sperrico87 said:
There is no acceptable number of deaths. People will always fall through the cracks, and if your approach of doing more centralized welfare to curb poverty actually worked, then there would be less of it right now. The opposite is true, though. There are over 70 federal welfare programs, and there are more people in poverty than ever before. If you wanted to be truly compassionate to the elderly and the poor, you would be more concerned with how the value of our currency is continually declining, which affects the poor more than any other group because they're the ones on fixed incomes who get hit hardest by the inflation that raises the price of everything we buy. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. So the more federal or state welfare is given out, the more people will use it and either stay poor or become poor just to qualify. The only answer that is moral is to allow churches and other private charities to help those TRULY in need. Before the government got involved in taxpayer-funded welfare in middle of the last century, that used to be how charity was handled. Politicians came in and messed it all up. |
You need to reread what I wrote. I said I don't believe in rights-based ethics system. I didn't say that those in need shouldn't be helped, or if help is offered, that it should be turned down. I believe in obligation-based ethical systems that put demands on people to do things, not rights-based where people claim to get theirs and fight over it. Also, I will take advantage of free offerings if i need them, and not feel guilty about it. I also freely give also, looking to bless others if I can, to meet their needs.
In regards to your subsidize something, the inverse is NOT true. Because you cut funding to something, doesn't make the issue it address go away. Poverty doesn't just magically vanish because you don't have welfare. And there is no guarantee at all anyone will step forward into the gaps. I certainly don't see any indication you would spend a single cent more to help the poor, if there was no welfare, based on what you write here. If you were personally THAT serious about making welfare go away, you would start a charity to help the poor, get people working, show a list of regulations you want removed, and then present a case, based on your efforts, why government programs aren't needed, because you have the answer. Heck, if you wanted to do something very simple, you could work to get me off welfare. But, you know what? You very likely have neither the concern, nor the know how to do this. And that is common for most people. Want to know why the government is in the business of doing welfare? Well, it is because public opinion finds poverty a problem, and most people lack both the concern and the ability to help, so it gets pawned off on government. Something about the Great Depression and prolonged unemployment made people think there was need for greater intervention on part of the government to address issues.
By the way, I will call you, and others who keep naming "churches and private charities" as the answer, and want the government to not do it. Exactly how much more, if there was no welfare would you give to help those in need?
