The quick offense makes the subject difficult to discuss objectively. A significant percentage of poor are so in large part because they squander opportunity; "

The quick offense makes the subject difficult to discuss objectively. A significant percentage of poor are so in large part because they squander opportunity; "free money" all too often gets blown on luxuries instead of improvements. (In no way am I accusing all of such behavior, but the topic's tendency toward B/W all/nothing imputations destroys sensible analysis.) Further, "free money" also in large (albeit not complete) part becomes a point of dependency from which more is demanded as a right (not appreciated as a gift). Insofar as a debatable percentage of such "free money" gets squandered, that money has arguably been taken from those who, having earned it, take greater care in spending it wisely. I'm all for giving people a hand up, just with the qualification that it be given voluntarily, and reasonably results in upward mobility. This "free money" aka Guaranteed Basic Income (same idea, different degree) notion is certainly better than the welfare morass currently in place, but still doesn't address the core flaw leaving so many to receive so much yet get nowhere with it.