Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

reply to post by Bleeeeep


That empathy is writing checks this country nor its people can cash

Second.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


And they don't even mention the fact that picture (typical appeal to emotion) which they post alot of by the way, was taken in a thirdworld dictatorship of the worst kind...how can you compare that to America? That is the kind of country with a ruler that takes all the money and food or themselves and lets the people starve...funny how they use that to prove a point that we should centralize more power to our government for the good of the poor people? Is that the definition of ironic or is it another word I am looking for?

God bless that poor child and god forgive the ignorant people that use his picture for their own sick uses.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

And they don't even mention the fact that picture (typical appeal to emotion) which they post alot of by the way, was taken in a thirdworld dictatorship of the worst kind...how can you compare that to America? That is the kind of country with a ruler that takes all the money and food or themselves and lets the people starve...funny how they use that to prove a point that we should centralize more power to our government for the good of the poor people? Is that the definition of ironic or is it another word I am looking for?

God bless that poor child and god forgive the ignorant people that use his picture for their own sick uses.

Being in America does not mean that cannot happen here... I think that

Is foolish to think there is some unforeseen force in America that prevents

Poverty. There are plenty of towns in Latin America that are impoverished

Do to corporations seizing and centralizing resources. The world needs to

Remember that child, not pretend he does not exist .

Originally posted by Beanskinner
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

There is a well known Chinese proverb oft' quoted on the internet: Give a man a fish you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Your focus is too narrow, just as modern welfare programs are. You cannot just throw money at poverty and expect it to go away. It is most imprudent to trust government to teach people how to fish, they will invariably teach that person how to first get accredited as a fisherman so they can get a license to fish and then know all the various regulations that go along with fishing. Suddenly that accredited and licensed fisherman is facing poverty, because of some stupid regulation and the enormous fine government imposes on that fisherman.

I am speaking hyperbolically hypothetically, although government does regulate the fishing industry. My point is much of that regulation is just a bogus excuse to aggregate power. There are limited compelling reasons for government to license and regulate certain industries, but fishing isn't one of them. In the O.P. and I believe one other post I linked this article:

Apart from informal giving by neighbors and friends, and assistance provided through church congregations, the major sources of reciprocal relief were fraternal societies such as the Knights of Pythias, Sons of Italy, Polish National Alliance, and Independent Order of Odd Fellows. The activities of these societies dwarfed those of organized charity and governmental poor-relief bureaucracies. In 1920, for example, there were over 10,000 fraternal orders in the United States with roughly 100,000 separate lodges. That year, about 18 million Americans (most of them wage earners) were members—roughly 30 per cent of all adults over age twenry. By way of contrast, about 10 per cent of workers at the time belonged to labor unions.

While fraternal societies differed widely in their methods and goals, in general they featured a decentralized lodge system, some type of ritual, and the payment of benefits in times of sickness and death. Essentially, fraternal orders can be defined as mutual insurance agencies for the provision of social welfare to members and their families.

By1910, they increasingly included treatment by a doctor in their menu of services. The favored method was for a lodge to contract with a general practitioner to treat members on a per-person flat-charge basis. Two of the most prominent organizations to rely on this system, known at the time as "lodge practice," were the Foresters and the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The cost of this service was very low. The Foresters charged two dollars a year for a doctor’s care; the Eagles charged one dollar. In the case of the Eagles, coverage extended to the immediate family of the member and included home visits.

These fraternal orders were charities, but much more than this they were, quite literally, brotherhood's where members came together to make sure they could take care of each other. I would ask you to dig deeper into the matter and watch your honesty allow you to see a bigger picture.

The Constitution for the United States of America is not a government praising government, it is a profound indictment on government. Take heed to that indictment and understand that people are quite capable of helping each other without the nanny state hovering over our shoulders.

reply to post by Beanskinner


My point went over your head entirely.....

and since when is Latin America in the US?

reply to post by neo96


What do you expect in such a failed system?

Everything from the lack of jobs caused by the 1%ers owning everything and not providing jobs to bad money management.

The average person cannot thrive in a system ran by the greedy, selfish, and immoral unless they do things that are immoral, greedy, and selfish. Some people aren't like that man. Some people have ethics.

Charity is an evil tool of capitalism. Under socialism we will not need it. I have a thread on why charity and unions are no friend of the true socialist.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Charity is a tool of capitalism.

reply to post by Beanskinner


I don't think charity would work without having the ability to plan and lay ground work first. They can't just drop the ball on us as it seems they're trying to do. I think they are trying to push the nwo agenda by causing a problem and then stepping in with a world wide plan. Create problem, fix problem, no one will be the wiser.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


More people have ethics than you are giving credit for. On a very simplified level, ethics can be seen as the Greater Good, and remaining simple we can define the Greater Good as the Greatest Good to the Greatest Amount. The problem is less a matter of ethics than it is perception. Depending upon how we see the world defines how we define that Greater Good and the Greatest Good to the Greatest Amount.

There are actually some people who believe reducing the worlds population down to 500,000,000 people is ethical, and they honestly believe that this is the Greatest Good to the Greatest Amount. Mathematically that doesn't really bear out as 6.5 billion people somehow get lost in this version of the Greatest Good to the Greatest Amount, but this doesn't stop those people from seeing themselves as ethical.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Blaming the rich ?

Please social engineering is the cause of lack of jobs bloated government is the cause of lack of jobs regulation is the cause of lack of jobs poor money management by those people and the government themselves.

You would be surprised what the average person is capable when government is taken off their backs and business.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Beanskinner

 

My point went over your head entirely.....

and since when is Latin America in the US?

And being hungry is different because of a border politicians created?

It works the same way regardless of where you are

Originally posted by Germanicus
Charity is an evil tool of capitalism. Under socialism we will not need it. I have a thread on why charity and unions are no friend of the true socialist.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Charity is a tool of capitalism.

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

Charity is a product of humanity and a good attribute of humanity.

Originally posted by Germanicus
Charity is an evil tool of capitalism. Under socialism we will not need it. I have a thread on why charity and unions are no friend of the true socialist.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Charity is a tool of capitalism.

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

Etymologically speaking you are way off base. The etymology of charity:

mid-12c., "benevolence for the poor," from O.Fr. charité (O.N.Fr. carité), from L. caritatem (nom. caritas) "costliness, esteem, affection" (in Vulgate often used as translation of Gk. agape "love" -- especially Christian love of fellow man -- perhaps to avoid the sexual suggestion of L. amor), from carus "dear, valued," from PIE *karo-, from root *ka- "to like, desire" (see whore). Vulgate also sometimes translated agape by L. dilectio, noun of action from diligere "to esteem highly, to love" (see diligence).

The etymology of capitalism:

1854, "condition of having capital;" from capital + -ism. Meaning "political/economic system which encourages capitalists" is recorded by 1877.

Don't let your karma run over your dogma, man.

reply to post by Germanicus


Yes Yes "charity is an evil tool of capitalism" oh but wait charity is an act of free will unlike like the socialist model of goverment cohersion that steals from others to give to the "less fortunate" that eventually runs out of other peoples money.

However in the capitalistic model that model that has lifted billions out of poverty and created those people who will never exist in that socialist model those evil evil millionaires and billionaires you know those who become their own masters instead of becoming a never ending slave.

No other model works they have tried and failed the only problem with what people call "capitalism" today is that is not capitalism people either succeed or they fail whereas socialism props up failures- rewards failures.

reply to post by neo96


Abject poverty exists in many countries without a

Strong government. You are creating a false correlation

reply to post by Beanskinner


I got a news flash abject poverty exists in this country right now even with all that so called help that keeps the people right where they are no tomorrow better than any other their yesterdays..

Pure evil.

Originally posted by Beanskinner
reply to post by neo96

 

Abject poverty exists in many countries without a

Strong government. You are creating a false correlation

The poor you have with ye always. Abject poverty, on the other hand, is caused by strong governments. Consider this:

Few events in U.S. history can rival the Great Depression for its impact. The period from 1929 to 1941 saw fundamental changes in the landscape of American politics and economics, including such monumental events as America ‘s going off the gold standard and the founding of Social Security. It was a watershed for the growth of the federal government.

The Great Depression created a widespread misconception that market economies are inherently unstable and must be managed by the government to avoid large macreconomic fluctuations, that is, business cycles. This view persists to this day despite the more than 40 years since Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz showed convincingly that the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies were largely to blame for the severity of the Great Depression. In 2002 Ben Bernanke (then a Federal Reserve governor, today the chairman of the Board of Governors) made this startling admission in a speech given in honor of Friedman’s 90th birthday: “I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression, you’re right. We did it. We’re very sorry.”

Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke At the Conference to Honor Milton Friedman, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois November 8, 2002

Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.

Yeah right...we will see.

I'll comment here even though I have no right to do so as someone who grew up on welfare. Now before I get started allow me to make it clear that I do fully understand that many Americans no less lazy than the majority of welfare lifers seem to believe that I am somehow lesser than themselves simply because I had poor parents.

Most of you don't know jack about the welfare system and only go by what you see on the news or internet, that is a fact. People on the internet like to act as if they know everything about everything but in reality many of us know very little about much at all.

As someone who grew up on the governments dime, I can tell you without a shadow of doubt that it ain't as easy as many of you seem to believe. Lets pretend that we are all educated adults for a moment, I know, it's hard but you can do it, I believe in you. Poverty tends to lead in the direction of crime. I know that many will say that they need to just not commit the crimes, simple as that. Well it really isn't so simple. Growing up in poverty truly does have a negative psychological effect on most children, many will see life in a certain way and will never be able to escape poverty. Often times a child will find their way into trouble because they either want to posses the things other children have or they want to fit in with other children and those who aren't poor will usually not accept them into their group so they do whatever it takes to fit in with the other poor kids - usually requiring a criminal lifestyle. You try telling a kid that they don't deserve to have anything because they were born into a poor family, children will not be capable of understanding why they are less deserving than others simply because they had the misfortune of being born poor. The desire to be accepted is human nature, most of us do not want to be a loner. It is because of these facts that most of us feel it fair to claim that over 60% of people on welfare are "worthless." They are made to be worthless by the world around them. You would have to be insane to say that the children had a choice.

Most of us think that when the poor kids grow up they should come to an understanding that they need to earn their own living but the problem with that is that many of you humans are pretty darn stupid. You see, just like any other social class in this world, the poor will come to understand life in the way that they were taught. More often than not in my opinion they were not taught very well because their poor parents were probably "bad" apples as well, so as do many people from all social classes in this world, the poor sometimes follow in their parents footsteps, its a fact.

Now I'm going to make a statement that many of you will despise and completely disagree with and I will follow with another that some will be able to sort of agree with. The bottom line is that America does not need to eliminate welfare assistance to the poor. I know, this is killing you, right? America does need to change the way they handle the assistance given, people need to be taught how to go out and earn a living for themselves, which they currently are not.

Why throw money at a problem with no solution? Would it not be wiser to put that money toward a solution to the problem rather than simply throwing money at it? Just like most people, our government is lazy, they do not want to do something that will be hard. I guess they think it would be harder to train and educate people than it is to just give them food, shelter, and a little bit of money. However, in the long term, a real solution to the problem would most likely cost a lot less than none at all. Oh and I have the perfect solution, you aren't going to like it because it means the government will be giving money to something other than big business.

So for my idea.

How about we create some jobs. That's right, lets create some jobs because we all know how needed that is right now. The government needs to setup some kind of program that's intent would be to educate and provide training for anyone who would like it, in every city in America. Not only that but every poor person who does not have a legitimate reason for why they cannot do so should be required to use this program if they are to receive any welfare assistance. We shouldn't just give money to people who aren't making any effort to succeed. So we either force them to make such an effort or they receive no assistance. This program would also find someone a job if they cannot on their own after completing the training but part of the training should be how to find a job on your own because it is a well known fact that most people do not know how to do this when entering the workforce.

End of page one, please try not to comment until I have finished.

Yeah well i am commenting since someone gets welfare they should pay that back so someone else can "get the same benefits " as they did.

What?

Have a problem with that?

Most likely.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


sorry, my vocab isn't that great, I had to look up words to figure out how to say what I was thinking...

I think that the vernacular difference in moral, ethic, conscience, and goodwill are shades of darkness to these people. I would argue that their actions are, in large part, a conscious choice to ignore goodwill to all, before I would say it's their actual ethical code.

So basically, I think you are misjudging the amount of people who really believe that killing is ethical(as one would describe theirs by goodwill towards all).