<Every kid we pay to educate is likely one less criminal... Look I am not a "bleeding heart liberal" but pure economics says the more unproductive people you have the less productive your economy..... So subsidizing people to become productive makes sense

I get the impression you have not given this a lot of thought. Nothing personal. This by no means makes you stupid or thoughtless...most people with normal day-to-day lives don't have the luxury of burning daylight picking philosophical nits. It's a hobby of mine, and frankly, is about as socially acceptable as picking actual nits.

Many of your arguments make sense only if we accept the proposition that government programs exist to solve the problems they are ostensibly designed to solve.

Sounds odd, doesn't it?

I submit that most social programs, whatever the label tells you, are primarily designed to increase the power of the government in a nation where governments are democratically elected by the majority of voters. The object of the game, therefore, is to convince the voter that they cannot function, do anything useful, or even exist without the State in its present form. The Democratic Party excels at this.

For example, did the Department of Education make our education system better and turn out smarter kids than the system we had before? We put men on the Moon without the Department of Education, and built the finest technical civilization on the planet. What has improved in schools since then? Does the DOE educate our children, or just increase the grip of government power over the places our children are taught?

Does Social Security really provide a comfortable living for the elderly, compared to almost any form of private retirement system? Or just enough to keep them alive and dependent on the government when elections roll around?

Is Medicare the only thing standing between the elderly and painful illness and death? Where were all the dead and dying elderly collapsing in the streets before there was Medicare? Does Medicare give the elderly everything they need, or again, just enough to keep them healthy enough for the elections?

Does welfare get people off the dole and back to work, or just create a steady population of voters dependent on the people they elect for everything they have? One would think the success of a welfare program would be based on how many people DIDN'T need it. Is this how our current system is set up? Who were the ones who resisted workfare programs?

See the pattern?

Look at any government social program that is supposed to help a particular group. Is that group getting smaller or larger? Are they getting more dependent or less so? Is the funding for these programs decreasing or increasing? Who fights the hardest for the status quo when any alternatives are proposed that would accomplish the supposed goals without large government programs?