And yet they ran Social Security quite well (over 70 years in fact) until the last decade or so of politicians using almost specifically that argument have torn it apart financially and wish to do so even further.
The reason for the government providing those costly, bureaucratic programs is because it's a centralized entity. It is organized on a national scale, and while chaotic, it is still rather well-managed, especially given the sheer magnitude of the programs and their coverage. Unfortunately there are simply not enough charities in existence to provide the same kind of assistance the government can and does. I would rather my tax money go into expanding those programs and my votes go towards politicians who maximize efficiency and properly balance those budgets than I would abandon the ship and take to spreading everyone out into hundreds of thousands of individual, unorganized rafts over a hull leak that can be fixed with effort and know-how.
You prefer smaller government. I prefer government that can be as large as it wants as long as its size reflects how well it takes care of its citizens. I don't want departments of social workers being slashed due to budget cuts, which is the blunt-force tactic all libertarian and conservative politicians use in regards to "making government smaller." Their idea of "smaller government" is to simply just cut it away. What is left in the vacuum? A vacuum. Those being covered suddenly lose assets previously at their disposal, and waiting and processing times increase. That's not a better or more efficient government, that's a less effective government. More to the point, these programs often are inefficient because they're underfunded, with money being diverted to provide fucking tax breaks for these posh-shits, or poshits as I prefer, who use the savings to put more money in the bank or stock market to profit more from the interest and dividends. Take nothing from the wealthy or as little as you can and expect the poor to be taken care of or take care of themselves is essentially how that argument ends up being summed up as.
Any time you find the government being incompetent at a role, look and see what laws were enacted to minimize their efficiency, and you'll more often than not find it was a law written by someone with a vested interest in keeping that government oversight limited as much as they possibly can.
The reason for the government providing those costly, bureaucratic programs is because it's a centralized entity. It is organized on a national scale, and while chaotic, it is still rather well-managed, especially given the sheer magnitude of the programs and their coverage. Unfortunately there are simply not enough charities in existence to provide the same kind of assistance the government can and does. I would rather my tax money go into expanding those programs and my votes go towards politicians who maximize efficiency and properly balance those budgets than I would abandon the ship and take to spreading everyone out into hundreds of thousands of individual, unorganized rafts over a hull leak that can be fixed with effort and know-how.
You prefer smaller government. I prefer government that can be as large as it wants as long as its size reflects how well it takes care of its citizens. I don't want departments of social workers being slashed due to budget cuts, which is the blunt-force tactic all libertarian and conservative politicians use in regards to "making government smaller." Their idea of "smaller government" is to simply just cut it away. What is left in the vacuum? A vacuum. Those being covered suddenly lose assets previously at their disposal, and waiting and processing times increase. That's not a better or more efficient government, that's a less effective government. More to the point, these programs often are inefficient because they're underfunded, with money being diverted to provide fucking tax breaks for these posh-shits, or poshits as I prefer, who use the savings to put more money in the bank or stock market to profit more from the interest and dividends. Take nothing from the wealthy or as little as you can and expect the poor to be taken care of or take care of themselves is essentially how that argument ends up being summed up as.
Any time you find the government being incompetent at a role, look and see what laws were enacted to minimize their efficiency, and you'll more often than not find it was a law written by someone with a vested interest in keeping that government oversight limited as much as they possibly can.
