I think the question is better stated: "Can the United States support Capitalism?"

Pa. heating help called fraud-ridden
Four years after a scathing state audit, Wagner says, LIHEAP is rife with bad claims.

HARRISBURG - Four years after auditors found criminal abuses in the state's home heating assistance program, benefits are still going to Pennsylvanians who do not meet eligibility guidelines, including some who applied using the Social Security numbers of dead people.

...

Wagner's auditors said a $203,500 no-bid contract went to a Philadelphia law firm, Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin, that subcontracted accountants who did not sufficiently document their work and seldom made on-site visits required by the contract.

Pa. heating help called fraud-ridden | Philadelphia Inquirer | 08/11/2011

Bottom line, I, like many others, would be perfectly willing to pay to help support those truly in need who have no other options. It's the right thing to do in a society. The problem is, the systems and methods we have in place today are abusive, abused, and exist primarily to line the pockets of connected people and to hand out favors for political gain.

Charity should come from charities, who must have open books and convince people they are a worthy cause. It shouldn't come from gov't mandates resulting from lobbying, political donations, kickbacks, and corruption.

Both analyses are spot on. If the US had the system that Sweden and Germany do, you'd get more buy-in from conservatives. The problem in the US is a combination of corruption/lack of oversight. Not to mention the issues inherent with our multi-ethnic/multi-cultural country which bring different types of problems that neither of those countries have.

Here's the bottom line -- it isn't that conservatives dislike helping poor people. Their issue is that if you're going to take their money via taxes and redistribute it to the poor, then the recipients as well as the distributors need to be transparent and accountable.

Are you posting from 1990? Did you miss the Clinton-era welfare reform act?

Are you ignoring the scores of other "public assistance" programs that aren't termed "welfare" but amount to the same thing?

Such as....?

Can Capitalism Support the Welfare State? for example

What is up with you man? It seems you only focus on problems but not solutions. We know what the problems are, and I'll
remind you it's the trade deficit and lack of gainful employment for US citizens.

That is correct; there is also the Fabian variety. I believe that the British Fabian Society predates Marx's writing of both Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto. It was Fabian socialism to which Oscar Wilde was referring in his essay The Soul of Man Under Socialism, and though I am not sure of this, I suspect that the Swedish social welfare state comes close to the Fabian ideal.

Founded by Ann Landers?

As for support for the poor, the free-market absolutist Milton Friedman did write somewhere sometime back that while he thought welfare was a bad idea, if society was going to insist on state support for the poor, the least disruptive way to do it would be through a simple negative income tax. Such a scheme has the virtues of administrative simplicity and maximization of liberty for the recipient (which our current welfare programs do not offer). Charles Murray also endorsed the idea a few years back in his book Into Their Hands.

Another virtue of this approach is that it does place responsibility for managing the income squarely in the hands of the recipient. Once they get it, it's theirs to spend as they see fit, and if they end up starving in a dark, cold house, well, we've done our part. That may sound cold, but it might improve things in the long run.

Of course, it also throws entire bureaucracies out of work, which is why it was fiercely opposed when the Nixon Administration proposed such a scheme in the early 1970s (at Daniel Patrick Moynihan's suggestion, IIRC).

The problems are self inflicted. The solution is, stop inflicting them.

The trade deficit isn't the problem, it's the budget deficit. (They're two different things, fyi).

Gainful employment would be improved if we didn't incentivize people not to work.

Unless a society stops advancing at the hunter-gatherer level, it is a capitalist society. The end.

Another major problem is it's even more ripe for fraud that current systems as the potential reward for fraud would be that much greater. Working under the table and getting food stamps is one thing. Working under the table and getting a full livable wage on top is quite another.

MarketSTEL ~ You and many other posters are obviously quite wise but I'm just not seeing solutions for job creation, only
problems.
I'll give you an example of free trade restrictions on the local level here in the Philly Metro Area: In Conshy there is a .5 acre
vacant plot at the main intersection off the bridge which the taxpayers payed to clear around 1978, which before then had
nothing but storefronts for trade. Guess what? It's sat vacant ever since with a stupid and failed farmers market one morning a week
(Fridays from 10 til 1). That location should be open for trade to the general public 7 days a week as opposed to out-of -town
farmers for 3 hours a week. It was cancelled this summer.
If anyone around here wishes to engage in local trade they must drive a long distance to a far-flung flea market. Whitemarsh,
Springfield, Plymouth, and Lower Merion it's all the same old, no place to trade. Do you make crafts, wish to sell pies and
cookies, need to sell items to pay your mortgage? Then fill the gas tank and it better be big enough for one trip considering
the distance.

Once again problems, no solutions. On a side note where do you propose these miscreants work? And what's your take on
the trade deficit?

I've always believed welfare was worth it, if only to keep the truly lazy and incompetent out of the work force. I'll gladly pay a little extra so I don't have to deal with some unhappy, listless idiot who can't make change next time I go to Popeye's.

The very notion of having a government is a collectivist idea. Modern nation states are (to greater or, in our case, lesser extent) Socialist.

There is nothing bad or wrong with acting collectively in our own best interest and improving our society.

Oh, a recursive answer! i like it! That means the correct answer is C) Henry VIII

???

Just as the party line under Bush was "Deficits don't matter", now deficits are the only thing that matters.

The massive trade deficit created by shipping American manufacturing jobs overseas and importing truly heroic quantities of Chinese-made goods is completely unimportant and has no effect whatsoever on our economy.