Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

yes, that is what I am suggesting!!
hurt my ankle at work, ran up the medical bills till I ended up so broke I didn't have the gas to get to work....
was falling down at work anyways, quit the job, which left me without insurance. about six or so months later, got up, took a few steps and hears a couple of snaps, and well, down I went. broken ankle. went to the er, they slapped a splint on it, handed me the number of a surgeon to call for follow up. the surgeon wanted thousands of dollars before he would do the surgery, which, well we had three kids we were support, me without a job and hubby making around $20,000 a year. we had no stash of money for anything!! and of course, the dear gov't (fed, state, and country) were taking the heck out of us with the justification of the "cost of medicaid"..
well, I tried other avenues since this guy didn't want to do it without an insane down payments, with no luck, and finally just settle back with the belief that hey, I was never gonna walk again! I believe hubby went to work and told his boss what was going on and was planning on quitting and just flying the coop, thinking that then they would help me, I think it was his boss that called the state senator on my behalf, and the state representative called me. which well, I went into what was going on, and told him quite frankly just how the whole medical system as it was was quite unconstitutional....if two people are in need of medical treatment, you cannot take the resources of one to provide the care for another. and that well, quite frankly, it made little sense to me to let me lay there without any help, when in fact, it was gonna lead to a disability check for me because if I can't walk, then I certainly ain't gonne be able to work and take care of myself!!! after we hung up, it wasn't that long till the surgeon that the hospital referred me to called back and set a time for the surgery.

Umm... the money you paid into Medicaid would NOT have covered your medical expenses if you had been able to keep it. And most people SPEND MOST OF THEIR MONEY, so chances are (just statistically speaking), you would have spent that money and not saved it. You would have been much better served by a universal health-care program where you wouldn't have to worry about paying for such an operation. Instead, we have a for-profit market for health-care... and that leaves the poor largely S.O.L.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Progressives are Constitutionally illiterate. I'd even argue that many of them don't understand the basic premise and purpose of the Constitution. I think they think of it as just a fancy historic document or some kind of sister document to the Declaration of Independence, rather than valid and supreme law.

edit on 25-5-2012 by snusfanatic because: (no reason given)

It's funny...

You right-wingers...

All of a sudden, most of you are speaking of the Constitution... since like 3 years ago... AS IF you right-wingers have revered it ALL ALONG.

Funny thing is... those that have INTELLIGENCE and GOOD MEMORY remember plenty of times when liberals/left-wingers would speak of civil liberties, the constitution, peoples' rights, and so on... and you'd all laugh, scream, call people hippies, terrorists, pussies, radicals, YOU NAME IT! You people are so shamelessly expedient with your braindead ideology it's almost criminal. Seriously... stop playing the propaganda game and talking to people as if YOU right-wingers are, and always were, these bastions of freedom, when in most cases... you were the OPPOSITE. Man, I wanna backhand someone right now, thanks for the urge...

Here's an interesting video called "When bankers were good". It talks about the charity and philanthropy of bankers in the Victorian era in great Britain.

The last 10 minutes talk about the Rothschild's philanthropy. The problem was Philanthropy and charity was not enough to cope with the destitution occurring in Britain at the time.

In 1906 the liberal government laid down the foundations for the welfare state. including pensions and school meals.
In 1909 the new government introduced the " peoples budget " that for the first time would use tax to fill in the gaps where charity and philanthropy failed. en.wikipedia.org...'s_Budget

To bankers like lord Rothschild this was akin to heresy. Lord Rothschild held a protest movement against the " peoples budget" . A direct complaint was made by the City of London to Parliament.

Watch from 43 minutes onwards.

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

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.
***snip***

No you didn't "get it".

American series masde by Americans FOR Americans.
SOLD to Europe OR shown on American owned TV-channels

Just because you can quote stuff about Emergency Medical Care does not make it a good wellfare system.

And I don't need to be American to learn about America. You are extremely fast to point out your own superiority. Sometimes you are so fast that what you consider Great in America is laughed at as delusional in the rest of the world.

As when Donald Trump triumphantly shout out that "Moderation is another word for failure".

reply to post by neo96


Land can be owned? So, one person can have land that extends through a quarter of a state and yet there are people who don't have a place to grow their own food.

You know, at least in rural areas of Latin America, squatters have a tract of land where they can grow their own food and thus take the burden off of others who might be stolen from to provide for them.

Let's not go believing in this alternative universe where people need money for the basic essentials (food and water), when we all know that for every other living creature, such essentials come from the land under their feet. But since in our society there is no such thing as being born with any land under your feet, you're left to be someone else's servant to get just a little bit of money to buy the food and water that you need. It's complete insanity...

reply to post by neo96


And in what ways do we - passively or actively - contribute to those great hordes of impoverished, tormented, suffering, dying people? You can break the percentages down to include the whole world, but at what point would it behoove the statistics here to go by nation-state...8% of the WORLD may have money in the bank, but where do the vast majority of those 8% dwell and where, in this case, do the other 92%...likewise, how does that 8% having money saved up affect the existence of the other 92% (whether they can or do realize it or not)?

reply to post by NoHierarchy


the system wouldn't be so bloated, if the gov't intervention didn't allow it to be. and healthcare is just one example of it. the more the gov't gets involved in higher education, the more bloated it gets, and the more the costs of education goes up!! about a decade ago, a story came in the newspaper covering an area of upstate ny. hud was paying a thousand dollars for a four bedroom apartment with rats and leaky sewage lines. only, anyone in upstate ny who actually had the income that would be needed to pay out that kind of rent would not be found living in that are of the city, wouldn't tolerate living in a place filled with rats or the leaky sewage lines. they would have been professionals, making good money, and probably would have a mortgage they were paying off!

ya, a universal system would be an improvement, but then we can all brace for the "you're costing us money", so we should control what you eat, drink, and on and on! you lose freedoms...

but, at this point, just cutting the money flowing in from the gov't would help! and it's kind of getting a bit extortionary to me. like they are holding everything over the heads of our elected representative...
if you don't give us more, we will stop playing with you, and there are so many people who would be affected if they stopped playing the representitives kind of feel they have no choice.

I'm kind of a crazy witch, on a personal level, I'd say heck with this, and I'd stop playing first. just to watch them scramble!!!

The whole problem with most of western society, especially Canada and the United States, is that is has become a Nanny State; not will become, has become. People are SO dependent on the system that they will die defending and working for it (just try talking to a "productive member of society" about the things we talk about). Most of the people I talk to about these things ACTUALLY BELIEVE that the government should be able to decide things for them. They believe that they are stupid and that someone else always knows what's best. Why? Maybe fluoride has something to do with it, I don't know. I think television and convenience are the main culprits.

I am in the process of becoming self sufficient (about 50% there) and people actually think I'm crazy; "why would you do that? the government will take care of you man. they know whats best, they have your best interests at heart"...

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane2

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

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.
***snip***

No you didn't "get it".

American series masde by Americans FOR Americans.
SOLD to Europe OR shown on American owned TV-channels

Just because you can quote stuff about Emergency Medical Care does not make it a good wellfare system.

And I don't need to be American to learn about America. You are extremely fast to point out your own superiority. Sometimes you are so fast that what you consider Great in America is laughed at as delusional in the rest of the world.

As when Donald Trump triumphantly shout out that "Moderation is another word for failure".

with all due respect to you...alot of americans know that the only thing we are #1 in, is our military. you are seeing and reading opinions from a small subset of people that benefit from delusional propaganda.
being that america is so immersed in capitalistic idioms, it is hard to get a feel for how (other than the wealthy) the majority of regular people live their day to day lives. i'm sure this view is somewhat equal in most of the western cultures.

Originally posted by albertabound
The whole problem with most of western society, especially Canada and the United States, is that is has become a Nanny State; not will become, has become. People are SO dependent on the system that they will die defending and working for it (just try talking to a "productive member of society" about the things we talk about). Most of the people I talk to about these things ACTUALLY BELIEVE that the government should be able to decide things for them. They believe that they are stupid and that someone else always knows what's best. Why? Maybe fluoride has something to do with it, I don't know. I think television and convenience are the main culprits.

I am in the process of becoming self sufficient (about 50% there) and people actually think I'm crazy; "why would you do that? the government will take care of you man. they know whats best, they have your best interests at heart"...

right...that's why so many people have lost all their savings, their homes, their jobs, had their pay cut, can only find new minimum-wage, part-time, no-benefits, jobs, they or their kids haven't seen a doctor for years...it's the nanny state, of course...apparently, the corporate and wealthy people have ABSOLUTELY NO INFLUENCE on the direction and/or decisions made in this country.
please...go blame the people "THAT ACTUALLY HAVE INFLUENCE"...i've had "blame" shoved up my ass too often already, so, my response is a raised middle finger and words of a vulgar nature.
the only "nanny state" i see, are the wealthy being taken care of by maids, butlers, cooks, actual nannys, gardeners, chauffuers, private teachers/schools for their children, and obligatory personnal assistants.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


(heaven help me...)

Having a good heart is not enough. Life requires more.

like what Jean Paul?

oh, and: :-)

reply to post by jimmyx


Yes, everything you said is right but it goes above and beyond the specific aspect I am talking about. Because, IMO, the rich are merely and extension of the state, if not completely above it.

The US spends roughly $700 billion a year on the military.
Welfare that actually helps the poor accounts for about $191 billion

I think it's pretty clear where our priorities are.

And seriously, the whole 'charities and communities should help the poor' may have worked 100 years ago when money was actually worth something, but today, where it costs over $3.50 for a tank of gas and $2.50 for a loaf of bread, its pretty naive to think that we can rely on the charity of others to help out our poor.

Plus most of our middle class can't even afford to donate to charity nowadays. How exactly do we expect them to front an entire welfare system?

Maybe if the US got out of the business of death we wouldn't be so concerned with looking after our own.

reply to post by neo96

The problem is people can't even take care of themselves so how the hell can they take care of anyone else?

Interesting question Neo...

do you get your own question?

all things being equal...well, not all things are equal - are they?

Well

Hoorah for the fascist's in the thread

Government is the mother
Government is the father
Government is the educator
Government is God.
Government is robin hood
Government is the care giver

Government is the end all be all of the citizen's existence!

reply to post by neo96


Thank God your opinions are a minority!!!!

Originally posted by albertabound
reply to post by jimmyx

 

Yes, everything you said is right but it goes above and beyond the specific aspect I am talking about. Because, IMO, the rich are merely and extension of the state, if not completely above it.

unfortunately, i tend to agree with you, the wealthy have become the ruling party in this country.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You did a good job pointing out the incremental and long-developing hegemony that changed our perspective on what "charity" and "welfare" are. You are right that we are dependent on the government for our safety net and that philanthropic institutions were marginalized but... what came first?

My personal opinion is that the biggest abusers of welfare (subsidy recipients like the military, big oil, dairy and beef industries, etc) would never have gotten their assistance without the government stepping in. I don't think a church is going to step in and kick homeless people out of shelters so they can help fund the oil industry.

The public outcry is kept in check because the government not only helps these industries that don't need help but they also assist in social welfare programs. If the government only spent our tax dollars on the military and other ridiculously powerful entities, then people would start freaking out even more than they do. But because the government has its hands in both evil and benevolent ventures, it keeps everything on a balanced boiling point.

I'd be totally for the end of welfare if we also ended every for of welfare. No subsidies, no tax breaks, and no foreign military operations.

reply to post by LDragonFire


God doesn't pay the bills and one day soon neither will theirs be.

Second.

Excellent thread.

The point you displayed is what I have been claiming for sometime now, only in this case it was specifically tied to welfare.

I have stated that it is the decline of society and humanity that has brought on every one of our problems today. We can regulate, legislate, change leadership etc and it won't fix a thing as long as the core of humanity repairs itself.

One interesting aspect about your information does make me wonder, was it societies decline that caused the government to create programs that ultimately furthered its decline, or was it the government programs that caused the decline? A new take on the chicken and the egg.