I say again: delivery of charity, taking care of the poor among us, is a moral act, an act of charity offered as such and received as such. When government doles out charity, it is a) funded by force and b) amoral. It is extended as an entitlement and received as one.
It is one illustration of how the force of government -- government is solely a force -- should be used conservatively, sparingly. Used in excess, it becomes consuming, "a dangerous servant and a fearful master," as George Washington supposedly said. It's a political principle, to strive to keep government to a minimum. That is the only thing I'll vote for anymore.
The Federal government's role should be minimal and I believe it should be recognized and embraced that this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. That's the crux of conservatism, to me. The less government, the more people can live morally.
Colonial state judges were said to spend a good portion of their time apportioning the care of orphans and indigents out to the various towns and cities so that all paid their fair share.
Most charity is still a state function. Medicaid and unemployment are administered by the states, but the Fed's got involved with matching funds to promote better care and a more level playing field among the states, in part because there was sort of a race to the bottom among the states.
Worse, you even had communities dropping orphans, disabled and other indigents at the state line. You still see that behavior some. For example, the Nevada mental institutions that were recently highlighted and sued for discharging hundreds of patients and putting them on a bus with a one way ticket to another state. Nevada Greyhound therapy for mentally ill
Care for indigents has been a government responsibility since long before this country was founded. And it was recognized as such by our founding fathers.
SSA, Medicare and SS disability are not really charity. they are insurance programs. Mandatory insurance programs that were designed to reduce the amount of indigent care that government had to provide. You might question if that's working. But the question is what would the federal and state governments be paying to take care of people if there were no such programs?
Franklin's advice that a hand up was better than a hand out is still good advice. But today what are we doing? We off-shore the jobs through government trade policy of record low tariffs, even providing a tax incentive for off-shoring relative to domestic production. Then we say it's not government's responsibility to care for them? Tough luck, if they haven't found another job, they must be lazy. They should have all moved to Alaska because there's a seasonal fishing job open. Their tough luck if they can't afford long distance job searches. I say B.S..
Government policy created this unemployment crisis, and government needs to care for them until government get's it's head on straight and raises the import tariffs back up and fixes our economy.