Board Thread:Suggestions forum/@comment-174.22.192.132-20161104024309/@comment-25012056-20161201105729

Rocket Engineer wrote: Legoarmy505 wrote: If the government wants its nation to thrive, it can't have its people all sick with disease and malnutritioned! Welfare should always be avabliable and the government should have control over this to some level. Welfare is merely a more ineffective version of what a countries culture and society should encourage people to do. If state welfare is absolutely necessary, then it should be of the "help you help yourself" variety, not free handouts. In addition, there should be a hierarchy of welfare, where if one level can't help you, you go to the next, such as this, from first choice to last:

Family, community, church/charity, and as a last resort, state welfare.

Notice how national government doesn't make an appearance in that. President Cleveland said this after denying a motion to give Texas farmers money during a depression:

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."

Shortly after saying this, the American people gave those Texas farmers 10 times the amount congress tried to give.

That would be great if people actually did their duty and the states that needed to hand out welfare could do it. Unfortunately, however, it doesn't work that way. You can never count on people who are not onligated by law to help those who need it with their money to give a single penny. The unfortunate reality is that people are greedy, and that people don't care. Religious communities and charities are excellent but there are still far too many starving and/or homeless people for them to handle. State welfare would be ideal, as such, but that wouldn't work either, as shit-poor states such as Louisiana and Georgia wouldn't be able to afford to put an effective system in place, and at any rate the systems would widely vary between states - which is ineffective. Federal welfare, therefore, is the only definite way for these people to get what they need. Giving people what they need may not be the best way, but to start it's the most humane and it also actually gets them what they need and gives them a foundation to better their lives. The worst is when people complain about the ineffectiveness of welfare - when one of the biggest reasons it struggles at times is that people refuse to accept food stamps or welfare checks. If you can't trust people to even help in that degree with welfare, how can you trust them to make it work entirely? Not only is that unrealistic - that's also communistic.

Gen. Grievous1138 (LOTR Mod Wiki Admin) comlink 10:57, December 1, 2016 (UTC)