Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

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.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Lets give a full picture of your random wiki snippet of the day

First of all it wasn't, as you suggest, a random wiki snippet. It was an external text I found that fairly represented both the prosperity and the suffering of that age.

Yes, it was a great time of massive boom and wholesale slaughter of indiginous people for their lands and resources and environmental catastrophys and a hardened subjugation of the newly freed black people

Uh-huh. Gee, it sounds much like this age, no? Well, except for the massive boom part, but the wholesale slaughter of indigenous people is evidenced by both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and let's not pretend it wasn't for their lands and resources. Plenty of environmental catastrophes today, no? And hardened subjugation of freed black people? Have you any idea who populates American prisons?

Do you honestly think it will be hard for me to find a photo of former slaves living in squalor and ignored?

I honestly believe that it will be hard for you to find a photo coming anywhere near the devastation of the photo you did post, and indeed, if it were easy you would have posted one now, no?

Do you honestly think that the actual poor were having fantastic times

While you argue this strawman, you do it without a hint of irony as you use speak of honesty.

Your good old days were only good to white males of influence.

Sure, let's pretend that Norbert Rillieux, Martin Delany, Harriet Tubman, Harriet E. Wilson, Elijah McCoy, Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, Madam C.J. Walker, and the great Frederick Douglass, to name just a few, were really only "white males of influence". Let's not give them any credit at all for their prosperity and their good works, and let's not acknowledge that they were all black, some of them women, because otherwise how else could you sell your socialist hell?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Maybe charity wasn't enough...it wasn't cutting it. You think there just doing it to rob people? Please get real man there just trying to help people out and make their country stronger. Are you seriously complaining about welfare or are you just trying to bring facts to our attention?

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Maybe charity wasn't enough...it wasn't cutting it. You think there just doing it to rob people? Please get real man there just trying to help people out and make their country stronger. Are you seriously complaining about welfare or are you just trying to bring facts to our attention?

Yes, I think you are doing it just to rob people, and you have fairly admitted it with this post. You justify it by claiming Robin Hood status. I am trying to bring facts to your attention. Are you suggesting when I do this my opinions are not allowed, only yours and everyone else?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Never said you couldn't have an opinion. You can do whatever you want. So you suggest we stop funding social services (welfare) and use the money on something else or lower taxes? Obviously the money comes from taxes, how do you think we fund this country? Besides trading and production surpluses. There is no other way so you suggest we lower taxes exit out social services correct?

By the way I don't think any politician would have the balls to do something so drastic like that they would be impeached and never to rise again.

reply to post by neo96


Very well put, Neo, as always....it all started in the early 1900's with the emergence of the great progressive movement...come to save the world and enslave it. Welfare is their control mechanism.

I suggest cutting welfare because i am sick and tired of political ideology trying to change the environment to suit the individual instead of them adapting to it there is only but one outcome.

Bankruptcy because that two letter word is never said and then who is going to pay all their bills?

Aint going to be Government.

Just say NO.

reply to post by Evanzsayz


Eliminate the income tax. This country was doing fine 100 years ago. Let the market be free. Let charities alone, and let people flourish and prosper.

reply to post by Evanzsayz


Do you believe there is no way to solve the problem?

If you say no, there is a way, then consider that they are the government of a very strong nation and can most certainly find a way if they wanted to because they can use the intelligence of the smartest people of their nation to find a way to solve the problem. The fact that they do not do this should be enough evidence to prove to you that they do not care, and that it is most likely the direct result of their actions/inaction.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Yes, that is what I'm saying. It is already in place. Deal with it. They should of thought about that before they decided to implement it. Now they need to come up with a different way to battle it.

You cant just take it away and not expect people to fight for it.

reply to post by neo96


The way you word your case makes me think that you do not understand that the government is supposed to be working for the people and not the other way around. It is as if you separate the government from its nations so that the government can thrive while its people perish. Are you in favor of a society where there is no laws and everyone just does whatever they want?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Star and a flag for you....it is hard to write of such things here knowing the responses that will come but we must speak out and find ways to take action are we will all suffer.

Income tax is a just a punishment for hard work and taxing a higher percentage those that work harder is insanity.

If people think consumerism and consumption is the root of evil maybe we should try a vat tax, the problem is this government of ours would only try to do both...the insanity always gets worse.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

that the government is supposed to be working for the people and not the other way around

I understand just fine we exist to serve the government and we exist to serve to pay for other peoples existence which is not they way that is suppose to work,.

reply to post by Evanzsayz


The 18th Amendment was in place, then 13 years later repealed. Indeed, Congress has the complete and plenary power to repeal taxes the very same as they have the complete and plenary power to tax. The very first income tax, levied to pay off the debt incurred because of the Civil War was repealed once that debt was paid.

But noooooo! You will not have any of that. You want all those whom you plunder to just deal with it. No other options, just red rage angry mob plunder.

reply to post by neo96


But are you under the premise that we should exist to serve the government? It honestly seems like that's your line of thought. And I wouldn't say we're supposed to support the majority of welfare cases indefinitely, but only until they can support themselves. The problem is, they cannot support them selves well, as the roughly 20% unemployment rates, should show.

Who said it's like cutting of the head to prevent a headache because that was a great sentiment.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


The problem is that they do not work there are more people who need "help" and we are trillions in debt for it and people are ungrateful there is not more being done for them.

Right now in this country there are over 100 million American's who are consuming the wealth of others instead making their own.

Anyone who thinks poverty can be eradicated simply but how ever much money we throw at it is just plain wrong.

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

Welfare is a reward for failure help still exists in the form of charity after all for hundreds of year the church fed and clothed and educated millions that went on to be more successful that the "church of government entitlement".

reply to post by Evanzsayz


Ah okay. I had trouble following your articulation.
It seemed like you may have been saying something else.
Had to ask.

Do you guys who oppose welfare think charity can keep people

Fed, clothed and sheltered? I honestly don't think so, I think the

Problem is too vast. Or is it that you think it is not societies job

To address it? It is hard to tell where the disagreement sits

reply to post by neo96


For you to believe all that, must have a complete inability to empathize. Without any ability to empathize I don't think there is anything I or anyone else can say to change your thought pattern, so I'll have to retire from that line of thought with you.

eta: want to make it clear that I didn't say an inability to empathize in a derogatory manner. You may have the best memory of anyone in the world or something and just lack in one aspect which doesn't make you less of a person by any means.

reply to post by allintoaccount


That's so funny......make the doctors look heartless for not working for free after they spend 10 years or more learning and hundreds of thousands of dollars...why don't you work for free? Because in this world knowledge has value.

The real problem is like said before the limit on the amount of doctors, the outrageous cost of colleges these days (unless you utilize state schools), and insurance companies.

IMO...these are some things that would greatly improve our country....make lobbying illegal, no medical insurance except for catastrophic just like with your house or car (pay for your healthcare before that bigscreen), get rid of income tax, and no bailouts or stimulus. I can't forget the stinking mafia, I mean unions.

The government should not be involved in business or who wins or loses.

If you pay for your medical care directly to your providers with no middlemen the prices will plummet and there will be competition.

The entire entitlement/giveaway program needs to be disbanded and redone into something only for extreme emergencies.