Should State and Federal welfare be eliminated entirely?

You read it right. Eliminate ALL state AND federal welfare programs. Food stamps, section 8 housing, heating subsidies in the winter, welfare checks, ebt cards. everything. People will either live or die by their own hand, or whatever private charity they may take.

This also includes turning away people who cannot pay at the ER rooms. No payment up front, or means to pay, no treatment. Period. Unless the Hospital agrees to treat you for free. But the law stating that an ER cannot turn down anyone regardless of means to pay will be eliminated.

From this point forward, ALL welfare / charity work will be the work of PRIVATE institutions. If there is not enough charity to go around, tough luck for you.


How does this sound? Cause this is what I believe the future under a Tea Party, or Libitarian government would look like.

 

For starters we can rip out all that electrical wiring we put in for the rednecks who live in rural areas back in the 1950's. They never paid for it and we could probably get a few bucks back for it. And its not like they're ever going to see the light anyway.

 

Make the Walton larvae pay for their own street improvements and storm drainage, and stop giving mining companies the gold on national Forest lands for 1865 prices. I'm tired of mollycoddling these capitalist leaches.

 

The sad thing is that there's atually some people that want to end all these programs.. I don't get this hate of collectivism in all it's forms, and the near anarchist libertarians just seem more and more like annoying naive and idealistic folls that whine about some percieved opression. And how they justify letting their fellow man die in the streets.. it's just sick.

 

I actually do get it. They simply feel that it is theft. Plain and simple. I get it, I really do. I dont agree with he way they look at it, but I DO understand it.

They feel that charity should be purely 100% a private function. Or handled at a state level. Otherwise your just taking money from me to give to someone else.

 

Capitalism has already given us the title of the greatest nation in world history, so eliminating the entitlement chaff from the equation could only make us stronger. Eliminating all those freebies that are funded by hard working Americans might, and I say might just light a fire under the arses of these slaggards to the point of having them fend for themselves for the first time in their pathetic lives. So yes, eliminating any form of a collectivized faction of society is and will always be beneficial for everyone in the long run. How is it possible to grow as a nation when we're stealing from the successful and from the tax payers to redistribute the goods to people who are not only ungrateful for our kindness, but are unworthy of it as well? These people only bring our nation down to third world status. This sorry state of welfare is not what America is all about. Eliminate immediately all remaining vestiges of dependency.

 

I'd be for ending EBT cards entirely, some other forms of welfare are acceptable on a small scale provided they aren't abused.

Food Stamps are probably the worst when it comes to abuse.

 

Yes, of course.

On the federal level, there's zero constitutional authorization for the federal government to transfer money from one citizen to another, and there's also simple American heritage to be considered. The Jamestown colony was saved when John Smith declared that "he who shall not work shall not eat" and went on to say that it's immoral for able-bodied men to idle about living off the labor of others.

Welfare, if it should be applied, is a matter for the individual states to determine. Read the Tenth Amendment sometime if the legal basis for this assertion escapes you.

Also, states should engage in competition to see which states can get away with dispensing the smallest benefits. That state will see an exodus of the lazy to the more stupid states, seeing also a decrease in their tax-burden, making them more attractive to productive citizens.

Shame should be re-introduced for people sucking on the sow's tits of government.

 

People would likely die under that scenario. I think its a bad idea.

 

A safety net is needed. The key is to make it temporary, not a lifestyle.

 

Very likely yes. But why is it societies responsibility to provide for them if they are not going to do it themself? ( this does not include the sick, or mentally ill or the like, but able bodied people who are not fullfilling their responsibilities to themself )

 

I think because we are supposed to be a civilized society; that being said, most people want to work, but at this current time there are not enough jobs to keep people employed with a living wage.

 

Ah, I see only 3 deranged sociopaths have voted 'Yes'; suprising for a forum with a lot of libertarian vanity hobbyists devoted to worshipping the Koch brothers and their hobby party.

Welfare should go entirely Federal, and remove the state middlemen. This gives the poor a lot more mobility to move somewhere else with better options, rather than be trapped in gerrymandered Congressional districts and hence manipulated by local hacks of various stripes.

Poverty is lot different than what it was like in the Depression. People can't keep dairy cows and chicken coops on the balconies of their apartments, or plow up the parks to plant veggies and the like, as my grandparents could on their one acre town lot; too many zoning laws and covenant restrictions to even do that in the Burbs as well, so yes, welfare is needed. What isn't needed is mindlessly importing millions of immigrants, and encouraging millions of illegal immigrants in an era where productivity levels are through the roof and far fewer people are needed to produce a surplus of manufactured goods and the like.

The U.S. can't be a dumping ground for South America's excess poverty any more, nor Africa's or any other continents' surplus populations; the latter is something both the brie and chardonnay 'progressives' and many Republican elites have no interest in curbing, since they all live in exclusive little gated communities and condos and don't really care about anything but their own egoes and fashionable cultist beliefs. This habit has to end, by yesterday, or there will be a lot of violence in the future because of that mindless stupidity.

 

Those that would advocate such a ridiculously callous and inhumane plan obviously have never heard of the law of unintended consequences.

I'm sure Marie Antoinette hadn't heard of it when she so infamously said "let them eat cake", when informed that the people of paris had no bread to eat.

Idiots.

 

That's what volunteer organizations are for.

The US Constitution not authorize the Congress to expend taxpayer money for purposes of charity.

 

A civilized society volunteers to take care of the truly needy, a barbarian society has it's government stooges out there collecting taxes under threat of prison and seizure of property to buy votes from created dependent classes.

You'll never guess which category the US and the DemocRATs are in.

 

Yeah, poverty is a lot different now. They don't have dairy cows, they do have 72 inch plasma TV's. They don't have access to rural party line phones, they have $500 I-phones. They don't go barefoot, they wear $200 athletic shoes.

Poverty is so awful in the US today, how can people live like that?

 

Interesting. Do you have a source for those claims, or are you just a troll and read that from some post at FreeRepublic?

The biggest welfare recipients I know are hedge fund managers and stock market gamblers and the like, mostly Republicans and libertarians like the Koch brothers, and Ron Paul's constituents; good ole libertarian Ron being among the top five porksters in Congress for many years until this year, when he retired to manage the family business, that business being political porkstering for his son Rand and the other members of his family, and then there are all the other insiders, like Bushes, Cheneys, oil cartels, railroads, power plant cartels, defense contracting embezzlers, nearly all 'private equity' companies, retail chain operators, all banks, real estate peddlers and developers, phone companies, media corporations, drug companies, chip manufacturers, road building contractors, lawyers, and, well, just about anybody who doesn't do anything productive, but insist on sniveling about 'welfare', never mind around 80% of these welfare recipients are working, they just have the misfortune to be in competition with a lot more people than any of the above; competition is just for the little people, not deadbeats like yourself. The well off love to socialize the costs while privatizing the profits of their little protected niches.

Thanks for playing. Maybe when you grow up and have to move out of your patents house, you'll learn what things cost and why payrolls these days are in the toilet compared to real inflation.

 

Volunteers can only do so much for society; Barbarians kill or allow people to be killed; most republicans fall into that category.

 

I think every form of welfare must be eliminated and then we will see how 50m people (many of them with guns) will stay home and starve their way into the next world .

 

This. And welfare should be handled entirely by the states. The federal government has no business being involved in it. People here that defend the current system need to explain why the areas with high amounts of welfare are so dysfunctional and have high crime rates, high unemployment, low education levels etc. The current setup just breeds dependency and a lifestyle that is handed down from one generation to the next and has specifically destroyed the black families in this country. To defend the current system is the height of stupidity and ignorance.

According to Black Enterprise magazine the top ten cities for blacks to live in, nine of them are Republican controlled cities with only Washington DC making the list and that was dead last at number ten. The top ten worst cities for blacks to live in are ALL Democrat strongholds controlled by democrats for decades now. Democratic cities are the ones that typically have the most generous welfare systems. I am not reposting all the links here, but if anyone wants to look at them just check my posting history its only a few items down from the top.

 

Ad hominems are perfectly legitimate. Some people really are stupid sociopaths. It's just a fact.

Strawman, and more evidence you can't back up your silly inane claim about '$500 phones' and '72 inch TVs'. You do know Rush Limbaugh's rants are just for entertainment purposes, and have no relation to reality, right?

More gibberish, and selective 'memory' as well. Cite the Amendment that prohibits any of that; finding one guy who said something once isn't an argument, nor is it anything but one man's opinion.

Explain why you never learned anything in school, or about U.S. history or Constitutional law but insist on typing out gibberish about it anyway, based on some anecdotal hubris you read posted on the innernetz by some stranger you never met. Also would you mind posting that conversation you had with Monroe? That would be fun.

 

This is exactly backwards. Your premise is precisely why they're trapped in one region and have no options to move out and to some other region. With a truly Federal system people could move to other regions and be independent of political machines; many families would opt for moving to small towns away from ghettoes and high crime areas if given the chance. Your solution is what is currently the case now, welfare programs are administered by the states, and the political machines that run them hidng under the rubrick of 'states rights'. In fact that is why 'states' rights' was invented, to maximize the potential for corruption for the aristocrats running said states. Alexander Hamilton and his faction of the Federalists promoted the opportunity for maximizing corruption.

And this of course is why your solution isn't working. AS for Republican districts doing well, see Newt Gingrich's former district in Georgia after he succeeded in outmaneuvering Jim Wright; it's easy to look good when you can extort a lot of pork for your district.

 

I actually agree, in terms of federal welfare. State/local governments should be doing welfare, not the feds. It's still needed as a temporary thing.