...in this case that debate is about the integrity of our social welfare programs and the people on them.
...outside theory, in practice, it's not something that the politicians and the social workers and the government regulators are willing to stick their neck out to protect. And we really ought to be protecting the integrity of these programs for the people that need them. And it's not something partisans are willing to safeguard either.
Apparently you aren't willing to safeguard the integrity of the system either, since you know all these people who are gaming it and all you can think to do is complain on some message board.
I'm serious. If you had people smoking crack next door you'd complain, right? Then don't whine about people gaming the system and then refuse to do anything.
Social workers don't like to see people abuse the safety net because they are in a position to know how limited that net is and how many people need their legal access to it. Apparently you spend more time listening to (supposed) welfare cheats than to the professionals who are trying to help. Strive for some balance here and get a fuller picture.
What I think you are trying to say is one of two possibly very different things:
-- you don't think the social safety net actually helps people move up and out of need;
-- you are resentful that non-whites are getting help (at least as indicated by your listing of Madison streets).
I am not going to address the second item because it's deplorable and if the Republican party does not deal with it internally they are sending their own party to the recycle bin. That's a whole nother topic, unless you want to lump it in with "what's the matter with the GOP?"
The first issue is discussable. First, though, we need to set aside the elderly, disabled, sick, and others who are not able to be fully producing members of society without extra support. And we can perhaps agree children need extra support just so they can graduate from high school ready to be full participants in the economy, which means early childhood education, good nutrition, sex education, available birth control, child care, and the like are actually good investments not frivolities.
That means EITC for families with kids makes sense, so you'll want a robust and adequately funded IRS to ensure EITC and other tax-based supports are properly administered.
And we want an educated workforce, so technical education is a good investment.
People can't work if there are no jobs, so we want governmental policies that encourage job growth. Wisconsin is last among the states of the upper Midwest on that, so we need to look at what the others are doing and try to incorporate more of their ideas.
So what's left? Hardcore freeloaders do exist, though in many cases the cause, under examination, might be long-term depression or other mental illness. Jail doesn't help those people a lot, so let's try a cheaper alternative: treatment. Might work for a few people.
Now who's left? Career criminals (who do belong in the criminal justice system), addicts (ask the cops, they know more about it than I do), and true freeloaders, who might be part of a multi generational syndrome. I have no problem employing the stick part of carrot-and-stick when nothing else works. What about public works programs like cleaning streets and parks?
What have you got, then? More jails cost a whole lot and are nothing but crime schools and revolving door. Greyhound therapy pisses off the destination city and is not a solution long-term. Letting people starve in the cold is not a great idea. Let's hear your solutions.
If it's mostly about stricter enforcement of program restrictions and standards, I'm with ya. But it won't be cheap.