>>I'm ok with drastically altering (cutting) the sort of
>social
>>programs our government currently offers.
>
>But most people aren't. Or, at least, there are enough people
>who aren't okay with it that you'll never see them get axed.

I'll agree that this is true, and be baffled by the why of it. IMHO most of our "social" programs actually help propogate the very things they were put in place to help alleviate.

>>Thrown open for anyone and everyone? No, perhaps I meant
>>unlimited (based on numbers, but not on criteria*)
>>immigration.
>
>I agree with having criteria. But if you include "poor" and
>"unskilled" among the criteria that would exclude someone,
>then those people will just immigrate illegally. That is,
>assuming it's financially feasible for them. That's made less
>true with a FairTax, and with non-insignificant penalties for
>businesses that knowingly (or negligently) hire illegals.

Neither "poor" nor "unskilled" were in your original list of criteria.

>>I think you should have to take some sort of test before
>being
>>legally allowed to breed.
>
>That's a terrible idea. Are you going to throw people in jail
>for having unprotected sex? Or will you sterilize people
>against their will? Or force women to have abortions? It's
>an incredible invasion of privacy any way you slice it.
>

No, I have no idea how to implement said idea, but I see quite a few people who are incapable of taking care of their own lives who insist on having children who they also cannot take care of, and make it that much harder for them to get their own life under control. These people aren't smart enough or careful enough, or don't care enough to prevent themselves from having children, and yet they are allowed to do so. I don't want to invade people's privacy, but I also have a hard time letting stupid people make bad decisions that make their lives worse. It is a terrible idea. There is no feasible way to accomplish it, but that really wasn't the point.