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.

 

Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

page: 14
53
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Charity was tied to the church, which is like government in it being so big and powerful in the way it sucks money from people that it has enough to spare to give some back. A whole lot of thanks that deserves. It is quite marvelous that the church is more efficient at it than governments, though, isn't it?

That aside. Who pays the most taxes? The rich, in a way, by being businesspeople. In another sense, the middle class pays the most. (I'm trying to be fair.) But, to make my point, the businesses in trying to PROFIT, always take more than their fair share from those they do business with. Your cell phone company? Your ISP? Notice those outrageous rates? Well, it makes sense we should maybe get a FAIR deal, and get something back, instead of it being an TILTED trade every time, with them coming out ahead.

At the same time, I agree with those who say: if you can't afford to have a kid, don't have one! I also believe in the right of anyone to die as and when they please. I know people who have tried to off themselves and failed but would have succeeded if suicide were legal and made easier. Instead, they are living off the system, and not much happier having to do so. Right to life means right to die. The government only pretends to care about life! Just look at how often it orders deaths of foreigners! They are people too!

This world is so messed up. Live and let live.




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


If either of us is surrendering it is you who does so by willfully choosing to ignore "they". At least I am speaking out against them. You just want to ignore them and only talk about their political games in which these silver tongue people try to use to keep us enslaved. I see your game now and I am done here. Ignore "they" if you like.


You are confusing disregard for tyranny as ignorance. You are so caught up in your surrender you cannot even see the numerous contradictions in your arguments. You want to defend government welfare programs through plunder, then turn around and cry foul pointing your finger at the greedy "elite". You want us to believe that somehow the United States governments are somehow defying this "they" you so fear, but also want us to believe that any defiance of "they" will result in "they" using "their weapons on us". Somehow you expect us all to believe that the United States government are not really in bed with "they" but are really a benign superpower that are more capable of being charitable than any charity.

Never mind that charities rely upon contributions from the willing, you are convinced that "contributions (i.e. taxes) from the "voluntary" (i.e. taxpayer) is a more charitable way than willing contribution to the charity of ones choice, and then declare that you are an "ethical" warrior poet because you can point fingers at "they" and call them evil.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by arbiture
 


YES!!!!

I want MY money back!...I will decide who I help, with MY money !!! That is FREEDOM!


Then I want my money back for the years of war, I would rather help people as opposed to

blowing them to kingdom come.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Beanskinner
 


You wont hear an argument from me...how many times did I say in this post...defense only...our military should be home protecting us as our laws allow..not crusading all over the globe...you keep ignoring that I am saying that!



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by arbiture
 


YES!!!!

I want MY money back!...I will decide who I help, with MY money !!! That is FREEDOM!


OK. And for those who don't give a #snipped#? Let them starve, nope. Welfare has its place, limited but the alternative? You bet your ass I give a great deal of money and do so very anonymously. Oh, by the the way I'm in the upper 1% of income over 70% of what is disposable, I give to charity and have done so very quietly because I'm rich enough. I give my money to who ever, and the people who need really DO NEED it have never known where it came from because thats one thing the rich, filthy people, or filthy rich are given the gifts of having so much are supposed to do that. You have no idea what FREEDOM IS!!!

Not like that moron Romney who who de-bowel's companies, and likes to fire people. I made my nice and serious change by inventing things and 40% of my own firms are all non-profit. So pardon me all to hell if people who yell have no god damned idea what they are talking about. Such as you , as me being a guy who almost, more then once died in the service of my country.

Get this through you head. Freedom is never ever free, its paid for in blood and treasure. I have been ripped to pieces and spilled blood for my country. So don't even THINK you have clue, you don't know what your so-called "real freedom" is. On a nicer note giving my treasure was very easy.
edit on Sun May 27 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Beanskinner
 


You wont hear an argument from me...how many times did I say in this post...defense only...our military should be home protecting us as our laws allow..not crusading all over the globe...you keep ignoring that I am saying that!


This is what i believe as well but that answer is never good enough they always have to make those who believe as that as "warmongers".

Rather sad.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 





OK. And for those who don't give a s***? Let them starve, nope. Welfare has its place, limited but the alternative?


The alternative, as has been spoken to by numerous members in this thread, is private unregulated charity. You claim to be a part of this vaunted 1% that bleeep fears so much, and you come in and now post this to underscore the point I have made about this so called "1%", that "they" want this welfare state, that "they" want to diminish private unregulated charity in every way. I don't know if you really are a part of this "they" but if you are, thank you for making the point I have been trying to make.

If you are truly a part of "they", your post makes clear that you have no regard for individual freedom, even if you claim you've lost blood in the name of it, and you clearly endorse a nanny state.

I think the member you scold can make an informed decision on what freedom is without needing any scolding from a nanny.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
yup as long as the "system" is based on money there has to be walfare, i just wish we could have a resourced based system instead...the money system only exists because tptb want total control, false scarcity is all over the place, this monetary system is destined for disaster.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   


this so called "1%", that "they" want this welfare state


Rather odd comment to make considering that the more people have the more they spend the more those evil rich and stuff their wallets with.

That didn't make a lick a sense.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96



this so called "1%", that "they" want this welfare state


Rather odd comment to make considering that the more people have the more they spend the more those evil rich and stuff their wallets with.

That didn't make a lick a sense.


The rise of the welfare state has been a part a very big part of the regulatory state, and that rise of the welfare state put an end to private unregulated charity. It has also ensured that government has within their system all those who take the handout. It makes perfect sense that "they" would want this type of control. I don't think these so called "they" bleeep fears so much have much regard for free markets at all.

Private charity is a part of a free market system, welfare is not.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I meant blaming the 1% that he was doing that didn't make sense to me the welfare state does not like competition i would agree with you and do on most points that have been made here.

Private charity is an enemy of the state so to speak,



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Beanskinner
 


You wont hear an argument from me...how many times did I say in this post...defense only...our military should be home protecting us as our laws allow..not crusading all over the globe...you keep ignoring that I am saying that!


This is what i believe as well but that answer is never good enough they always have to make those who believe as that as "warmongers".

Rather sad.


So you would like to cut the Military budget?

Lets cut it 75% - surely cutting out nearly half a Trillion in spending a year would

a good thing, no?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 



My point is, we all contribute to things we do not use or even agree with in this country.

And for the record I have to put up with many social institutions and creations that I

think are detrimental to liberty that I have to pay for.

Again, out of the tens of thousands of things America could cull or slash I cannot for the

life of me understand why it has to at the expense of weakest and least well off. Then if

you look at the other side of the same ideology, the focus of bettering society is proposed

by championing the cause of the investor and the big shot, with tax cuts and elimination of

rules and laws that govern society. All the while making sure that poor and the vulnerable

are held to the strictest of penny pinching standards, while we let banks, loan money they

do not even posses, I cannot miss that these policies are political bed fellows.

For the person who brought up Christianity, these combinations

of ideas seems to be the antithesis of biblical teachings, taking Jesus' message and turning it

exactly backwards.

Cut off the Poor, leave the hungry to chance and the wild winds, but be sure to shower the rich in

benefit and concern, make the world their play ground and birthright.

If we want to examine where community has gone wrong, we should also examine where

Christian theology was inverted into a business motto of strict accounting and outlays.


edit on 27-5-2012 by Beanskinner because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2012 by Beanskinner because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem


Here's an article that shows what charity SHOULD BE in decent society.


Why the Welfare State Fails So Spectacularly—and How to Fix It

God provided for the poor—and encouraged them to return to earning their daily bread—in simple, ingenious ways. With few exceptions, these individuals were dealt with not nationally, but locally, through laws requiring specific acts of charity from family and community.

For example, landowners were commanded not to take every last head of grain and ripe fruit for themselves: They were to leave the corners of their fields or orchards unreaped, and any grain that dropped during reaping untouched, to be reserved for the poor (Leviticus 19:9-10). Those who had fallen on hard times were legally permitted to take what food they needed from their neighbors’ fields. They couldn’t harvest and transport food away from the field—but were welcome to fill an empty belly. A day laborer in a field could eat whatever he needed (Deuteronomy 23:24-25).

Yes, in God’s view, it is wrong for us to use every last cent of our income on ourselves. God wants us to give to the poor. However, He didn’t command that His people set up soup kitchens, supply handouts or issue unemployment checks—simply giving something for nothing. The poor had to get out and work. If you wanted a meal, you were welcome to it—but you had to go into the field and pick it yourself.

Such laws have several advantages that benefit everybody. Based on the overarching principle of treating others as we want to be treated, they engender a spirit of generosity and compassion toward the less fortunate. They keep those with plenty personally mindful of those in want without unduly burdening them. (In fact, God promised to bless those who provided for the poor in this way—Deuteronomy 24:19.)

They also benefit the recipient. Think about the person who receives a check from a faceless bureaucracy. He does not feel grateful—he feels entitled. He feels no obligation to pay anything back. And eventually, he comes to spurn gainful employment in favor of undeserved handouts that facilitate his own sloth. By contrast, think of the one who has a direct connection to the person giving him charity. That personal link encourages gratitude and accountability, besides naturally preventing fraud and waste.

Trumpet

It is the personal link that prevents the abuses we see in welfare today. It prevents the feelings of entitlement and ungratefulness that taking from a faceless gubment agency engenders.

Knowing that the charity comes from another living, breathing person like yourself who has worked hard for what they have lets the receiver know that their benefits were given at a cost by someone who truly wants to see them get ahead. The gratitude they feel toward their benefactor encourages them to work harder to improve their personal condition so they no longer need to rely on charity in order to show that they were worthy of the charity they were given.

The memory of the person who helped them in their time of need will also encourage them to help others when their condition improves in the hopes that the ones they help may use that help to improve their condition as well.

A gubment check comes with no expectations of gratitude or even any expectation of the receiver using the money to improve their condition. With no benefactor to impress or to feel gratitude toward, the receiver soon develops an attitude of entitlement, feeling that the world (gubment) owes them a living because nobody has ever shown higher expectations of them.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Beanskinner
 


well we could start by cutting the pentagons playtoys, ya know those projects that it's basically accepted will never be useful a war setting, or are basically failures, but we still keep shelling out a ton of money every year to the defense contractors for them??
we could stop getting into wars that we really have no business in getting into to begin with....like, I don't know, vietnam would be a good example, Iraq...and maybe Iran or Syria will be the next ones...
although, I don't know if this would cut that much out of the defense budget if I had my way, because I'd be diverting some of this money to fullfilling the promises that were made to the vets when they went into the service!! ya know, no more vets coming home with legs blown off and being told that they aren't eligible for disability!! no more homeless vets wandering the streets, some of them still so shell shocked that they usually are giving the appearance of being crazy!! and these are from vietnam!!! I've ran across a few of them....there's nothing more unnerving than to be sitting by someone to have them all of a sudden go into a flashback and start yelling and acting like they are in a warzone or something...

even in the military budget, as huge as it is, we fail when it comes to taking care of the people actually doing the work! taking the biggest risk!! we fail them while they are in combat, we fail them when they come home maimed and disabled!!
but the brass in the pentagon, ya they are living good!! the top management of the big defense contractors, oh ya, they are living good!!! the president and congress who sends them to war, oh, ya, they are living good!! no smelly old abandoned warehouse for them to live in, and no begging at mc donalds for the last of your fries either, no missing limbs, no mental baggage dragging them into the sewer, oh no!! they have their tax-payer paid vacations to the nicest resorts in the world! private jets, fine resturants, million dollar mansions!!

I'd just be happy if they would get their danged priorities in order!!! and a good place to start would be for them to realize that the entire world doesn't continue to go around because of them!!!




edit on 27-5-2012 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2012 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by arbiture
 





OK. And for those who don't give a s***? Let them starve, nope. Welfare has its place, limited but the alternative?


The alternative, as has been spoken to by numerous members in this thread, is private unregulated charity. You claim to be a part of this vaunted 1% that bleeep fears so much, and you come in and now post this to underscore the point I have made about this so called "1%", that "they" want this welfare state, that "they" want to diminish private unregulated charity in every way. I don't know if you really are a part of this "they" but if you are, thank you for making the point I have been trying to make.

If you are truly a part of "they", your post makes clear that you have no regard for individual freedom, even if you claim you've lost blood in the name of it, and you clearly endorse a nanny state.

I think the member you scold can make an informed decision on what freedom is without needing any scolding from a nanny.





J.H.Christ, no regard for individual freedom? I am a passionate advocate for just that, like keeping the government out of peoples lives, as a guy personally violated by having two computers including web cams hijacked and the computers ruined, you bet your sweet ass I am the ultimate believer in government AND private entity's staying the hell out of our lives. I know because what happened to that poor guy who had his web cam accessed and killed himself happened to me. (The corp./contractor sob's only got very good shots of my cat.) to prove their "power", I saw the videos, then I proved mine. I scared them to hell. Score one for us.

First, do not claim to speak for me and I will extend the same courtesy to you. Just how does the 1% club "claim" to encourage welfare? You state "many" on this site believe unregulated private charity will solve all our problems. Among the things "unregulated", translation unaccountable so-called "charities" are rip off artists who spend almost NO money on those areas they claim to support. There is clear evidence many so-called "charities" spend money to do anything but funnel it to the people who really need it.(one area I like Bill O'Reilly has come down hard on, and damn good for him)

God, I hate those who take money given in good faith and buy a 2nd home or Audi. I have seen evidence of that, if you don't believe that, ok, please show me the proof. I find it infuriating when people are so uninformed, however well meaning they may be, think "good hearted people" will deal with the issue of the very poor. Why haven't they? History has proven quite the opposite. As for people who need food, no way would I ever cut that off, ever. For those on welfare for any greater amount of time, I would limit "freebies" to one year, excluding food which I would never cut off. I would not cut off free birth control access to anyone, since making babies can become an olympic sport for so many.

Its a well known statistic that men are never held to account when they make joy-joy. I don't know why but maybe because its cheaper then a trip to Disneyland, and its the lady who is degraded because "they" don't exercise sell control. I have dealt with abuse against women, often they submit or get hammered. I have funded several clinics that cater largely to women but never turned anyone away for health care, and my clinics are all free,just not to me.

That includes sex-education and free birth control, men and women, check up's, mammograms referral to specialists when needed, (and specialists the best MD's and I pay that bill as well. This is under my non-profit umbrella, going through non-company expenditures that relate to what I do for profit, profit to me is not a dirty word. In 2011 I have paid out $207,000 and change to the people who walk into my clinics need to be seen, and the MD's, NP's, PA's on staff can't deal with certain issues. Then it costs me, major. But medical device development, sales, bring in enough to do this, usually. When not it comes out of any profits made through the other profit making firms I have (3 actually) These clinics cover any medical issue's all of them, free.

After one year mandatory job training skills are critical and if needed I offer it from day one. Have a branch of one firm that is dedicated to various training, as my own people must be constantly up to date, so its not hard. Nice shop&other facilities I'm told. These are jobs for which is an immediate need at good, or very good pay. I've trained 7 plumber's, many more in other skills. All now ALL have good jobs. Nice.

If I reinforced your points thats great, thank you. But don't call me a nanny. I'm not comfortable around kids and I'm gay but no ones "nanny, boy, or bitch" that term has ugly implications. I apologize if your comment was not an insult.
edit on 27/5/12 by arbiture because: Never mind...



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Beanskinner
 





So you would like to cut the Military budget? Lets cut it 75% - surely cutting out nearly half a Trillion in spending a year would a good thing, no?


No that is not a good thing for the simple fact that put's people out of work and guess what?

They still end up on the government payroll(welfare) and that also puts millions of civilians out of work another also well known fact is the rest of the world is modernizing and increasing their militaries respectfully.

Now instead of having bases across half the world pumping money in to their local economies they should be returned home to their rightful place much like how it use to be.

When those bases were here they pumped money back in to our local economies and created jobs thus creating wealth that in turned generated tax revenue to fund those social programs people love so much but where less people are using them a double win.

Cutting defense is cutting our own throats in more ways than one.
edit on 27-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 


No matter how rich you are, you cannot eat your cake and have it too. You cannot passionately advocate wealth redistribution through the force of government and passionately advocate individual freedom too and expect people to buy your equivocations.

Unregulated does not "translate" to "unaccountable", and regulation certainly doesn't translate into accountable. This is why, in spite of the anti-trust laws that have been in place for over a century, recently we've had government "explain" to us why they had to extend welfare to big business, and that explanation was that the failing big businesses were "too big to fail", never mind that the very same people making this "explanation" were the ones tasked with keeping these companies from becoming too big to fail to begin with, no one is accountable for this, and that is just the way it is with regulation.

Only a moron would buy into your nonsense that unregulated markets translate into unaccountable, and of course, morons do. It just goes to show, you don't have to be very bright at all to be a part of the "1%"...who knows, maybe you've inherited this wealth you claim to have.

Earlier on this page in a separate post you very loudly claimed you "quietly" give to charity, now - without the decency of offering up one single verifiable source - you seek to paint a broad picture where "unregulated" charities are ripping people off. You've entered into a thread where the O.P. made diligent efforts to offer up many links to follow, some of them addressing the nature of charities (unregulated) before the rise of the welfare state, but now you waltz in and announce your "filthy rich" and apparently believe that everyone should just take that "credential" as you being an expert on anything that comes out of your head. Sources? You don't need no stinking sources. Your filthy rich!

Then you descend into an infantile little rant on men and sex. "Joy-joy"? Did your mommy teach you how to wash your "po-po"? It is a well known statistic, is it? So well known that all you have to do is make vague reference to this "well known statistic" and everyone will read this and nod their heads vigorously exclaiming; "sure, sure, I know that statistic! It's the 86.32% statistic isn't it?" Maybe it is true that 72.5% of statistics are made up on the spot 68.7% of the time. Of course, you make this "joy-joy" claim to justify big government welfare, claiming that individual freedom results in a need for massive taxation of income in order to pay for all this individual freedom. Charity will not work because only "filthy rich" people like you know how to find the regulated charities that you can loudly brag that you "quietly" give to, and the rest of us poor saps are hopelessly giving money to "unregulated" charities who use that money to buy "Audi's" and "Second homes".

Jesus H. Christ, indeed.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join