It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Many towns in colonial New England had a practice called “warning out.” Under this practice, poor people who weren’t born in the town might be forced to leave the town.
In colonial New England, each town was responsible for the care of its own widows, orphans, elderly, disabled, hungry, and sick. Every town seemed to make some effort to see to it that no one starved or froze to death. Boston, for example, had a two-story brick almshouse for the poor, aged, and infirm, and a two-story brick workhouse for minor lawbreakers, “rogues,” and “vagabonds.” Other towns arranged to pay willing citizens to take in the destitute.
Originally posted by skunknuts
More proof of the incompatibility of living simultaneously as a Christian and a conservative.
Deuteronomy 15:7, 11
If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.
Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
Yeah, when welfare was first posited here in (you know where) it was for the deserving poor = widows and orphans = those who through no fault of their own... versus today's layabout sluts and cracksmoking bicycle-thieves... not that there's anything wrong with that...
I'd like to raise the question:
Who thinks Al Gore would let an indigent homeless man live in his palace with him until he got back on his feet?
How about Nancy Pelosi or Al Sharpton?
forcibly taking property from a citizen
Originally posted by Merigold
Would Glen Beck? or Sarah Palin?
Originally posted by Divine Strake
reply to post by mnemeth1
What a great post. . .people on welfare are, what did you call them? "vagrant hippie scumbag?"
Aren't you just a daisy!? Welfare recipients receiving benefits are subject to destructive behaviour?
Care to elaborate on that? As with much of ATS. . .can you offer proof of this? Or is it just another uneducated and unfounded opinion?
I used to sound like you. Scrooge used to be my favorite character. You'd better take the time to know your fellow man, OP! "Vagrant hippe scumbags", indeed. I truly hope you never have to know what it's like to have to receive some sort of assisted living. These people are your brothers and sisters! If you can have such a pompous opinion of these people and post this on ATS, should I be reprimanded for calling you a vagrant hippie scumbag?
Where's my Paxil!?
each town was responsible for the care of its own widows, orphans, elderly, disabled, hungry, and sick.
Every town seemed to make some effort to see to it that no one starved or froze to death.
Other towns arranged to pay willing citizens to take in the destitute.
the government put a gun to your head and force you to pay some guys welfare check.
Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
Sounds to me that colonial New England had a welfare system.
Originally posted by mhinsey
I have to agree with the other person... as the "average" welfare check recipient runs into two categories... 1) crackheads, lazy@sses, bikestealing, thug wanna-bes and their babies mamas.... 2) legitimate persons who do to illness or other detriment cannot handle their welfare themselves.