Should we abolish ALL forms of government welfare, and let the poor wither and die?

Now now now, wait a second...don't start talking about socialism yet because right now we are not talking about "ownership of the means of production", or property and asset ownership, or any of those things.
Stay in your lane, please. The "lane" is "should all forms of government welfare be abolished?" and it is possible to do that or NOT do that and never be socialist.
There have been scripturally based theocracies where giving to the poor was mandatory.
Welfare is welfare, public goods is public goods, and just because a welfare state might exist in a socialist economy does not mean that welfare IS the definition of socialism.

The question asked, is an attempt to clarify how far LIBERTARIANISM, specifically an Ayn Rand style libertarianism, is willing to go.

 

For the RECORD, I declined to VOTE because the poll is too limiting.

 

I think we need to strike a moderate balance between socialism and capitalism. Its fine to have welfare to the unfortunate, but realize that too much help to the weak will drain the workers and ruin the country. On the flip side, abandoning everyone who has fallen on bad times is a big problem too.

 

Here's an interesting tidbit:

Is the Alaska Permanent Fund, which sets aside a certain share of oil revenues to continue benefiting current and all future generations of Alaskans, considered "welfare", or is it considered a public good?

 

a lesson for all professing Christians:

 

Hey now, you might be describing The New Deal, where a couple of minor but VERY ESSENTIAL quasi-socialist tweaks were implemented in our capitalist economy.
You might NOT be describing The New Deal but it sounds like you're "getting warmer".

For the record, nothing we've done in the forty years since that began to be unwound has ever produced equivalent or better results in terms of standard of living, upward mobility and stability and economic security.

For the record, I believe that if we get those three handled adequately, a lot of our other problems will begin to be able to be rectified. I'm referring to the overall sense by working families that they "have enough", and by the poor and working poor that they "have a chance".

DESPAIR is poisonous.

 

I reject the premise that we'd "just let them die".... seems to be a bit of mirroring there. My church helps the needy.. with a hand up approach rather than a handout. Whenever there has been a disaster anywhere in the world, Americans have donated generously to disaster relief, I'd find it hard to believe they would not be just as generous with fellow countrymen. The problem the Right has with government handouts is the huge amount of fraud, almost nobody on the Right has a problem with those genuinely in need and unable to properly care for themselves to be assisted. We acknowledge that there is a percentage of those people in the population at large. BTW, with our system and philosophy of governance.. another 1.4 million families no longer need EBT cards. Working and supporting oneself satisfies a primal instinct.

 

It is an unfortunate situation, however, there are many who go through cancer treatments and care, and it's inherent expenses, without having to file bankruptcy. Such as my own mother and father and sister.

So do we pick and choose what people should be held personally responsible for in regards to bankruptcy? Or do we just say no one is personally responsible for anything, and throw ourselves on the benevolence of the government and the tax payers money?

I believe that we all should take personal responsibility, with acknowledgement for those who CANNOT. We have all been in rough spots at one point or another, but most of us and scraped through, took some serious hits to our pride and our wallets, but pulled ourselves back out. I do not willingly accept responsibility for those who choose the idea of letting others pay their way on extended terms.

 

Take fewer vacations and spend less on luxuries, then take care of your own

 

$22T in debt

 

'I do not believe that private charity in todays day and age would be able to cover anything near whats needed. We have become far to selfish as a culture.

 

Most places that one sees that do not have gov't safety nets, end up being places like parts of africa where people literally die of starvation and related illnesses, including children.

So, if you get rid of welfare, basically you end poverty, because any job ends poverty, instantly.

Like a rainbow and unicorn lefty mentality, the right side can live in their own unicorn and rainbows created alternate reality. A world where if you ended all welfare, you would end the need for it, for the poor would then no longer be poor. And just by stopping welfare!

Ha ha ha

 

If you compare the percent of the economy being devoted to the government, it has increased overall, not gotten unwound. The regulatory burden just gets heavier, decade by decade.

 

I was referring to the tweaks applied to the economy during the New Deal era.
Regulatory capture and regulatory red tape are separate problems.
The kind of regulations that have been UNWOUND are mostly the ones that used to protect working families, the kind that keeps capitalism from killing us to make soylent green to be sold as food to other remaining poor working families. Yummm...

 

It simply isn't possible to have a planet of seven billion souls where a thousand people own 60 percent of the wealth and assets and the rest are on the road to destitution, but that's the roadmap at the rate we're going.
I'd say that as soon as it hits the point where that thousand own seventy or seventy-five percent, the **** most definitely will

 

Start reporting to the mods when posters do that to you. That's how they got you temporarily banned last month. Return the favor and see if THEY like a similar treatment.

 

We should provide help to people who cannot work. People who can work but refuse to work should get nothing.

 

Would you consider say, chronic depression a valid reason why one cannot work?

 

Are you referring to programs administered by the general government? Or those administered by the several states?

 

the hilarity of the 'FALSE PREMISE' in this OP is so richly absurd as to make observation of this thread's digression purely gratuitous. Too bad it hinges on real lives, real suffering, real deception, real crime, real illegality -- stemming from the the same "system". LBJ inspired 'generational dependency'... O yeh - it's hard and painful to cut that umbilical cord... Reality sucks (I admit it), it's none the less real...

 

If Democrats really wanted to help the poor they would eliminate the minimum wage so that even the unskilled can find jobs and advance.
The minimum wage and the current welfare system are designed to help the special moneyed interests, Big Business, Big Labor, and the corrupt ruling political class.

 

People seem to do quite well begging for money on GoFundMe. Perhaps that is an avenue to explore for those who need charity. *sarcasm alert*

 

Been down this route before with Vegas. He seems to have no comprehension that people exist that will take care of themselves.

 

Perhaps the ones that already are divisive will, but for others, many others, there never has actually been a question.

I think that is where some people get stumped. They can't comprehend it.

 

No. I'm working.