I would've starved to death as a young lad.
You didn't read it? And then you tell me you'd starve under my program? I specifically said that the the only welfare program is one that provides food, and that no one starves. Even adults, if they're willing to work supporting the program while it's supporting them, get guaranteed meals worldwide. No one who refuses to work eats, but that's just in compliance with both natural and moral laws.
It sounds like you have a real axe to grind over welfare; that's definitely the gist of your post. People don't like welfare because it takes from the working and gives to the lazy. Some people are disabled, fine, and can't work. But a significant number (and some say the vast majority) of people on welfare are simply unwilling to work or too ignorant/unmotivated to find a job. Welfare can serve its purpose, and sometimes it does just that.
In my system no one starves, no matter where they live or what their situation, but they're not going to be watching tv and driving a car using tax money. I didn't "kill welfare" if you read the post. Stop grinding your axe. People have a good reason for hating the misuse of welfare. Virtually no one would mind providing it if it weren't misused so much. Just wait until you're actually earning your own keep, and you some person in the grocery store ahead of you in line pay for their beer from a huge roll of cash, then buy their food with food stamps. Statements like yours make you no different from the people who advocate socialism and have never been self-employed or owned any non-consumer assets; they just don't know what actually motivates economics.
I'm not going to jump down everyone's throat who criticizes, but it's just ridiculous to have someone look at a post saying "I'd stop all welfare except free food" and then say "BUT I'D STARVE YOU ASS!" in as many words.
Edit: typo
Well, you said "You don't work, you don't eat", which ignores the whole disabled people aspect, which is why I would've starved. So yes, because nobody in my household was able to get a job, under your rule, we would have starved.
And providing food and only food doesn't really do anything for the quality of life. Welfare provides all sorts of other things, like heating, medical care, water, electricity, all sorts of things that make not dying easier.
Sure, you could have millions of people well-fed but if they're freezing to death in the streets with all sorts of infectious diseases, does it really matter that they enjoyed a +nutritious meal+ recently?
fake edit: reading your longer explanation makes me think you'd be giving the children food, but not the non-working adults? So you'd expect me, a 4 year old kid to sit there and eat food while my mother starves to death? Well, I'd rather be a malnourished kid than let that happen, bub.
and taking those kids away from their families to put them in special homes would be a system of welfare, so that's not an option.
how about "All people who can work, are given jobs. All people who cannot work, are provided to". Assuming there is job competition, the jobs could be social projects. Building schools, cleaning up highways. Basically the government would generate jobs, even where not needed, to provide people with a living + improve the quality of life for everyone.