That should be correct, and may indeed be correct except we first need to have a public discussion about who is truly indigent and should be entitled to help and who is sufficiently well of they should be required to carry their own weight.  The political-dependency-monger industry has steadily ratcheted upwards the definition of who is “poor”, and we now have children receiving free meals at school because we politically define them as being “at risk” when their parents have incomes far in excess of the poverty level. 

Even the “poverty level” itself is so high as to give us poor people who are likely to live in air conditioned comfort in the summer, who have a color TV, a microwave oven, a washer and at least one automobile.  At this level their health care, rent, food and even cell phone use is either fully or partially subsidized.  The National Center for Policy Analysis even showed that the average “poor” person in the US has more living space in their homes than the average middle class person in Europe.

In each of the last three tax years, Americans donated about $300 billion to “charity” as the tax code defines it.  That is roughly $1,000 per capita.  If we limit our definition of who is “poor” to the lower 10%, that equates to about $10,000 per person, or $40,000 per family of four, in pure cash.  It all pivots around a simple question of humanity and civics: what do we owe a person who cannot earn enough to feed, clothe and house themselves?  If we owe them anything above an amount to cover the bare necessities of life, can their be any consideration to the broader economic and social consequences?  In particular, I refer to what happens to the general willingness to work, and conduct ones self in a careful and prudent manner when government stands by to give us too many things for free when we claim we cannot work?   I see this as an employer when applicants for clerical positions tell me they would rather continue to collect their unemployment than to come to work for me. 

Lastly, State-run welfare disconnects the recipient of the aid from the person providing it.  The “benefit” becomes a right as defined in the rules.  A person who really needs more due to some unique issue cannot get more and a person who doesn’t need as much gets the same as everyone else.  When is the last time anyone receiving aid said thank you to the people who paid his bills?  Worse, the politician gets to position himself as a broker between the parties.  Vote for me and I will see that your benefits are not cut.  Vote for me and I will not raise your taxes as much as my opponent promises to do.   Our present system invites corruption at many levels.  Its fruit is mostly rotten, at least if you judge by how many young black women have children without the benefit of being married, and how many of those children later end up in jail.

2.  The Bitcoin network would immediately know if someone was creating bogus coins.  All the coins ever created are tracked and part of the public ledger.  Steps could be taken to mitigate this, but the reality is the encryption algo used to create the coins has never been broken.   The worst case scenario is a double spending attack by someone who manages to gain more than 50% of the processing power of the entire network.  The network would see such an attack occurring.

3. In relation to the second claim, the computing power necessary to break the Bitcoin encryption does not exist yet.  It is simply impossible for someone to hack the system and inflate the currency.  Even if they did, the network would see such an attack occurring.

A sophisticated double spending attack is possible with a tremendous amount of computing power, but actual inflation of the currency by creating bogus coins is simply not possible.