The Government is NOT a Charity

[musicman]

There are a few other things that happen also.

One, NO accountability exists. The people on the govt doll can do whatever they want. In private charities, they usually make certain requirements to be able to receive benefits. Like, go look for a job. Dont use drugs, drink etc. Actually spend the money on food and shelter, not drugs and booze.

Also, when people receive from the govt, they get a sense of entitlement, the Govt is "suppose" to take care of us, hence, no gratitude. Is that what you meant by resentful?

THird, the courts and the ACLU, American civil lying union, get involved, and do not allow any sort of religion to get involved. A lot of private charities encourage church participation by the beneficiaries, and this often leads to wholesale life changes, for the better.

Excellent points, LuvRPgrl! There's an old saying - the origin of which I've never been able to track down - that goes: "Charity without self-determination leaves the recipient contemptuous of the giver". I consider it one of the universal truths of human nature.

When the undeserving have their way made for them, they must - on some level - find justification for this. They can search their souls, and find ways to improve - or they can spew hatred and contempt toward the giver. Not having been forced to take stock of themselves, and how they came to be in needy circumstances to begin with; not being urged in any way to haul themselves up; in short - having been allowed to dodge self-determination in all its possible forms - they invariably take the easy way out: despise the giver.

I've often thought that this is the reason the French hate us so. We went to a vanquished, undeserving nation, and said, "Presto - you're a world power!" I don't think they've ever forgiven us for it.

 

[CSM]

That's true, but probably not in the way you were hoping. In fact, the "general welfare" clause PROHIBITS most of those things.

The clause actually is part of a sentence in the Constitution, which says that the Fed can collect taxes for certain purposes, including paying debts and providing for the Defense and the general welfare of the country. "General Welfare" had a specific meaning when the Constitution was written, and that's the meaning the clause must be granted.

"General Welfare" meant the welfare of the country as a whole - as opposed to the benefit of only part of it, or of special interest groups. In fact, the "welfare clause" is a restriction on the Federal government. It says that, outside of programs specifically named in the Constitution (Defense, courts etc.) the Fed can spend money only in ways that benefit everyone in the country equally. Any other government spending must be left to the states and lower governments to do.

In fact, the Fed is prohibited from spending money on schools, hospitals, unemployment insurance, retirement funds, etc. The government has been gradually (and illegally) pushing its way into more and more of those over the years, to the point where more than 3/4 of the Federal budget is spent on programs forbidden by the Constitution - the 10th amendment, the welfare clause, and other parts. They do it in part by twisting the welfare clause in the same way you just tried to. The fact that it's being done, doesn't make it legal. People get murdered every day, too. Does that make murder legal?

"not in the way I was hoping???"

 

[Mr.Conley]

There are a few other things that happen also.

One, NO accountability exists. The people on the govt doll can do whatever they want. In private charities, they usually make certain requirements to be able to receive benefits. Like, go look for a job. Dont use drugs, drink etc. Actually spend the money on food and shelter, not drugs and booze.

Also, when people receive from the govt, they get a sense of entitlement, the Govt is "suppose" to take care of us, hence, no gratitude. Is that what you meant by resentful?

THird, the courts and the ACLU, American civil lying union, get involved, and do not allow any sort of religion to get involved. A lot of private charities encourage church participation by the beneficiaries, and this often leads to wholesale life changes, for the better.

Actually, a lot of points you mention in the first paragraph are required, strongly encouraged. It was part of the welfare reform that Clinton and the Republican Congress passed back in 96.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Personally, I don't think that it's the best idea in the world to curtail poor, sick, and disabled people's welfare while simultaneously increasing their ability to purchase guns. That is what the conservatives want though apparently.

 

[dilloduck]

Personally, I don't think that it's the best idea in the world to curtail poor, sick, and disabled people's welfare while simultaneously increasing their ability to purchase guns. That is what the conservatives want though apparently.

What a dumb ass attempt to trash conservatives.

 

[Mr.Conley]

What a dumb ass attempt to trash conservatives.

No, I'm not trying to trash conservatives. I think it's a genuine problem. What happens when you take a couple million people of their only source of income, legitimate or otherwise, while simutaneously increasing the number and availability of firearms? I don't think it's going to good.

I'm not saying that conservatives want to see blood in the street or anything like that, man. I genuinely think conservatives have good intentions, but if those two policies mix together, I don't see to much good coming out.

 

[Kagom]

Welfare as we know it, is a socialistic wealth redistribution program, thanks LBJ!

I could've swore that FDR game up with Welfare to help people in the depression. But I could be completely wrong.

 

[musicman]

I could've swore that FDR game up with Welfare to help people in the depression. But I could be completely wrong.

No - among FDR's schemes were social security and various federal "make work" programs. Outright welfare is LBJ's baby all the way.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Personally, I don't think that it's the best idea in the world to curtail poor, sick, and disabled people's welfare while simultaneously increasing their ability to purchase guns. That is what the conservatives want though apparently.

You're confabulating two issues, but both positions make sense on their own.

Too many handouts weaken character. Guns help law abiding people kill criminals.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Excellent points, LuvRPgrl! There's an old saying - the origin of which I've never been able to track down - that goes: "Charity without self-determination leaves the recipient contemptuous of the giver". I consider it one of the universal truths of human nature.

When the undeserving have their way made for them, they must - on some level - find justification for this. They can search their souls, and find ways to improve - or they can spew hatred and contempt toward the giver. Not having been forced to take stock of themselves, and how they came to be in needy circumstances to begin with; not being urged in any way to haul themselves up; in short - having been allowed to dodge self-determination in all its possible forms - they invariably take the easy way out: despise the giver.

I've often thought that this is the reason the French hate us so. We went to a vanquished, undeserving nation, and said, "Presto - you're a world power!" I don't think they've ever forgiven us for it.

There is another consequence, unintended, but harmful non the less. When people live off welfare, their self worth and self respect dissappear. Turning to drugs and booze is an effective way of numbing those feelings.

All the way around, welfare is a disaster and should be eliminated. Go back to private charities. They are much more efficient with the money anyways.