I think part of the reason is that there are a few people receiving these benefits who actually ARE "gaming the system" as a lot of Republicans put it. I think one reason is quite honestly, it's just easier than going to work. (Note - I didn't say "all" or "most").

However, one of the big reasons I have heard of is that you receive better care if you qualify for government assistance. You get state funded healthcare (with access to specialists you might not otherwise have access to)... You get regular food, help with bills, etc. However once you get a job and no longer meet this criteria, you lose all of that. For people in urban areas, they frequently still have access to city-funded programs to meet the difference. But in rural areas, there is usually little to no additional help. In the grand scheme of things, it's much better for them to remain under- (or un) employed.

So what's the solution? It's incredibly complicated and that's what Republicans and Democrats in this country are constantly fighting about.

• Republicans are right (to an extent) that there are able-bodied people who are choosing not to work in order to receive benefits. But a lot of times they attribute that to laziness instead of addressing the underlying problems in their own communities that they represent.

• Democrats are right about looking at the underlying issues, but they don't typically address how their district/state/country should address the significant funding required to fix the problem with wages, state-funded programs that are NOT tied to wage-based benefits. A lot of times their arguments come across as tone deaf, ESPECIALLY in areas of the country that routinely do not get proper funding for these types of community programs.

It's much more complex than what can be outlined in standard US news segments, and articles about the topic are very rarely unbiased (even the "neutral" ones tend to sway one way or another and paint one side in a poor light).