What would happen if all social programs disappeared tomorrow?

Question

Some people claim social programs are necessary because they are a "safety net". However, this is not really true. The government is comprised of us ("We the people..."), and it is also funded by us. We (you, me, and all of our fellow tax-payers) are the "safety net", the government is just 1 possible method of distribution.

I believe that nothing much would change if the programs went away. After all, we (the tax-payers) and our money have not disappeared, so it is not a question of available resources, it is a question of distribution. With the programs gone, we could each choose our own method of distribution (person to person, Red Cross, United Way, Salvation Army, chruches, temples, etc). I prefer this method because it embodies the idea of freedom ("land of the free, home of the brave").

I am open to your opinions, but please, if all you are going to do is call me names, then don't bother.

Answer 1

Although it would complicate the tax system further I believe that everyone should be given the opportunity to contribute to the programs that they believe in, other than the military which is possibly the only constitutionally justified expense in my opinion.



For example I would fund the military, infrastructure, and research & development grants but would opt out of all social welfare programs and art grants. There might be someone out there that appreciates the arts and would decide to fund them.



At least then everyone would know exactly what they are paying for and it would be a more direct form of Democracy. If the people decide not to fund an activity, then the program would have no choice but to be canceled.

Answer 2

Well, that was how it was originally done in our country. I do believe in the generosity of the American people. Just look at how we handle the need of a disaster (and that is what this would be in the beginning). Look at the generosity of the public after 9/11, the hurricane last summer, and the tsunami right after our hurricane.

I think that we would be more selective about who would receive help. The gov takes our taxes and we really don't have a say in who receives the help. However, we would have a say in it if we were donating the money to local organizations. I think there would be less scamming of the system as those giving out the money would have to make sure they are giving to the truly needy. Otherwise, their donors could take their money and give to another charity.

I don't think the problem will be peoples generosity. I think the problem will be all those people who have never worked suddenly having to be self supporting. People in the system are generally uneducated. A person needs skills to obtain a job, even at McDonald's. How is that issue going to be addressed? Oh wait I've got it, they can fill all the jobs that will be left vacant by the deportation of illegal aliens.

Answer 3

Every one here is talking about the poor the poor the poor! Some of those poor poor people are driving nicer cars than you and I! Some of these poor people eek out a living by mooching off of the system. I live in rural Virginia, and I see these poor, downtrodden folks every day on the street, walking and drinking 40's in the middle of the day or driving around in their new Hummer or Escalade.



You can't end welfare & handouts all of a sudden. But you can REQUIRE that a portion of that money goes to educating the recipient. If the person receiving those food stamps doesn't have a high school diploma, make them get a GED so that they can at least work at McD's. Make them go to college-community college. Learn a trade. There has go to be an end of the free loading. These people are smart enough to manipulate the system, they are smart enough to be educated and work.



Nothing makes my blood boil more than seeing an able bodied person who refuses to work-and why should they when Uncle Sam (meaning you and I) will send them a nice tidy check each month. And all they have to do is pop out a baby every year or so.



Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Answer 4

Americans are the most generous people in the world. If social programs disappeared, we'd just take care of those in true need.



By this I mean care for the elderly, disable, and genuinely poor. Those slackers who are using the system would quickly be out looking for gainful employment!



As for WIC and other programs, formula companies would gladly contribute to those young couples who cannot afford expensive formula....and without those expensive programs to fund, our young couples might bring more money home in their paychecks!



Another positive thing...I bet our crime rate would go down. After working all day there is little energy left for "hanging" out on the streets and causing trouble. Those who do could be assigned to work gangs by the legal system to work off their crimes!



Whatchathink?

Answer 5

Your theory is nice but the reality is that there are a lot of cheap and stingy people in this country who do not give a dime to charity and never will. Taxing people is the only way to preserve social programs.



That said, I think a lot of social programs need to be cut back. I don't mind helping those who are truly in need and can't make it on their own - but I do resent lazy bums who take advantage of the system while I work my butt off and pay crazy taxes!

Answer 6

in this world, would people be required to give money? Because if they aren't required, they probably aren't going to. But, wouldn't that be great if people had to find the money first, before they could spend it, and then only with people's permission? NO MORE WAR! But, alas, not gonna happen. Or did you mean just get rid of social programs, but military and defense budgets would still be funded by our tax dollars?

Answer 7

I'm not going to call you names, because you are entitled to your opinion, but I do disagree with what you're saying.



Most people are too selfish or self-absorbed to give to the poor or the less fortunate. That's why the government has to impose it through taxation, and mind you, you can find more spare change under the seat of your car, than what's being taken out of your check presently in order to support social programs. Yes, you mentioned those charities, but I can assure you that less money would be given to them, than the government can collect.



Also, in a civilized society we are supposed to help those who are less fortunate than we are, because if we don't, what does that say about us?

Answer 8

When you stop forcing people to help the poor they will stop doing it altogether. Of course there will always be some donations to the organizations that you list - in fact donations would probably go up if social programs were cut. But there is no freaking way people would still get all the help they get now.

Answer 9

That's a scary thought. There are so many people wrongly dependent on the system. Unfortunately, there are many who really do need the help and are grateful, and then there are people who abuse it and cost us more money... I wish they could weed all those people out, and give it to the people who are truly in need...I wish we didn't have to have all the programs...but without them, I would never have been able to afford the formula my daughter needed as an infant. I got WIC vouchers until she was old enough...

Answer 10

Wmcritter we would have starving people in the streets, crime would sky rocket and the United States would be a third world country with in a generation. People are greedy and only act if its in their back yard. Look at Katrina, private donations went into the hundreds of millions!!! The only problem is Katrina cost the American people over $100 Billion! And that's my point. "If you don't take care of your fellow man he will take care of you!"

Answer 11

1.A huge tax surplus

2.The ones making a career out of welfare would get jobs and pay taxes, increasing the surplus.

3. We'd pay off the National Debt in under 20 yrs.

Answer 12

i don't know. but you don't sound like you're using any, so i don't think your assessment is correct.



nothing would change for you, but i'm concerned about those now being served. fema was functional under clinton... i don't see why it should not be again. the red cross is much more limited, they did not take the place of the system that had been gutted in 2001. i can show you new orleans as evidence.

Answer 13

Well, I guess if they got rid of the social programs people might just have to start taking responsibility for themselves for a change. Maybe they might even have to do something dreadful, like get up every morning like the rest of us and go to work!



Oh my god! Can you imagine that? People going to work and paying their own way?!?!?! What a radical idea!

Answer 14

People like me who work for a living could stop spending all of our money supporting people who choose not to. I am all for helping people who help them self but charity to the lazy or illegal is a crime in my opinion. This type of charity encourages further laziness. The extra money I have would go to help secure a nice future for my family and not some meager existence for some one who is not worthy of a life. My extra money may be able to allow me to relax in my old age and not to work until I die on the job like my father.

Answer 15

HI,,, so many people are on welfare,,, medicaid.. and give me programs,,, that if they shut down,,,, no more ,,, ever,,,, it would be such an uproar,,and rioting,,,



you better keep your gun oiled up........



good luck,,,,,