American Way of Welfare: The Way It Was

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Welfare" is defined as a government program for poor or unemployed people that helps pay for their food, housing, medical costs, etc. The folks for whom said programs are created, known as the "underclass," are described in writings that go back to the earliest days of colonial America. But, at those times, it applied to only a tiny portion of poor people.

2. Even though the term 'poverty' had real meaning during those times, unlike today, those who were truly destitute was a far, far smaller proportion than the group we so identify today.

Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that human needs were taken care of by other human beings- not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.
Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..





3. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were given a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for.

Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

a. Further results: dissolution of families:
“This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments. Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

The Liberal solution....encouraging worse problems than they sought to solve.





4. Now compare the above, the result of the efforts of the welfare state, to the achievements of earlier ages, specifically colonial times. It was bonds and affiliations that resulted in both financial and moral uplift.
Today, efforts are based on materialism, and materialism alone is hardly a basis for a satisfying and fulfilling life.

a. "The problems of America's social policies are not defined by economics or inequality, but by the needs of the human spirit."
Charles Murray.






5. Well, how was "welfare" formerly handled? Noted in the minutes of the Fairfield, Connecticut town council meeting: "April 16, 1673, Seriant Squire and Sam moorhouse [agreed] to Take care of Roger knaps family in this time of their great weaknes...." "Heritage of American Social Work: Readings in Its Philosophical and Institutional Development," by Ralph Pumphrey and W. Muriel Pumphrey, p.22.

6. November, 1753, from the Chelmsford, Massachusetts town meeting: "payment to Mr. W. Parker for takng one Joanna Cory, a poor child of John Cory, deceased, and to take caree of her while [until] 18 years old."
See The Social Service Review XI (September 1937), p. 452.

7. The Scots' Charitable Society, organized in 1684, "open[ed] the bowells of our compassion" to widows like Mrs. Stewart, who had "lost the use of her left arm" and whose husband was "Wash'd Overboard in a Storm."
Pumphrey, Op.Cit., p. 29.

8. And here is the major difference between current efforts and the earlier: charity was not handed out indiscriminately- "no prophane or diselut person, or openly scandelous shall have any pairt or portione herein."

The able-bodied were expected to find work, and if they chose not to, well....it was considered perfectly appropriate to press them to change their mind.
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion," chapter one.






A cornerstone of the Liberal philosophy is that one never make judgments about the behavior of other. Notice how that view eliminates the compassion and charity prevalent in an earlier America, one in which 'need' was the driver, not 'want.'

" One change in societal attitude has been the “ecumenical niceness”…don’t fight, share toys, take turns….and never, ever be judgmental. As a result, the upper cultural class, which has stabilized by returning to more traditional ways, survives, yet these individuals will not criticize the behaviors which are destroying the lower cultural class."
"Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010" by Charles Murray

 

[RKMBrown]

All true...

So does that mean the Democrats are A) evil, B) mentally handicapped, C) lazy good for nothings, D) ignorant, or E) all of the above?

 

[PoliticalChic]

All true...

So does that mean the Democrats are A) evil, B) mentally handicapped, C) lazy good for nothings, D) ignorant, or E) all of the above?

I'd rather ask you the question.

Surely, you and I aren't the only ones who realize that the OP is "All true...."


How do you explain the Liberal/Progressive/DeathPanelDemocrats continuing failed policies?

Are they A) evil, B) mentally handicapped, C) lazy good for nothings, D) ignorant, or E) all of the above.....

....or is there some plan behind same?

 

[RKMBrown]

All true...

So does that mean the Democrats are A) evil, B) mentally handicapped, C) lazy good for nothings, D) ignorant, or E) all of the above?

I'd rather ask you the question.

Surely, you and I aren't the only ones who realize that the OP is "All true...."


How do you explain the Liberal/Progressive/DeathPanelDemocrats continuing failed policies?

Are they A) evil, B) mentally handicapped, C) lazy good for nothings, D) ignorant, or E) all of the above.....

....or is there some plan behind same?

E is the Correct answer. The best laid plans of mice and men...

Who benefits most from failed government policies? The worse off the democrats can make Americans the more people line up to be a member of their beggar society. It's a win win for them. Only through the morass of endless wars and economic misery can the democrats have a chance of holding onto the majority.

 

[Spoonman]

remember when people built roads, bridges, damns and did community service for their entitlements?

 

[RKMBrown]

remember when people built roads, bridges, damns and did community service for their entitlements?

No.

 

[regent]

In the colonial days of our republic most people were farmers. Land was cheap, almost free, and and it was almost difficult to go hungry unless old or disabled. Welfare for those unable to farm or work was the responsiblity of state and county governments. There is a list of abuses by some of those county poor-houses.
As manufacturing replaced farming town-jobs became the norm, but it brought new problems, people depended on a manufacturing job not their farm for their livlihood and with the business-cycles of manufacturing America began to have recession/depressions and unemployed.
In the Great Depression the problem of the unemployed overwhelmed the counties and states and the federal government took on the job of welfare for both businesses and the poor.
A new status emerged in America, the employed and the unemployed. Those with a job felt superior to those without, and the superor person was not a noble or of royalty but one with a job. The usual superior/inferior litany now prevailed, lazy, won't work, live off the dole, etc. One of the great differences with welfare during the Great Depression was the poor had to work for their dole; roads, dams, the land, rural electification and projects improving our intrastructure were built.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. In earlier times, before materialism and secularism took their toll, social communication proceeded, largely, from church sermons. And sermons, frequently propounding the need for personal help and hospitality, were "powerful in shaping cultural values, meanings, and a sense of corporate purpose." "The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England," p. 3, by Harry S. Stout


a. "...compassion and Mercy to the poor is Conformity to God."
Benjamin Colman, " The merchandise of a people holiness to the Lord : A sermon preached in part at the publick lecture in Boston, July 1. 1725"


b. So, in times where God was considered a personal intervenor ( e.g., "God's Providence"), the premise was that charity should not be limited to the clockwork view that it was simply money to be handed over...."God values our hearts and spirits above all our silver and gold....If a man gives all the substance of his house instead of love, ....it would be condemned."
Benjamin Colman, Op. Cit.




10. Cultures build systems of charity based on the god they worship, whether distant deists, or a personal theistic God of justice and mercy. The 'justice' part produced an understanding of compassion that was hard-headed and, at the same time, warm-hearted. As 'justice' meant punishment for wrong-doing, it was perfectly correct for the slothful to suffer.
Olasky, Op. Cit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In the colonial days of our republic most people were farmers. Land was cheap, almost free, and and it was almost difficult to go hungry unless old or disabled. Welfare for those unable to farm or work was the responsiblity of state and county governments. There is a list of abuses by some of those county poor-houses.
As manufacturing replaced farming town-jobs became the norm, but it brought new problems, people depended on a manufacturing job not their farm for their livlihood and with the business-cycles of manufacturing America began to have recession/depressions and unemployed.
In the Great Depression the problem of the unemployed overwhelmed the counties and states and the federal government took on the job of welfare for both businesses and the poor.
A new status emerged in America, the employed and the unemployed. Those with a job felt superior to those without, and the superor person was not a noble or of royalty but one with a job. The usual superior/inferior litany now prevailed, lazy, won't work, live off the dole, etc. One of the great differences with welfare during the Great Depression was the poor had to work for their dole; roads, dams, the land, rural electification and projects improving our intrastructure were built.

Well, reggie.....I'll deal with specifics in your post a bit later....but wonder if you are trying to cloud the issue?


Which worked better at actually reducing poverty and encouraging the personal efforts in that direction, the colonial policies, or the modern Liberal policies?


Careful, reggie.

 

[regent]

In the colonial days of our republic most people were farmers. Land was cheap, almost free, and and it was almost difficult to go hungry unless old or disabled. Welfare for those unable to farm or work was the responsiblity of state and county governments. There is a list of abuses by some of those county poor-houses.
As manufacturing replaced farming town-jobs became the norm, but it brought new problems, people depended on a manufacturing job not their farm for their livlihood and with the business-cycles of manufacturing America began to have recession/depressions and unemployed.
In the Great Depression the problem of the unemployed overwhelmed the counties and states and the federal government took on the job of welfare for both businesses and the poor.
A new status emerged in America, the employed and the unemployed. Those with a job felt superior to those without, and the superor person was not a noble or of royalty but one with a job. The usual superior/inferior litany now prevailed, lazy, won't work, live off the dole, etc. One of the great differences with welfare during the Great Depression was the poor had to work for their dole; roads, dams, the land, rural electification and projects improving our intrastructure were built.

Well, reggie.....I'll deal with specifics in your post a bit later....but wonder if you are trying to cloud the issue?


Which worked better at actually reducing poverty and encouraging the personal efforts in that direction, the colonial policies, or the modern Liberal policies?


Careful, reggie.

Perhaps the secret to welfare is to devise an economy in which the able-bodied can work and receive a living wage for their efforts? We are still in the midst of learning how to create an economy that can control the business cycles and after that maybe an economy that requires no welfare but to the old and disabled. Of course in a democracy that will take scads of time and we have to go through the poliitical battles but maybe in two or three hundred years? By that time we might even have solved the war thing, after all we did give women the right to vote, and we did create Social Security.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In the colonial days of our republic most people were farmers. Land was cheap, almost free, and and it was almost difficult to go hungry unless old or disabled. Welfare for those unable to farm or work was the responsiblity of state and county governments. There is a list of abuses by some of those county poor-houses.
As manufacturing replaced farming town-jobs became the norm, but it brought new problems, people depended on a manufacturing job not their farm for their livlihood and with the business-cycles of manufacturing America began to have recession/depressions and unemployed.
In the Great Depression the problem of the unemployed overwhelmed the counties and states and the federal government took on the job of welfare for both businesses and the poor.
A new status emerged in America, the employed and the unemployed. Those with a job felt superior to those without, and the superor person was not a noble or of royalty but one with a job. The usual superior/inferior litany now prevailed, lazy, won't work, live off the dole, etc. One of the great differences with welfare during the Great Depression was the poor had to work for their dole; roads, dams, the land, rural electification and projects improving our intrastructure were built.

Well, reggie.....I'll deal with specifics in your post a bit later....but wonder if you are trying to cloud the issue?


Which worked better at actually reducing poverty and encouraging the personal efforts in that direction, the colonial policies, or the modern Liberal policies?


Careful, reggie.

Perhaps the secret to welfare is to devise an economy in which the able-bodied can work and receive a living wage for their efforts? We are still in the midst of learning how to create an economy that can control the business cycles and after that maybe an economy that requires no welfare but to the old and disabled. Of course in a democracy that will take scads of time and we have to go through the poliitical battles but maybe in two or three hundred years? By that time we might even have solved the war thing, after all we did give women the right to vote, and we did create Social Security.

Perhaps either you missed this....or you know that the answer sinks your perspective, but let me try again:


Which worked better at actually reducing poverty and encouraging the personal efforts in that direction, the colonial policies, or the modern Liberal policies?

 

[RKMBrown]

In the colonial days of our republic most people were farmers. Land was cheap, almost free, and and it was almost difficult to go hungry unless old or disabled. Welfare for those unable to farm or work was the responsiblity of state and county governments. There is a list of abuses by some of those county poor-houses.
As manufacturing replaced farming town-jobs became the norm, but it brought new problems, people depended on a manufacturing job not their farm for their livlihood and with the business-cycles of manufacturing America began to have recession/depressions and unemployed.
In the Great Depression the problem of the unemployed overwhelmed the counties and states and the federal government took on the job of welfare for both businesses and the poor.
A new status emerged in America, the employed and the unemployed. Those with a job felt superior to those without, and the superor person was not a noble or of royalty but one with a job. The usual superior/inferior litany now prevailed, lazy, won't work, live off the dole, etc. One of the great differences with welfare during the Great Depression was the poor had to work for their dole; roads, dams, the land, rural electification and projects improving our intrastructure were built.

Well, reggie.....I'll deal with specifics in your post a bit later....but wonder if you are trying to cloud the issue?


Which worked better at actually reducing poverty and encouraging the personal efforts in that direction, the colonial policies, or the modern Liberal policies?


Careful, reggie.

Perhaps the secret to welfare is to devise an economy in which the able-bodied can work and receive a living wage for their efforts? We are still in the midst of learning how to create an economy that can control the business cycles and after that maybe an economy that requires no welfare but to the old and disabled. Of course in a democracy that will take scads of time and we have to go through the poliitical battles but maybe in two or three hundred years? By that time we might even have solved the war thing, after all we did give women the right to vote, and we did create Social Security.

lol living wage

What part of getting up off your fat lazy ass is so confusing to democrats?

 

[bedowin62]

it is the Left that opposes work requirements. yes the left says republican states asked for the loosening of the work requirement; but they had to deal with the expansion of welfare under obama; and it whole thing wasnt workable. we have RECORD numbers on assistence in obama's 6th year

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

9. In earlier times, before materialism and secularism took their toll, social communication proceeded, largely, from church sermons. And sermons, frequently propounding the need for personal help and hospitality, were "powerful in shaping cultural values, meanings, and a sense of corporate purpose." "The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England," p. 3, by Harry S. Stout


a. "...compassion and Mercy to the poor is Conformity to God."
Benjamin Colman, " The merchandise of a people holiness to the Lord : A sermon preached in part at the publick lecture in Boston, July 1. 1725"


b. So, in times where God was considered a personal intervenor ( e.g., "God's Providence"), the premise was that charity should not be limited to the clockwork view that it was simply money to be handed over...."God values our hearts and spirits above all our silver and gold....If a man gives all the substance of his house instead of love, ....it would be condemned."
Benjamin Colman, Op. Cit.




10. Cultures build systems of charity based on the god they worship, whether distant deists, or a personal theistic God of justice and mercy. The 'justice' part produced an understanding of compassion that was hard-headed and, at the same time, warm-hearted. As 'justice' meant punishment for wrong-doing, it was perfectly correct for the slothful to suffer.
Olasky, Op. Cit.

That was the original plan. The church was feeding, clothing, assisting the poor. Now many of the churches require those they assist in their cogregations to prove they are up to date tithing members. If you are not a member there isn't any financial aid. The benevolence fund is limited in most cases to a canned food donation drive but it is never enough. Where is the money going? Huge salaries and building funds take up a good portion of it. The govt has replaced the role of the church in this regard. imo.

The requirements of the church for assistance were based on the bible. Distributing money was meant to go to the widow, the elderly and the orphan. Able bodied people were expected to work.

 

[PoliticalChic]

it is the Left that opposes work requirements. yes the left says republican states asked for the loosening of the work requirement; but they had to deal with the expansion of welfare under obama; and it whole thing wasnt workable. we have RECORD numbers on assistence in obama's 6th year

Absolutely!


"Obama kills welfare reform...Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)."
Obama kills welfare reform | TheHill




So....what do you think their real intention is?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Decades ago the govt had started programs to pay the farmers not to grow. Cotton farmers in Mississippi were paid not to grow cotton. It was happening on all fronts and I remember people wondering why would the govt impliment such a program? Today it makes sense. When you control all the food, etc. you control the people. When the govt makes more and more people dependent through such programs such as a welfare system that doesn't work we are only compounding the problem.

There is no question that the US Govt has been trending towards making the american people dependent upon it for some time. Their goal is bigger govt. This must be reversed.

 

[Moonglow]

My forefathers got 140 acres for free from the govt. I'd like some of that early American welfare....I had to pay for mine..

 

[Moonglow]

Decades ago the govt had started programs to pay the farmers not to grow. Cotton farmers in Mississippi were paid not to grow cotton. It was happening on all fronts and I remember people wondering why would the govt impliment such a program? Today it makes sense. When you control all the food, etc. you control the people. When the govt makes more and more people dependent through such programs such as a welfare system that doesn't work we are only compounding the problem.

There is no question that the US Govt has been trending towards making the american people dependent upon it for some time. Their goal is bigger govt. This must be reversed.

Boy did you miss the point of the reasoning behind supply, demand and the farmer...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Decades ago the govt had started programs to pay the farmers not to grow. Cotton farmers in Mississippi were paid not to grow cotton. It was happening on all fronts and I remember people wondering why would the govt impliment such a program? Today it makes sense. When you control all the food, etc. you control the people. When the govt makes more and more people dependent through such programs such as a welfare system that doesn't work we are only compounding the problem.

There is no question that the US Govt has been trending towards making the american people dependent upon it for some time. Their goal is bigger govt. This must be reversed.

Boy did you miss the point of the reasoning behind supply, demand and the farmer...

It was crop rotation, not supply and demand.

 

[Moonglow]

Decades ago the govt had started programs to pay the farmers not to grow. Cotton farmers in Mississippi were paid not to grow cotton. It was happening on all fronts and I remember people wondering why would the govt impliment such a program? Today it makes sense. When you control all the food, etc. you control the people. When the govt makes more and more people dependent through such programs such as a welfare system that doesn't work we are only compounding the problem.

There is no question that the US Govt has been trending towards making the american people dependent upon it for some time. Their goal is bigger govt. This must be reversed.

Boy did you miss the point of the reasoning behind supply, demand and the farmer...

It was crop rotation, not supply and demand.

and poor farming methods, not to mention tilling ground that was once a prairie and having a drought, thus losing topsoil and having dust storms....of which still occurred on a regular basis until I was a teen living in the greater OKC area.