenoch has said welfare spending could be considered "unchristian," following Rachel Reeves' Autumn Budget.

www.thelondoneconomic.com

Earlier this month, Badenoch quoted St Paul’s advice to Timothy in the Bible as she argued that the “responsibility and dignity of work” was a Christian imperative, the Times reports.
She said: “St Paul, we read, in the first Epistle to Timothy proclaims that ‘Anyone who does not provide for his own household … is worse than an unbeliever’.

Keep in mind that Paul was talking to people who were by and large self employed.

“This is the Christian recognition that we all have duties … To ourselves, to our families and to the community we are part of. Conservatives believe in making work pay, in rewarding risk, in ensuring effort matches reward.”

She must be talking about Christian Conservatives on some other planet.

She continued: “My message is let’s get people off welfare into work. Let us not leave debt for our children and grandchildren. That is the worst unfairness.”

When she was asked to elaborate on what she meant, Badenoch continued: “In early Christian times there was no state or welfare so I think that you can argue that, actually. The Christian tradition is about communities and families and charity, not about compulsory taxation in order to pay welfare.

Any thoughts?

Nothing new here, just the same old "The only reason people are poor is that they are too lazy to work."

 

[ThatRobGuy]

With regards to whether or not it's "Christian" (speaking as someone who's not Christian, but you posed the question in the section that's open to everyone)

It's a complicated issue.

It's a situation where multiple things are true at once, and individually, those truths (absent the backdrop of the other truths) are used to make a political case for or against entitlement programs.


Truth 1: There are a lot of people who abuse entitlement programs. I've seen it in my own family. People who could work, find reasons not to. People who aren't physically challenged, will find a Chiropractor in a strip mall to sign off on them having "lower back issues" or "fibromyalgia" in order to get on disability.

Truth 2: There are people who are legitimately physically or mentally disabled and need long term help, or people who've fallen on some extraordinary hard times and need some short term help.

Truth 3: In terms of addressing "Truth 1", there's not exactly a great incentive structure in place to encourage able-bodied people to work if their bottom-line outcome isn't going to be any better than the life on benefits.

"Hey, instead of pretending to have back problems in order to get your $1100/month, you could go bust your hump at a fast food restaurant or dealing with rude people in retail for 30 hours a week to get your $1100/month" isn't exactly a compelling argument.


Obviously one can make the argument that in some of those cases, it was a person's own mistakes from the past that contributed to their need for aid in the future. But in terms of addressing that, you'd need at time machine.

 

[lismore]

Nothing new here, just the same old "The only reason people are poor is that they are too lazy to work."

There is a significant number of people in this country in work but struggling to make ends meet, perhaps due to a combination of the rising cost of living and record high taxation. In work poverty is a thing now, on the other hand a perception that some on benefits are better off financially than low paid workers. So some workers have the perception that they're being taxed through the nose to keep people who won't work.

God Bless

 

[lismore]

With regards to whether or not it's "Christian" (speaking as someone who's not Christian, but you posed the question in the section that's open to everyone)

Absolutely, good to hear from you!

Truth 1: There are a lot of people who abuse entitlement programs. I've seen it in my own family. People who could work, find reasons not to. People who aren't physically challenged, will find a Chiropractor in a strip mall to sign off on them having "lower back issues" or "fibromyalgia" in order to get on disability.

Truth 2: There are people who are legitimately physically or mentally disabled and need long term help, or people who've fallen on some extraordinary hard times and need some short term help.

I agree! Sadly I have seen that the government seems to make it harder for genuine disabled people to claim than scoundrels and wasterels. I had a relative who quite openly said there was nothing wrong with them, but knew how to play the system for benefits, pretending to be bed ridden for their assessment then going into town to spend the money on designer clothes, on the other hand I have met severely disabled people in despair at the hoops they had to jump through to get support.

Truth 3: In terms of addressing "Truth 1", there's not exactly a great incentive structure in place to encourage able-bodied people to work if their bottom-line outcome isn't going to be any better than the life on benefits.

"Hey, instead of pretending to have back problems in order to get your $1100/month, you could go bust your hump at a fast food restaurant or dealing with rude people in retail for 30 hours a week to get your $1100/month" isn't exactly a compelling argument.

Yes I agree with that too. If you're no better off working then where is the incentive? To work hard, pay tax and see the money going to some people seemingly gaming the system. The system seems to be broken which I why I think Kemi Badenoch might have a point. And I'm not a Conservative.

Kind Regards

 

[lismore]

The Bible condemns laziness and leeching off others; so whenever a society cares for the poor, sick, orphans, widows, etc. sensible provisions have be put in place abuse is minimised. Diligence, hard work and initiative should be rewarded, but the genuinely sick or poor should be cared for.

hello! Acts 4:34-35 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

This passage in Acts seems to suggest a voluntary contribution, those with means and the desire to help the poor did. 'Anyone who had need'. The bible also says: “If anyone is unwilling to work, he shall not eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). The number of persons physically able to work but not working in this country is now in the millions.

The government taking up to 50% of a person's earnings through tax by compulsion, is entirely different than a voluntary contribution? Income tax was initially introduced in Britain during the Napoleonic wars, under the temporary pretext of fighting the French, but was proved to be a sham in that it was kept after the war was over. Perhaps one of the reasons income tax and welfare was increased is that the church wasn't as vigorous as it could have been in providing for the poor. Sometimes, under Tel-Evangelists for example, the church has been accused of preying on the poor.

God Bless

 

[Oompa Loompa]

2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 NIV
[10] For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” [11] We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. [12] Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat.

2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Su | New International Versi

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Su

bible.com

 

[Richard T]

Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition in the UK Parliament, a 'cultural Christian' says spending money on benefits is unchristian.

Kemi Badenoch says spending on welfare is 'unchristian'

Kemi Badenoch has said welfare spending could be considered "unchristian," following Rachel Reeves' Autumn Budget.

www.thelondoneconomic.com

Earlier this month, Badenoch quoted St Paul’s advice to Timothy in the Bible as she argued that the “responsibility and dignity of work” was a Christian imperative, the Times reports.
She said: “St Paul, we read, in the first Epistle to Timothy proclaims that ‘Anyone who does not provide for his own household … is worse than an unbeliever’.

“This is the Christian recognition that we all have duties … To ourselves, to our families and to the community we are part of. Conservatives believe in making work pay, in rewarding risk, in ensuring effort matches reward.”

She continued: “My message is let’s get people off welfare into work. Let us not leave debt for our children and grandchildren. That is the worst unfairness.”

When she was asked to elaborate on what she meant, Badenoch continued: “In early Christian times there was no state or welfare so I think that you can argue that, actually. The Christian tradition is about communities and families and charity, not about compulsory taxation in order to pay welfare.

Any thoughts?

Lifestyles have changed since the time of free gleaning of the fields by the poor. land is basically removed from the poor. The poor too can't sell a family member as slaves to pay debts. So if left just to charity, many would fall through the cracks in a modern nation. I see it in poor nations now. how some have hospitals that require cash upfront and will turn away patients if funds are not shown.

She is right that work is good for the able bodied. However, many on welfare are elderly, already working, or children. Some too do cycle out of welfare, though some also make a career of it. A good policy would be to subsidize employers that hire long-term welfare types. This makes these workers more attractive and accomplishes some savings for those that are able bodied of working age.

To me such statements are political but have no real practical application especially in the UK. But if you wish to return to peasants in the streets and lots of social unrest I guess a nation could try. If you look at the sheer amount that is needed, only a miracle of God could provide that funding from charity. i asked google ai about the amount that Christians in the UK currently give to all charities including churches. The average was around 75 pounds per month. True they could ramp that figure up, but it would require alot more to make

 

[ThatRobGuy]

laziness and leeching off others; so whenever a society cares for the poor, sick, orphans, widows, etc. sensible provisions have be put in place abuse is minimised. Diligence, hard work and initiative should be rewarded, but the genuinely sick or poor should be cared for.

Therein lies the huge challenge.

In a nation of of 330 million people (in which, by some estimates, 1 in 6 is on some form of non-retirement public assistance), being able to drill down into the nitty gritty to to be able to make a truly individualized decision for each person making a claim for it turns into the proverbial "herding cats" with the disjointed and manual processes we have.


If we take a look at the Nordic Systems (that have more generous benefits, but lower rates of fraud and abuse...which sounds like it'd be counterintuitive based on what we're used to in the US), there are some key differentiators that we could look at.

The Nordic countries have tightly integrated data systems, and less points of "manual intervention" in the process. Noting: Each point of "manual intervention" is an avenue for mistakes and a potential point that could be leveraged for misuse.

So when a Nordic citizen applies for these benefits, there's a one-stop-shop that provides data across a variety of facets like residency/citizenship data, income/tax reporting, limited healthcare information, employment history...

...which makes vetting both quicker (for the people who should actually be getting it), and much more accurate (for weeding out the people who shouldn't be getting it)


That idea of more robust data integration has been floated here in the US before, but has been shot down or faced pushback on a couple different fronts.
- Privacy advocates and more libertarian-minded people have full-stop rejected the notion of government agencies keeping more efficient and easily indexable data on people on the basis that it would allow the government to curtail other rights (IE: some people thinking "if they link FBI/ATF data to limited HIPAA data, they'll see that I'm a gun owner, and saw a doctor for depression 10 years ago after my wife died, and they'll try to come take my guns away")
- Civil rights and immigration advocates have pushed back on the idea (quite recently) on the basis that integrating IRS and limited HIPAA data into other agency systems would be leveraged as a way for the admin to step up immigration enforcement. (IE: "this will allow Trump's crew to come in and apprehend immigrants at hospitals and workplaces")

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition in the UK Parliament, a 'cultural Christian' says spending money on benefits is unchristian.

Kemi Badenoch says spending on welfare is 'unchristian'

Kemi Badenoch has said welfare spending could be considered "unchristian," following Rachel Reeves' Autumn Budget.

www.thelondoneconomic.com

Earlier this month, Badenoch quoted St Paul’s advice to Timothy in the Bible as she argued that the “responsibility and dignity of work” was a Christian imperative, the Times reports.
She said: “St Paul, we read, in the first Epistle to Timothy proclaims that ‘Anyone who does not provide for his own household … is worse than an unbeliever’.

“This is the Christian recognition that we all have duties … To ourselves, to our families and to the community we are part of. Conservatives believe in making work pay, in rewarding risk, in ensuring effort matches reward.”

She continued: “My message is let’s get people off welfare into work. Let us not leave debt for our children and grandchildren. That is the worst unfairness.”

When she was asked to elaborate on what she meant, Badenoch continued: “In early Christian times there was no state or welfare so I think that you can argue that, actually. The Christian tradition is about communities and families and charity, not about compulsory taxation in order to pay welfare.

Any thoughts?

Another European Christian is using the Bible in politics—I am shocked, where did she get the idea!

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Truth 1: There are a lot of people who abuse entitlement programs. I've seen it in my own family. People who could work, find reasons not to. People who aren't physically challenged, will find a Chiropractor in a strip mall to sign off on them having "lower back issues" or "fibromyalgia" in order to get on disability.

Do you know individuals who are able to work but choose not to, instead relying on government assistance for their income? Please tell me the name of the states, I want to look up the policy of the state which provide unemployment benefits year after year!

thank you for your help!

 

[Larniavc]

Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition in the UK Parliament, a 'cultural Christian' says spending money on benefits is unchristian.

Kemi Badenoch says spending on welfare is 'unchristian'

Kemi Badenoch has said welfare spending could be considered "unchristian," following Rachel Reeves' Autumn Budget.

www.thelondoneconomic.com

Earlier this month, Badenoch quoted St Paul’s advice to Timothy in the Bible as she argued that the “responsibility and dignity of work” was a Christian imperative, the Times reports.
She said: “St Paul, we read, in the first Epistle to Timothy proclaims that ‘Anyone who does not provide for his own household … is worse than an unbeliever’.

“This is the Christian recognition that we all have duties … To ourselves, to our families and to the community we are part of. Conservatives believe in making work pay, in rewarding risk, in ensuring effort matches reward.”

She continued: “My message is let’s get people off welfare into work. Let us not leave debt for our children and grandchildren. That is the worst unfairness.”

When she was asked to elaborate on what she meant, Badenoch continued: “In early Christian times there was no state or welfare so I think that you can argue that, actually. The Christian tradition is about communities and families and charity, not about compulsory taxation in order to pay welfare.

Any thoughts?

This is the kind of right wing drive to keep poor people poor that we in the UK have to contend with.

 

[BCP1928]

Therein lies the huge challenge.

In a nation of of 330 million people (in which, by some estimates, 1 in 6 is on some form of non-retirement public assistance), being able to drill down into the nitty gritty to to be able to make a truly individualized decision for each person making a claim for it turns into the proverbial "herding cats" with the disjointed and manual processes we have.


If we take a look at the Nordic Systems (that have more generous benefits, but lower rates of fraud and abuse...which sounds like it'd be counterintuitive based on what we're used to in the US), there are some key differentiators that we could look at.

The Nordic countries have tightly integrated data systems, and less points of "manual intervention" in the process. Noting: Each point of "manual intervention" is an avenue for mistakes and a potential point that could be leveraged for misuse.

So when a Nordic citizen applies for these benefits, there's a one-stop-shop that provides data across a variety of facets like residency/citizenship data, income/tax reporting, limited healthcare information, employment history...

...which makes vetting both quicker (for the people who should actually be getting it), and much more accurate (for weeding out the people who shouldn't be getting it)


That idea of more robust data integration has been floated here in the US before, but has been shot down or faced pushback on a couple different fronts.
- Privacy advocates and more libertarian-minded people have full-stop rejected the notion of government agencies keeping more efficient and easily indexable data on people on the basis that it would allow the government to curtail other rights (IE: some people thinking "if they link FBI/ATF data to limited HIPAA data, they'll see that I'm a gun owner, and saw a doctor for depression 10 years ago after my wife died, and they'll try to come take my guns away")
- Civil rights and immigration advocates have pushed back on the idea (quite recently) on the basis that integrating IRS and limited HIPAA data into other agency systems would be leveraged as a way for the admin to step up immigration enforcement. (IE: "this will allow Trump's crew to come in and apprehend immigrants at hospitals and workplaces")

The real problem is to get people to buy into the underlying fable that the only reason people are poor is that they are too lazy to work.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Do you know individuals who are able to work but choose not to, instead relying on government assistance for their income? Please tell me the name of the states, I want to look up the policy of the state which provide unemployment benefits year after year!

thank you for your help!

If you'll notice, I was referring to disability.

Unemployment is a different benefits system, and is time-limited, so a person staying on that for years would be highly unlikely.

There's one wing of the family where 3 of the 4 of them have been on disability for years (Uncle, Aunt, and their Daughter - my cousin). The criteria for which ailments and impairments are dictated at the federal level by the SSA "Blue Book" of qualifying conditions.

There are "integrative medicine" clinics in the area that are "known" by word of mouth to be "the one you want to go to, to get on disability"


Basically how it works:

Those integrative medicine clinics usually have some Chiropractors (not real doctors) doing all of the "evaluating", and there's a "Medical supervisor" for the practice (who's not even on-site, and who they never personally meet) who's basically just serving the function of keeping the practice legal, and rubber stamping what the Chiros say on forms that require an M.D. sign-off.

Basically, they know how to fill out all of the paperwork just the right way to get a high chance of approval.


Obviously I'm not going to name any names directly or potentially doxx someone.

But, in looking up the supervising M.D. for that practice my extended family members went to, that guy is evidently the "Medical Supervisor" at 3 different clinics. The pain management one they went to... and two other clinics specializing in "Men's aging management". (Which is code for "Here's the place to go to get legal steroids legally prescribed")

That's how my uncle ended up on disability for his lower back (evidently his back is so bad that standing or sitting for an extended period of time in an employment environment is just too much...but he always seems to do okay in a bar stool or fishing boat for an extended period of time), and my Aunt and 38 year old cousin both ended up on it due to "debilitating fibromyalgia" that always seemed to always flare up at the worst possible time...what are the odds.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The real problem is to get people to buy into the underlying fable that the only reason people are poor is that they are too lazy to work.

The situation I was describing in #3 of the things I listed...

I wouldn't call laziness (in the traditional sense)

I believe the more appropriate descriptor would be indolence.

While some people use them interchangeably, I think there's a subtle difference.

Laziness: Unwillingness to work in any circumstance
Indolence: Avoidance of work that's not perceived as providing any tangible benefit to the net outcome


So, how that would tie into the examples I mentioned.

If a person had a choice between
"You can either work this job for $2500/month, or sit at home and fake a disability for $1100/month" and they choose the latter, I would refer to that as outright laziness.

vs...

"You can either work this strenuous job for $1100/month, or you can fake a disability for the same $1100/month", a person choosing the latter for reasons of "I can either bust my butt and be poor, or I can sit at home and collect and still be poor... either way I'm stuck being poor and barely scraping by, so what's the point?


For outright laziness...there's not much that can be done.

However, for indolence, that can sometimes be remedied by knocking down barriers to better employment opportunities.

...and for that, I think it dovetails into another topic that I brought up a few days ago, which is incentivizing companies to ditch the college degree requirement in favor of some sort of on the job vocational training for a lot of professions.


As an example, if "Mike" like math, but his parents couldn't afford to send him to college to get into accounting, and his choices are working as a cashier at a grocery store and being miserable for a meager existence, or finding some way to get tap into benefits for an equally meager existence (minus the headaches of dealing with rude customers), some "Mikes" will choose the latter.

However, if some of those "Mikes" had the option of "you can do a 1-year vocational internship, and if that goes well, you'll get your salary bumped up and be a full-time member of our accounting department for starting salary $55k/year", there's quite a few "Mikes" that would jump at that opportunity and have a source of motivation.


There's that old saying about motivation "The carrot and the stick".

I think we as a society have used "the stick" at a first line go-to too much, whereas, it'd be to everyone's betterment if we found a way to get more carrots in in the mix, and reserve the the stick only for when the carrot(s) fail.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

If you'll notice, I was referring to disability.

Unemployment is a different benefits system, and is time-limited, so a person staying on that for years would be highly unlikely.

There's one wing of the family where 3 of the 4 of them have been on disability for years (Uncle, Aunt, and their Daughter - my cousin). The criteria for which ailments and impairments are dictated at the federal level by the SSA "Blue Book" of qualifying conditions.

There are "integrative medicine" clinics in the area that are "known" by word of mouth to be "the one you want to go to, to get on disability"


Basically how it works:

Those integrative medicine clinics usually have some Chiropractors (not real doctors) doing all of the "evaluating", and there's a "Medical supervisor" for the practice (who's not even on-site, and who they never personally meet) who's basically just serving the function of keeping the practice legal, and rubber stamping what the Chiros say on forms that require an M.D. sign-off.

Basically, they know how to fill out all of the paperwork just the right way to get a high chance of approval.


Obviously I'm not going to name any names directly or potentially doxx someone.

But, in looking up the supervising M.D. for that practice my extended family members went to, that guy is evidently the "Medical Supervisor" at 3 different clinics. The pain management one they went to... and two other clinics specializing in "Men's aging management". (Which is code for "Here's the place to go to get legal steroids legally prescribed")

That's how my uncle ended up on disability for his lower back (evidently his back is so bad that standing or sitting for an extended period of time in an employment environment is just too much...but he always seems to do okay in a bar stool or fishing boat for an extended period of time), and my Aunt and 38 year old cousin both ended up on it due to "debilitating fibromyalgia" that always seemed to always flare up at the worst possible time...what are the odds.

From your post, it seems you don’t have a medical degree to diagnose whether your family member is genuinely disabled or committing medical fraud for financial gain. You’re making assumptions without solid proof.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 NIV
[10] For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” [11] We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. [12] Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat.

2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Su | New International Versi

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Su

bible.com

Jesus must have forgotten these principle. Because if he remember all these biblical principle the parable of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus who did nothing but laid at the gate of rich man would be different.

 

[BCP1928]

...

"You can either work this strenuous job for $1100/month, or you can fake a disability for the same $1100/month", a person choosing the latter for reasons of "I can either bust my butt and be poor, or I can sit at home and collect and still be poor... either way I'm stuck being poor and barely scraping by, so what's the point?

You think that's an example of lindolance? Or of anything but good common sense?

For outright laziness...there's not much that can be done.

However, for indolence, that can sometimes be remedied by knocking down barriers to better employment opportunities.

...and for that, I think it dovetails into another topic that I brought up a few days ago, which is incentivizing companies to ditch the college degree requirement in favor of some sort of on the job vocational training for a lot of professions.


As an example, if "Mike" like math, but his parents couldn't afford to send him to college to get into accounting, and his choices are working as a cashier at a grocery store and being miserable for a meager existence, or finding some way to get tap into benefits for an equally meager existence (minus the headaches of dealing with rude customers), some "Mikes" will choose the latter.

However, if some of those "Mikes" had the option of "you can do a 1-year vocational internship, and if that goes well, you'll get your salary bumped up and be a full-time member of our accounting department for starting salary $55k/year", there's quite a few "Mikes" that would jump at that opportunity and have a source of motivation.


There's that old saying about motivation "The carrot and the stick".

I think we as a society have used "the stick" at a first line go-to too much, whereas, it'd be to everyone's betterment if we found a way to get more carrots in in the mix, and reserve the the stick only for when the carrot(s) fail.

No, too much carrot raises the cost of labor, which it is why it is not MAGA.