In a dispassionate, purely economic view, she has an economic incentive to not work. Her behavior is reprehensible to those who work, but in an amoral view, her behavior is quite logical.
Parasitism is rewarded, and if it provides all she desires, why not be a parasite?
Margaret Thatcher gave conservatives/libertarians/classic liberals the answer in a simple sentence years ago:
To the individual riding the socialist gravy train, however, that’s not a concious concern. The welfare recipient isn’t concerned about where the next handout is going to come from as long as they keep coming, and if the handouts stop, there’s always someone to blame and some politician willing to buy votes. The career welfare recipient is almost always someone who isn’t concerned about their long-term well-being, otherwise they’d be actively working to improve their lot in life. Those rare few that are concerned are those who demand more from others simply because they exist.
At the point that the handouts stop completely, they’ll either starve or work. Whether that’s because of welfare reform that stops giving people disincentives to work or whether the system collapses and no longer can give handouts, either way, the practically Randian caricature of the moocher exemplified by that caller will simply cease to exist.
If that career welfare recipient is forced to starve or work because welfare goes away by reasoned economic decision-making in government, there’s going to be gnashing of teeth, bleeding hearts bleeding, and knee-jerkers jerking knees. There will also be private charities for those who truly need, rather than the taxation at gunpoint that leads leftists who “care about the poor” to ignore the poor since they have government to care for them.
If that career welfare recipient is forced to starve or work because welfare has gone away because of collapsing government…
That’ll make things interesting.