- We are on the same page regarding public education. I would actually expand public education to include better/subsidized lunches. I would make "lunch" a class where the kids learn not only social interaction but also nutrition and manners. I would require the cafeteria to cook their own GOOD food and serve it family style to the students (understand there may be some issues regarding allergies and what not which could be worked around). Theoretically, this would be a practical way to teach nutrition which would hopefully limit diabetes/other chronic poor nutrition disorders now the road and thus save us some money.

- On Social Security, not 100% sure what you mean by "fully funded by taxes". If you mean, people currently paying into social security are fully funding people who get social security, I'd say thats fair. If you say, people who contributed to social security historically and are now getting it, funded themselves in the past, I'd say "prove it". My understanding is that the people who funded it before, paid for their parents and I am now paying for my parents. Thus, there is a huge unfunded liability that has to be paid by future tax payments. Effectively, the first recipients received a 100% free benefit and everyone since then has received an "on average" benefit in excess of what they paid. That to me is welfare. If you should could show me that there was money in the SS trust fund that covered all future promises for SS benefits, I'd think differently. I think thats gonna be hard to find because "the Greatest Generation", while good at fighting wars, wasnt that great at math.

- On everything else, the difference you are making is that everyone paid in and everyone gets a benefit. I'd argue that everyone pays in what they are required (assuming people arent evading taxes) and everyone gets the benefit they are entitled to. While you may not have exercised that benefit because you didnt need it, you are a member of the plan. If I changed the plan to say "everyone must pay at least $1 of income tax" and that "everyone would get at least $1 of welfare" each year, would you change your opinion of the program? In the case, everyone pays in and everyone gets a benefit. It is obviously an extreme example, but it follows the same logic.

To your point that the gov't pays for too much food/cash assistance/housing, what would your ideal system be? We currently spend the following at the federal level:

$15.4B in Cash Assistance for Families
$57.1B in EITC payments
$33.1B in Child Tax Credit payments
$46B in housing assistance which covers more than just poor people (also covers native american public housing, elderly housing, homeless shelters)
$83B in Food
$235B in total.

That is 5% of the federal budget. Or around 7% of tax revenues.