Do you think American citizens want their poor to suffer?

[Bloody Holly]

I was thinking about the pros and cons of phasing out welfare.

Then I thought about how many American citizens put forth the effort without the government to make a positive change for those less fortunate. Do you think this would hold true if welfare were phased out and medical bills weren't outrageous?

I think it would bring people together and help out others. I've seen even people who weren't well off themselves lending a hand to help those that were in dire need. Do you think this could possibly bring us together? I also hear people complaining about celebrities that don't do much for American citizens but then I thought about well why would they if they think the government and our tax dollars will pay for it?

What are your opinions on welfare in general and the possible outcomes of phasing it out?

[enan]

As absolutely nuts as I think Bush is, I think he was right when he said private groups tend to do a better job with welfare than the government does. Most people don't give money to charity because half of their income is being ripped from them shamelessly by the government. People don't donate because their spine is slowly being broken by taxes.

Ron Paul is a transition type of guy, he wouldn't just pull the rug out from underneath people. He would probably encourage people to donate to charities as he curtails taxes. Knowing him, he'd probably donate his own income to set an example.

[beermotor]

Enan is right. It has to be a gradual change - although eliminating federal assistance would be a great start to getting the states to clean up their act. We need to recognize the inherent injustice of ANY welfare system - it serves to keep the poor stupid, ignorant, and pacified. They need to be educated and empowered. Welfare handouts do not accomplish this goal.

[johngr]

This is a very good question. We can answer it to an extent now but it will be very important when we face the Democratic nominee (strategically, from their point of view, I think Gore would be the best choice) in the general election.

At the same time as welfare is phased out, whatever legal and regulatory barriers to charity need to be phased out as well. This coupled with investigating the tax-exempt foundations that have a stranglehold on the "market" currently. I imagine that the lowered tax/fiat money inflation burden will have an effect throughout the economy and that the lower-middle class will get a large boost.

[enan]

Yeah. I think everyone who isn't dead rich is getting crushed by taxes. It hurts the economy too - spending is GOOD for the economy, but it should be the people who get to decide what to spend their money on, not the government.

[legion]

People that make the argument of there being no "saftey net" are simply telling you they can't trust themselves to donate to charity if someones not holding a gun to their head to do it.

[RonPaul4President]

I don't believe the government should be responsible for the monetary welfare of the people. I do believe that people should take care of people. However, it disgusts me that it is only christian organizations that do this. I don't think it is ethical to offer someone some food in return for their soul, and 10% of their income after you assist in getting them employed.

EDIT: I also believe that a government pension program where persons "pay into" it is ethical. Think of it as insurance run by the government. Canada has this system and it works. It is similar to the catastrophic American Social Security program.

[Carl]

I don't believe the government should be responsible for the monetary welfare of the people. I do believe that people should take care of people. However, it disgusts me that it is only christian organizations that do this. I don't think it is ethical to offer someone some food in return for their soul, and 10% of their income after you assist in getting them employed.
Could you be more specific, which Christian organizations does this, and do you have proof that they are actually doing it?


.

[RonPaul4President]

Could you be more specific, which Christian organizations does this, and do you have proof that they are actually doing it?

I'm referring to the Salvation Army. I have no evidence, only what I have seen with my own eyes. Also, when I applied to volunteer for the Salvation Army, on the form I was asked if I was a christian.

[Carl]

I'm referring to the Salvation Army. I have no evidence, only what I have seen with my own eyes. Also, when I applied to volunteer for the Salvation Army, on the form I was asked if I was a christian.
The Salvation Army doesn’t ask anyone to give them 10% of their income if they get them a job. Anyone can ask them for help and get it without being preached at. They do preach in their shelters but only to give the destitute hope and to let them know that God loves them even if no one else does, they do not pressure anyone to convert. I'm not a Christian but I admire their work and dedication and I donate to them when I can.


.

[angelatc]

I had a friend who was a soldier overseas when his mother died. He asked the Red Cross for a loan, so he could buy a plane ticket home. They told him that they had no way to collect, so no. The Salvation Army gave him the money and told him to pay it back if he could. He has, many times over.

No matter how hard you try, you can't please everybody. The charities are no different .

I do think we should do something for people who absolutely cannot work, but able bodies should be employed.

[MsDoodahs]

This is just my take on it, YMMV.

When the government began relief programs like welfare and social security, the state usurped the role of charities and families. Many of those charities were church connected.

The state wants the masses to worship it and to need it. So. How to make that happen? Usurp the role of charity so that when people seek help, they look NOT to the majority of charities which of course have that connection to God, but instead, get them to look to the state. Usurp the role of the family as provider for its own elderly, so that when people grow old, they become dependent on the state.

This allowed the state to horn in and get the needy to worship the state and the elderly to depend on the state.

Phasing such things out will require churches and other charitable organizations to spend their money on helping the poor and needy instead of building bigger houses of worship and furnishing their offices with top notch plush things. So phasing it out goes beyond just unhooking the recipients from their government addiction - charities will also require some pushing in order to get them to reach out again, instead of reaching in as so many have been doing for a decade or more.

It certainly can be done.

Here is a link to a wonderful piece. It is not recent but details what CAN happen when people set their minds on improving their situations, WITHOUT the state.

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=2858

[X_805]

You transfer federal welfare to the separate states and to the people (charities) over time. Eventually some states might realize that charities could do it better than the states and then phase out their welfare programs as well. It should be people voluntarily helping other people. However, if charities aren't working in a state, then I think the state should play some part in either encouraging those charities or providing welfare itself if possible. The federal government should never deal with welfare, and the states should rarely if ever and only in the most dire circumstances.

Robbing one person to feed another is wrong, but so is letting someone starve. Only help those who cannot help themselves, but the best way to help them is to teach them to help themselves.

Although, I would prefer private organizations doing all of this.

[Broadlighter]

Who should feed the poor and homeless? Those who believe it is their mission in life to do so. We should support whoever has the entrepreneurial spirit and zeal of the missionary to come up with creative ways to help the needy through the rough patches. When government gets involved, basic care and services become politicized. When allowed the means to do so, people will share their wealth.

I also favor bartering. Teach and encourage the poor to barter. It's a natural for people to exchange objects and favors when money is scarce. Should the U.S. undergo a complete financial collapse, that is what we have to fall back on and that is what will help us regain our economic strength. Bartering will help people learn how to negotiate and value themselves more. I don't think any government program will ever replace what people can naturally do for themselves.

[Bloody Holly]

One of the reasons why I like Ron Paul regarding this issue is that along with his other plans, it all comes together so that it isn't just cutting the cord without a backup plan. If you lower costs of healthcare, get rid of income tax which should have been removed after Europe was rebuilt... the poor will be able to afford it and if not, there are charities and alot of caring citizens in this world that would help.

I'm sure people whining about how Angelina and Bono don't do enough to help the poor in America will start to see celebrities pitching in.

[angrydragon]

Most of the welfare goes to corporations anyways.

Foreign aid doesn't work either.

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?

Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.


Read more here...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html

[beermotor]

I had a friend who was a soldier overseas when his mother died. He asked the Red Cross for a loan, so he could buy a plane ticket home. They told him that they had no way to collect, so no. The Salvation Army gave him the money and told him to pay it back if he could. He has, many times over.

No matter how hard you try, you can't please everybody. The charities are no different .

I do think we should do something for people who absolutely cannot work, but able bodies should be employed.


If we weren't taxed to death already, we could easily provide for our extended family members who cannot work. In addition, there is the tort system for recovery for work injuries, etc.

government has shown it is a very poor steward of our money; no reason to believe it's going to shape up its act any time soon. Although, RP's position is of course in favor of gradual change (I'd rather see it all deleted tomorrow, heh).

[beermotor]

Most of the welfare goes to corporations anyways.

Foreign aid doesn't work either.

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?

Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.


Read more here...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html



Yeah, instead of this, let people start businesses there, encourage it by promoting FREE TRADE (instead of this managed trade garbage). That is precisely the point of RP's foreign policy stance.