No, John, I believe that the politics of compromise probably entered into the original program. There was a sister program entitles AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) but it was very strict on man-in-house as well unless the man was disabled... The main problem with both ADC and AFDC was that it didn't actually provide enough funds to lift people out of poverty. In doing that it was a self perpetuating system of minimal assistance. And becuase these folks still lived in poverty under ADC there kids continued to suffer and so it really never solved anything at all.

The picture you painted of "Men aintaining a stable of 'welfare bitches'" was and still is way off the mark. If you are going to judge a program by the very small percentage of folks who might abuse it then you can take just about every program or law and throw it out the window. Should we shut down the Pentagon because of the prisoner abuse scandals in Iraq?

But back to having it both ways. No, I don't think I've ever said anything like that. What I have observred is that ideologies these days sure can get blurred by partisanship. I mean look at all these so called conservatives who seem not to be very concerned my the massive debt that Bush is racking up. So, I'm thinking that if folks on yer side of equarion can accept this debt, hey, maybe you could change you idealogies on ending poverty if it were shown to be in the long run less expensive than maintaining poverty... Which I believe, just from a pure dollars and sense, it probably is...

Bobert