The Conservative Myth of a Social Safety Net Built on Charity

The Atlantic ^ | 03/24/2014 | MIKE KONCZAL

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

Yeah. I’ll go straight to The Atlantic for information about what conservatism is and whom conservatives are. Right after that, I’ll go to McDonald’s to learn about raising cattle. And then I’ll go to Staples to learn about how paper is made.

The left’s ability to delude themselves is remarkably infinite.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”This idea is also the basis of Paul Ryan’s budget, which seeks to devolve and shrink the federal government at a rapid pace, lest the safety net turn “into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives.”

Does it still propose that 10 year delayed medicare reform scam?

No one bought that con. A few made believe they did though.
The ‘make believe’ loyalty test.

[Undecided 2012]

It’s funny. Well, not so funny. I was reading today a liberals point of view about government spending. As I paraphrase, government spending is good because for ex. food stamps go to the local store and he spends via living expenses and his suppliers and so on and so on. Funny though, he never mentioned where that money came from.

[PA Engineer]

I just need a net, not a social net, to catch these loony socialists with.

I would prefer a human scaled bug zapper.

[Intolerant in NJ]

Back in those good ‘ol days the family and the church did a lot to help people in trouble over the rough spots - a major reason why those wanting big, intrusive government are so hostile to both the family and religion, and do so much to try to weaken both (abortion, same-sex marriage, denial of prayer in schools and crosses in public places, and on and on) - sadly, their destructiveness is working, and so they have an excuse to increase the reach of government at every turn to step in for what’s been lost......

[yawningotter]

Applying modern liberal standards to history is unconvincing. The gist of the argument is that charity did not work because it was not welfare. I would counter that welfare does not work because it is not charity. Not only do handouts create an underclass of exploiters, it creates hostility between them and the producers, and that hostility spills over to those who really need charitable help. God loves a cheerful giver, and nobody in their right mind is cheerful when they have to pay taxes to support welfare that sends less than one third of its budget to the poor, and wastes much of that on fraud and waste, over more direct charitable giving.

[GAFreedom]

I don't know why this became a 'myth' to begin with. Everyone who knows anything about history knows that charity was never enough, even going back to the massive charity practiced by the Church in the Middle Ages.

I really just think it's lib propaganda that conservatives believe this.

[Brooklyn Attitude]

“Way back then, in the straw man day the author kicks over, people worked. And if they chose not to work, they got hungry. And if working people needed a little help for any reason, there was the family, and the neighbors, and the church. And the government didn’t take half of every working man’s paycheck.”

The problem is the author argues in favor assistance for all who want it. In the past, welfare was shame, it came with harsh restrictions and rules. Today they beg you to take it and the shame is gone. People live for generations on the dole and are happy to do it. They do not get subsistence benefits, people learn to live comfortably or at least not uncomfortably. There is no incentive to get off, so the ranks of the useless, lazy moochers increases. Such a system cannot be sustained, but that doesnt matter as long as leftists get to feel good about themselves.

[RWB Patriot]

Voices For Reason’s Don Watkin’s reply to this very author:

http://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2014/03/24/the-welfare-state-myth-part-1

And the author’s views of life and freedom are summed up in this part of the article:

“As Rubinow argued, American workers “must learn to see they have a right to force at least part of the cost and waste of sickness back upon the industry and society at large, and they can do it only when they demand that the state use its power and authority to help them, indirectly at least, with as much vigor as it has come to the assistance of the business interests.” Because of all this, insurance had a direct public purpose, and should in turn be publicly provided.”

[JimRed]

Charity could handle most of the destitute without the gigantic, money-sucking segment of the population that can’t refuses to do for themselves and expects to be gratified by the American tax-payer.

Small correction.