Maybe tomorrow I'll do the right. I'm asking from an honest place and am asking ahead of time, don't bother responding to be smug, etc. and especially if this question isn't even addressed at you, to begin with. So, I have a few questions: I'll just fire them off. 1.) At what point, in your belief, would you cut off State aid to a poor family showing no reasonable signs of effort towards improvement? Or, conversely, do you feel there is no point it should be cut? 2.) As it pertains to question number one, do you feel that the overabundance of safety nets, such us an ever-extending unemployment benefit, effects ambition AT ALL? If not, how can that be?? If so, at what point do you look for an alternative route to just saying "here you go." 3.) Do you feel that social safety nets AT ALL are playing a part in how poorly our inner city families are turning out? If no, explain how that can be. If yes, then what's the big idea? I'm just wondering, if you take it to the very end (the ideaology), where do you see that getting us? Let me know what standards you have for having social safety nets, and let me know how you feel it's ok (if you do agree) that they DO contribute to a "gimme gimme" class, at least in some part, and how you'd personally feel it's ok to mitigate that. Just some questions - - what's the ideal balance, in your eyes, basically? I don't see things working out so well imho.