The five best sentences you'll ever read

I have a good friend here, a good poker player, who despite being a little older than me, has never outgrown his left leanings. He still reads Newsweek and for the most part avoids controversy. Several months ago I shared the following piece with him and we had a subsequent conversation discussing his interpretation of some of the points. He has since written an article expressing his views.(his to share) My unsolicited response is further down and I take issue with his assertions that welfare can lift the poor into the middle class, that unearned income is different because someone else is actually earning it for you and that government should have a direct role in redistributing wealth.

THESE ARE POSSIBLY THE FIVE BEST SENTENCES YOU WILL EVER READ:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

Adrian Pierce Rogers (September 12, 1931 – November 15, 2005), was an American pastor, conservative, author

I have read your piece growing out of the five best sentences. I have no issue with helping those unfortunates who are in financial straits and struggling to get back on their feet. However, I have great issues with your reasoning. The federal government has no right, under our constitution, to take property from one person and give it to another and there is no difference between your property whether it is earned or unearned income.

Unearned income is the product of personal funds invested and in most cases, those funds are placed at risk. The total of the investment could be lost rather than provide a return. The investments earn a return because they provide capital to businesses and therefore create jobs and grow an economy. The return on an investment is not the benefit of someone's labor, but rather the investment provides them the opportunity to earn a living and if the enterprise is successful, the investor benefits.
Helping the needy is a function for nonprofit organizations like church bodies, the Salvation Army, and other charitable groups. They, as opposed to the government, function in the real world with oversight from concerned boards and are most careful in how their funds are dispersed. They raise funds through voluntary contributions from individuals, organizations and businesses. The government can promote those voluntary contributions through tax credits and deductions without getting involved where the have no legitimate business.
How well has government handled this assumed obligation to help the needy? I contend not so well. The government has created huge bureaucracies where success is judged by how much money they dispense. There are 70 federal programs to transfer money taken form one person and give it out to another. From 1989 to 2008, in current dollars, there was a 292% (no decimal) growth in means tested welfare funds dispersed. In 2008 there were 40 million people receiving food stamps and in 1978 that number was 4.3 million. In 2008 dollars, 1980 Medicaid costs were $300 billion and in 2008 that number had grown to $700 billion. Losses in Medicaid programs due to fraud are estimated at over $50 billion per year. I ask, what private enterprise would allow that to happen? When your only task is to give it away, who cares about it? Haven't most federal housing programs for the poor also been disasters, becoming drug and crime infested hellholes?
Ben Franklin counseled us in plain terms. Never give those in need enough to make them comfortable in their circumstance.

In an earlier conversation, I said that I believe you can never have a strong middle class unless there is industry where value is produced. Whether it is the building industries, manufacturing, food processing or selling those commodities, they provide well paying jobs to many in vertical industries. In places like Guatemala, there is agriculture where fresh produce is harvested and shipped to market or consumed. Very little value is added. It is the same with mining and gas and oil production; harvested and shipped. A prime example is the contrast between Ireland and England in a previous century. The Irish had the potato. They grew them, harvested them and ate them or sold them. The English grew wheat, harvested it, and then milled it and then bakers made it into bread, cakes and pastries in a vertical industry.

Most people will voluntarily give to help people in need. They are especially generous in this nation when folks are struggling to recover from disasters. You are right that people are unwilling to give to those who do little to help themselves or to those who squander it. There we have the federal government, to take it and with inadequate regard, give it away or waste it.