Most right wingers you would talk to (IRL - not on the internet that skews libertarian) are interested in cost effectiveness. Some of them say the current levels of 'quality' are alright and we should find ways to reduce the costs. Others say that we're spending enough but not getting good enough results.

I'd be fine with spending a lot more in welfare if the results were better. However, I would disagree with many left-wingers on what good results are. I think left wingers' ideal welfare state would be like a magical feeding trough, my ideal welfare state is one that invests in people so they can the State and humanity to the best of their abilities - if they stop serving the State and humanity, I think that merits less investment. A person who helps the less fortunate is more deserving of welfare than someone who plays WOW full time because they like crushing noobs.

I have no tolerance for young men who play video games in their parent's basement. If they have a disease, I'd chip in to help treat them. If they're just lazy, then that's on the parents who enable them. I'd also be concerned about pretending their personal failures are medical problems - which is one of the reasons I'm mostly opposed to SSI/SSD.

For people with gumption, we should try to find a way to make them productive. My pet proposal is to give these people priority for government jobs. DMV clerks can't such much more, we could at least give it to someone who's down on their luck. For people without gumption, I think we should put them on a nice beach and make sure they have food and access to basic health care.