As someone also from a low-income rural community, I'd say that entire scenario you presented has problems deeper than removal of social systems. If you were to rank worlds from best to worst, I'd say it looks like this:
1. The poor are net positive on the tax/social system.
2. The poor are neutral on the tax/social system.
3. The poor are negative but not dependent on the tax/social system.
4. The poor are negative and dependent on the tax/social system.
5. The poor are negative and have no social system.
In your scenario, the poor start at 4. In your view, the current admin trying to move towards 5. In your view, how does one get to 3? I imagine the move to 3 would require scaling back the social system as to prevent abuse and dependency on it.
We probably agree that the poor shouldn't remain a negative impact on the tax payer and dependent on the social system (I'm a conservative, you seem to lean more left of center on this). Where we likely disagree is how to get to 3, and I think scaling back social systems is some cold water in the face to help catalyze that change.
In your scenario, the poor start at 4. In your view, the current admin trying to move towards 5. In your view, how does one get to 3? I imagine the move to 3 would require scaling back the social system as to prevent abuse and dependency on it.
We probably agree that the poor shouldn't remain a negative impact on the tax payer and dependent on the social system (I'm a conservative, you seem to lean more left of center on this). Where we likely disagree is how to get to 3, and I think scaling back social systems is some cold water in the face to help catalyze that change.