It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Empty Compassion of the Welfare State

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Where does charity end and destroying the system for others begin?

Should seniors that use their Social Security Retirement benefits to pay their yearly country club fees be cut off? How about drug addicts receiving full SSI Disability and Medicare benefits to get their daily dose of methadone at the clinic while denying others with demonstrated medical conditions within Social Security’s own parameters? Free paid rides to and from abortion clinics for those under 18 on Medicare or Medicaid while cutting retirement benefits and raising the age for future seniors?

Or how about cutting benefits across the board while there are a pile of IOU’s in the Social Security coffers from when the Federal Government needed some spending cash for other projects?




posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

State coercion is a great way to absove oneself of that civic responsibility though.

The person who voted for the welfare state walks down the street with his extra money at the end of the month and *could* opt to donate it to a homeless man or the worthy charitable cause, but then he shrugs. "Why bother?" he thinks. "I voted for that new social program that already provides for people like these. I am a good person who does my part." And he walks on by whistling content that he is a great and moral person because he pays higher taxes and deserves whatever it is he's buying for himself with that extra money.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Tartuffe

I just wish Walmart would pay livable wages and provide healthcare to their workers so the American tax payer is not picking up the bill. The billionaires are greedy bastards. They should pay their fair share.


The company most certainly is.

Do you?

I mean, after your income tax refund is more than 5% of your gross still going to the Feds?

If not, please start paying your fair share.



"She boasts a net worth of $7.6 billion, mostly in Wal-Mart stock. Jim Walton, Sam's youngest son, had $48.4 billion in net worth in 2017, good for 11th on the list of the wealthiest Americans. After his brother John died, Jim took his spot on the Walmart Board of Directors."

Yeah, I'm real cutup about.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 10:45 PM
link   
I've been involved with various food pantries and homeless shelters my whole adult life. especially when I worked in law enforcement.

The original (Teddy republican) progressives built the welfare state because they said the church wasn't doing an adequate job, the executives weren't sophisticated enough to provide the emotional support the needy require. Churches couldn't provide housing, and churches couldn't follow the "new regulations" the progressives themselves were imposing.

The church as welfare wasn't perfect; no large institution is. but there were/are some things that got done right. Here's a few points that occur to me.

1. There is much less graft and outright theft when charity is done by the church.
Most faith-based charities have very little overhead. Between 82 and 97% of your donation actually goes to a person in need. There are online websites that publish the information for you. The government has layers and layers of bureaucrats.

2. Church charity is available around the clock, and immediately adaptive.
I was involved in helping refugees from Hurricane Katrina's impact on New Orleans and the whole gulf coast. The feds were overwhelmed with the sheer volume of refugees. Fema called in the Red Cross. The Red Cross issued their own internal ID cards to refugees who had been entered into the system. The IDs could be used to get access to a shelter where your stuff was, to apply for a job elsewhere in the country, and to get RC benefits in a town in another state, away from the disaster. Into 2006, FEMA and state govts accepted the Red Cross IDs as valid. So, even though it was "government aid," it was a private non-profit doing the work, and feeding the hungry....

3. Church charities can tell the difference between needy and parasites.
Local churches help people in the hood, often with cash. But to get that help, you have to sit down with the pastor and explain, as one pastor put it, "if the church helps you, what's gonna change? because if you are gonna be strung out and needy tomorrow, we'll just wait and help you tomorrow." You have to explain what your plan is for changing things, for making it better, for getting on your own two feet. In contrast, Uncle Sam just hands out the EBT cards, no matter how stoned you are...

4. Church charity is usually given out by volunteers, or pastors who are paid by their church. Government bureaucrats are salaried.

5. Charities like habitat for humanity build nice houses and end homelessness, cleaning up neighborhoods in the process. Government "Jects" are usually plywood covering broken windows apartment blocs crawling with drugs and gang violence.

6. Charitable giving in the US for 2017 was 410 billion dollars. I will argue that it is a HUGE chunk of what needy people receive, other than EBT "food stamps." One could argue that faith charities are STILL filling a critical category of aid, despite the best efforts of the Government to "take over" welfare for themselves.

edit on 5-4-2019 by Graysen because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Hillary was on the Walmart Board of Directors. Was also when Walmart went from 100% American made goods to allowing Chinese made goods.

I’m in history mode tonight.



posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I have lost most capacity to believe anything and am pretty much just reacting.



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

State coercion is a great way to absove oneself of that civic responsibility though.

The person who voted for the welfare state walks down the street with his extra money at the end of the month and *could* opt to donate it to a homeless man or the worthy charitable cause, but then he shrugs. "Why bother?" he thinks. "I voted for that new social program that already provides for people like these. I am a good person who does my part." And he walks on by whistling content that he is a great and moral person because he pays higher taxes and deserves whatever it is he's buying for himself with that extra money.


The fact that there is a homeless person to be charitable to, indicates that the payment of taxes is simply not enough to fully resolve all the issues.

Charity is still needed. That much is obvious.



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

Wasn’t welfare created in the first place out of charitable compassion. Isn’t paying tax meant to pay for things we all use so that all can benefit. Wasn’t government set up to represent the needs of society?

Are you proposing the abolition of welfare and people relying on the charity of others in its place?

I find it worrying that nobody seems to recognise the elephant in the room. With everyone so caught up in the left vs right narrative people have forgot or fail to see how Trump got elected in the first place. To drain the swamp, to take down the deep state or shadow government. You see there are those in power who don’t believe in fair play, who don’t believe in people’s rights or freedoms. In fact they are positively against it. They want more control, more power and they are willing to do just about anything to achieve their goals. They are the same people who assassinated Kennedy, Ghandi, and anyone who has stood up against them and their agenda.

Only a united people represented by a transparent leadership can wrest control out of their hands. Stop falling for the propaganda, fake news and form a new non partisan political party that truly represents the will of the people.



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Tartuffe

I just wish Walmart would pay livable wages and provide healthcare to their workers so the American tax payer is not picking up the bill. The billionaires are greedy bastards. They should pay their fair share.


There is an easy solution to that which does not require government force and coercion. Start a company and pays those workers livable wages.

That’s my question for those who demand the state intervene: why don’t you just do what you demand of others? All parties get what they want.


The problem is, the ones running the greediest corporations did not start the business and it was handed to them on a silver platter.
Sam Walton was a Pro American that paid good wages and was not a globalist like his offspring that sold out the country.

It is also the case that the state sides with the globalist corporations over the people of this country.

A better reply to the above poster would be he can get handed a business on a silver platter and pay what he wants.


Also he can take some of his profits to purchase politicians like Walmart does.
edit on 6-4-2019 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Jesus also said the poor will always be with you which sort of indicates it is an intractable problem no matter how you try to take care of it.



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: surfer_soul

Explain to me how all benefit if welfare only benefits the poor and coerces some into becoming poor by rendering them incapable of taking care of their own by way of forcible confiscation in order to take care of those needy deemed somehow more deserving?



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

Jesus also said the poor will always be with you which sort of indicates it is an intractable problem no matter how you try to take care of it.


What Jesus said was to a particular person within the Disciples (who notably had issues with their acquisitiveness at other times), and in a fairly specific circumstance.

If you read Jesus' words in context, He was clearly chiding the errant Disciple for attitudes which place an emphasis on wealth, above other considerations.

If we consider some primitive hunter-gatherer societies, then there is no poverty because there is no money, no real idea of personal ownership nor even of a concept of individuality separate to the group. In these situations (which must necessarily have occurred as part of the development of a society) there is no 'poor'. Similarly, in a future society where all basic needs are met, for all people, there are no 'poor'.

The definition of what is 'poor' is also indistinct. In some societies, the very poorest of those in first world countries would be regarded as comparatively well off.

So, we can see that there are exceptions to "always having the poor", even in recorded history.

If we then consider the definition of the term applicable to the times and culture of Judas (the recipient of the message) then clearly there are existent, at that time, cultures where no one fits the criteria.

So it becomes obvious that Jesus must be referring to the specific situation for that person, and at that time, within that particular culture.

Now, Jesus also said (in Luke 12:33) that the Disciples (the recipients of the message) should "sell their possessions and give to the poor", which if you take the meaning you applied to the previous passage (ie: that there would always exist for all time, the poor), then this would be a contradictory and futile undertaking.

So, in light of the many things Jesus said about possessions, it is obvious that He was speaking to us about how we prioritize materialism, and He was not absolving us of the need for compassionate support of the less fortunate.



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Compared to the standards of living of most nations, there are very few poor and many of those tend to be that way by choice (lots of homeless have access to shelters but don't use them because they have mental issues or addiction issues they won't work on to abide by shelter rules and so stay on the streets) and others realize better living standards than the poor of other nations.

If we're comparing living standards to call Jesus a liar then this point has been discussed before. I suppose we really don't need as extensive a welfare state then. After all, our poor actually are pretty well off and not so poor after all.

I'm glad you admit it.



posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

Compared to the standards of living of most nations, there are very few poor and many of those tend to be that way by choice (lots of homeless have access to shelters but don't use them because they have mental issues or addiction issues they won't work on to abide by shelter rules and so stay on the streets) and others realize better living standards than the poor of other nations.

If we're comparing living standards to call Jesus a liar then this point has been discussed before. I suppose we really don't need as extensive a welfare state then. After all, our poor actually are pretty well off and not so poor after all.

I'm glad you admit it.


Firstly, the idea that the majority of the poor are there by choice is obvious nonsense. In no way do I expect that anything I said could be misconstrued so far as to suggest that was what I meant.

If you want to look at the painful reality of the situation, then I could suggest you watch the movie "The Pursuit of Happyness" or read the book upon which it is based. The truth is that in reality, good, capable, intelligent people desiring of gainful employment are denied it by various circumstance. They are not mentally or otherwise handicapped. To say so is an ignorant and bigoted cop-out.

Nor am I calling Jesus a liar. He was speaking the truth in the situation, as i explained in my previous response. The lie is to apply His response in situations where it plainly cannot, and does not apply, and for the reason that you want to be absolved from your civic and human responsibility. Tough luck, I'm not allowing you that.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


People help each other millions/billions of times a day all around the world. Helping friends move, holding a door open for the person behind you, thanking the person who held the door open for you, going 10-15 over the speed limit in the passing lane to get around the person doing the limit so I can move over and go 5 over the limit and let the fast people go by. It's a short list and I always do my best to adhere to that list and so many more common curtesy societal rules that seem to be lost to so many people.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

A secularization of society isn't directly tied to a less charitable society though. What's the check box on your tax form to donate money to the Presidential election campaign for? Couldn't we just add a similar box for charitable welfare donations? Church charities are mostly run on donations right? Why should it be coercion in state charity?



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar


Do you have a link/s for that? Not to doubt, but would like to read for myself since I didn't know she was on the BoD. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

Jesus also said the poor will always be with you which sort of indicates it is an intractable problem no matter how you try to take care of it.


If we consider some primitive hunter-gatherer societies, then there is no poverty because there is no money, no real idea of personal ownership nor even of a concept of individuality separate to the group. In these situations (which must necessarily have occurred as part of the development of a society) there is no 'poor'. Similarly, in a future society where all basic needs are met, for all people, there are no 'poor'.


I may be wrong but there must have always been a hierarchy, the tribe leader and his "warriors/hunters" would eat first, and then there would be a hierarchy among the rest, much like a wolf pack. Everybody gets to eat but not equally.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 04:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: chr0naut

A secularization of society isn't directly tied to a less charitable society though. What's the check box on your tax form to donate money to the Presidential election campaign for? Couldn't we just add a similar box for charitable welfare donations? Church charities are mostly run on donations right? Why should it be coercion in state charity?


I'm not American. I've never voted for a president. Nor have I ever seen a tax form with a check box to donate money to a Presidential campaign.

Since the US President has always been one of the '1%'ers, the concept of donating to the fabulously wealthy seems like a stupidly bad idea to me.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: thov420

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

Jesus also said the poor will always be with you which sort of indicates it is an intractable problem no matter how you try to take care of it.


If we consider some primitive hunter-gatherer societies, then there is no poverty because there is no money, no real idea of personal ownership nor even of a concept of individuality separate to the group. In these situations (which must necessarily have occurred as part of the development of a society) there is no 'poor'. Similarly, in a future society where all basic needs are met, for all people, there are no 'poor'.


I may be wrong but there must have always been a hierarchy, the tribe leader and his "warriors/hunters" would eat first, and then there would be a hierarchy among the rest, much like a wolf pack. Everybody gets to eat but not equally.


A hierarchy does not automatically equate to the existence of a 'poor' class. Unless you are talking about comparative wealth, which I don't think is a good definition of poverty.

I would consider that "someone who does not earn enough to survive and shelter themselves" is a fairly universal definition of 'poor'.







 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join