Social “welfare” programs: the grandiose apex of the social liberal agenda. FDR started the whole process with his big-government New Deal programs during the Great Depression, which every schoolchild has learned awe for from their first US history class. From there, it snowballed, with Lyndon Johnson tacking on a whole new batch of programs with the Great Society.
It really is too bad that these programs don’t work, they hurt the very people that they’re intended to help, and to top it off, they cost waaaay too much money.
On the first charge: in the ‘80’s and ‘90’s, both conservatives and many liberals agreed that welfare had failed. This manifested first in Reagan’s funding cuts, and later in the reform of welfare “as we knew it” during the Clinton administration, the centerpiece being the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (or PRWORA, which really isn’t much better).
Secondly: government “welfare” programs cause reliance on the government to solve problems and provide a way out. This government reliance causes a disintegration of the family- when you know that the government will help you, you don’t rely on family for emotional and financial support as much, if at all- and the work ethic; if you get money just for being poor, then there’s not much reason to work your way out.
This sort of mentality also leads to an entitlement attitude. Everyone feels as though they deserve a piece of the pie. This correlates with the prevailing attitude regarding discrimination and affirmative action: equal results, rather than equal opportunity, is what the “disadvantaged” want. In other words, they want a handout instead of, as the slogan goes, a “hand up.”
Lastly: providing hand-outs for every taxpayer who thinks that they need it just simply costs too much. Social welfare programs cost the United States $1.3 trillion dollars every year, and it’s growing. Compare that to a combined total of $390 billion dollars for military and homeland security, which has been much maligned for costing our nation too much… right…
Personal responsibility and self-sufficiency have been replaced by government handouts in our post-modern world. Whereas our fathers and grandfathers had to work to provide a better life for their kids, the liberal social programs have created a vicious cycle of dependency. And don’t even get me started on the Constitutionality of these programs.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Private Charities are the way to go. Apart from the United Way (the Left's favorite charity, oddly enough), Charity Overhead is always lower than that of the government, meaning that more of each dollar spent goes to help people, and less goes to salaries of those involved.
(I am often disgusted that the united way passes itself off as a charity, yet whenever I see a United Way vehicle, it is always a limo, driving someone around.)
Charities and families can help to develop the independent self-responsibility required to get out of poverty. THAT, not entitlement programs, should be the idea pushed by anyone who wants to look out for more than themselves.
But, it is the liberals who consider themselves compassionate.... but the programs that they support only lead to more dependence and fiscal slavery.
So when do you begin to do away with public education?
First off... huh? What does public education have to do with welfare and entitlement programs, in the context of this post? ? The programs referred to above are social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.
But, since you brought up public education, it is a failure. Lack of competition equals deadweight: the schools know that they don't really need to do better, because they have a monopoly. Personally, I support vouchers. They would provide competition in education. If you regard education reform of this sort as doing away with public education, then in answer to your question, I would say "As soon as possible."
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
``But, since you brought up public education..... I support vouchers.``
Student loans would be ``hand ups.`` The vouchers you support are handouts from the government. They mean that students rely on the government, rather than savings from jobs and their families, to finance their own education.
I don`t like the voucher system for other reasons, though. I`d rather the student learn among other diverse students from mainstream society and be held accountable to a standard curriculum that has been determined to be beneficial to the society itself, since it is taxpayers who finance the education.
Vouchers let money already taken by the government to be used on education to be used where the child goes, at a school that the parent chooses.
That is the MOST fair way to fund education via government intervention.
Wait... "... vouchers... mean that students rely on the government, rather than savings from jobs and their families, to finance their own education."
Apparently, you are not talking about the same thing as me. Vouchers allow parents to send their K-12 students to any school that they want and that school receives a set sum of money per student, including home schools. That would foster competition amongst schools, since they would have to be as good a school to attract all the students they can.
I don't see how letting parents send their kids where they want is a "hand-out". And since you're worried about students being in diverse enviroments "from mainstream society", then what could be more diverse than letting students leave their current school districts, many of which are decidedly un-diverse. But what enviroment students learn in isn't your call, it's the parents. And since parents are a large part of the taxpaying population, shouldn't they have say over what texts their children are taught from?
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas