Should we abolish ALL forms of government welfare, and let the poor wither and die?

There is no possible way that our culture of greed would come even close to providing enough charity to help those in need. Period. Many many many more people would suffer if left up to simple charity programs. Or so I believe.

 

False dichotomy. Abolishing welfare will not cause the poor to "whither and die".

 

"Should we abolish ALL forms of government welfare, and let the poor wither and die?"

I’ve seen a whole lot of BS but this takes the cake. These are the 2 non-choices on offer:

1). "Yes - Every single form of government assistance to the poor should be abolished."
2). "No - Government assistance is the only means to ensure the well being of the poor"

The first choice is ridiculous and the second one is absurdly formulated. The whole basis for this poll is insane. Poverty does not drop out of the sky like acid rain or volcanic ash. Destitution is the consequence of a corrupt government. The idea that government should let the population wither away and starve to death is a crime in itself and describing government assistance as humanitarian kindness on level with a charitable act is thunderously evil considering government is responsible for poverty in the first place.

So ....... the answer is neither 1 nor 2. The correct answer is for government to get its act together and provide for its population in a way that there is adequate work with decent wages for everyone.

 

True. Abolishing welfare will put every man, woman, and child in danger of being shot for a dime.

 

I disagree. So there we are. But I feel that the Government could at least do a better job with fraud in these programs. And there are some people that make their own misery and suffering that I feel do not deserve the amount of help they get.

 

Thats not a yes or no question

People who are physically unable to work can get government assistance

Able bodied people should get nothing from government

 

I voted yes, abolish it all, because it isn't the role of the federal government to subsidize poverty and sloth. If states and local governments want to, that's up to them, to the extent their electorate allows them to.

Furthermore, liberals are so empathetic to the poor, that we can be rest assured that they will offer up their own time and money to support those in need; eliminating the need for government assistance. Their private charity alone will solve the problem.

 

What about someone who is fully physically able to work, but suffers from say, severe depression?

 

They can go to a private charity food bank and beg for handouts

But under my reforms they are not eligible for government assistance

 

People weren't withering and dying in this country before socialists hijacked our Republic. In general people are good, even a few liberals are, so people don't let other people starve, they help, and all without the need of totalitarian regimes interfering with every aspect of their lives...

 

Actually they were. Prior to social security the poverty rate for seniors was 50%. Now it is 10%

 

Directly prior, you mean like in the Depression when poverty rates for everyone were through the roof? Funny how you forgot to mention that...

 

Thank God for that socialist program

 

Not really, peeing on the Constitution is always wrong. If anything the government should have done nothing more than provide limited aid to private organizations to help the needy instead of forcing itself on the lives of millions...

 

Yeah....that helping poor people is really evil

 

It was attempted in Sodom according to the copy of the Book of Jasher that was found three or four hundred years ago.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/18.htm

https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/19.htm

 

As opposed to doing what?

 

As opposed to ACTUALLY helping these people escape generational poverty. Which we dont seem to be willing to do in todays world.

 

And this is why no one takes you seriously. I'll remind you once again, there was no welfare program during the Great Depression, but no one died of hunger. Why is that, if people will die without welfare?

 

People suffered greatly during the depression. I'll have to laugh at your posts if you can not accept reality

 

Suffered, yes, died, no. Mortality actually decreased during the 1930s.

https://history.stackexchange.com/q...-starved-to-death-during-the-great-depression

 

Is suffering a good thing?

 

Conservatives believe that pain and suffering is the only way to motivate the poor.

 

Prove this to be true.

 

The policy positions they put forth speak for themselves. Conservative budgets always start with the destruction of the services for the poor. Those are always the first things on the chopping block. Then education, because, those darn educated elites!!!!!