wahlins said: Is it possible that the right would be more supportive of social programs if there was concerted effort by the government to assure that they were not supporting parasites, they they were supporting future taxpayers and the truly needy?
The fraud and abuse that is rampant in our social programs certainly breeds distain for them, especially in tough times. It may be difficult to have a social program and weed out all the "parasites." Human nature is to take the path of least resistance. Social programs provide that path for some people. When we see waste, fraud, and abuse in government programs, we are only seeing a reflection of human nature -- both the fallibility of the recipients and the fallibility of the people in government. We forget sometimes that people are people. Those who work for the government are just as fallible as the rest of us. We have no reason to believe that they are more altruistic than the average Joe.
Some on the right may also object to the very principle of social programs -- government confiscation of wealth by force and redistribution on subjective terms. "Needy" is very subjective. I spent the majority of my childhood in a family that earned less money than those on government assistance, but we weren't classified as "needy," but those who earned more money were "needy."
Private organizations (Red Cross, Remote Area Medical, etc) seem to address both of these concerns. They operate on free will donations, not forced confiscation, and their distribution, while subjective, is known, so you can choose what subjectivity you find acceptable. This freedom is important.
From my short tiem observing people, I have seen that they tend to embrace independence in their decision making. They don't often want someone else (government) makign their decisions for them.