PDA

View Full Version : How would you go about ending welfare?




lx43
03-25-2013, 07:18 PM
You don't hear any politicians except for maybe Ron Paul when he was in office talking about ending welfare. I think this is a huge mistake because welfare hurts the people who have to pay for it, and more so, it hurts the people who are on it. People should be educated that welfare harms and that it is unlawful according to the US constitution (and immoral to steal from your neighbors to pay for your food, house, etc)

I personally would end welfare programs almost immediately, but I realize that is not feasible in today's entitlement society so my question is how would you go about ending welfare?

By welfare I mean, any program that assists individuals and businesses to keep minimal standard of living or well-being but for discussion sake lets exclude Social Security and Medicare. Welfare programs include food stamps, Supplement Security Income, disability income, Medicaid, House assistance, farm aid, etc.

Anti Federalist
03-25-2013, 07:20 PM
By continuing as rapidly down the road we are on right now.

You will NEVER repeal major entitlement programs through the "democratic process".

So, next best option?

Let the whole thing go tits up.

lx43
03-25-2013, 07:26 PM
By continuing as rapidly down the road we are on right now.

You will NEVER repeal major entitlement programs through the "democratic process".

So, next best option?

Let the whole thing go tits up.

I agree with you that it will not be ended by Congress voting to end welfare programs unless something major changes to create a more Libertarian society. I think it will ultimately end very badly for those people who are on it. In fact, I think it will very suddenly cutting millions off the dole.

I wish a few brave politicians would preach about ending it. Part of it being an education process and maybe gather more more support to end these programs.

I wish they'd just let me opt-out of paying taxes. I'd end it fast. lol

brushfire
03-25-2013, 07:29 PM
It would have to be removed the same way it was implemented. Incrementally, over time.

Christian Liberty
03-25-2013, 07:31 PM
I'd cut as much as possible, as quickly as possible. The short term needs of thieves should not be of any concern, at least as far as the law is concerned, it is no excuse to keep stealing. I hope private charity would pick up some of the slack for awhile, but if not, I guess life sucks. But we must not fall for the "Compassionate conservative" (Compassionate libertarian?) insanity. We must be vigilant.

FrancisMarion
03-25-2013, 07:33 PM
Great question.

by pro rating the entitlement in accordance with the job you just took. incentives.

Anti Federalist
03-25-2013, 07:35 PM
I agree with you that it will not be ended by Congress voting to end welfare programs unless something major changes to create a more Libertarian society. I think it will ultimately end very badly for those people who are on it. In fact, I think it will very suddenly cutting millions off the dole.

I wish a few brave politicians would preach about ending it. Part of it being an education process and maybe gather more more support to end these programs.

I wish they'd just let me opt-out of paying taxes. I'd end it fast. lol

When the old USSR collapsed, thousands of people died, people who relied on Kremlin generosity.

sailingaway
03-25-2013, 07:35 PM
Ron was going to block grant it to the states in his budget because the Federal government had no say over it. Then it would have been a state by state issue. He was going to cut elsewhere as a priority, to balance the budget. But it was going to be cut back to 2006 levels I believe, along with pretty much everything else that continued (not sure of the date).

It does have to be incremental in that we had tons of charities that now aren't there. But it would be better handled locally where people could track their programs and design them for the states own circumstances, and according to what the people in that state wanted to provide.

sailingaway
03-25-2013, 07:36 PM
When the old USSR collapsed, thousands of people died, people who relied on Kremlin generosity.

Yeah. If we don't get our house in order it won't matter what we want to do, it will just happen.

Christian Liberty
03-25-2013, 07:37 PM
I'm all for getting the Feds out as a start, but theft is really theft no matter what level it is...

brushfire
03-25-2013, 07:38 PM
I'd cut as much as possible, as quickly as possible. The short term needs of thieves should not be of any concern, at least as far as the law is concerned, it is no excuse to keep stealing. I hope private charity would pick up some of the slack for awhile, but if not, I guess life sucks. But we must not fall for the "Compassionate conservative" (Compassionate libertarian?) insanity. We must be vigilant.

I was thinking in terms of what was politically possible. If you want quick, just let things take their course.

Christian Liberty
03-25-2013, 07:39 PM
Well, what I'm saying is, as quick as is politically possible. If it is possible at any point to ram through a bill crushing the root, do it. If it takes 20 years, whatever. But don't wait out of "Compassion" get it done. And stop wasting a trillion a year on interest, default on all the illicit debt.

FrancisMarion
03-25-2013, 07:45 PM
the question needs to be clarified:

Is the goal to end welfare or create chaos? there is a fine line, in reality.

Anti Federalist
03-25-2013, 07:48 PM
Yeah. If we don't get our house in order it won't matter what we want to do, it will just happen.

I'm pretty fairly convinced that train has already left the station, ran out of control and jumped the ditch.

We're just waiting on the crash at the bottom of the gulch.

http://www.destructoid.com/elephant/ul/107280-ft.+riley+train+derailment.jpg

presence
03-25-2013, 07:49 PM
I'd distribute equal citizen's dividends amongst all based on non transferrable oil, gas, mining, and mineral shares and tarriff protect the domestic industries.

Everyone gets something of equal value off the land they live on. Nobody feigns neediness to get it. Nobody weighs the benefits of collecting disability vs the benefits of getting a job. It would change the paradigm from "welfare or" to "citizens' dividend and" There'd be plenty of charity at that point for everything else.

I'd let the citizens vote on what percent of those shares paid for government and what percent came back as dividends.

There'd be no other federal taxes and a government sized kept in check by mandatory balanced annual federal budget.

Natural Citizen
03-25-2013, 07:54 PM
By welfare I mean, any program that assists individuals and businesses to keep minimal standard of living or well-being but for discussion sake lets exclude Social Security and Medicare. Welfare programs include food stamps, Supplement Security Income, disability income, Medicaid, House assistance, farm aid, etc.

We still hand over 40 billion per month to a rather broad list of banks. This is, in my opinion, the most expensive welfare. What would happen if we ended that?

lx43
03-25-2013, 07:56 PM
Ron was going to block grant it to the states in his budget because the Federal government had no say over it. Then it would have been a state by state issue. He was going to cut elsewhere as a priority, to balance the budget. But it was going to be cut back to 2006 levels I believe, along with pretty much everything else that continued (not sure of the date).

It does have to be incremental in that we had tons of charities that now aren't there. But it would be better handled locally where people could track their programs and design them for the states own circumstances, and according to what the people in that state wanted to provide.

I didn't like that plan of block granting it to states because it would still be there. I want it eliminated entirely. I see no difference between welfare at the federal level versus welfare at the state level or local level.

lx43
03-25-2013, 07:59 PM
We still hand over 40 billion per month to a rather broad list of banks. This is, in my opinion, the most expensive welfare. What would happen if we ended that?

End it. The FED shouldn't be keeping insolvent banks running. The system should be allowed to correct itself by letting prices fall.

brushfire
03-25-2013, 08:09 PM
Well, what I'm saying is, as quick as is politically possible. If it is possible at any point to ram through a bill crushing the root, do it. If it takes 20 years, whatever. But don't wait out of "Compassion" get it done. And stop wasting a trillion a year on interest, default on all the illicit debt.

Gotcha. "compassion" makes me think of the shrub (aka little bush), and his "compassionate conservatism".

sailingaway
03-25-2013, 08:35 PM
I didn't like that plan of block granting it to states because it would still be there. I want it eliminated entirely. I see no difference between welfare at the federal level versus welfare at the state level or local level.

Yeah, but you'd have to convince the others in your state as a practical matter. YOu'd have a better chance, the more local it is, but I don't realistically see it going completely away. It could be changed a lot though.

phill4paul
03-25-2013, 08:38 PM
By continuing as rapidly down the road we are on right now.

You will NEVER repeal major entitlement programs through the "democratic process".

So, next best option?

Let the whole thing go tits up.

Just end it. That includes the corporations.

amy31416
03-25-2013, 09:15 PM
Fuck it. I wouldn't end welfare, I'll increase it so these fucks in "power" can't wreak more havoc. I'd rather that the lowest of the trailer/ghetto trash get money/food than continue this bullshit.

Take every cent from them that you can.

newbitech
03-25-2013, 09:17 PM
start with the money. get real money and all the shit based on fake money will go with it.

heavenlyboy34
03-25-2013, 09:22 PM
Fuck it. I wouldn't end welfare, I'll increase it so these fucks in "power" can't wreak more havoc. I'd rather that the lowest of the trailer/ghetto trash get money/food than continue this bullshit.

Take every cent from them that you can.
I agree. This is basically RP's traditional strategery. Earmark as much $ for his district as possible to get it away from the Feds and into somewhat more accountable hands.

heavenlyboy34
03-25-2013, 09:23 PM
Fuck it. I wouldn't end welfare, I'll increase it so these fucks in "power" can't wreak more havoc. I'd rather that the lowest of the trailer/ghetto trash get money/food than continue this bullshit.

Take every cent from them that you can.
I agree. This is basically RP's traditional strategery. Earmark as much $ for his district as possible to get it away from the Feds and into somewhat more accountable hands.

In the spirit of that interesting post of NPR's program about entitlements, fake a few disabilities too so's you can draw SSI $. ;)
ETA: If you take kludge with you to the welfare dept, they will be convinced of his disability within 5 minutes of talking to him. ;) :D Double your SSI income!

dinosaur
03-25-2013, 09:26 PM
Send it back to the States. Fund the first few years, and have a cut-off date by which the States would have to self-fund if they wish the programs to continue. A federal tax decrease would take place the day that federal funds are cut.

Carson
03-25-2013, 09:34 PM
Restoring sound currency would cure more ill's than any other thing I can think of.

At least allow some currency competition that isn't leached on by the counterfeit.

You know? Like free of the capital gains taxes on illusions of a gain.



Face it. The direction we are headed we are all going to borrowing everything we spend from the counterfeiters.

TaftFan
03-25-2013, 09:34 PM
I'd distribute equal citizen's dividends amongst all based on non transferrable oil, gas, mining, and mineral shares and tarriff protect the domestic industries.

Everyone gets something of equal value off the land they live on. Nobody feigns neediness to get it. Nobody weighs the benefits of collecting disability vs the benefits of getting a job. It would change the paradigm from "welfare or" to "citizens' dividend and" There'd be plenty of charity at that point for everything else.

I'd let the citizens vote on what percent of those shares paid for government and what percent came back as dividends.

There'd be no other federal taxes and a government sized kept in check by mandatory balanced annual federal budget.

Would that require nationalization of natural resources industries?

Christian Liberty
03-25-2013, 09:53 PM
Gotcha. "compassion" makes me think of the shrub (aka little bush), and his "compassionate conservatism".

Exactly. My dad's not a libertarian but when I mentioned that compassionate conservatism is basically big government conservatism in disguise, he agreed with me. Ultimately its just empty rhetoric.

If by "Compassionate conservatism" you mean you want the government to back off and to support the poor with charity, I'd get on board with that, but that's not what they mean. "Compassion" really has little to do with it, otherwise they'd open their own wallet.

jabowery
03-25-2013, 10:11 PM
War is group selection. Natural duel is individual selection. Kill anyone who refuses a natural duel challenge and war will end as will collectivism.

juliusaugustus
03-25-2013, 11:22 PM
You don't hear any politicians except for maybe Ron Paul when he was in office talking about ending welfare. I think this is a huge mistake because welfare hurts the people who have to pay for it, and more so, it hurts the people who are on it. People should be educated that welfare harms and that it is unlawful according to the US constitution (and immoral to steal from your neighbors to pay for your food, house, etc)

I personally would end welfare programs almost immediately, but I realize that is not feasible in today's entitlement society so my question is how would you go about ending welfare?

By welfare I mean, any program that assists individuals and businesses to keep minimal standard of living or well-being but for discussion sake lets exclude Social Security and Medicare. Welfare programs include food stamps, Supplement Security Income, disability income, Medicaid, House assistance, farm aid, etc.

You are wrong on constitutionality the General Welfare clause is never really defined and opens the gateway to all sorts of things and thus gets abused.

TheTexan
03-25-2013, 11:46 PM
Me? Call it class warfare if you like, but I believe the mega banks have committed frauds of unbelievable proportions against the American people. Their bank accounts should be zero'ed out, and their assets and homes sold. Furthermore, the government should declare bankruptcy, and auction off most (or all) of its assets. The proceeds from both of these activities should then be distributed as equitably as possible to those who have paid into Social Security. If there is any money left over, it should be returned directly to the people.

There would be a brief, and painful, recession, but with so much money returning back to the hands of the people, it would quickly turn into an economic boom.

Exactly zero chance of that ever happening though.

TheTexan
03-25-2013, 11:55 PM
You are wrong on constitutionality the General Welfare clause is never really defined and opens the gateway to all sorts of things and thus gets abused.

From my understanding, even the corrupt lawless courts of today recognize that clause as creating no new powers, but instead that clause simply refers to the powers granted elsewhere in the Constitution.

Which is kind of surprising. I guess between the other loopholes in the Constitution already available, they don't really need another.

edit: Looks like I might be wrong and might need a history lesson on this. :D

anaconda
03-25-2013, 11:57 PM
By continuing as rapidly down the road we are on right now.

You will NEVER repeal major entitlement programs through the "democratic process".

So, next best option?

Let the whole thing go tits up.

This is what I was thinking. Currency crisis is the most realistic fast track. We'll either end up with no welfare or 100% "welfare."

amy31416
03-26-2013, 05:40 AM
I agree. This is basically RP's traditional strategery. Earmark as much $ for his district as possible to get it away from the Feds and into somewhat more accountable hands.

In the spirit of that interesting post of NPR's program about entitlements, fake a few disabilities too so's you can draw SSI $. ;)

Part of what I can't wait to see is the idiots who rely on gov't handouts to feel a little hurt when that gets ripped away from them--ain't no way the welfare state will outlast the warfare state. I will feel very sorry for those who live around them though. I just gave away my car seat, a stroller, along with clothing to someone who has three kids, another on the way--and she didn't even thank me because she's so used to getting everything handed to her. She had the audacity to link me to her baby registry when I just gave her a ton of stuff.

grrrrrrrr

Barrex
03-26-2013, 06:00 AM
I'm pretty fairly convinced that train has already left the station, ran out of control and jumped the ditch.

We're just waiting on the crash at the bottom of the gulch.

http://www.destructoid.com/elephant/ul/107280-ft.+riley+train+derailment.jpg

That bridge builder: "I didnt build that"





From first hand experience(collapse of ex-Yugoslavia, hyperinflation, socialist state etc.): Chances are it will be messy and ugly...no matter how musch you wish to solve it other way.


P.s.

What is baby registry? I duckduckgoed it and it cam something about gifts?

People in BiH were used to it but government at one point had less than 100 dollars on all of its bank accounts and things went funny/scary/interesting/weird/kinky... You know that Churchills speech about hoping crocodile will save/eat you last? Well that is what all of those leeches hoped for. But angry economy came for 50% of welfare checks, then it came for garbage collectors& other low level government worker, then teachers, then it came for another 30% of welfare, then bureaucrats, then police syndicate (because politicians needed police to take care of those who were being eaten before police)... O yeee it is an angry Economy....

amy31416
03-26-2013, 06:18 AM
Here in the US it is somewhat traditional to make a baby registry if you are expecting--but generally only with the first child. A baby registry is when you go to a store and pick out the things you'll need to make it easier for people to buy you useful gifts for the upcoming baby shower. There are also wedding registries.

Making a registry when you're on your 4th child is, in my opinion, greedy. She has pretty much everything already.

presence
03-26-2013, 06:24 AM
Would that require nationalization of natural resources industries?

Not the industries themselves... the mining, drilling, distribution, and sales would would still be private. The mineral rights would have a large % owned by "the people" and distributed amongst "the people" as dividends or used by "the people" at their will to support their government.

Todd
03-26-2013, 06:29 AM
I don't claim to have the complete answer. But a good start would be identifying the private charity and private option organizations that are most effective at resolving the particular social issue they were designed to reckon with and promoting them.

opal
03-26-2013, 06:39 AM
Start by eliminating every dollar handed out to more than an individual. No corporate (or foreign) aid.. period. No more subsidies for prisons either.
Second.. not a dime to anyone who's not a citizen, in cash (foodstamps) or care (medical/education)

two big steps in the right direction

question for allayas - do you consider VA compensation and SSDI for soldiers wounded in action welfare or contract fulfillment?

ghengis86
03-26-2013, 06:39 AM
We still hand over 40 billion per month to a rather broad list of banks. This is, in my opinion, the most expensive welfare. What would happen if we ended that?

It's actually $85 Billion per month now, open-ended

TonySutton
03-26-2013, 06:46 AM
I think the best way to end most federal programs is to start with block grants to the states, let them set up a program as they see fit and then give them 20% less money each year over 5 years. Then state can choose to fund the program through state taxes. Some states my have a full blown program, some might have partial programs, others might decentralize further and allow local government to fund their own programs, while some states may end it all together and allow charity to fill the void.

whippoorwill
03-26-2013, 06:58 AM
End the Federal Reserve. Strike at the root! Then they have to tax all the welfare from the people in real time. Hell Even Bill Mauer is bitching about his taxs right now.