This is a conversation I'm participating in on another, non-political message board. I thought I'd share it here for some feedback or maybe criticism, particularly with the goal of pointing out arguments that I misrepresented, or arguments that I missed all together.

>>OP: One critique often raised against Ronald Regan is that he failed tp grasp the "Larger Questions"!

It was said of him," If he ran into a man or woman who was dowm on his or her luck, he might offer them Twenty Dollars from his wallet. However, He seemed to be insentisitive to accepting the need for socail programs that would relieve the poveryt of millions!"

The defense of President Reagan offered in THIS matter went along these lines , " He was willing to respond to needs where the peponse seem clear and direct! However, to fund elaborate programs that might not meet needs properly seemed not to be the best use of tax money.'

So, What is your opinion on meeting individual needs as oppossed to meeting the need of many?

>>ME: a private donation is a gesture of good will, from the kindness of a persons heart to aid a person in need.

Government welfare programs, FORCE me to be charitable, by using my hard earned money to feed people, some are needy, some are just parasites, and the Government is terribly inefficiant at managing these social programs. Private charities are ruthlessly frugal, purposely, so there is enough aid for those in need. The Government just throws money around and raises taxes if the money doesn't go as far as is needed.

Social welfare is easily as cruel and abusive as it is charitable and beneficent. Because your taking the food out of one mans mouth, the clothes off of ones mans back, and giving it to another, whos done nothing to earn that food or clothes, and has no rightful claim to the earnings of the working man without the working mans willful consent.

No, we dont all benefit from these social programs. Social programs take the consequences away from reckless behavior, making reckless behavior okay for people to engage in. I mean how can it be reckless behavior if there is no risk involved??

>>OP: EVEN IF a man or woman has made the dumbest choices possible. Our society would still cringe mightily at the thought of their 3 children all under the age of 7 suffering and doing without!

>>ME: ofcourse, I wouldn't argue to the contrary. Its that compassion and sympathy that is innate in most humans, that makes Government welfare unnecessary.

If my neighbor is cold and hungry, I'm gonna feel compelled to offer assistance.

here are the two choices as I see them.

1. In our current system, you give the Gov x% of your income, they take y% of the sum of x% to pay countless beurocrats before z% finally makes it to the hands of your neighbor.

2. If you were not already donating to the beurocracy to support your downtroden neighbor, you'd keep more of your tax dollars, and since you wouldn't have the false sense of satisfaction provided by these tax payer funded social programs, you'd feel even more compulsion to just put $50 in your neighbors hand and cut out the red tape badit, pencil pushing, grossly overpaid middlemen.

>>OLDNEOCON: Yes that's why conservatives usually give more to charity then liberals Don't think so check out the tax returns of the Bush's and Cheney's versus the Obamas and the Kerry's and Al Gores or the Clinton's. You can also go by the most liberal states versus the most conservative when it comes to charity and the conservatives always give more . Why because they believe it should be an individuals responsibility not the governments where as the liberals feel that the government should provide for everyone.

>>ME: In Puerto Rico, when a kid needs an expensive operation and he has no insurance, you know what happens??

Family and neighbors plaster the kids pic and a brief story on coffee cans, and they go stand out at big intersections and collect donations like pan handlers, maybe some of the smaller neighborhood businesses will put the same sorta tin out to solicit donations. Even though puerto rico is loaded with almost the exact same beurocracy and even more overloaded with Government Aid programs, the COMMUNITY still does its part, and 100% (barring theft) will go right into the hands of the family in need. No beurocrats, just a caring community.

You can sit with your neighbor and discuss his needs, or some goon in a suit miles away can tell your neighbor what he needs.

This is another angle to consider.
Government welfare really only allows for subsistance by the enrollees, very little is actually done to help people on welfare get off of welfare. Maybe they provide you with some pamphlets or list or two, but nothing of substance is done to help these people achieve financial independance. You can be dang sure that if individuals were taking money out of their pocket for a neighbor, they'd also be helping in whatever non-monetary way to help him become independant.

A neighborhood doesn't benefit from having downtrodden residents constantly asking for hand outs, a beurocracy does. You see, if too many people get off welfare, jobs get cut, but if they keep people on welfare there is no such threat, indeed if they get X number of new people on welfare, they will get a bigger budget, maybe new computers, or chairs or maybe even a TV in the breakroom. Their bigger budget and swank new office supplies mean a tax hike for all of us, and only a fraction of that money actually goes toward helping people in need. The rest is chiselled away by some over staffed, overpaid Government agency, wh does nothing in and of itself to create wealth, but rather earns income from redistributing the wealth of others.

I'm sure there are plenty of nice people working at the welfare office, but they can only do what their superior allows them to do, and the same for that person.

Also I'd avoid making it an us vs. them issue. Thats a tiresome American political trend. We're just people discussing social issues, trying to find the best way to help our distressed countrymen. The animousity that comes with an Us vs Them pissing contest is counterproductive IMO. Its not people who hold a certain political philosophy that I'm interested in reforming, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Its that Government that now grows just as much, though in different dimensions, regardless of what party is in control, that needs some reformation. On the state and Federal level, and I'm sure in many counties and municipalities as well.

I'm a long winded SOB I know. If you made it all the way to the end you deserve a thanks and a pat on the back. LoL

Thanks,
Rev