Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

~Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America~

(Emphasis Added)

Welfare:

1. a. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being. b. Prosperity.
2. Welfare work.
3. a. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need. b. Corporate welfare.

Welfare as most understand it today:

Welfare in the United States commonly refers to the federal government welfare programs that have been put in place to assist the unemployed or underemployed. Help is extended to the poor through a variety of government welfare programs that include Medicaid, the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).

Charity:

1. Generous in giving money or other help to the needy.
2. Mild or tolerant in judging others; lenient.
3. Of, for, or concerned with charity: a charitable organization. See Synonyms at benevolent.

The same welfare site I just linked above claims:

The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.

However, on their home page, they claim:

Federally funded and governed US welfare began in the 1930's during the Great Depression. The US government responded to the overwhelming number of families and individuals in need of aid by creating a welfare program that would give assistance to those who had little or no income.

The US welfare system stayed in the hands of the federal government for the next sixty-one years. Many Americans were unhappy with the welfare system, claiming that individuals were abusing the welfare program by not applying for jobs, having more children just to get more aid, and staying unmarried so as to qualify for greater benefits. Welfare system reform became a hot topic in the1990's. Bill Clinton was elected as President with the intention of reforming the federally run US Welfare program. In 1996 the Republican Congress passed a reform law signed by President Clinton that gave the control of the welfare system back to the states.

An ssa.gov document tells the story this way:

The U.S. social welfare structure has been shaped both by long standing traditions and by changing economic and social conditions. In its early history, the United States was an expanding country with a vast frontier and a predominantly agricultural economy. Up to 1870, more than half the Nation’s adult workers were farmers. In the years that followed, however, industry devel­oped rapidly and the economy tended increasingly to be characterized by industrialization, specialization, and urbanization. The result was a Nation of more employees who were dependent on a continuing flow of money income to provide for themselves and their families.

From the earliest colonial times, local villages and towns recognized an obligation to aid the needy when family effort and assistance provided by neighbors and friends were not sufficient. This aid was carried out through the poor relief system and almshouses or workhouses. Gradually, measures were adopted to provide aid on a more organized basis, usually through cash allowances to certain categories among the poor. Mothers’ pension laws, which made it possible for children without paternal support to live at home with their mothers rather than in institu­tions or foster homes, were adopted in a number of States even before World War I. In the mid-twenties, a few States began to experiment with old-age assistance and aid to the blind.

But here's the kicker:

Meanwhile, both the States and the Federal Government had begun to recognize that certain risks in an increasingly industrial­ized economy could best be met through a social insurance approach to public welfare. That is, the contributory financing of social insurance programs would ensure that protection was available as a matter of right as contrasted with a public assis­tance approach whereby only those persons in need would be eligible for benefits.

So, when U.S. News and World Report claims:

If Congress and the White House both want to cut spending for social programs, who will house the homeless, feed the hungry, care for the sick and help the poor? With many states and cities facing their own budget crunches, House Speaker Newt Gingrich says private charities should pick up much of the burden. "I believe in a social safety net, but I think that it's better done by churches and by synagogues and by volunteers," Gingrich told an interviewer.

In fact, it is highly doubtful that charities could pick up all or even most of the slack from the $76 billion to $450 billion in spending cuts now being proposed by Democrats and Republicans in Washington. The federal government, after all, began weaving a social safety net because states and cities, not to mention churches, synagogues and volunteers, could not cope with the Great Depression, urbanization, increased mobility, runaway health care costs, a swelling population and a declining sense of community in America.

They correctly point to the decline of the American community as a part of the problem, a problem where increasingly Americans are bowling alone not as able as they once were to get by with a little help from their friends, U.S. News and World Report also misrepresent how charity worked prior to the rise of the welfare state. The poor before welfare, however, were assisted by community, charities, and fraternal orders that have now:

But once the fraternal societies were pushed to the margins of social welfare, Americans began to become dependent on the vagaries of hierarchical organizations controlled by government.

What is to be done?

Nice thread Sir!

I enjoyed it very much.

I think we can do our part for the time being. Poverty is rampant throughout the

world and I think it is a shame that we haven't figured out a way to stem the effects.

There is so much unclaimed, unused land that could be used to generate food and the

like.

Yep for hundreds of years charity existed long before this country and the great saviors of the republic thought it would be best to rob from peter to pay paul.

A $16,000,000,000,000 debt and over 120 trillion dollars of promises made to social programs that truthfully is the Welfare Industrial Complex.

Before Welfare the trophy for showing up in life Americans had their hands out to no one and the thought never entered in to their minds to make others pay for their existence in this world.

There were people out there who said they did not need to stinking handout the mere thought disgusted them and my how times change.

The welfare complex is nothing more than regulation to keep people right where they are they are slaves to the body politic and fought over for their votes and who ever promises them more money that is the way they will vote.

And let us not forget the over 10 trillion in fiat currency floating around and let us not forget that most "benevolent government" is taxing your income 50 cents for every dollar and is borrowing 40 cents for every dollar just so they all can pat yourselves on the back and thinking they care.

Welfare is the most insidious creation in the world that is nothing but pure evil the power of taxation was given to the government to be able to fund it's self that being a vital necessity to make sure this nation shall not perish from this realm.

And what we have today is nothing but a bastardization of that belief.

reply to post by neo96

Before Welfare the trophy for showing up in life Americans had their hands out to no one and the thought never entered in to their minds to make others pay for their existence in this world.

Your thought is echoed by David Bieto's thought:

It is indeed true that when measured in dollar amounts, the combined efforts of traditional charities at the turn of the last century, such as the Salvation Army, were small when compared to those of the modern welfare state. The chief problem with such an approach is that it entirely misses the point. It fails to come to grips, for example, with the fact that before the rise of the welfare state, Americans of all classes shared a deep aversion to dependence on either private organized charity or governmental relief. Indeed, there was a great stigma in the folk culture attached to any form of what might be called hierarchical relief (relief in which those who control the purse strings are higher on the socio-economic scale than the recipients).

While most Americans at the time conceded that such agencies performed necessary and positive functions, even the poorest of the poor regarded them as a last resort and then only a temporary one. As a result, the size of the dependent population remained infinitesimal by today’s standards. According to a study by the U.S. Census in 1905, only 1 out of every 150 Americans (excluding prisoners) resided in a public or private institution of any kind, including almshouses, asylums, orphanages, and hospitals.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Found this video a while back put's welfare and charity in to perspective for those who are not blinded by political ideology.



You might like You might not.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Very good thread....

What started out as a genuine good system has over time broken down and now simply is being abused.

People now a days admit to playing the system and for each kid get any where from $300-$500. And if the kids live with Grandma, the checks are more. They know not to marry, so they also have the money that the father makes too.

I've been told personally that they don't work simply because they get more money via welfare. That also explains the passel of kids they have.

The system needs to be fixed but how is the question. The people that really need help should not be penalized but unfortunately more people abuse it simply because they can.

Personally, I think they need to limit HOW MANY kids should be allowed on it. I now a lot here are going to get on me for saying this but if they had a limited amount per house hold that would be covered then maybe, just maybe, they wouldn't keep spitting out babies just for the checks. The kids are their meal tickets for an easy income. And that in itself is just wrong. I deal with welfare recipients all the time and you don't see very many hard working families with 8 or 9 kids. Most can't afford it.

We can't ignore the needy yet at the same time, the system is being over run by scammers.

What started out as a good thing has turned into a Monster. A very expensive one at that......

S&F

And on the other hand - if you limit the wellfare system to actually care for the people....

We, in Europe, are puzzled by TV from America.

TV from real life where we see people having an accident and refusing to be taken by an ambulance BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT.

People - on camera - warning other people having had a mishap NOT TO SAY YES TO THE AMBULANCE TRIP because it will cost them dearly.

People coming to the hospital being refused proper care on the grounds that they have no Medical Insurrance.

Not even remotely in line with the famous preamble and highlighted text about caring and wellfare.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Wait, what?

You mean to tell me that in some long ago, forgotten past society that people actually used to care for and help out other people out of the goodness of their hearts and not because some gubment goon threatened them with a gun if they didn't give up their hard earned cash?

I don't remember learning anything about that during my years in the gubment indoctrinations centers.

reply to post by HolgerTheDane2

People coming to the hospital being refused proper care on the grounds that they have no Medical Insurrance.

Just goes to show that European television news is as crappy as U.S. television news. A proper journalist would have done enough digging to know at least a little about the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment

There are no contradictions. When you are confronted with a contradiction it is best to reexamine the premise.

That is not to argue that U.S. premises on welfare is sound, only that European television news is crap, just like American television news.

reply to post by neo96


That is a complete dumbing down of the welfare system.

I can agree that there are lifers, users and people who are crippled by the system,

but I do not think everybody is lazy and out to game the system, you didn't bother to

provide that distinction.

I believe the majority of people are good and find pride in work, I know I do. I wouldn't

take help unless I truly needed it and if I did I would not feel ashamed, I have helped

many people, there is no shame in having a rough patch. I would like to think that charity

could house and feed all the unemployed, disabled and homeless, but I don't believe it

would be as effective as providing funds which give a persona sense of autonomy and

freedom, plus I am not sure charities in America would be able to meet the needs of

Tens of Millions of People. Nations in Northern Africa that have very active charitable

systems in place, but they could not serve the same role that welfare serves here...

Simply because it costs a lot more to sustain a person in urban America, if HOUSING and

healthcare are taken into account. I also doubt that Americans would enjoy, allow or benefit

from a third world shanty culture to propagate. Over half of Mexico City is Shanty town and

it is dirty, violent and it becomes a system of it's own. It is very, very hard to get out of a

bad social predicament like homelessness or destitution.That is not to say that it is impossible,

but I think it does not help contribute to making a nation stronger if you let destitution replace

what is current in America.

A large Portion of the World lives like this; (and these are places that tend to attract large charitable

organizations with large funding and volunteer pools to draw from)





Poverty Creates this



Food and resources STOP's it and helps to reverse it.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by HolgerTheDane2

 

People coming to the hospital being refused proper care on the grounds that they have no Medical Insurrance.

Just goes to show that European television news is as crappy as U.S. television news. A proper journalist would have done enough digging to know at least a little about the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act:

***snip***

OH no - these were American series. Made by American to show how superior they are.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


you do realize...emergency treatment, is just that... if you break a leg, ya, they are obligated to slap a splint on it....but, you may not be able to walk, till the leg is set....
emergency treatment, ya, we'll do everything we can when you hit the end of the road and are ready to die, but till then, forget it!!!

been there, so won't accept the lies!

charity begins at home, and for a business, the employees are the family!! you want to know how charitable people with the money are??? well, take a look at the pathetic wages some of the employees are makijng,

if there were any charity at all left in the country, there would be no workers using the welfare system (food stamps, hud, heap, medicaid, and all that included!)

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by HolgerTheDane2

 

People coming to the hospital being refused proper care on the grounds that they have no Medical Insurrance.

Just goes to show that European television news is as crappy as U.S. television news. A proper journalist would have done enough digging to know at least a little about the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment

There are no contradictions. When you are confronted with a contradiction it is best to reexamine the premise.

That is not to argue that U.S. premises on welfare is sound, only that European television news is crap, just like American television news.

There are also a large variety of none emergency issues that are not addressed, that are still

life threatening, terminal or painful. A person with stage I cancer is typically treatable and can live

decades after remission. Although they would not benefit from this until they are on the door step

of death. There are many cases that fall into this category, which would be my point too if I

were examining the current system.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


S&F sir

the general welfare means the general standard of living of the people.

the only reason certain folks want to get rid of welfare is to use the money for something else
and that's trash like newt and Co. who already have plans in the wings.

your average rightwingconservatives posting here, INSANELY believe that all that freed up welfare money
is going to magically improve the economy and magically make more money appear in their pockets.

the fundamental problem is of course, the democratization of the republic,
brought about by the systematic corruption of the voter base which sells
their votes in exchange for benefits at all levels of government which has been promoting the entitlement paradigm [which originated with the baby boomers,by the way] in defiance of reality.


this is why i've always said that democracy can only be practiced by superior beings.

not even going to go into the social safety net and it's reduction of crime

those fantasizing they'll get a bigger cut if the poor are cut off,
are of course also fantasizing about violent [and mostly state-based] solutions to resolve any problems caused by the sudden elimination of welfare.

many of the middle states are already ahead
with their use of private prisons to house out of state criminals which have no vote, yet are registered with the census
in order for the state in question to get more federal funds than they normally should due to their sparse populations, said prisoners [mostly minorities] are of course working for peanuts: who said slavery was abolished in this country?

indeed sir, charity disappeared from the usa quite some time ago.

faith and hope were last seen at a soup kitchen which was recently closed

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
***snip***

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment

There are no contradictions. When you are confronted with a contradiction it is best to reexamine the premise.

That is not to argue that U.S. premises on welfare is sound, only that European television news is crap, just like American television news.

So you tell me - contrary to popular belief spread by American televison, that what I call proper medical care is covered by the emergency medical treatment whats'it?

That even the poor will have proper prostetics, expensive surgery to save an arm rather than set it off?
That reconstructive surgery is available to all?

Or is it that they get enough treatment to survive?

reply to post by Beanskinner

That is a complete dumbing down of the welfare system.

So what's your point?

I can agree that there are lifers, users and people who are crippled by the system, but I do not think everybody is lazy and out to game the system, you didn't bother to provide that distinction.

So what's your point agian the current US government spends more on the welfare complex that has accomplished that never before in this entire nations history that people are consuming the wealth of others than creating their own that has led to massive deficits and promises that can never be paid for.

I believe the majority of people are good and find pride in work, I know I do. I wouldn't take help unless I truly needed it and if I did I would not feel ashamed, I have helped many people, there is no shame in having a rough patch. I would like to think that charity could house and feed all the unemployed, disabled and homeless, but I don't believe it would be as effective as providing funds which give a persona sense of autonomy and freedom, plus I am not sure charities in America would be able to meet the needs of Tens of Millions of People.

People game the system that take from those who truly need it but then agian it is not the governments job to feed,cloth and educate others that is what charity is and what makes charity better than welfare it is freedom of choice to help instead of a gun held to their head and saying do this.


As to the rest of the world not the topic believe that the op clearly made a distinction about the US welfare versus entitlement argument.

Personally talking about Mexico and Africa makes them sound like a Neo Con.

the general welfare means the general standard of living of the people.

No it doesn't

General Welfare means the well being of the Government not people,

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane2

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
***snip***

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment

There are no contradictions. When you are confronted with a contradiction it is best to reexamine the premise.

That is not to argue that U.S. premises on welfare is sound, only that European television news is crap, just like American television news.

So you tell me - contrary to popular belief spread by American televison, that what I call proper medical care is covered by the emergency medical treatment whats'it?

That even the poor will have proper prostetics, expensive surgery to save an arm rather than set it off?
That reconstructive surgery is available to all?

Or is it that they get enough treatment to survive?

This is my point as well.

If a person is not in an Immediately life threatening state, they can be refused, even if they

are terminally ill or chronically sick and suffering. But a burnt man who was in shock and near

death would be cared for until he was stable. Then hopefully for his sake a charitable hospital and

a welfare bureaucrat would figure out a way to assist further.

reply to post by HolgerTheDane2

OH no - these were American series. Made by American to show how superior they are.

An "American" series, made by "Americans" for European television showing how people are turned away from hospitals so that "Americans" could show Europeans how "superior" they are? Okay, got it.

reply to post by dawnstar


Wait...are you suggesting that emergency treatment in America is a lie? You've been there, have you? Walked into a hospital with a broken leg and no money so all they did was slap a splint on "ya" and send "ya" on "ya" way, did they? Would that be the honest truth of it?

Charity does indeed begin at home! Business, however is business! Your family is your family, and your employer is your employer. Your family is your blood, or in the case of extended families, they are those who love you regardless, but an employer offers an even exchange for a contract and anyone who is accepting less than an even exchange as an employee just shouldn't make that contract! Suggesting that employers suddenly become parents simply because they created jobs is beyond absurd.

If people like you would quit demanding politicians plunder other people and give you their money, you just might discover how charitable people really can be...or just be a cool ass pirate like Jack Sparrow and plunder away.

reply to post by Beanskinner


I'm not grasping your point with this. Are you saying that the welfare system in place ensures illness like cancer is covered for the poor, or not?

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


Yes sir, if it is a politician, it matters not if they are left or right, they too think Jack Sparrow is a cool ass pirate and plunder is A-Okay.

reply to post by HolgerTheDane2


Are you seriously insisting that what you call "proper medical care" is the standard by which I should go by? Is that your deal?

reply to post by neo96

it means the general welfare of the people...ALL THE PEOPLE!!
not just the corps, not just the poor, not just the rich....everyone. people cannot thrive in a weak nation, but neither can a nation thrive with an abundance or weak people!!!
there's just too much coddling of special interest groups, and well, can we talk about the corporate welfare, god!! when you consider that often, wars are started to coddle the corps, just how much does a war cost?? and well, how many american people are kill during a way, not to mention maimed and permanently disabled???

those who don't like the welfare system, ya do realize that if the corps and businesses would pay a decent wage to begin with, alot of the need for the system would vanish, right?? at least in a healthy economy. we just don't have a healthy economy at the moment, and it has more to do with the wars and the scam in the banking/wall street sector than it has to do with welfare!!
welfare should only be for the very old and the disabled, and maybe a little for others during brief times of unemployment. if someone can work, they should be working, and if they are working, they should be making enough not to need the danged welfare, without having to work 60 -80 hours a week!