If all social programs in the United States were abolished, how would you address the needs of the poor?

Question

I'm trying to understand the mindset of people who constantly argue that social programs are wrong.

Answer 1

The rich would kill the poor if they could. Simply the truth.

Answer 2

Social programs are not wrong. Social programs run by the government are lumbering, inefficient blunt instruments that are sound in principle but fatally flawed in practice and thus a waste of scarce resources.

Poverty must be solved at a local and individual level--there is not a social program run by the government that can accurately and fairly address the specific needs of everyone who suffers in poverty. I don't hate the poor, but I despise the waste, injustice and inefficiencies of federal programs designed to 'help' them. I give a significant percentage of my income for the alleviation of individual hardships--but I do so only to programs capable of addressing individual needs and encourage ultimate self-reliance--something state and federal governments, no matter how well-intentioned, will never be able to do.

Answer 3

I have never said that all social programs should be abolished.

But they didn't always exist.

Before we had guaranteed government payments, families and communities (churches) passed around the hat to help those in need.

They also delivered a swift kick in the pants to those they believed were not "down on their luck" but lazy.

This was done with virtually no "bureaucracy" or "administrative costs." People weren't in court all day arguing claims for benefits.

And society stigmatized having children out of wedlock, divorce and other practices that tend to condemn children to poverty.

Answer 4

Individuals contribute more to the needy in this country than our gvmt does.

After the 9/11 attacks, private charity made millionaires out of the widows.

After the tidal wave in Indonesia, US private citizens gave more than any other country.

Compare these results to the gvmt assistance after hurricane katrina.

Individuals do contribute much more than the gvmt, they do it more efficiently and get better results.

Unfortunately, people believe if the gvmt doesn't do something, it never gets done. This is a false concept.

Imagine if individuals were able to keep more of what they earned, how much more money would go to charity.

Answer 5

What was done to address the needs of the poor prior to the 1930's?
Not alot. Why? Because the poor addressed their own needs.

And I don't think that all social programs should be abolished, just cut back dramatically to create a safety net that helps people bounce back; as a opposed to the current spider web that catches them and keeps them in poverty.

Answer 6

Serious discussion at the highest levels of government to gut social programs started in our era with President Reagan. Its felt that a person receiving government funds for personal use takes away from the incentive required to succeed. But if government can institute responsible programs that genuinely help people "up the ladder" is it not our responsibility to do so. Also, in reality, not political hyperbole, the percentage of the federal budget actually dedicated to pure social welfare programs is small.

Answer 7

If the gap between rich and poor gets too large, and if those at the bottom feel they have no meaningful route to the riches at the top, then the fabric of society will fray, or even come unraveled entirely. Part of drives the US economy is the American Dream. If people don't believe thay have a chance of moving up economically, they will give up.

Answer 8

The flaw with social programs is abuse. Unfortunately, the complexity of such programs makes it nearly impossible to control mismanagement and exploitation. As long as the truly needy benefit, we must accept the fact that some people will "work the system". To abandon these programs altogether would be inconsistent with democracy.

Answer 9

I love how people always complain about the cost of social programs, but have no problem justifying the fact that we will have spent a trillion dollars in Iraq by the time we are done.

Answer 10

They wouldn't be addressed at all. People will try to give when they can, but we, on our own cannot help everyone who needs it. I think it needs to be reformed because it gets abused, but it is necessary and saves us, as individuals, the time and commitment it takes in helping people. Yes, there is volunteer work, but it's still not enough.

And, for those of you who say they can all work, a lot of them cannot. And, some even do work, but their pay is so low that they can barely afford the basic necessities. No one can live on minimum wage today.

Answer 11

Americans gave more money to the poor before WWII.

After liberals created reforms, social programs, heavy taxes, naturally there became less money to 'give' after the govt has extracted it from your paycheck.