What will be the affects if we abolish all social programs and live by individual responsibility?

No social security.... No grants for college students who otherwise couldn't afford to go to college (thereby bettering themselves and achieving fiscal autonomy)... No unemployment for those who legitimately need it....

This isn't as black and white a dichotomy as many people seem to think. It's not one or the other. It's not "personal responsibility versus reliance on a nanny state."

I find it alarming that one answerer said, "if people are lazy, they have no one to blame but themselves. I think we should do away with welfare."

This is patently absurd. How many people have read studies about welfare dependents? They are not, by and large, lazy people who make a career of mooching off the state. The vast majority of people who receive welfare benefits receive them for LESS than six months-- just long enough to get back on their feet. I know, for example, two women who relied on welfare to support their families during nursing school, stopped receiving benefits as soon as they graduated, and now are registered nurses who are financially stable, tax-paying, contributing members of society.

There are many legitimate reasons for social programs to be used. I relied on medical assistance during my first years of college to support my small son-- without it, I would not have been able to remain in school, get my degree, or go on to earn good money in my field. Even working three jobs, I could not make enough money to afford private insurance for him.

It's possible to both value individual responsibility AND social programs.

Ya can;t do that. There are simply too many people who are just plain unable to care for themselves. It is the responsibility of the people( the government) to help them. It can be overdone though as it usually is. Once a program to help people is established a complete constituency develops and the organization to serve that constituency grows bigger and bigger and more and more expensive and permanent. John F.Kennedy once quipped that America could not abolish welfare because none of his friends from Welsley and Skidmore would have jobs without welfare. There comes a time though when people should be cut loose and compelled to do for themselves after years of living on the dole. We should differentiate between those who cannot help themselves and those who will not. EDIT TO MAX 50: Hey guy, if 95% of money given to churches winds up going to the poor where do the millions upon millions spent on huge luxurious churches come from. Churches compete to see who can build the biggest and fanciest church all housing state of the art communications. All this to satisfy the egos of pastors and their congregants. Why do I suspect that God is not impressed? If all of this money represents only the remainign 5% of the money givewn to churches that means there should be no poverty in this country- or are the churches using the money for something we don't know about?

It does depend a bit on what you consider 'social programs.' If you define it broadly enough - say, as anything that smacks of 'social engineering,' it could encompas most of what government does. If you define it narrowly - say, just transfer payments, it'd still be a big chunk of tax money, but wouldn't be quite so encompassing in whom it would affect.

You don't actually have to go very far back in history to see what the US was like without social programs, most of which started as part of the New Deal in the midst of the Great Depression.

Society was far from perfect then, just in different ways than it is now, but it was basically functional, and the 'have nots' were helped along by religious and private charity, rather than by mind-bogglingly expensive government programs.

On balance, ending social/ist/ programs would be good for the nation. The rich would have more money to invest, the middle class more money to spend, and the poor more incentive to work. That's a formula for economic growth: Increasing demand, increasing investment, and increasing supply of labor. In the longer term, yes, most people would learn (or re-learn) the lessons of personal responsibility, and that would also be good for the nation on a more philosphical level.

If you define social programs so broadly that they include things like police protection, you're really just talking about anarchy (ironically, another extreme embraced by some forms of communism and socialism). And, anarchy isn't good for any nation, prettymuch by definition, though it'd be fun for certain individuals, I'm sure.

That would be ignoring the fact that as humans who are all one (LITERALLY), with each other and with God, have social responsibilty as well as individual responsibility. We are just as responsible to each other as we are to ourselves. We also have the responsility for social justice which means that it is wrong for some to hoard while others starve. This comes from a misconception that their is not enough for everyone, and so some think they had better get their own, or there won't be any left. Scarcity is an illusion, but the illusion will always create the "experience" of scarcity if you believe in scarcity enough. Separation is also an illusion. There is no separation of us from God, or of God from us, or from any of us, from any other. Another illusion that many believe, is that some humans are better than some other humans. This is not true under any circumstances, but some people can be very cruel and heartless to other humans when they feel superior to those others. Kind of like the Illuminati feel that they are better than the rest of us, and therefore have every right to makes slaves and RFID chipped serfs out of the 50% if the human population that they do not plan to totally terminate. Each of us have our own individual strengths and weaknesses, and making money the only criterion for success is a unjust mistake. Not everyone is good at making money, but they are good at other things, and those other things should be sought out and explored. When, making money is viewed by a civilazation as the only viable criteria for worth and success, many wonderful and creative people are left out of the loop, and some of them keep trying, but others crash and burn. Many jobs and occupations are acutally worth more and are paid less, because our society's value system is so backward. I could go on and on, but I will stop now! *sm*

It is not realistic. There will always be people who cannot, or will not take responsibility for themselves for one reason or another. Most people do not favor cutting off all assistance. What they want is time limits and an end to making it easy for people to live their entire lives on welfare. I mean I know people who have never worked a day in their life. Anyone who pays taxes in this country should rightfully be outraged by that reality.

We are a rich country and as such we should always be able to help people in need. In return people should be expected to take assistance for limited amount of time, get back into the workforce and become self sufficient. I mean let's get real here. In what ****** world does it make sense to create a welfare system which pays increasing amounts for having more children while already on assistance. People will always rise to level of expectation which is set. That level of expectation should always be based on an idea of self sufficiency. Anything less creates an almost unbreakable cycle of dependency.

Edit: Some comments on some of the other things you mentioned.

Social Security: Most people at least pay into the program in the form of a specific tax when they are working. The question is should someone who hasn't worked be eligible to draw it.

VA Benefits: I will never begrudge someone drawing benefits for injury or infirment as a result of service to this country.

Unemployment: Is a type of insurance and in order to draw it you must have first worked a set period time. There are also time limits for how long you can receive benefits.

Tuition Assistance: Education is key. Especially if we are going to promote the idea that people can rise above their circumstances to become productive and prosperous citizens.

Public Transportation: There is nothing free about this program whatsoever. I have yet to manage to get on a bus or train without paying a fare.

affects abolish social programs live individual responsibility

I think before we make the down trodden people take care of themselves maybe we should cut off the tax cuts to the corporations and all other types of corporate welfare. I know that I'd rather seen the peoples money being spent on a sick person before we pay a crony for some not needed service. If it works for them than maybe we can talk.LOL We have to take the power back from the fascist before anything else can be even talked about.

LMAO I've seen more than one attorney dump dear old mom or dad in the nursing home and having medicaid pay for long term care...what WOULD they do if they couldn't do that? Seems like THAT kind of individual responsibility wouldn't apply now, would it?

Some people would be able to do it and even prosper. Some people would be foolish with their money and not handle it wisely at all. I have always felt that individual responsibilty is a good thing and when it's a matter of choice, how can anyone truly complain?

Basically we'd become a third world country.

Wherever you have law of the jungle, big fish eat small fish, laisez-faire capitalism, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Not everybody starts off at the same starting line and is sure is tougher trying to catch up without a guaranteed opportunity to an education.

If you back to how things were in the early 1900s, you would have a huge gap between the rich and the poor, robber barrons and monopolies, long work days, child labor, dangerous working conditsion, slave wages, corporate fraud, unsanitary food products, and corporations literally buying government office.