kane

While there may be some merit to this, I think it would be a catastrophic failure. I once dated a girl who worked for a non-profit organization that worked with battered and abused women. They were always broke and always needing money and when economic times get tough, people donate even less. There was not a month that went by that they weren't scrambling just to get the money to keep the place running. This wasn't just them, it was just about any non-profit I talked to during that time (they worked with a lot of local groups). Money is always very difficult to get.

In theory if there were no welfare system we would have lower taxes so people would have more money, but that doesn't mean that more money would be donated. I think most people see welfare as something that just lazy people who are unwilling to work get, when in fact it covers a wide range of things that help elderly, disabled and generally sick people. I know there are scammers on the system and I know there are lazy people on the system who just don't want to work and just want to lay around all day. I am all for changing the system so that those people are denied or weeded out. But I think if you take it out of the governments hands and put it into private sector charity hands you will see a lot of people who are legitimately in need end up going without because raising the money to keep these large programs going is going to be nearly impossible.

Just my 2 cents.