[quote]It's just an insane notion, and no reasonable person would think it could possibly be an adequate solution.[/quote] Why?

Charitable giving is, from what I can find, around 300-350 billion a year in the US in total at the moment while welfare spending is around 720 billion (2008) to 900 billion (2010). Charitable giving would have to roughly double to triple in total just to cover the costs, and [i]all[/i] of that would have to go to social welfare spending in the United States - none of it could go to medical or scientific research, none of it could go to social welfare spending in [i]other[/i] countries, particularly developing ones, none of it could go to disaster relief, none of it could go to environmental causes, to the arts, or even to general community and social causes that go beyond central welfare issues, like non-welfare related religious spending and recreational things like local sport teams or swimming pools - all of that would have to come from [i]additional[/i] charitable giving on top of the inconceivable increase for more basic welfare programs. That's not to mention other issues, like the fact that charity spending is, until you get to around 200 thousand USD per household, regressive or at best flat, that charities generally don't have the scope to ensure that all areas are treated sufficiently since they're often funded by specific community organisations, that they don't really have access to the kinds of tools the government does, like the department of treasury, that their goals have to be centred around what looks the most appealing to donors, rather than what does the most good for recipients and the community, that charitable giving, particularly to individual organisations, fluctuates quite a bit and (this ties into the previous one) that economic inactivity and recession leads to [i]lower[/i] amounts of giving at the same time spending needs to [i]increase dramatically[/i]. Even if you reject the idea that government spending doesn't crowd out the private sector when the central bank hits the zero lower bound (despite the fact that it's well documented by the likes of the CBO, and even the austerity-happy IMF), the alternative to debt is starvation. (More likely it'd have a more significant effect on people being able to afford medical treatments and basic preventative care, but 'starvation' has a greater rhetorical kick to it than a nation-wide plummet in basic health standards, so, there you go.)

Since President Johnson federal and state governments have spent over $15 trillion on welfare programs with counterproductive results. Only slightly fluctuating over the past four decades, the averaged 15.1 percent poverty rate for 2013 is a ten year high. Tragically, too many families have become dependent on state assistance to survive generation after generation. Rather than fighting poverty, the federal government appears to be rather handily financing it. Charitable organizations are better than government as a source of aid. First, it is easier for donors to hold charitable organizations accountable than it is for taxpayers to hold government accountable. A failed government program can go on forever. An ineffective charity has a more difficult time obtaining funding. I think that one of the factors that inhibits the effectiveness of govt welfare is that many of them are dependent on government grants for support. This forces the NGO to put much of its effort into satisfying the bureaucrats who provide the funding. That requires resources and skill sets that have nothing to do with solving the problems of people in need. I think an effective approach would be tax exemptions. Under our current tax system, donations to charity are a deduction from income. If your tax bracket is 25 percent and you give $1000 to charity, then this reduces your tax bill by $250, so that the donation only costs you $750 after taxes. My proposal (which I suspect is not original) is that, on top of the current deduction for charitable contributions, we create a large charitable exemption, of, say $20,000. That would mean that you could donate up to $20,000 and have that amount taken off your taxes. Thus, the after-tax cost of your donation would be zero. For people whose annual tax obligation is less than $20,000, the income tax would essentially be optional. You could pay your taxes, or you could give an equivalent amount to charity. This essentially eliminates govt inefficiencies while simultaneously having an incentive to donate.

[quote]Since President Johnson federal and state governments have spent over $15 trillion on welfare programs with counterproductive results. Only slightly fluctuating over the past four decades, the averaged 15.1 percent poverty rate for 2013 is a ten year high. Tragically, too many families have become dependent on state assistance to survive generation after generation. Rather than fighting poverty, the federal government appears to be rather handily financing it.[/quote] Hahaha, and you lectured [i]me[/i] on unjustified claims. I mean, putting aside the fact that the poverty rate isn't the only measure of success of welfare spending since that's not the only thing social spending targets and it's not a complete or perfect measure of financial hardships, plus that there are a lot of [i]other[/i] factors that influence the poverty rate, especially across different demographics, that can't be controlled for through this kind of simplistic analysis, but, anyway, why don't we actually look at the numbers? Let's start with the fact that 40 years is an [i]awfully[/i] convenient time frame to look at changes in the poverty rate considering that it actually omits Johnson and his "War on Poverty" and the massive poverty decline of the 60s, but let's address it anyway. The [url=http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=SOCX_AGG#]OECD[/url] has information on social spending going back to 1980 for the United States, when it was at about 13.2% of GDP - over the ten years following, through the Reagan administration, it was more or less completely stagnant, still at around 13.2%. And the poverty rate? [url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate_1959_to_2011._United_States..PNG]Basically the same[/url]. So when did this massive increase in social spending that saw us through to 2008 occur? Well, roughly in the early to mid 90s, when, you guessed it, the poverty rate started declining (fairly modestly, of course) again. Social spending ticked up and down over the next ten years, but overall increased by about 2-3 points since the mid 90s in the same time as the poverty rate decreased by about 2 points. This is obviously not counting the period since 2008 like you tried to do because even the simplest analysis would account for the fact that the biggest economic disaster in 70 or 80 years has led to clearly marked increases in poverty and social spending regardless of the effect of one on the other. Of course, since this is such a ridiculous way of looking at the effects of social spending, that doesn't mean that it reduces poverty (although, if the black and white basic impacts of redistribution don't settle it for you, you know, [url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/The_Antipoverty_Effect_of_Government_Spending_Vector_Graph.svg/800px-The_Antipoverty_Effect_of_Government_Spending_Vector_Graph.svg.png]*cough*[/url]), but when even your clearly flawed method of analysis disagrees with you you've got a few problems. If you want to make a convincing argument on public policy, you really need to do more than picking mostly meaningless but important-sounding numbers to try for an emotional impact. Of course, none of this is even addressing the issue with charity being unable to raise enough money to solve the hole that would be left by eradicating public welfare spending, which is [i]what this thread is about[/i] in the first place.

From across the political and ideological spectrum, there is now almost universal acknowledgement that the American social welfare system has been a failure. Since the start of the War on Poverty, the US has spent trillions trying to ease the plight of the poor. What we have received for that massive investment is primarily more poverty. Our welfare system is unfair to everyone. To taxpayers, who must pick up the bill for failed programs; to society, whose mediating institutions of community, church, and family are increasingly pushed aside; and most of all to the poor themselves, who are trapped in a system that destroys opportunity for them and hope for their children. Denying this is mere intellectual dishonesty.

Are you just going to continue to shuffle from claim to claim when I keep refuting what you say to avoid having to acknowledge how wrong you are? Is that your idea of what an argument is?

And where am I wrong?

God you're dense. I really shouldn't have unmuted you.

The first paragraph literally answers your question in explicit detail.

No, it's a broad assumption. There's no "explicit" detail what so ever.

Explain to me how covering the costs of welfare programs with charities (considering welfare programs are exponentially more costly than anything voluntary organisations can dish out, as was pointed out by Methew) is a "broad assumption"?