[Radar]

Originally Posted by Brianna

As long as he asks nicely...

...of course, you guys are right. It's really due to the fact that they are kids and (most) have been through very little indeed. I feel better. Level heads prevail and all that!

And, just curious, Radar---if you don't want a welfare state, what do you propose as an alternative? Who cares for the elderly and the kids without parents? Foster kids recieve Medicaid to cover their medical bills (and here in Oh. they want to nix their dental benefits--perfect!) so--who takes care of them?

A long time ago, we had no government welfare programs. Schools were privately funded from within the communities they served. And people in need would rely on their friends, family, neighbors, churches, or private charities. Back then they got MORE help than they do now, and they had more incentive to stand up on their own.

Government is like King Midas, but instead of gold, everything government touches turns to shit. The "war on poverty" resulted in more poor people. The "war on drugs" has resulted in more people using drugs, and now the "war on terror" has resulted in more terrorism.

If you genuinely care about something, you should never let government get involved. Private organizations are more efficient and get more help to those in need 100% of the time.

Government keeps 85 cents of every dollar marked for social programs as overhead and only gets 15 cents to those in need. You can reverse those numbers for private charities. Some people stupidly claim that people wouldn't give to charity if they could keep what they own. The truth is more people would give to charity if they weren't convinced that government programs actually help people, or if they had more money to give.

If we elminate all the unconstitutional parts of government, we'll have more money to give, more people will give because they know Uncle Sam is not looking after their loved ones and others in need, and less people will need help because with more people keeping what they earn, we'd have more businesses created, more jobs, and more opportunity for people to take care of themselves.

If 1/3 of the money stolen from people at the point of a gun were collected, those in need would have MUCH MORE help than they currently get from government. Those who were not responsible and did not prepare for thier retirement, healthcare, etc. would serve as an example to others to be careful and to be responsible.

People are not owed anything based on their percieved "needs" or desires.

I would also give people and businesses a dollar for dollar tax credit for any money they spend on social programs that government is currently is involved in (all of them are unconstitutional). This means if you wanted, you could choose to send poor kids to private schools where they'll get a better education. You can choose to give money to a shelter, to a retirement home, to handicapped people, to charities that give a stipend to those in need, to food banks, etc.

Every dollar you spend would be a dollar off of your normal tax burden. It would give people the choice on where their tax money goes. Rather than having money stolen from you at the point of a gun, you can have some control on where your money goes. If you don't want your money to fund an unconstitutional war of aggression, an insane drug war, etc. you can make sure it's spent on those who need it and owe no taxes at the end of the year.

Originally Posted by Elspode

Strange...my kid's Medicaid was cut back recently, yet no one has come knocking on the door to offer to pick up the financial loss. Using your logic, if he loses something, something else will come to replace it, but it hasn't happened.

Did I miss the mail-in or something? Is there a website for applying for this new font of charity and assistance? Do I just call the Libertarian Party and ask for the Help Desk?

The thing about charity, is you have to ask for it. They generally don't go door to door asking if you need something.

Ask yourself if all medicaid, social security, medicare, welfare, public education, etc. were totally and completely cut off immediately, do you think people would be more apt to help you? My guess is yes. Right now many people don't donate to charity because they are under the mistaken assumption that government programs (funded with stolen money) are actually "helping" people. If everyone knew that there were none of these programs anymore, and they got to keep 100% of what they earn, they'd be more apt to give to those in need. And if they didn't get to keep their own money, they'd at least be able to choose where their money went..... if we were using my system.

Keep in mind, you are not owed money because you have a sick kid. You are not entitled to the money of other people based on yours or your kids needs. Forced charity is not charity; it's robbery. If someone puts a gun to my head and says they want my money so they can spend it on orphans and elderly people, it's still robbery. The fact that they are going spend it on those in need does not make it any less of a robbery.