According to Wikipedia:
<dir><i>
Welfare is financial assistance paid by taxpayers to people who are unable to support themselves,
</i></dir>
This is not exactly correct.  The word <i>unable</i> should be <i>unable or unwilling</i> since it is impossible to determine on a global scale the reason why an individual is in need of financial assistance.
<p>
The term which welfare replaced is charity. 
<p> 
 Charity should <b>not</b> be the concern of Government .  Charity is a human activity in response to human needs demonstrating the highest of human feelings.  
<p>
 Government is not human, has no feelings and hence cannot implement charity judiciously.  When government engages in charity, the recipients see the charity as entitlement.  When an individual responds to another individual with charity the recipient is humbled, thankful and inspired.  Charity involves giving where the giver and the receiver are benefited.  Welfare involves taking as well as giving where funds given to the recipient are taken by force of law from the <i>giver</i>.
<p>
In summary:
<P>
 Government has no business in handouts.
<p>
In crises government can help with a handup.
<p>
Below is the order of responsibility for the needy:
<ol>
<li>Themselves
<li>Their family
<li>Their friends
<li>Their neighbors
<li>Their community
<li>Their church
</ol>
<p>
If none of these are willing to help, what right does an impersonal government have to forcibly take from one citizen to give it to another?
<p>
The concept of government being involved in `charity` is satanic in origin.
<p>
 God is our provider.  Any aide that does not point the needy to this fact serves to destroy the one in need.
<hr>
20190117 Phasing out of the Welfare business
<dir>
Many times corporations reach a point with staffing where they make a decision to buy-out employees instead of just firing them cold turkey.
<p>
This has multiple benefits.  The corporation is relieved of employees that are unnecessary or unproductive.  It costs them in the short-term with cash outlays for each employees buy-out.  But, their future budget is relieved of the burden of supporting those unnecessary, unproductive employees.
<p>
There are benefits to the bought-out employee.  Many times the employee has reached a point that they realize they are not adding value to the company but they need the income.
<p>
Such employees who often face being fired cold-turkey will often see a buy-out as an `answer to prayer`.  They leave the steady income but they have the buy-out money to invest in their future.
<p>
Stopping the Welfare programs cold-turkey is not something politicians will ever do because of their addiction to votes.  Furthermore, that would just be cruel.
<p>
However, if there was a buy-out program for Welfare recipients to cushion the loss of welfare income, the recipient is treated humanely and the burden of endless, yearly payouts by the government is eliminated.
<p>
Not only are there savings of taxpayer money for the checks that would stop flowing but there would also be the savings of supporting the infrastructure of Welfare programs.
<p>
Well, rather than firing the Welfare program government employees, we buy them out also.
<p>
What kind of money are we talking about?  Well it depends on the size of the buy-out and the number to be bought out.
<p>
Example: Assuming 50m welfare recipients and a $100t buy-out per recipient we see an immediate outlay of $5T.
<p>
Now, this would be a big jolt to the budget deficit.  However, the monies not sent to welfare recipients each year could be used to retire the debt.
<p>
An alternative would be to just wind down the programs by reducing payouts by a chosen percentage each year.
<p>
Example: Reduce the payout by 5% first year, 10% second year, 15% third year, etc.  At the end of 20 years there is no payout.
<p>
In any event, something must be done to enable people to carry their own load and get off the taxpayers` backs.
<p>
Any gaps in `real` need due to phase-out can be met by community, church and other charitable organizations.
</dir>

