We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
While I'm complaining about social welfare, this particular post is also complaining about the people who vote for government largesse. While they 'mean well by the people', they also fail to realize the government can't get out of the way of itself.
As business or business-like enterprises go, the only thing the government seems to do moderately well on occasion is engage in warfare. Which is natural, since the nature of government is force and coercion - forms of warfare.
As a result, things like social welfare policy will never achieve the goals it sets out to achieve simply because the government is incapable of being effective.
Regarding your question - we at Maggie's generally (though I won't speak for all the authors) are opposed to any kind of subsidies. Handouts to rich or poor, individual or business, are still handouts and do nothing to produce value. They are simply shifting value from one group to another, and as a result are a drag on the economy as a whole.