What kind of Welfare system is ideal for the United States?

The indispensable element of "the general welfare" is liberty. Liberty is authority over and responsibility for self.
Liberty is the only system to produce a net decrease in poverty and a net increase in wealth.

During the American experiment, we have solved poverty every forty years. At any time during the American experiment, if the standard for poverty was the same as forty years prior, poverty would have been all but solved.
If the standard for poverty was now what it was in 1975, poverty would be all but solved.

Poverty in America is a moving goal; it is a fallacy.

 

Socialism in the US must be working or the right would not complain that the poor in the US are not really poor enough when compared to third world standards.

 

Lets keep this simple, lets look at disability conditions that warrant government support and using an average person noting those with special aptitudes or talents have sometime options Joe and Jane worker would have. Assume an average person who is nothing special and the kinds of work they can do.

Okay here are two that stands out to me being Blind or Inability to Use Ones Hands for Occupational Standards of Work in Any Common Occupation (examples advanced arthritis, atrophy or palsied hands that is not correctable).

Another is growing to be an issue low intelligence since those occupations are becoming harder to find (example working in a factory on an assembly line. retail work has limited options) but they might benefit from support while working when they can get work.

Severe mental illness that medicine either is not effective, or has impeding complications like extreme lethargy.

Lastly impeding chronic conditions which hits overall functionality such as Crone's Disease, being on Dialysis and such.

I would think these groups would be considered worthy of government welfare along with children and the elderly if infirmed for example.

I would add those with chronic conditions which are likely to lead to disability as a group to get Medicaid at least such as Type I Diabetics if not working and otherwise insured, early pre-diabetics (children prone to get it that was my case that became diabetes and I had Spartan on and off care so it ravaged my body) so they are less likely to be disabled later.

Well it would make sense giving those in need support at various levels if that makes sense.

But maybe Charity and Private Industry could help with government contracts those who are fit to work or disabled but employable perhaps, I liked the old Mutual Aid Society model where you got help from ones community who could turn you down for being seen as lazy.

 

If only the truly disable were on welfare yhr churches could handle the cost easily and the federal government would be unneeded.

 

The only people who should get a free ride are children and the disabled.

For everyone else, welfare should be treated like a 0% interest loan. And, you you should have to work, or be actively looking for work in order to receive welfare.

 

Are you on the right or the Judicature? There is no "employment ethic" to complement any "work ethic" required of labor, even while claiming to be for the social concept of Equality (before the law, even in public venues.) I consider it a tragedy for the federal Cause, that there are no longer any federalists on any bench.

So, how can you give credit or require payment under our form of capitalism, if you don't guarantee, in that alternative, and employment ethic so persons can simply apply and get hired due to an employment ethic on the part of employers; I also believe this should be tested first in Right to Work States, in that alternative.

 

Children and the disabled should get a "free ride" but not by force, not even force of law.
Like wise with the "0% interest loan". You have a great idea, but as soon as you would have your idea imposed upon others by force, even force of law, the idea becomes evil.

Anything good becomes evil when done by force between equals.

You, you become the change you want, and respect others as your equals.

 

How do we convince the right to stop being such communists; especially if they don't even know it?

Is it any wonder that some on left resort to being poets, for recourse to any poetic license.

 

You are aware government aid for the poor is part of the Western Culture we base our nation on from Ancient Athens (those deemed unfit and were citizens would get a third laborers wages to eat with by the government), British Law had taxation for welfare to aid the "legitimate poor", the American Colonies offered such aid and so did States in various ways. Islamic Culture also has it as a holy command from Allah to aid the poor usually in modern time through taxes. So saying this has no place for our modern government goes against the long tradition of mercy to the needy by taxation. But how this funds are used is a subject of debate.

I feel it should go to those who are in need and not fit enough to work in an occupation, this can include support for those working who are disabled or have a chronic condition that without regular care can likely lead to disability a fairly defined group of people altogether however.

 

Ideally? It should be both voluntary and adequate. In reality, no system is ever going to be perfect in either regard.

 

Are you aware that it ahs seldom helped anyone and always resulted in a massive devaluation of the currency?

 

we run The Point Loma base too. plus they hire all over the place

 

Humiliation

Progressivism is a benevolent arrogance, be it on the left or the right.

Praise them for their benevolence, and humiliate them for their arrogance.

 

I don't believe we would have the same problems if we also had, as a form of civil "equity" an Constitutional office of public defender like their is for public offenses.

Shouldn't district attorneys be contracted from the private sector as well, instead of enjoying Constitutional protection and that form of privilege and immunity as any form of Equality under our republican form of Government and under our form of Capitalism as enumerated in the Socialism of our supreme (social) laws of the land.

 

No, they should not.

 

I didn't mean bread and circuses handouts to losers who refuse to work but aid to infirm persons who are citizens of their nations, when limited to that its not demonstrated to impact an economy. In Britain our mother nation that was the basis of early aid government aid went to orphans, widows, the infirm and elderly and in the Colonies families were required to support elderly parents the colonies would step in for those without such support.

Britain and the USA left that narrow focus and its become a problem. Rome had the same issues later when they fed lazy bums just to keep them from rioting.

 

Want to lend a helping hand? Fine - do it with your property, not mine.

 

I feel the same about war..... want a war, do it with their money not mine.... I would much rather money go to help American then nation-building other countries like Iraq

every dollar we spend on the poor gets spent on local economies, the money spent in Iraq is not....

.

 

I share your feeling on war, but evidently not on social spending.

 

well we agree on that, so lets end the wars, that includes the war on drugs, that would be a start

.

 

Amen to that!

The war on drugs won't be over until all substances are legalized, untaxed, and unregulated - from caffeine to crack cocaine. All cultivation, manufacture, sale and use should be permitted without obstruction by law.

As for the wars - all the defense I want can be provided by letting me buy whatever weapons I want. Get out of my wallet!

 

But that's the problem it never stops there. In the 19th century Britain had the poorhouses featured in Charles Dicken's "Oliver Twist" And they weren't just for widows and orphans though that's how it began. As per usual when you started out with a lovely crusade to help the poor and buy the early day's of the 20th century they were hell wholes that swept up the poor like vacuum cleaners broke up families and effectively destroyed lives and ruined people at a rate no capitalist could ever imagine. They were roundly and rightly condemned as hell holes by many reformers. Compared to most of our public housing projects today they were far less dangerous and accomplished the same thing.

 

It is impossible to address the people in poverty when no one is addressing job expansion to cover the working age population.

 

The only fair welfare system is not to have one. Since you are apparently a communist i assume you will disagree, but living off of the work of others is morally wrong no matter how you slice it. Your accidental birth does not in anyway give you a right to live off the labor of others. Why don't you get a job? I'm sure if you spent as much time online looking for work as you did googling your government freebees you would be employed.

How on earth can anyone look at themselves in the mirror with any sense of dignity knowing they CAN provide themselves with the necessities of life but choose to live off the efforts of others? Whats worse, someone whose quality of life only available through free market capitalism can sit at home and tout socialist values.That is the lowest of low.

Welfare is a complete and utterly immoral concept conceived by virtue-less, parasitic subhuman bipeds. It seeks to devalue human life, destroy families and enslave the able. Free milk for some is slavery for others.

 

The primary obstacle to "job expansion" is the government. If not for ever encroaching government, I would not have retired at fifty. I could employ 30+ men by spring, in high paying career positions, but it's just not worth the risk.

I have enough money for the next couple of generations of my family, but my heart aches for those men and their families.

I am not going to risk everything we have for just a little more.