This is not a new concept. It is not racism to be opposed to 'redistributionary handouts'. For true humanitarians, this concept should be enough to seal their opposition to the current welfare state. But for those who need more prodding, we can include the huge cost that we cannot afford.
There is nothing good or positive about the current federal welfare state. Those that are allegedly 'helped' are not helped, but are just redefined in another form of slavery.
The statists & social engineers have had their experiment. It has not worked in america, and we cannot afford to continue to pour money down a rat hole. It's time to cut our losses, phase out the welfare state, & return it to individual states & the private sector. Many of the other redistribution programs will also need to be modified or ended, like social security & medicare.
Americans are a compassionate people.. probably more so than any other nation in history. But we are not fools all of the time. We have common sense & can see if something is not working as has been promised. We love success stories of those who have risen above their circumstances. We want to encourage & promote those who want a better life. We are proud of 'the land of opportunity'. But we also see the landscape has changed. Individual freedom & responsibility are being systematically dismantled as the statists consolidate power & build their empire. It is not too late. We can return to a more individual based government & deny the statist's plans for complete control. But it will be a battle. Statists do not relinquish power easily. It must be taken from them kicking & screaming. But we must do it for the sake of the country & our descendants.
My central points have been mostly directed to the welfare state at the us federal level. It is also reflected in SS & medicare. It is reflected in food stamps, 99 weeks of unemployment, adc, govt housing, & any other number of programs you want to bring up. The one thing they all have in common is they give people money. Giving people money is always popular for those on the receiving end. But the bigger question in a free society is whether giving people money is something the govt should be involved in? It has been my contention that they don't manage things like this well. They are good at wars, blowing things up, & intimidating other countries, but managing a safety net isn't in their skill set. It is also a social engineering project of redistribution. Giving people money is only possible if you take it from someone else. It is not a concept for a free society of opportunity & responsibility, but is a socialistic policy of income redistribution.
The welfare state is nothing new. It has been debated for centuries throughout history. You can debate it's merits, but you must also deal with the problems. Morally & philosophically, i see the federal welfare state as a failure, a waste of taxpayer money, a magnet to greed & corruption, & a disincentive for people to improve their lives. I do not see the constitutional mandate in the federal govt getting involved in charity, even though that is exactly what we have done.
We must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not attempt to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. ~Davy Crockett
"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." ~
"And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government." ~