stillwaters stated: Exactly, that's why if we got rid of welfare, there would be no charity to take its place. We'd spend all of our money on something else.

If we reduced the tax burden by cutting government down to only protecting our rights, we'd be swimming in money. Some would increase donations and some would not. The point is that it is their money, not yours. If I threatened you with prison if you didn't increase your charitable donations, you'd tell me to get lost. But when the government does just that, you applaud them. Using force is using force, regardless who has the gun to your head.

And if us Americans are so damn generous, then why are so many complaining about having a welfare system that helps the poor people?

Because it takes money from them against their will and gives it to someone else! Why is that concept so hard to understand? I already give to charity. But I don't want to be forced to do it. Let's assume that you regularly give blood. Since you already do this, would it matter to you if Congress passed a law required all healthy adults to give 2 units a year or face prison?

Btw, if you don't like the huge tax burden, why don't you oppose the occupation in Iraq? That's costing us thousands of dollars every second. The total cost for almost 4 years is over $350 billion. That could feed a lot of hungry mouths, don't you think?

Because a national defense is a legitimate function of government. With Saddam deposed (and now dead), he no longer poses a threat to the US. All Americans benefit equally from this. Taxes for the war on terror take from Bob to protect Bob. Welfare takes from Bob to only help Tom. See the difference?

I probably used it to pay down bills that I couldn't otherwise pay because of the enormous tax burder [sic] I have to contend with.

Exactly, that's why if we got rid of welfare, there would be no charity to take its place. We'd spend all of our money on something else. And if us Americans are so damn generous, then why are so many complaining about having a welfare system that helps the poor people?

Btw, if you don't like the huge tax burden, why don't you oppose the occupation in Iraq? That's costing us thousands of dollars every second. The total cost for almost 4 years is over $350 billion. That could feed a lot of hungry mouths, don't you think?

Then how did people get taken care of before welfare?

Many didn't, and starved as a result. That's *why* welfare was established in the first place.

stillwaters stated: Myth: Welfare can be replaced by charity

The American people are very generous, they always have been. However, when the government took over the job of caring for our family, friends, and neighbors, we no longer needed to keep giving. We must return to a society that cares for its own rather than push off the job to the government. I wouldn't suggest that we just one day turn off the faucet. But we should start phasing out all these entitlement and welfare programs, becuase forced charity may have beneficial results, but the ends cannot justify the means.

People on welfare should just find jobs

Most already do. For most, welfare tends to be temporary. The unemployment number represents those without jobs at that moment. It says nothing about how many of those individuals got work within a week or two. However, a certain segment of those on welfare have no intention of working to better their situation. Those few do not deserve anything. The rest deserve our help through voluntary charity.

Unbeliever, most contributions in America go to churches, almost 50% in fact. Now, I realize that many of these churches do some good work, but they are obviously not taking care of the poor people of this country. Otherwise, nobody would be asking for help from the government.

Then how did people get taken care of before welfare?

When there are national charities established that can actually take care of these poor people, then we won't need government assistance. But that doesn't exist.

Because there is now no need for them. Our monolithic federal government has so filled this void that nobody needs to create such a charity. That is part of the problem.

Let me ask you a question. When you received your tax break from George Bush a couple of years ago, what did you do with it? Did you give it all to charity? To a charity specifically designed to help poor and homeless people? Or did you use it to buy that new plasma TV you've been looking at?

I probably used it to pay down bills that I couldn't otherwise pay because of the enormous tax burder I have to contend with.

The private charity idea is a great idea, but it doesn't exist. These people need help now, and there are not enough charities to help them.

Then let's get started. Are you prepared to phase in national charities and phase out the government?

I look at paying my taxes as a moral responsibility to help out my fellow citizens.

I look at it as my way of paying for the government-provided service of protecting my rights. Nothing more.

I don't mind paying my taxes to help others less fortunate than myself, because I think of it as charity. If the government is using my taxes to do charitable services, how is this any different than giving to a private charity?

Let's say that I am giving you a lift to the doctor's office. You have exactly $20 for your copay. As we come to a red light, I see a homeless man along side the road. I want to give him enough money for a decent meal, say $10. But I only have a five. So I take your wallet, pull out $5 and give him the combined $10. How would this sit with you? Now you don't have enough to pay the doctor and will have to reschedule. I could say that you are always giving to help the poor so it's all the same anyway, but is it really? Didn't I just steal your money to do something I thought was right?

If a man stops me on the street and threatens to harm me if I don't give him some money, does it make it okay of he turns around and gives that money to a soup kitchen?

I'm saying that we all should help. But I'm also saying that we shouldn't be threatened with prison if we don't.

Stillwaters: Do you seriously believe that the greater part of the taxes you pay go to "help out your fellow citizens?"

Where did I ever make such a statement? I didn't and wouldn't say such a thing. In fact, I think the greater part of my taxes presently go towards funding our occupation of Iraq, not towards helping our own citizens.

My point about taxes being viewed as charity is that I don't believe that private charity would pick up and fulfill the work presently being done by the government. If the government did not help out the poor people with welfare, then, for most of the people, nobody would. Lowering taxes, IMO, will not increase charitable contributions.

Myth: Welfare can be replaced by charity.

Fact: Charity is too under-funded, too localized, too mismatched and too ill-suited to replace welfare.

Myth: People on welfare should just find jobs

Myth: People on welfare should just find jobs.

Fact: The natural rate of unemployment is 5-6 percent -- and impossible to reduce to zero.

Unbeliever, most contributions in America go to churches, almost 50% in fact. Now, I realize that many of these churches do some good work, but they are obviously not taking care of the poor people of this country. Otherwise, nobody would be asking for help from the government.

When there are national charities established that can actually take care of these poor people, then we won't need government assistance. But that doesn't exist.

Let me ask you a question. When you received your tax break from George Bush a couple of years ago, what did you do with it? Did you give it all to charity? To a charity specifically designed to help poor and homeless people? Or did you use it to buy that new plasma TV you've been looking at?

The private charity idea is a great idea, but it doesn't exist. These people need help now, and there are not enough charities to help them.

I look at paying my taxes as a moral responsibility to help out my fellow citizens. I don't mind paying my taxes to help others less fortunate than myself, because I think of it as charity. If the government is using my taxes to do charitable services, how is this any different than giving to a private charity?

stillwaters stated:So, Unbeliever's solution to the dire straits of thousands of real, American people is to let them starve.

Go back and read it again. The people who refuse to work to better themselves deserve their fate. They have no one to blame but themselves. Those who are in trouble through no fault of their own deserve assistance. Voluntary assistance. The kind that comes from people because they want to help, not because they are threatened with prison.

I guess that's why you are so supportive of a strong police force paid for by tax dollars - to protect you from all those starving "goof-offs".

Do you deny that many of those who refuse to be productive members of society often turn to crime?

Unbeliever, your empathy is pathetic.

I've never said we shouldn't help those deserving of it. I'm saying that we shouldn't steal from other people to do it.

I truly wish that you would meet with great misfortune, and end up homeless, with nobody to help you. Then, you might realize how thousands of truly poor people feel every day of their lives.

While you may disagree with me, I do not wish any misfortune to befall you.

Speaking as someone who was on welfare once, let me say that it is not a system that supports lazy, no-good, crack-addicts with a dozen kids.

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no people like this on welfare?

It is a system that helps people out when they need that help.

I'm not suggesting that we do away with this type of assistance. I'm saying that it is the job of private charity, not the government.

When I was receiving welfare, I felt terrible about it. We were receiving medical assistance for my wife, myself, and our child, along with food stamps and a little cash, not much to speak of. It certainly wasn't enough to pay the rent. Have you ever gone shopping for food and paid with food stamps? It's not any fun at all. You feel completely terrible doing it. Like you're a disease on society. And we weren't buying steak and lobster with those food stamps. We got just enough to feed ourselves.

And I think that private charities could do a better job of providing help with dignity. There is no shame when something happens beyond your control. But would it have made you feel better knowing that the assistance your were given was purely voluntary rather than taken by force?

I think for the majority of the people receiving some sort of welfare, they don't like it, and they want to get off it and make a living for themselves. Welfare, in my view, helps out those people who need a little help from time to time to get by. Until they get back on their feet again.

And if private charities could do this, would that be acceptable to you?

But, you, with your hard heart and disgust for those inferior to you, wouldn't understand that sometimes people need a helping hand. The next time my car breaks down in a deserted place at night, I hope you're not the only driver coming by. I would never get any help from you, and would probably starve to death (as if you'd care).

If it makes you feel better to insult me, go ahead. But it doesn't strengthen your argument that forced charity is a noble exercise. I am a very kind, giving person. I would give you the shirt off my back. But that is my choice. If you try to use the power of the state to force me to give my shirt to you, that's when we have a problem.