Bruce... I get your zero-sum point, but... I think it's missing a bigger point - taxes are never going away.  Unless you live off Oil money in Alaska.  So, yeah, a dollar spent on ANYTHING we pay taxes for is a dollar that's not spent on family, but... like... nothing will change that.  That dollar is always gone from your check.  It was never yours to have - it was gone before the money was deposited in the bank. 

Like... I don't know how to put it any differently.  I suppose you could move to Alaksa or the middle east or some deserted tropic island, but... like... I can't see being too concerned about paying taxes - it's like being concerned about dying. 

Which is why it is so important not to create or expand any existing programs - once those programs get funded, we'll be paying for them forever.

Thats a good theory but an impossible way to govern.  Government progams are necessary and some should be done away with, while others should be revisited to see how to make them more effective.  Ultimately, recognizing that we need government, a president needs to be effective at governing.

And its how a President goes about accomplishing his goals that is the hallmark of effective governing.  Regan had a genius for this.  Independent of the man's politics or beliefs, I think even his most ardent critics would be hard pressed to say he didn't know how govern.  And I think his model can be used by a president (or any organizational leader) regardless of political stripes.  Effectively he excelled at prioritizing.  I think you need to identify the programs and then prioritize.  Rather than having 70 great ideas and giving them equal attention -- and therefore finishing none -- you select five that are most important to you and focus on those projects, accomplish them and then move onto five more, etc. 

Government progams are necessary and some should be done away with, while others should be revisited to see how to make them more effective.

Which, by the way, is Barack Obama's stated plan.  So... you know, power to him!

However, I've still seen people buy groceries with food stamp cards, then pay for cigarettes and alcohol with cash. If they've got the money for a carton of Camels and a six-pack of Bud, they need to pay their own grocery bill.
---
Another way people get over is to make an agreement with another person to spend (just for example) $50 in "food stamps" on groceries for someone in exchange for $40 dollars in cash.  Then they just use the cash for whatever they'd like.

That said, I think there are more people who say they see these things happen when they are really just relaying stories of what they've heard than folks who truly witnes it.  I also feel that there are many people who need the help and properly use government assistance.

What I don't get with this call to "abolish welfare" is that people treat the situation as if there weren't good reason for instituting welfare programs. And they're not at all about altruism.

This is something that is well known in Europe, although not really spoken of that often, as it's a dirty secret. One of several antecedents to modern western european mixed economies (as most western european countries have some mix of socialism and capitalism) is also known as Bismarck Socialism. Now, no-one was more disgusted by socialism than Bismarck, but the basics of these ideas is that welfare for the poor is not about being kind or charitable.

It is about eliminating the extreme conditions of homelessness, starvation and despair that triggered the french revolution for instance and has destabilized countless nations over the millennia. It is a modern version of "Bread and Circus".  By providing basic services, they eliminated the urgency of the socialist cause. And by balancing it with harsh penalties for demanding too much, this earned it's other name of "Carrot and Stick socialism".

At every step, as the extent of the services provided expanded (health care, education, wage increases, safety standards) government grew more stable and private enterprise more profitable. Only backwards places like Russia and China left themselves vulnerable to communism by refusing to "inoculate" themselves with Bismarck Socialism.

Obviously, government has to provide certain functions and we, the taxpayers, have to pay for those functions. I get that.

But how much is too much? The burden on taxpayers has skyrocketed in the past 40 years or so. In 1941, federal taxes equalled less than 8 percent of the GDP. In 2000, that percentage topped 20 percent and has hovered around 18 percent ever since. Projections show that burden only increasing in the years to come.

In other words, the relative burden on taxpayers has more than doubled within my father's lifetime. That doesn't even factor in increases in the tax burden on the local and state levels.

QUOTE: Unless someone can not work for solid medical reasons, they should have to work to receive welfare.  It shouldn't just be a hand out.

What if there are no jobs to be had? What if they have no one/no place to keep their kids while they work?

I am sorry, but the rich get breaks too.

A building contractor here in my town that has flooded our area with new homes, is now having problems unloading them. He went to his friends on our town board and asked for tax abatements on new homes, meanwhile people who are trying to sell their older home gets no tax abatement. The board is all republican but one democrat. The tax abatement got passed.

This goes on all the time. But it's easier to pull out the "welfare people buy steaks and such" tag line.

Do you have any idea how much of our tax dollars are being wasted by military contractors?