One interesting aspect of "discussions" such as this one is the presumption (mainly on the Left) that there is a fixed and static group of humans in this country that one can refer to as "The Poor." In the eyes of the Left, The Poor are unfortunates who, through no fault of their own, are without employment or assets, and will remain so for the rest of their natural lives (as will their progeny), and since they are not in any way at fault for their wretchedness, are "entitled" to the support of the overall society, in any way possible. "We" owe it to them.
This fallacy rears its head quantitatively in the information that is perpetually published about the lives of the the different economic "quintiles" in our society. "The bottom 20%" can't afford a new X-Box or whatever. What is ignored is that the individuals comprising The Bottom 20%, in the normal course of events, will be DIFFERENT PEOPLE from one time period to another. Unless they truly deserve to be in that quintile, which is often the case.
The static existence of The Poor is a relatively new concept in America, although it was common in Europe. The more common conception in America was that you might be relatively poor for a period in your life, but as you worked to improve yourself, accumulate a home and possessions, built up some savings, you would - unless you were a lazy good-for-nothing - eventually be well into "Middle Class." Correspondingly, we had the often-used expression, "middle-class values," which referred to the willingness to work hard to get ahead, and the acceptance of responsibility for one's economic situation.
To get personal for example, when I got out of the Army in 1971, I chose to work menial jobs (mainly as a security guard) full time so that I could go to school (also full time). So for the first several years of my adulthood, I was firmly entrenched in the Bottom Quintile - the lowest 20% of incomes. Now I'm in the top 20% - no great accomplishment for DINK's - and there is nothing extraordinary about my life; it's a fairly common story.
But acceptance of a "permanent underclass" is really a rather pernicious development. It absolves people for becoming dependent on government largesse, and for making life-choices that perpetuate their own poverty - mainly dropping out of school and having children. Being "poor" should be viewed as a temporary problem, to be solved not by some government program, but by the poor person herself. STOP making stupid life choices. TAKE ADVANTAGE of the opportunities that surround you. FIGHT TO PRESERVE YOUR FAMILY, which should be the FIRST place you turn for help.
Today, it is considered cruel or unkind to point out that a man who fathers children to women not his spouse is a scoundrel deserving nothing from the public fisc, or that a woman who has children while the means of avoiding such was readily at hand (including the strategem of a firm, "NO!"). People dropping out of school is considered SOCIETY's problem, rather than a personal failing, and we take extraordinary measures to keep people in school who lack the ambition to be there. It is insane and harms everyone else in the school system.
The permanent Poor are people with whom we are now obliged to "empathise," and if we do not want to support and perpetuate their hedonistic, lazy, self-destructive lifestyle and life choices, it is WE, the compulsory funders of our cornucopia of social programs, who are at fault.
The world has been turned upside down.
I'm getting off.