American Way of Welfare: The Way It Was

[PoliticalChic]

13. Throughout colonial times, charity was reserved for those deemed deserving of same.

Charles Chauncey, told members of the Society for Encouraging Industry, and Employing the Poor (Aug. 12. 1752), that they were "restrained as to the distribution of [their] charity; not being allowed to dispense it promiscuously, but obliged to take due Care to find out suitable Objects; distinguishing properly between those needy People who are able, and those who are unable, to employ themselves in Labour...."


a. This based on Paul's maxim of 2 Thessalonians 3:10, "... if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either."

b. Emphasis was always on both spiritual and material improvement.
In 1773, New Yorkers formed the American Society for Promoting Religious Knowledge Among the Poor. In 1808, we find the Baltimore Female Association for the Relief of Distressed Objects fighting both spiritual and material poverty.




14. Today, 'charity' is pro forma, an entitlement, with no analysis of who or for what reason that charity is given. One doesn't question why the charity is necessary, who will be getting it, nor how it will be used.

It is based on a lack of understanding of human nature: those accepting largesse without working for same hate themselves, and learn to hate the giver as well.
"If you pick up a stray dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. That is the principal difference between dogs and men." Mark Twain.



That is the way of the Liberal...feel good, not do good.

 

[PoliticalChic]

15. Another difference between then and now: Charity in colonial Americana included training children in the virtues.

Thomas Bacon was one such minister:
"By 1751, Bacon's plan to open a charity working school was well advanced. On Sunday, October 14, 1750, he preached A Sermon, at the Parish Church of St. Peter's, in Talbot County, Maryland ... for the benefit of a charity working school to be set up in the said parish . . ." http://newfoundpress.utk.edu//pubs/lemay/part_three_bacon.pdf


a. "The Reverend Thomas Bacon ( I 7oo?-68) published more titles than any other colonial Marylander. His numerous sermons on charity schools and the education of slaves went through several editions in Annapolis and London." Ibid.

Bacon's school was for poor children, both white and black, and the emphasis on equipping all children to read the Bible continued until in the 1830s parts of the South overreacted to abolitionist threats.
Olasky, Op. Cit.


b. Religious beliefs motivated most charitable activities, and it should be noted that no distinction was made as to the race of the recipients, both in the South as well as in the North. In Charleston, the Ladies Benevolent Society, 1813, adied the senile, bouth black and white; notes from 1825 included a Mrs. Cowie who suffered from blindness and leprosy and whose body was "a perfect skeleton," Clarissa and Mary, two crippled black women, and Mary McNeile, a free black with leprosy.
From "The Southern Evangelical Intelligencer," vol. 2. p. 244-247.


c. In 1827, Catholic women in Baltimore formed the Maria Marthian Society for assistance of those of "all denominations, ages, sexes, and colours." John Christie Dann,"
Humanitarian Reform and Organized Benevolence in the Southern United States, 1780-1830," p. 145.


d. There was the Hebrew Benevolent Society in Charleston, 1784; the Hebrew Benevolent and Orphan Asylum (1822) and the Hebrew Relief Society (1831), in New York.



Again, the plan came from the wisdom of the Bible:
Proverbs 22:6 Start a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.


Of course, that is not possible today, as Franklin Roosevelt's first Supreme Court nominee, KKKer Hugo Black was virulently anti-religion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

16. "Charity" included the general idea of schools for all and work for all can be seen in the laws of the Northwest Territory, where justices of the peace set up poorhouses to be maintained by the work of their inhabitants. Even the "most degraded" of persons would not have to starve in this nation.

But....none was entitled to receive any material provision:
"If any poor person shall refuse to be lodged, kept, maintained and employed in such house or houses, he or she shall not be entitled to receive relief from the overseers during such refusal."
Salmon P. Chase, "The Statutes of Ohio and the Northwest Territory," vol.I, p. 176.



As a general rule, the goal of charity in colonial America was not equal treatment for all those in trouble, but, rather, to serve individuals who had unavoidable problems.

Those who could take care of themselves were expected to do so. To simply give from the taxpayer is poor policy for the government, for the taxpayer, and even for the recipient.




As Thomas Paine said, ... "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly."





Judge the modern welfare policy against that of earlier times...and know what Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan knew:

"Somehow liberals have been unable to acquire from birth what conservatives seem to be endowed with at birth: namely, a healthy skepticism of the powers of government to do good."



Current "welfare policy" is a fraud and a failure. The 'War on Poverty,' a la LBJ, was a scam.....designed for purposes other than to alleviate poverty.


Colonial America had the right plan, for several reasons.

Too bad we'll never return to it.

 

[regent]

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

No.

One government agency, the WPA, during the Great Depression, built: 651,000 miles of highways, 1000 new or rebuilt runways, 124,000 bridges, 8000 parks 18,000 playgrounds and athletic fields, 84,000 miles of drainage pipes, 125,000 new or rebuilt public buildings including 41,300 schools. That's one agency just during one period in our history. There was also the CCC, TVA, and other agencies rebuilding America during this same period.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

No.

One government agency, the WPA, during the Great Depression, built: 651,000 miles of highways, 1000 new or rebuilt runways, 124,000 bridges, 8000 parks 18,000 playgrounds and athletic fields, 84,000 miles of drainage pipes, 125,000 new or rebuilt public buildings including 41,300 schools. That's one agency just during one period in our history. There was also the CCC, TVA, and other agencies rebuilding America during this same period.

Yeah and I was born in 1963.. so I don't remember any of that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No.

One government agency, the WPA, during the Great Depression, built: 651,000 miles of highways, 1000 new or rebuilt runways, 124,000 bridges, 8000 parks 18,000 playgrounds and athletic fields, 84,000 miles of drainage pipes, 125,000 new or rebuilt public buildings including 41,300 schools. That's one agency just during one period in our history. There was also the CCC, TVA, and other agencies rebuilding America during this same period.

Yeah and I was born in 1963.. so I don't remember any of that.

Our pal reggie is correct, and his post represents a validation of my 16-point post.


Folks wanted to work, rather than get something for nothing, and understanding that aspect of human nature is a plus for Franklin Roosevelt.

But he won't be up front and address the point that the thread makes: Liberal attempts to make folks dependent on government is not a policy to alleviate poverty.

It is, in fact, corrupt, and pernicious.
It has destroyed a major portion of our culture, resulting in a 72% out-of-wedlock birthrate.

 

[regent]

One government agency, the WPA, during the Great Depression, built: 651,000 miles of highways, 1000 new or rebuilt runways, 124,000 bridges, 8000 parks 18,000 playgrounds and athletic fields, 84,000 miles of drainage pipes, 125,000 new or rebuilt public buildings including 41,300 schools. That's one agency just during one period in our history. There was also the CCC, TVA, and other agencies rebuilding America during this same period.

Yeah and I was born in 1963.. so I don't remember any of that.

Our pal reggie is correct, and his post represents a validation of my 16-point post.


Folks wanted to work, rather than get something for nothing, and understanding that aspect of human nature is a plus for Franklin Roosevelt.

But he won't be up front and address the point that the thread makes: Liberal attempts to make folks dependent on government is not a policy to alleviate poverty.

It is, in fact, corrupt, and pernicious.
It has destroyed a major portion of our culture, resulting in a 72% out-of-wedlock birthrate.

This world and it's past is a gigantic laboratory for us to examine economic programs that have wiped out poverty. All we need to do is see what nations have eliminated poverty and what economic system they used and bingo we have a start. So the first question for you to answer: is what nations have eliminated poverty?

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah and I was born in 1963.. so I don't remember any of that.

Our pal reggie is correct, and his post represents a validation of my 16-point post.


Folks wanted to work, rather than get something for nothing, and understanding that aspect of human nature is a plus for Franklin Roosevelt.

But he won't be up front and address the point that the thread makes: Liberal attempts to make folks dependent on government is not a policy to alleviate poverty.

It is, in fact, corrupt, and pernicious.
It has destroyed a major portion of our culture, resulting in a 72% out-of-wedlock birthrate.

This world and it's past is a gigantic laboratory for us to examine economic programs that have wiped out poverty. All we need to do is see what nations have eliminated poverty and what economic system they used and bingo we have a start. So the first question for you to answer: is what nations have eliminated poverty?

Define poverty.

 

[regent]

Our pal reggie is correct, and his post represents a validation of my 16-point post.


Folks wanted to work, rather than get something for nothing, and understanding that aspect of human nature is a plus for Franklin Roosevelt.

But he won't be up front and address the point that the thread makes: Liberal attempts to make folks dependent on government is not a policy to alleviate poverty.

It is, in fact, corrupt, and pernicious.
It has destroyed a major portion of our culture, resulting in a 72% out-of-wedlock birthrate.

This world and it's past is a gigantic laboratory for us to examine economic programs that have wiped out poverty. All we need to do is see what nations have eliminated poverty and what economic system they used and bingo we have a start. So the first question for you to answer: is what nations have eliminated poverty?

Define poverty.

Ask Chic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah and I was born in 1963.. so I don't remember any of that.

Our pal reggie is correct, and his post represents a validation of my 16-point post.


Folks wanted to work, rather than get something for nothing, and understanding that aspect of human nature is a plus for Franklin Roosevelt.

But he won't be up front and address the point that the thread makes: Liberal attempts to make folks dependent on government is not a policy to alleviate poverty.

It is, in fact, corrupt, and pernicious.
It has destroyed a major portion of our culture, resulting in a 72% out-of-wedlock birthrate.

This world and it's past is a gigantic laboratory for us to examine economic programs that have wiped out poverty. All we need to do is see what nations have eliminated poverty and what economic system they used and bingo we have a start. So the first question for you to answer: is what nations have eliminated poverty?

Wow, reggie....you'll do anything not to face the truth that I've provided in this thread.

16 linked and documented points, indicating that a more traditional approach feeds both stomachs and character.



Since the 'War on Poverty,' the Liberal welfare scheme, the numbers in poverty haven't fallen, and the spirits of those in poverty haven't risen.


1. In her book, "Uncle Sam's Plantation," Star Parker recounts her journey from life as a hustler and welfare addict to freedom. The following gives one version of the path to success.

2. ....But my determination never wavered. I refused to go back on welfare or listen to the leftist lies that sought to discourage me from even trying! I used my talkng/selling experience to cohosting a talk show on a small Christian radio station in Long Beach. It didn't quite pay minimum wage, and had no benefits....so I made money based on commissions from advertisers of the show. So, no guarantees.....but hard work and a positive attitude paid off: soon, I was offered the opportunity to host my own three-hour daily radio talk show with and ABC affiliate in San Francisco. Not only a good salary, but they put a studio in my home!

Nothing new here.....the same works and worked for everyone.

 

[regent]

Our pal reggie is correct, and his post represents a validation of my 16-point post.


Folks wanted to work, rather than get something for nothing, and understanding that aspect of human nature is a plus for Franklin Roosevelt.

But he won't be up front and address the point that the thread makes: Liberal attempts to make folks dependent on government is not a policy to alleviate poverty.

It is, in fact, corrupt, and pernicious.
It has destroyed a major portion of our culture, resulting in a 72% out-of-wedlock birthrate.

This world and it's past is a gigantic laboratory for us to examine economic programs that have wiped out poverty. All we need to do is see what nations have eliminated poverty and what economic system they used and bingo we have a start. So the first question for you to answer: is what nations have eliminated poverty?

Wow, reggie....you'll do anything not to face the truth that I've provided in this thread.

16 linked and documented points, indicating that a more traditional approach feeds both stomachs and character.



Since the 'War on Poverty,' the Liberal welfare scheme, the numbers in poverty haven't fallen, and the spirits of those in poverty haven't risen.


1. In her book, "Uncle Sam's Plantation," Star Parker recounts her journey from life as a hustler and welfare addict to freedom. The following gives one version of the path to success.

2. ....But my determination never wavered. I refused to go back on welfare or listen to the leftist lies that sought to discourage me from even trying! I used my talkng/selling experience to cohosting a talk show on a small Christian radio station in Long Beach. It didn't quite pay minimum wage, and had no benefits....so I made money based on commissions from advertisers of the show. So, no guarantees.....but hard work and a positive attitude paid off: soon, I was offered the opportunity to host my own three-hour daily radio talk show with and ABC affiliate in San Francisco. Not only a good salary, but they put a studio in my home!

Nothing new here.....the same works and worked for everyone.

I loved those Horatio Alger books too, especially "Strong and Steady," but I was thinking more on a wider scope can you give us a list of nations, even one, that has wiped out poverty? Once we know that poverty can be eliminated on a national level maybe we can adopt their economic system to America?

 

[PoliticalChic]

This world and it's past is a gigantic laboratory for us to examine economic programs that have wiped out poverty. All we need to do is see what nations have eliminated poverty and what economic system they used and bingo we have a start. So the first question for you to answer: is what nations have eliminated poverty?

Wow, reggie....you'll do anything not to face the truth that I've provided in this thread.

16 linked and documented points, indicating that a more traditional approach feeds both stomachs and character.



Since the 'War on Poverty,' the Liberal welfare scheme, the numbers in poverty haven't fallen, and the spirits of those in poverty haven't risen.


1. In her book, "Uncle Sam's Plantation," Star Parker recounts her journey from life as a hustler and welfare addict to freedom. The following gives one version of the path to success.

2. ....But my determination never wavered. I refused to go back on welfare or listen to the leftist lies that sought to discourage me from even trying! I used my talkng/selling experience to cohosting a talk show on a small Christian radio station in Long Beach. It didn't quite pay minimum wage, and had no benefits....so I made money based on commissions from advertisers of the show. So, no guarantees.....but hard work and a positive attitude paid off: soon, I was offered the opportunity to host my own three-hour daily radio talk show with and ABC affiliate in San Francisco. Not only a good salary, but they put a studio in my home!

Nothing new here.....the same works and worked for everyone.

I loved those Horatio Alger books too, especially "Strong and Steady," but I was thinking more on a wider scope can you give us a list of nations, even one, that has wiped out poverty? Once we know that poverty can be eliminated on a national level maybe we can adopt their economic system to America?

1. Avoiding the issue?

In the words of the Brown Bomber....'you can run, but you can't hide.'


2. "....can you give us a list of nations, even one, that has wiped out poverty?"

a. "Us"?? You have a tapeworm?

b. Just to prove that you are trying to hide from the issue.....can you produce any of my posts where I stated that poverty can be eliminated?



Waiting.

Just admit, reggie....you have, with very little effort, been the winner of the “Our Main Source of So-called ‘Greenhouse Gases’ Award




3. What I have shown is that Liberalism, via Liberal welfare policies, is the destroyer of the American character.

Isn't that true?

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how we can fix math to make everyone in America have income greater than the bottom 30% of all income earners.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how we can fix math to make everyone in America have income greater than the bottom 30% of all income earners.

1. It has been accomplished at Lake Wobegon....where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.



2. Over half of the poor earning at or near the minimum wage are between the ages of 16 and 24. As Sowell wryly notes, “these individuals cannot remain from 16 to 24 years of age indefinitely, though that age category can of course continue indefinitely, providing many intellectuals with data to fit their preconceptions.”
Thomas Sowell


3. Of course, your post is not the purpose of this thread.
Better policies than those imposed by Liberals to alleviate poverty are the purpose....and reggie, inadvertently, admits to the premise.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how we can fix math to make everyone in America have income greater than the bottom 30% of all income earners.

1. It has been accomplished at Lake Wobegon....where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.



2. Over half of the poor earning at or near the minimum wage are between the ages of 16 and 24. As Sowell wryly notes, “these individuals cannot remain from 16 to 24 years of age indefinitely, though that age category can of course continue indefinitely, providing many intellectuals with data to fit their preconceptions.”
Thomas Sowell


3. Of course, your post is not the purpose of this thread.
Better policies than those imposed by Liberals to alleviate poverty are the purpose....and reggie, inadvertently, admits to the premise.

Is that why democrats are pro abortion? They are trying to eliminate the 16-24 age group through attrition, and thus eliminate poverty? I suppose one could argue that through a draft where all 18year olds are forced to fight (and earn an income), poverty for that age group was greatly reduced.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, welfare was handled by charities and churches, carefully considering who got the relief, and the reasons for same.

Under FDR, welfare and charity became a patronage endeavor, to get votes rather than to ease suffering.

The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) doled out relief nationally to those states with the best political connections. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932 began with the best of intentions...but under the Democrats it went to well-connected friends, including mayors and governors.

Illinois, a swing state, got $55,443,721, which was almost 20% of the RFC's $300 million, more than NY, California, and Texas combined.
Murray Rothbard, "America's Great Depression," p.262-263.


See where welfare became politics?

 

[RKMBrown]

Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, welfare was handled by charities and churches, carefully considering who got the relief, and the reasons for same.

Under FDR, welfare and charity became a patronage endeavor, to get votes rather than to ease suffering.

The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) doled out relief nationally to those states with the best political connections. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932 began with the best of intentions...but under the Democrats it went to well-connected friends, including mayors and governors.

Illinois, a swing state, got $55,443,721, which was almost 20% of the RFC's $300 million, more than NY, California, and Texas combined.
Murray Rothbard, "America's Great Depression," p.262-263.


See where welfare became politics?

We gave our government full access to our paychecks (see 16th Amendment) even to the point of being able to borrow indefinitely against our children's income. This made it their job to spend our income and our children's income as they see fit. Why should we be surprised when they dip their hands in our pockets to redistribute our income to their friends & constituents? Why shouldn't they take advantage of us, this is what we are asking for, no?

Given that government is the worst way to accomplish any task, and that there are absolutely no checks left on it's expansion, why should we be surprised that it is now the architect of our destruction? But don't worry if you vote for republicans they'll fix it.. oh nvm they won't will they?

 

[Crystalclear]

Poverty cannot be wiped out. In a socialist country, the poor remain poor, but dependent on government welfare and in communist countries everyone except the leaders are poor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Poverty cannot be wiped out. In a socialist country, the poor remain poor, but dependent on government welfare and in communist countries everyone except the leaders are poor.

1. But it can regularly be defined as large and increasing, as it is by bureaucrats and political functionaries.


2. The terms ‘the rich’ and ‘the poor’ are seldom defined. Thus, there are mistakes in understanding the difference between the flow of income during a given year, and what has been accumulated. Similarly, the poor are usually defined in terms of current income, rather than how much they have or have not accumulated. Income and wealth are not the same thing.

a. Some who have low income, but are hardly poor are the spouse of a rich or affluent husband or wife.

b. Affluent or wealthy speculators, investors, or business owners having an off year.

c. Students who graduate in the middle of the year, and, therefore, earn half of what they would have.

d. Doctors or other professionals just starting out.

e. Those still living at home with folks who are wealthy or affluent. Or retirees in the reverse situation.
Thomas Sowell, "Economic Facts and Fallacies," chapter five.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

We have that economy. Opportunity exists for those motivated to develop marketable skills. Welfare, as the Seattle study found, is often a disincentive.