What Donald Trump doesn't understand is this: Historically speaking, government antipoverty programs haven't weakened the work incentive. On the contrary, welfare has provided the temporary lifeblood that Sarah, her daughter, and thousands of law-abiding citizens like them depend on, not for convenience, but for survival.
We hear political pundits saying it is a mistake to compromise. It is important to hold firm on principles, but in most instances, it is possible to reach consensus. There are multiple examples, starting with our founding fathers, of people in government that held very firm views on various issues, but made compromises to reach consensus.
Get them off the dole, this argument goes, and they'll get off their butts. What these (mostly) guys are really saying, if you read closely between the lines -- because they won't say it outright -- is that extending unemployment insurance fosters laziness. Could this line of argument be any more insulting?