I for one am fearful of the growing welfare system. It only perpetuates labor-specialization (the need for unemployment benifits assumes that employment is necessary for survival, and employment nearly always leads to specialization), which leads to the growing urban spread. Cities are the alabaster manifestations of labor specialization, as the cities draw more goods from the surrounding areas than are produced by the cities themselves. This is because even cities are subject to the law of diminishing returns, meaning that they have outgrown their productive potential, no matter how many people are working in a particular area. The agrarian and industrial elements of society exist to serve the interests of the most populous areas of society, which are the cities. Cities exist due to the social nature of beings and their natural tendencies to seek efficiency through interdependency. Urban spread consumes the land and farms are dislocated from the city itself, so businesses arise to acquire farmland and satisfy the needs of the city dwellers. Cities manfuacture and sell, but they do not mine, they do not farm, they do not fish, and they do not herd; it is from these primary sources that real wealth is created. Consequently, businesses, which arise in the cities, notice this and seek to cut out the small-town middleman by using overwhelming purchasing power (conveniently blame the Federal Reserve here). Any form of social welfare which aknowledges this system as natural and A OK only perpetuates excessive population growth ( along with the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies which drive excessive demand and inherently drives us to overproduce and overconsume). We either end the fed (and destroy progress that is created through infinite wealth), end social welfare (to disincline those who are inherently financially incapable of supporting children), or place a cap on consumption and population growth, all of which are fine with me.