If millions don't waste their lives, their talents, their skills, their creativity, in dependency, if millions are put in a position whereby they never experience the learned behaviour of dependency - then I'm fully prepared to argue for a return to a pre-Great Society society - even at a cost of a tiny % dying prematurely of starvation.
While it is probably true, in a sense, to state that American society is "less harsh" than in the 1950s, unfortunately, this has come at the cost of a massive increase in the federal debt, and somewhere down the line, that has to be repaid. In fact, the western world is currently undergoing the painful, harsh process of being reminded that societies cannot live beyond their means in the long run.
And this, I think, neatly crystallizes the difference between conservatism and liberalism. Life, at it's core, is harsh and difficult at times. Conservatives don't deny this, whereas liberals attempt to solve the problem by giving enough money to everyone, by redistribution of income. Not only does this not solve the problem, it builds up even bigger problems in the long run. As Thatcher put it, the problem with socialists that eventually they run out of other peoples' money.