I instinctively lean left on economics because I can't stand the suffering of the poor. Despite this, I've learned enough about economics to realize that socialism is not, in the long term, an effective system, and that, all other things being equal, government intervention in the economy usually hurts it. Therefore, trickle-down economics works for most people- those who can find steady employment.
But what about the unemployed? They benefit only if the employed give money to them, and great suffering and tragically shortened lives are the result of chronic unemployment. So yes, unfettered capitalism does boost the overall economy and leave more money that can potentially be given to the poor. I emphasize the word potentially. If a wealthy person has $1 million dollars now and would have $2 million in a laissez-faire society, that is $1 million more dollars they could give to the poor- but they could also hoard the wealth. Removing safety nets from society could do one of two things: It could lead to the replacement of a tangled bureaucracy with more efficient private charity or it could make society so obsessed with obtaining and holding on to wealth in this new economic jungle that the rich would not give any more to the poor than they did before despite overall economic growth. This is uncertain; poverty and its consequences are all too certain.
Moreover, the poor are not, as a rule, lazy. Almost no one would be lazy and choose the miseries of poverty, and I can say with certainty that most of the poor people I've met would give anything to be able to work. All of them are, in one way or another, through genetics, bad luck or a combination of the two, disabled in some way. Sometimes their disabilities are subtle and sometimes they are obvious, but the constantly unemployed are invariably disabled. It should also be noted that they are no less moral than any other economic class. I've met mean, immoral poor people and I've met kind, virtuous ones. In this respect they are the same as every other class. So it cannot, as a general rule, be stated that they have earned their lot in life, and I, for one, despite my sometimes bitter temper, would not wish the suffering I have seen on anyone- and I do mean anyone.
The pith of the matter is this: I have neither met nor heard of anyone who had no ability for which someone would not pay, yet there are risks involved in hiring certain people (such as the mentally ill) that employers seem unwilling to take. Why is this and can it be fixed? Until and unless chronic unemployment is made so scarce that the current level of private charity would easily deal with it, I must consider the welfare state the only acceptable system. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

You make great points. It is important for all of us to try to grasp the concept of poverty and the catacllsmic affect it has on an individual, there ability to cope, find employment, care for themselves and/or family, and move forward to continue to grow and develop.

We as Americans have to ask ourselves, what would we do if we were in poverty because of a job loss? Would we know what avenues are available to us to secure another job? Would we have the support and understanding from our families, friends, and others?

We as Americans also need to ask ourselves, what would bring us to that point where we would find ourselves living in poverty? Would it a personal loss and our inability to cope with that loss? Would it alcohol and/or drug abuse? Would it be imprisonment?

We as Americans need to be understanding and provide direction and assistance to those in need. To assist does not necessarily refer to providing money, it may be providing a link to an agency/organization to secure a job, or it may be to an agency that provides interships to learning a professional trade. It may be an agency/organization that can assist with issues related to alcohol and/or drug abuse.

The Homeless population has increase significantly in the past two years placing a strain on state resources. We as Americans need to insure that the major resources in place include the components of employment assistance, re-education and/or internship placement, assistance with mental health, drug, and alcohol abuse.

The problem of chronic poverty requires more than meager monthly checks. Ultimately, poverty is a symptom, and right now I think that the problem may well be that we are devoting resources towards the symptoms that need to be used to treat the underlying problems, such as disabilities, substance abuse, a lack of education and so forth.
There should not be conditions such as exist in Third World countries, but what is especially shocking to me is that, for example, in my city, I can walk right out of a glitzy shopping mall and see the street where many of the city's beggars are. In this country we have so much more than enough to go around, but somehow resources aren't being allocated to the right people in the right ways. I wish I knew the solution.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

you make some decent points force but if we would just swallow our emotions and let the people who don't want to work starve we would end up having an excellent society in just a few generations let me explain, evolution would occur letting the people who don't want to work die and they would also be less likely to have children (as there would be less of them) eventually the slackers would die off and the people who want to work would thrive they would also pass on their traits to their children therefore their children would want to work have high moral standards etc... giving us a better society as a whole.

my question to you is why do you want to support people who refuse to work?

__________________
The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.-Adolf Hitler

But free market capitalism makes it more likely that they will get good jobs or that whatever jobs they can get will enable them to earn a decent living.

Every bit of welfare state you add increases unemployment and takes money away from private charity.

Economics and efficiency are not the only things that lay out a path for a country. Culture also has an effect. Letting people starve sounds all good and wonderful if you ignore your emotions. That is however paving the way for a society without compassion, without anything human.
The truth is we are emotional creatures, not machines, and most of our emotions serve the function of protecting our weak and reducing suffering.
We should not quit being human for the sake of a Utopian society. Such a Utopia is really Hell in disguise.

True. What most of us want is something within that framework that provides basic life necessities for those who truly need it and to help those from backgrounds of poverty and its symptoms to gain access to the human capital they need to get beyond it.

Fair enough. But as with most things the optimum level is rarely one extreme or the other.
Show me a way to ensure that charity not only is collected to a level that it can meet its goals... but that it is centralized and organized enough to have those goals mapped out and I might be with you. Unfortunately charity is not based on rational choice and is completely out of synch with the free market. If you can figure out a working private sector solution chances are you can also figure out how to bring an end to war.
We're just not there yet.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Maybe...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.1

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, over a quarter of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines, but, at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

The best news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced further, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home.

(continued at link provided)

__________________
A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough -- Ronald Reagan

It is not a question of charity, but rather basic human decency. Ruskin, in one of his essays, most eloquently expressed it thus:

“And if, on due and honest thought over these things, it seems that the kind of existence to which men are now summoned by every plea of pity and claim of right, may, for some time at least, not be a luxurious one; - consider whether, even supposing it guiltless, luxury would be desired by any of us, if we saw clearly at our sides the suffering which accompanies it in the world. Luxury is indeed possible in the future - innocent and exquisite; luxury for all, and by the help of all; but luxury at present can only be enjoyed by the ignorant; the cruelest man living could not sit at his feast, unless he sat blindfold. Raise the veil boldly; face the light; and if, as yet, the light of the eye can only be through tears, and the light of the body through sackcloth, go thou forth weeping, bearing precious seed, until the time come, and the kingdom, when Christ's gift of bread, and bequest of peace, shall be ‘Unto this last as unto thee’; and when, for earth's severed multitudes of the wicked and the weary, there shall be holier reconciliation than that of the narrow home, and calm economy, where the Wicked cease - not from trouble, but from troubling - and the Weary are at rest.”

- John Ruskin, “Ad Valorem,” Cornhill Magazine (1860); reprinted as Unto This Last (1862).

I'm familiar with the Heritage Foundation's attitude towards the poor. It is the view that the poor are immoral and that only their children (and only so long as they are children) are victims- it reeks of Calvinism. It is also not consistent with the reality I have personally witnessed. I must grant that the Foundation is rather skilled at making greed seem moral. Yes, technology has been advancing, but with it expectations of faster performance, pollution and many other undesirable side effects.
In its own way, such a quasi-Calvinist mindset is worse than Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism, while heartless, at least makes no moral judgments. Calvinism attempts to condemn the poor and ultimately, to blame its own victims.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

Despite that, it is true that American poor are not as poor as most of the world. That's not to say that we should ignore our poor... nor that there is really anything morally wrong with the poor. It also doesn't show anything for the poor having equal opportunity... which is the real hearty stuff of debate.
But it does show the potential a capitalist system has for at least making sure people are fed... provided it has a robust economy and that the poor are visible enough that people wish to help them. Government programs, of course, have their part in all this.
But in general America isn't doing so bad for taking care of its poor. It could do better maybe. But it's not the huge failure some make it out to be... certainly not compared to say North Korea.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III