Republicans: Do you think America should abolish all our social programs?

Answer 1

I agree with Freedom for All and TroubleMaker.

The Constitution was never intended to provide socialist programs for citizens of the United States. Not in the form of insurance, nor in the form cash handouts, subsidies or cheese.

Unfortunately, we have been involved so long in socialist practices, that people think we can't live without them, and in fact need more.

The sad thing is, the only end in sight is disaster. We are bankrupting ourselves for what people feel is a good cause. Of course I will be accused of hating old people and children. Demagogue if you must, but the current state of things should prove that we need fewer 'programs' not more. Corruption, waste, oppressive taxes, and trillions spent on a so-called war on poverty and still we have poor people. The nation is facing dire consequences to our attempts at legislating charity.

Let's dream up a Utopia where old people are cared for, children are cared for, homeless are non-existent, criminals are rehabilitated, schools churn out geniuses, cancer is cured, dogs and cats are spayed and neutered, everyone has a high paying job they love, every night there is a Thanksgiving dinner on the table, and we all live in a Norman Rockwell painting.

Isn't this what we are promised every election cycle if only we elect the right people and dump those evil politicians in the other party?

Do you believe it? People must, because every cycle, they will still vote for the person who says: "Vote for me and all your wildest dreams will come true."

Answer 2

No. Just the programs run by government.

Government is poorly suited to run social programs because of its poor accountability model.

Consider restaurant servers. Non-government, or "private", servers earn tips generally based on quality of service. Patrons tip good servers well and bad servers poorly. Bad waiters go find other work because they can't make any money as a server. The customers hold the servers accountable for the quality of their work and it's reflected in the amount of the tip.

However, if government mandates restaurant patrons to pay a minimum 20% tip no matter how good the service, then bad waiters don't need to look for other work. And doubly bad, good waiters stop trying as hard because they don't make much more than a bad waiter by going the extra mile. Service is hurt for patrons all the way around.

There is one difference between the "government" server model above and the "government" social program model: restaurants patrons still have a choice. They can still choose to eat at home. So, restaurant owners have an incentive to keep the good servers.

Not so with the government ran social programs. We don't have a choice on whether to pay the taxes that fund those programs. And elected reps, who should be holding these programs accountability, don't because that's not what gets them elected.

This is the anatonomy of how government programs evolve into ineffective, bureaucratic nightmares that become a drag on society and ineffective at fulfilling its mission.

Answer 3

Of course you know I am not a Republican. I think they should abolish all social programs... for about a day until they realize that these people that abuse the programs will turn to crime to get their money. I would rather them take some of my money to be lazy bums than have them getting a gun and robbing people. I also think that $5Billion should be used to resurface them all. It isn't that hard to put together a program that can't be abused.

You should get less money for having another baby not more. You should be allowed only 12 out of every 24 months on support. And if you aren't actively looking for a job, you gets no benefits. Use the people that are on the programs and train them to help people find jobs, help people have low-cost resume writing, and free application aid.

Answer 4

No.

But I do have a problem with federal social programs. State and local can do better. The federal govt needs to stay out of peoples lives as they are just too removed from the average lifestyle and social circles of the community. Also, if these programs were removed, if they had not the ability to create such dependency, votes would not be sought after by the promise of them during elections.

Answer 5

No, but we are spending trillions on entitlements, and I live in liberal NY State where poverty rates seem to be going up. It cannot be all about money. Government agencies are loaded with patronage and accomplish little. There are certain people who need to be cared for, and there are too many leaching off the system. Politicians don't care. Why would we still have a lottery, then? It takes Billions from the poor, pays out a fraction, and then the government takes back half in taxes. It's a flat out cash cow, and a perfect example of the hypocrisy in government.

Answer 6

No I do not. However I would like to see the ones we have scaled back and some restrictions put on them.

For example, welfare has long been used to pay daily expenses for poor families. Problem is that there have been no restrictions on it for such a long time. I would like to see the government make these individual report to work every day. The work that they would perform is 1/2 day of community service and 1/2 day of job training. Child care would be included as part of this revised welfare. This way they are earning their money instead of just collecting checks. I also believe that we need to have a limit of 5 years on welfare so that it cannot be abused or used as a way of life. It is supposed to be a hand up, not a hand out program.

I would also like to see the poor put on some type of birth control. If you cannot afford to take care of the children you currently have, why are you irresponsible and having more children. Children are expensive and need love and nuturing. If you can't provide that, you shoudn't be having them. How about a little personal responsibility.

These are just two examples of what needs to be addressed. Not expanding programs willy nilly because you can.

Answer 7

WE should encourage private groups to meet the needs of the community with tax incentives .
They often handle these problems much better then the government can and with much more of a direct impact .

We need to get off the the charity industry as a nation of tax payers and allow social responsibility to flourish .
I say end all social programs administered by the government now .
No more Wic , food stamps , section 8 , medicare/medicade , or any program to assist the poor handled by the government .

Habitat for humanity has provided more housing to people then the government ever has .
The government builds projects that warehouse poor people and when your application lists that address you are not going to get hired .
So it is much better that the community handles its less fortunate because it is more compassionate then the government .

Answer 8

All Federal ones, yes. Get rid of Federal anything and put the power back into the hands of the states and the communities where it belongs. That way it can be better managed and there would be better checks and balances. Our Constitution was not written to where the Federal Government was to take care of everyone....just the opposite.

Answer 9

Absolutely not, there are *decent* people that need it. But the government should hire many more investigators to pay surprise visits to the people using any kind of social program, to catch them on their lies and send them to jail. Stealing is stealing, no matter the excuse. With the money the government will save, and I bet is a lot, they can pay the salaries of the new investigators. Social programs (of any kind) must be only for those that actually need it, not for the lazy, and not a way of live!

Answer 10

If the choice is abolish all or keep all, I'd say abolish all of them. There are far more bad or wasteful programs than good and efficient ones.