“This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.”

Government poverty programs, like all this war on poverty, do more harm than good. We now have people making more from welfare than they could make at a job. Not much motivation to seek work here.

Good to hear from the biggest liberal writer for The New York Slimes.

Alexandra Pelosi interviews welfare recipients in NYC. Now you tell me these people aren't dependants and slaves to their own laziness and stupidity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFeAFDh6dzk

"Conservatives" are just assclowing neo-cons, riding around, since Madison's folly was directed, to protect the rights, of SLAVE OWNERS. Idiots since neglected a new, US Constitution, so anybody claiming conservatism doesn't really have a dog, to conserve, unless it's something I wouldn't own or walk, like Catholic morals, devoid of ethics, or evasion of review, of some kind, or suppression, or a tendenncy, to misconduct or profiteering, or worse, the PRETENSE, of affiliation, with profiteering, by the cunning. Smarten up, DERPS. We went through the industrial revolution, without a proper constitution, the Brits never got one, and neo-colonialism by the US made really, REALLY SURE Marx ignored the significance, of constitutional rule, but anybody who thinks central funding of corruption, without social welfare isn't socialism seems to call himself a 'conservative.' What a stupid party that started. If only the US wasn't headed for a stupid party Senate and a stupid party White House, without discovery of GW Bush's misconduct, to cause the 911 attacks to happen, when they need not have happened, and THEN he lied, about Saddam having WMDs, so BP, now Russian was enabled, to privatize Iraq's oil, and THEN he wanted war, with Iran, and Obama is going along with it. Got a stupider party? You have THAT and Moochelle wears Ho-mee the A-clown undies, dog!

Thank You Bob, without Liberals like you, people might actually think you were actually concerned about others...like a good "liberal". But you've done us the favor of confirming (yet again) that Liberals are hate filled people with nothing to offer in the way of solutions...just misery, hatred and childish criticism. Have a nice day hating everything the conservatives built for you. :)

Not sure quite how to rate this. The referenced safety net is unconstitutional, contrary to a de jure government of law, and a mis-defined / misapplied religious principle. The entire point, counter point is based on a false premise.

Bob, what ? Do you know the difference between "Law" and what a "Constitution" is ? Your word salad blends sound bite facts with gabbletygook. What do you find so offensive, and / or a problem with the Constitution ?

Once again it is not so much a matter of whether it is moral or immoral to help or not help those in poverty. It is more a matter of jurisdiction. The federal government has NO jurisdiction over the lives of the citizens in the States. If the state legislatures wish to tax one class of citizens to take care of another class of citizens, the people of that state may do so -- but the federal government is just that, FEDERAL, not national. Churches and charities may also choose to raise money to help the poor, but they may not compel others by law to do so. In fact I wouldn't have trouble supporting such endeavors -- but the federal government cannot be trusted with the savings of all the nation's inhabitants. People are under the impression that the money they have paid into Social Security Insurance, for example, actually is in savings somewhere. But all those accounts have been spent and used for other causes, now requiring the government to borrow (i.e. create interest-bearing currency, thus deflating the value of actual savings). Such power has been used to not only take all of our savings but to place us all under permanent debt. That's a heavy price to pay for trusting the government to take care of the poor...

Archer, very well said.