I think Jim's point was the recipient be required to do something in return for the help. There was no mention of "incentive" to work or it be taken away, the suggestion was they needed to work. What is so wrong with this? Given the historical state of the economy, I have no problem helping people, but it should be a give and take system. While there may be the "lazy" ones you mention that it does not change, what about the ones it might? There are certainly much larger issues in the structure of our country and economy, and I do not believe anyone here is "naive" enough to think this would solve the larger issues, but at 14% of the budget, safety net programs are a big piece.
Finally, can't we discuss the issue without throwing out comments and accusations that just incite anger one way or the other? I can respect your views, which you have made clear in prior posts -
1. "To me, conservatives imposing their "morals" on us is far scarier than liberals wasting our tax money"
2. "Do you know what the "mainstream of thinking" is? Who's "mainstream thinking" is correct?",
3. "I don't give a shit about your or others political opinions and I am sure not interested in hearing it. Your comment wasn't funny or sarcastic, it was uncalled for and irrelevant.".
Why is someone who disagrees with your views necessarily a "idiotic (and bigoted), or naive, or a "waaahhhhh, I work so hard to feed a bunch of lazy people" rightwing BS'er"?