Let's put it this way. I think most rich, or tax payers would ahve no trouble funding programs for the very poor, provided that we meet in the middle. What I mean, is, if we're going to pay for the capable, but yet unwilling (for whatever reason) then why not demand some reciprocation. Meaning, work for your hand outs. Whether it be day care services in da hood, sweeping up the roads, garbage pick up, window washing, you name it folks, there are a ton of jobs that we pay unionized workers an incredibly high wage for that requires no skill set, only effort. That is the kind of compromise that I could go for, but it is the hard thing to do. Why is it hard? Well, it's not really, but politically, we lack leaders that have the conviction to make it happen, and we lack judges that see the virtue in implementing programs such as work for hand outs.
The truth is that no one opposes halping the truly unable, and needy, but the reality is that most that are taking out without putting in, and not truly needy, they are just unwilling. It's the fault of decades of entitlement spending, and we reap what we have sewn.
As a matter of fact, I see no downside at all to work for welfare, or food stamps, or medicaid, or what have you. If you take, you should do what is within your power to pay back. It's as simple as that.
The lib's should be all for this kind fo thing, as it answers their main argument. "What about the children". Well the children are still taken care of, we are now just asking that those parents are giving something back.
Tim-