I agree that we have been throwing money at the problem for fifty years, but that in no way constitutes a rebuttal of my argument. As there are nations which have implemented successful welfare systems it still follows that ours is an issue of implementation. It is also misleading to insinuate that because attempts to rectify poverty through welfare have existed over the course of fifty years that these attempts represent a consistent, cohesive approach over that same period of time. In reality, programs have been created and destroyed over that time while also experiencing fluctuating funding; the programs of 1964 are not the programs of today.

That such a plethora of programs exist for education, job-training, food-aid, and housing actually demonstrates my point regarding a lack of program integration into a cohesive system; if the system were cohesively integrated that redundancy would not be evident. The probable explanation for such redundancy is that legislation has had to be passed piecemeal due to considerable conservative push-back within our problematically polarizing two party political system. I do not think it is a coincidence that welfare systems tend to be successful in nations with multi-party, coalition governments.

Presumably with public government money, just as it is in nations which have successfully implemented welfare systems without destroying their economy. How that money is raised is, of course, another debate entirely.

Lost dignity is a function of many factors in play within the world of the poor. Anger, frustration, hopelessness, all come into play, but primary is the knowledge that you are taking a handout. This alone very often creates resentment in the heart of the recipient. The other things quickly follow.

There is nothing inherently degrading to needing or accepting help, particularly when one's situation is a consequence of social failures more than one's own shortcomings. The issue is not with accepting social aid, but the prevailing (and predominantly conservative) stigma directed at welfare recipients which teaches them to feel ashamed, angry, etc. Accepting help is only degrading because we treat it as something shameful in our society.

IMO working for the money, completely changes the dynamic.

Any workfare program would be just as much a handout, and if your original argument holds merit then presumably a person receiving such work would feel just as degraded as they would accepting other welfare. Workfare participants also have reduced ability to seek out employment on their own terms, and may become trapped in the workfare program (particularly if the program cannot offer competitive living wages).

This dependence is directly related to the existence of welfare money. No money = no dependence. & Understanding the dynamics [...] failure in need of a fix.

People cannot depend upon a welfare program which does not exist, but this is not the same as saying that dependency is inherent to the existence of welfare programs. As previously mentioned, welfare programs are intended (and function elsewhere) as systems of immediate relief to ease the transition to self-sufficiency. The implication is that dependency is a consequence not of the program but of other variables, the only real contenders being individual complacency or systemic failure to create opportunity; the former points to an overlooked lack of individual responsibility and the latter being a concession to the liberal argument for a more comprehensive social support infrastructure.

Progressives: We have been over this before. [...] So stop with your mental diagnosis.

Then perhaps we also covered my views on people using words against their common meaning. If you persist in using "progressive" to connote something other than what it typically means, then expect me to continue erring on the side of of its actual meaning. No offense, but you are not the only person who arbitrarily redefines words on this forum and I cannot be bothered to recall everyone's personal dictionaries.

Speaking to the actual point, I still find your stance paranoid and speculative. The allegation that an organized radical leftist group dedicated to the financial and legal destruction of the nation is hiding in the liberal party smacks of unfounded conspiracy theory, and the further implication that such an ideological group actually poses any threat or wields any marked influence on our society is, frankly, absurd. But if you think you have some substantive basis for advancing this view, then by all means present it.

Progressive and socialist are not mutually interchangeable terms; the former is far broader and might even include conservative progressives. I am not surprised that the nuance seems to escape you. At any rate, simply observing that socialists believe in wealth redistribution is not itself an argument against the practice or the potential legitimacy of governments doing so. Nor does it demonstrate that socialists are something other than misguided.

There actually are some limits on protracted welfare enrollment based upon employment type and income. Nevertheless, I agree that for a significant number of cases these rules do not come into effect. I have also already agreed that some people abuse the welfare system staying on it in perpetuity rather than seeking to lift themselves up. However, it is equally true that there are people who remain on welfare for extended periods of time quite simply because they cannot find better employment opportunities even though they have tried. To impose harsher limitations upon welfare would address the former, but it would also penalize the latter and further undermine their efforts towards financial stability. The better option is to create a more comprehensive system and stronger economy which enable people to move out of poverty; until those opportunities exist restricting welfare as you propose is a mediocre idea.

You just did dismiss the culpability of the individuals, by blaming Democrats for welfare policy rather than blaming the individuals who are abusing the policy.

Workfare is not a better alternative. It is still a handout bankrolled by the government, and because the requisite time and energy invested in the assigned work those enrolled have less opportunity to find employment on their own terms which creates a system of dependency far stronger than non-workfare welfare. Previous programs have also tended to offer substandard, non-living wages which further entrench poverty. I am surprised by your apparent endorsement of workfare, since it is actually a quintessential communist notion - the government assigns the jobs and the wages.