Orrin Hatch Quotes

I'm going to give away a lot more than half my money. I'd be happy to give that to the government if the government put together programs that were like I'm giving away to charity, in which I believe the money is effectively used to help people.

An indictment of entitlements has to focus on the huge 'social wealth' that the welfare state creates at the stroke of the pen. Yet statistical tests of the effects of welfare spending on employment yield erratic results.

In order to advance the public weal efforts should be made to afford work to every able-bodied citizen on terms that will secure his existence… Any person unable to support himself or his dependants shall, where no other person is responsible for his or their maintenance, be entitled to receive public assistance …

PRONASOL repositions the PRI as a welfare machine.

It shouldn't be a matter of who deserves help or not, but of whether we want to be a country that allows its neediest to continue to need. Condemnation of individuals and their choices mutes all these other really important logistical questions about funding and budget and politics.

If this is a Great Society, I'd hate to see a bad one.

We commissioned an independent statutory economic body - the Productivity Commission - to review the possibility of funding a disability scheme. The commission returned with a view that it could. Then it becomes an issue of national will.

For many of those who had historically supported welfare programs in the broadest sense, it was perfectly reasonable to enact legislation in which poor people were the objects of efforts to assist them.

I strongly support SNAP and will continue to urge my colleagues in Congress to provide adequate funding to this important program.

Typically, discussions of the safety net boil down to one side wanting to spend more in the name of compassion, and the other side wanting to spend less in the name of fiscal restraint. In both cases, money serves as a proxy for moral responsibility.

After-school tutoring programs, care for the elderly, shelters for the homeless, disaster relief work, and a variety of other services would all benefit from government funding.

There was no welfare state, and people had to rely mainly on the Poor Law - that was all the state provided. It was very degrading, very humiliating. And there was a means test for receiving poor relief.

I've always been engaged in social protection programmes.

I urge the Bush Administration to rethink its priorities. We can't talk about community values without being prepared to invest in those very same communities.

I think food and education will help stem the poverty of the young people who are being drawn into terrorism every day.

I don't believe in welfare.

What we don't have a right to is healthcare, housing, or handouts. We don't have those rights.

The decision is 'trust fund' versus 'no more Medicaid' - and that shouldn't be a tough decision.

The only way we are going to ameliorate pressing social needs is through public intervention.

Fiscal prudence does not prevent government from providing shelter for the homeless, work for the idle, care for the elderly and infirm, and hope for the destitute.

Today we are ending welfare as we know it.

Social Security is the widest accepted contract in our society.

We're moving more and more toward user fees, but the people who use social service programs obviously don't have the ability to pay for them.

Government has a final responsibility for the well-being of its citizenship. If private cooperative endeavor fails to provide work for willing hands and relief for the unfortunate, those suffering hardship from no fault of their own have a right to call upon the Government for aid; and a government worthy of its name must make fitting response.

Even in the United States, 'you have a sort of welfare state, even if you don't want to admit it -- you don't allow people to die on the street.