No see, we have gone down this road many times and established that entitlement services have a rightful place in our society for those in need, and that your beef and the harmful/damaging part was the gaming of the system. We both agreed on that point. We posted for pages about back-to-work programs and other thoughtful solutions. Then I asked you what percentage of entitlement recipients were, in fact, gaming the system.
This is essential to the whole solution, don't you think? If you agree that there are people in need who use the service properly, then its total elimination is not even on the table. It comes down to eliminating the gamers.
We need to know how many there are and we can begin to build a solution. I know you are an astute numbers man, and an all around well-read man. So I know you wouldn't form the cornerstone of your theory on the working/poor class without knowing these numbers backward and forward.
So lay them on me, man. Let's see them!
100% of the people on these benefits deserve a better option and a better life. Which ones don't and should just settle for barely enough?