I guess my bottom line is that while welfare spending is certainly currently broken and in dire need to reform, these are still Americans we're talking about, here. No matter what system weput into place, there will ALWAYS be poor people who didn't make it in our competitive system. It makes sense to encourage (monetarily and otherwise) people to get into the game, and be upwardly mobile.

Here's an analogy for thought: Last year, the Miami Dolphins were dead last in the NFL. They tried like hell, but just didn't have the firepower to compete well. As a result, they got the first pick in the draft. It certainly isn't a reward, and no team wants that "honor". But, that's certainly the wisest way to gently tip the scales to help struggling teams become competitive.

Is that "weflare". Maybe. Does it help in making theleague as a whole more robust and competitive? Definitely.

To pursue the analogy further, the elimination of welfare and social spending is tantamount to disbanding any NFL team that doesn't make the playoffs.

Ultimately, social spending is a cost we have to bear. The alternative (cutting people loose to sink or swim all alone) is probably far worse.....more crime, more desperation, more hopelessness, etc.

I'd be willing to argue about perhaps the degree and form of said assisitance, but I simply won't bother to argue about its existence altogether. I don't willingly throw fellow Americans under the bus. (Iraqis, yes. Talk about welfare!)

__________________
Unfortunately, the Founders did not address the possibility of this nation becoming populated with obnoxious twits.