If the Gov't stripped welfare, what would happen?

Post Reply New Topic

???

Rush Limbaugh would be on the streets demanding welfare.

Vulnerable people would die and crime would increase massively.

We don't really have welfare any more in the US, not like it use to, but if they got rid of all forms most people would find a way to take care of themselves. Most aren't completely helpless and private charities would step up for those who couldn't

It's a pleasant way to not feel sympathy for the sick, the disabled and the mentally incompetent but that's how the wealthy classes disconnects themselves from responsibility. The misery would be immense.

The problem with private charities is people generally aren't that generous. Rich people only give enough so they can pat themselves on the back and feel that they are being altruistic. It's a bit like feeding animals the scraps. Also, private charities can't really be forced into having a long term obligation to supporting an individual for life. There would really be no security at all.

The numbers of homeless families would increase, which in turn would cause stress
on relatives or formation of tent cities or swatting in vacant buildings,
creating safety and sanitation issues.
Less money would be spent on goods and services cutting into the income of
businesses who would then reduce staff and durable goods, landlords would
not have tenets, thus producing more vacant homes, thus more forclosures
or homes taken by the government for back taxes
Money saved by government would be spent on military, loans to other countries,
pork belly projects, tax cuts for the rich.
Crime would increase in effort to provide for ones family resulting in military
intervention, stress on court systems and prisons.
Education would decrease creating fewer employment opportunities and an
increase in the numbers of illiterate people.
Social divide would become more extreme and more intolerant creating more
conflict between classes.
Health systems would collapse due to more people experiencing starvation,
diseases caused by unsanitary living conditions, and increase in preventable disease.

In sort, we would be a third world country.

Aid to blind and dyslexic people in the U.S. is carried on 90 percent by private organizations. The government does very little for the blind and dyslexic. Any blind person getting a seeing eye dog is getting from a private charitable organization. There are no G-Dogs for the blind.

The point of this exercise is to show that if government support were withdrawn at a sufficiently gradual pace, the private economy would pick up the slack if for no other reason than preventing revolution and riot. The difference would be this: any help the poor or disadvantaged get is NOT considered as a right, but a privilege granted by generous folk. This notion is of course, anethema to the liberals who believe that people have a RIGHT to have their needs fulfilled by the labor of others. Of course it never occurs to these liberals that the others who must bear the burden by force of law are enslaved by the process. The government has created a DUTY out of thin air. The duty to satisfy the needs of others.

ruveyn

I wonder why it is considered a privilege to survive under frightful circumstances. Why is an obligation of basic human social decency considered slavery? Why should unfeeling people not be obligated as citizens to care for their fellow citizens. Human society benefits all by keeping down diseases that might be communicable, by helping people with disabilities becoming useful tax paying citizens, by seeing to it that each citizen contributes to society to benefit everybody in the community. If people don't want to live within society they probably are free to go live in a jungle (if there are any jungles left) and care for themselves.

Watch the UK over the next few years, and we'll see what happens.

Most charities are completely strapped these days, often turning away people in need. The notion that private charities will miraculously step it up only helps those who are already in comfort to sleep in comfort.

Very simple. No one owes anyone else a living except for one's dependent children which one brought into the world. Thus if A helps B it is either because B forced A, A believed he had a duty to help B or A just felt generous and good-hearted and help B for that reason, not because he was compelled to do so.

I deny duty, except when fulfilling a contract between two parties made freely by the two parties. If A accepts something of value from B, then A is morally obliged to supply what was promised.

In the case of two strangers A and B who have no contractual relationship (I mean a REAL contract, not the bogus made-up social contract) neither owes anything to the other. The only obligation is that neither will impose force on the other and neither will defraud the other. The only a priori relation is one of constraint, not of positive duty.

You might not agree with this position, but I hope I have made it perfectly clear to you.

ruveyn

As someone who worked for a time managing a welfare program, I feel my 2 cents carry some weight on this issue.

1. If we eliminated ALL welfare (corporate and personal), it would be a huge boon to the free market. One business should not have an advantage over another because it got tax breaks for special funding over its competition. I know some would say there'd be no push for service to rural areas or development of low-profit new technology without assistance, but those are special concerns I think can be dealt with outside of a generalized "welfare" mentality.

2. There's a lot of fluff that if we got rid of social welfare, people would suffer, and I can't say that would not ever happen, but let's see what government welfare HAS produced....

A. No benefits for someone until they are totally destitute (lost everything)...offering no help for people with real need in a time of need when that assistance would be low-cost.

B. Creation of welfare dependency...gap from being disqualified from assistance and being self-sufficient too broad for most anyone to cross on their own.

C. Rewards those willing to lie to get benefits, punishes the honest seeking help as they tend to admit to something that would disqualify them from continued benefits (and there's a lot that can disqualify someone who needs benefits).

D. Creation of welfare dependency, Part 2....no mandate to "earn" benefits from able-bodied people. Farm fields should be full of welfare recipients "earning" their benefits (only exception for those legitimately unable to physically work). Poor people should not be able to exploit the system to LIVE off of welfare. Welfare should be an undesirable place for people who CAN work. Generally, welfare should not be handed out to people who are able to work but rather just sit in a state-provided home watching TV all day. If the option for the able-bodied was that they had to go work in a farmer's field for their benefits, you'd see people demanding the creation of better jobs and unwilling to go on state-benefits until it was the last option. We have generations of families living on welfare because going out and working for a living is not taught to the youngest. They watch mom and grand-mom live off the system, and they follow in those footsteps.

E. Nondiscrimination in who gets benefits (follow me on this for a minute)....Right now, if a man walks in and wants benefits and qualifies based on documented resources, he cannot be turned down for benefits. Sounds good, right? But above I point out that those who lie are rewarded and those who tell the truth are often penalized. It's very, very, very easy to LIE about your financial resources and get all the state benefits when you really don't need them. Those who "work the system" know how to do this and teach it to others they know. The case worker often KNOWS they are "scamming the system" but they are not permitted to act on that knowledge without having hard proof of it, and just investigating their suspicions means they need proof up-front...a Catch-22...you need proof to investigate to get proof.

F. Political agendas in welfare programs....benefits offered is created by politicians wanting something in turn. Aid is not crafted to the need or prioritized on the need. I might have $100,000 in aid at my disposal but $50,000 is earmarked for a given program. I can't touch it to help you even though I have no need asking for that $50,000 at my disposal.

G. Full pay and benefits....not that welfare workers are the best paid people, but as a rule, they are paid competitive wages, and there are often multiple levels of management with people getting substantial pay and benefit packages to "run" the program (often they just go to meetings and make the people at the bottom do all the work). Easily half of any program's funding is consumed in administrative overhead...even in contracted programs (where I worked) that is trying to cut every cost they can to put more money in the hands of program participants. AS A RULE, you are lucky if even 25 cents of every benefit dollar gets into the hands of the people it's intended to help, and while the operations of a welfare program are subject to audit, the fact is that management/mismanagement of funds is rarely subject to challenge.

H. Rules written by those who don't do the job....Government welfare is crafted by legislators and bureaucrats who don't' do the work. It's insane to watch the "top dogs" gripe about the poor results in a welfare program when they people stuck with doing the job are given multiple and conflicting objectives to perform and much of their day is not spent dealing with program participants but with filing paperwork ad nausea so that some pinhead who really doesn't care can look at the data IF he is so inclined.

I. Political dishonesty....welfare is a tool government uses to conceal how bad things really are. While it would suck if lots of people were going hungry for lack of funding to extended unemployment benefits and food stamps, by constantly pouring money into these programs we keep people sated enough to not revolt over government mismanagement. Let the people go hungry and homeless and they will question, "What is government doing spending all this money on X, Y and Z while factories close down and people are going hungry?" They will demand action to be prudent and responsible. Instead, keep them from being cold and hungry and the masses stay just below that level of "ready to revolt." Some think this is a good thing, but the whole reason government has no accountability is because the masses are not demanding it. So long as you can keep a population fed and entertained, they will not see how bad things really are.

J. Well, there's more I could list if I wanted to really dwell on it.....


NOW, IF WELFARE WAS ABOLISHED AND PUT UPON THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO DEAL WITH....

A. The private charity can decide WHEN someone is eligible for benefits rather than use some arbitrary YES/NO qualification. Private charity does not have to set their level at the same level as other charities in their area. More room to help those needing "a little help" when it would really matter rather than demanding utter destitute first.

B. Elimination of welfare dependency. Private charities can scale aid to help a person get completely back on their feet rather than just cut them off.

C. Private charities can choose who they help. If they think someone is lying to them, they can say, "NO." Unlike government funding which mandates you give if they qualify, private charities create a option to ask for assistance, not a right to it. More potential to reward honesty rather than reward fakers.

D. Private charities can mandate that recipient "earn" what is given. Those that cop and attitude get cut off. It's a charity, not an entitlement.

E. Private charities don't need proof to cut a scammer off. Again, it's a charity, not an entitlement.

F. While a private charity can have a political agenda, the private charity is crafted to meet particular need(s) in the community. The funding might be allocated for specific purposes, but if a private charity finds the $50,000 allocated for housing improvements is more needed in the food bank, they can easily reallocate the money to meet the need rather than have to hand it back to someone else when it never gets spent.

G. Volunteerism. Certainly a private charity would need to offer compensation for some workers, but a private charity brings out the best of a community to volunteer to meet a need. Heck most beneficiaries could be obligated to help out with the charity's work as part of the deal for getting benefits. This cuts a lot of overhead that and frees up more donations to go to the people in need. If a private charity has more than 10% of its money going to administrative costs, that can be cause for investigation for improprieties. More so, if a charity cannot justify a disproportionate amount of funding going into the pockets of those who operate it, THE PEOPLE can choose to not fund it and give their money to a more prudent and responsible charity organization. Where government takes your money and hands it to whomever they want with no accountability, private charities must be accountable or they shut down.

H. Simple rules that must work. If a charity can't get the job done, people won't support it. Bureaucracy simply is not compatible with an effective charity.

I. Political honesty. Without state welfare, we get a real picture of how good or bad things are in America. Politicians can't "buy off" our disaffection with distractions. When charities are tasked to capacity because of the need, people will question what the government has been doing and demand they act with prudence and in the best interest of the American people and not itself. When you consider the BILLIONS that government spends in foreign aid but Americans are going homeless and without food, you question why are we spending that money in the first place? How are we going to pay for it if so many Americans are out of work? It's hard to be irresponsible with money when the public is watching like a hawk over every penny being spent.

This is just an overview, but it hits many of the big points.

I find you totally blind to the requirements of living in a society.

yet I have managed to do so for over seven decades. The requirements for living in society is to avoid unnecessary conflict, mind one's own business and to earn one's own keep.

I have no love for society, yet I am bound to live in it with the least pain to me and mine. And so it goes.

This is a polite forum so I will not tell you explicitly what you can do with "the requirements for living in a society".

ruveyn

the blind are eligible to receive between $674 and 1,200 per month in assistance from ssi and state supplement, in addition to subsidized housing, medicaid, free public transportation, and $200/mo from food stamps. what is the other 90%?