[maratd]

> Or you can push to eliminate all these programs because you think they turn everyone into lazy welfare AIDS-seeking moochers

So let me get this straight ... for thousands of years, support for the needy was provided by local religious institutions and local efforts. People gave alms, etc to their local church and then the church rendered assistance. Essentially, the community helping itself. Neighbors helping neighbors, albeit indirectly to preserve dignity.

Here come the neo-liberals. Anything even remotely related to religion needs to be eradicated, so we can't keep doing things the way we used to. Now we tax the shit out of anything that moves and dispense assistance on a federal level, from Washington DC, thousands of miles away, by some faceless bureaucrats. How deranged do you have to be to think that's an improvement?

Guess what? The poor and needy were provided assistance long before the welfare programs came to the fore in the 20s and 30s. They were provided assistance through private channels, through their community. Unfortunately, due to taxation to provide for similar programs on a federal level, quite a few of those channels have dried up. Unfortunate indeed.

[npsimons]

There's a name for when the churches ran the world: it's called the dark ages for a reason. I'd rather not have to rely on someone's (supposed) piety on top of the questionable scruples of the church to render assistance. What happens if you're an outspoken critic of the church or (heaven forfend) a "sinner" homosexual? At least when the Tea Party criticizes the government, the government doesn't pull the welfare checks of its members.

[maratd]

> At least when the Tea Party criticizes the government, the government doesn't pull the welfare checks of its members.

Nope, they just nail them with a tax audit. Power corrupts regardless of who wields it.

Also, I wasn't proposing theocracy. Read what I wrote again. You weren't paying attention.

[Vivtek]

They nail them with a tax audit when there's reason to believe they're cheating on their non-profit status. And if they have nothing to hide and their accounting is honest, then an audit shouldn't be a problem. Right?

[maratd]

> And if they have nothing to hide and their accounting is honest, then an audit shouldn't be a problem.

Are you one of those people who support the NSA? I really didn't think I'd meet one on HN.

[dragonwriter]

> So let me get this straight ... for thousands of years, support for the needy was provided by local religious institutions and local efforts.

No, for thousands of years, we had an economic system in which the needy who were physically able to work were likely to be able to do work in the most common jobs available (largely, barely-better-than-subsistence farming), where the needy that weren't able to work might get some support from religious institutions (not necessarily local), individual authorities or, where it existed, the state, or elsewhere, but mostly just suffered and died. (And were often criminalized.)

Evolutions of property arrangements (including those that enabled capitalism), population density, and industrialization eliminate the easy access to basic work in the developed world (in exchange for more productive work where work was available) before much changed in the way that the "needy" were treated.

> Here come the neo-liberals. Anything even remotely related to religion needs to be eradicated, so we can't keep doing things the way we used to.

Neoliberalism [1] is not particularly concerned with religion, pro or con, nor does it generally support replacing private charity with public social support (it generally opposes public social support, and isn't particularly enthusiastic about private charity, though forced to choose between the two -- or just as a convenient way of selling opposition to public support -- neoliberals will back private charity, including religious.)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

[subsection1h]

    for thousands of years, support for the needy was provided
    by local religious institutions and local efforts.

For thousands of years, inadequate support was provided. People used to die in the streets. Furthermore, such support has historically not been provided to unpopular minorities, unless you consider slavery "support".

    Here come the neo-liberals. Anything even remotely related
    to religion needs to be eradicated

Show me a single poll of which the results show that more than 2% of participants want "anything even remotely related to religion" to be "eradicated".

    Now we tax the shit out of anything that moves 

Okay, now I think you're just trolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Mariginal_Tax_R...

[mikeash]

You're right, the poor and needy were so much better off before government welfare programs. Ha ha ha ha ha.