CDZ Welfare vs Charity

[Tommy Tainant]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

Charity -
Pros - No cost to the state
Giver feels they are doing good.

Cons - Not guaranteed
Feudal

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.
Universal

Cons - Subject to political interference.
Workhouse stigma.

Anybody can fall on hard times so how do we help them get through it and back on the road to success ?

NB - I am not interested in the junkie round the corner who never works and drives a better car than you. Stick to the big picture.

 

[Meathead]

Get off the dole and get a job.

 

[yiostheoy]

FDR settled this when he took over office from Hoover.

So why are you revisiting it now?

 

[tyroneweaver]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

Charity -
Pros - No cost to the state
Giver feels they are doing good.

Cons - Not guaranteed
Feudal

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.
Universal

Cons - Subject to political interference.
Workhouse stigma.

Anybody can fall on hard times so how do we help them get through it and back on the road to success ?

NB - I am not interested in the junkie round the corner who never works and drives a better car than you. Stick to the big picture.

Welfare Square
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welfare Square grain silo
Welfare Square is a complex in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), to provide material assistance to poor and otherwise needy individuals and families. Welfare Square is part of the Church's Church Welfare System. It includes a 178-foot, 300,000 bushel grain silo, fruit orchards, a milk-processing plant, a cannery, a bakery, a Deseret Industries thrift store, a private employment office, and the LDS Church's largest[1] Bishop's storehouse, as well as associated administrative offices.[2]

Most of the assistance provided at Welfare Square goes to those who are members of the LDS Church. [3]

Welfare Square provides regular employment for around fifty people, in addition to the two hundred rotating volunteers needed to provide its services and run its operations. Fast offerings from local LDS congregations fund its operations.[2]



Contents
[hide]

• 1History
• 2Values
• 3See also
• 4Notes
• 5References
• 6Further reading
• 7External links

History[edit]
Welfare Square was created in 1938,[2] under the direction of the Church's General Welfare Committee, which itself had been formed just two years earlier.[4] Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, as the United States was experiencing the Great Depression Welfare Square became the flagship of the Church's Welfare Program.

A four-year renovation started in the late 1990s, and was completed in 2001. The 1940 granary building was the only structure on the site that was not significantly refurbished or newly built at that time.[5] The concrete grain elevator can hold 318,000 bushels of wheat (about 19 million pounds).[6]

In 2011 the Utah legislature passed, and the governor signed, a bill commemorating the founding of the LDS Church's Welfare System,[7] of which Welfare Square is the centerpiece.[6]

Values[edit]
As part of the LDS Church's larger Welfare Program, all aid received at Welfare Square is based on personal responsibility, thrift, and work; recipients of aid may be asked to volunteer their time after receiving help.[8][9]

 

[GaryDog]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

I remember once that Romney's wife during the '12 campaign talked about motherhood as the "hardest job on the planet", and therefore no one should question her struggle as a parent to 5 kids with a mega-rich husband. If that's the case, the REAL heroes in society are the single mothers. Unless you think motherhood is only a tough job if a man (and primarily a rich man) legitimizes it by agreeing to marry the mother in question.

Charity is nice, but it's been proven to not be nearly enough. It's unreliable, often comes with undue religious strings, and it's not universal. No comparison here.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

I remember once that Romney's wife during the '12 campaign talked about motherhood as the "hardest job on the planet", and therefore no one should question her struggle as a parent to 5 kids with a mega-rich husband. If that's the case, the REAL heroes in society are the single mothers. Unless you think motherhood is only a tough job if a man (and primarily a rich man) legitimizes it by agreeing to marry the mother in question.

Charity is nice, but it's been proven to not be nearly enough. It's unreliable, often comes with undue religious strings, and it's not universal. No comparison here.

What we are finding here is that welfare is now being supplemented by Charity. Most towns now have foodbanks which are run by the Salvation Army. You cant just turn up though.You have to be referred by a Dr or other kind of professional. Its a sticking plaster rather than a solution.

 

[yiostheoy]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

Charity -
Pros - No cost to the state
Giver feels they are doing good.

Cons - Not guaranteed
Feudal

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.
Universal

Cons - Subject to political interference.
Workhouse stigma.

Anybody can fall on hard times so how do we help them get through it and back on the road to success ?

NB - I am not interested in the junkie round the corner who never works and drives a better car than you. Stick to the big picture.

Welfare Square
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welfare Square grain silo
Welfare Square is a complex in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), to provide material assistance to poor and otherwise needy individuals and families. Welfare Square is part of the Church's Church Welfare System. It includes a 178-foot, 300,000 bushel grain silo, fruit orchards, a milk-processing plant, a cannery, a bakery, a Deseret Industries thrift store, a private employment office, and the LDS Church's largest[1] Bishop's storehouse, as well as associated administrative offices.[2]

Most of the assistance provided at Welfare Square goes to those who are members of the LDS Church. [3]

Welfare Square provides regular employment for around fifty people, in addition to the two hundred rotating volunteers needed to provide its services and run its operations. Fast offerings from local LDS congregations fund its operations.[2]



Contents
[hide]

• 1History
• 2Values
• 3See also
• 4Notes
• 5References
• 6Further reading
• 7External links

History[edit]
Welfare Square was created in 1938,[2] under the direction of the Church's General Welfare Committee, which itself had been formed just two years earlier.[4] Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, as the United States was experiencing the Great Depression Welfare Square became the flagship of the Church's Welfare Program.

A four-year renovation started in the late 1990s, and was completed in 2001. The 1940 granary building was the only structure on the site that was not significantly refurbished or newly built at that time.[5] The concrete grain elevator can hold 318,000 bushels of wheat (about 19 million pounds).[6]

In 2011 the Utah legislature passed, and the governor signed, a bill commemorating the founding of the LDS Church's Welfare System,[7] of which Welfare Square is the centerpiece.[6]

Values[edit]
As part of the LDS Church's larger Welfare Program, all aid received at Welfare Square is based on personal responsibility, thrift, and work; recipients of aid may be asked to volunteer their time after receiving help.[8][9]

In order to fund a "Mormon Church" on a larger scale and adopt their fictitious so called welfare program, you would first need to add a 10% gross income tax to everyone.

That gross income tax would wipe out their private investments and future retirement funds.

So the Mormons do not have any answers here either except for their usual door to door bullsh!t.

 

[Silent Warrior]

One of the advantages of charity, is the charity might cut off the able bodied person that just doesn't want to work and welfare never will. As far as single moms go I'm all for helping them out, but it is a little like rewarding them for there poor choices in husband material. I once bumped into a welfare queen with 9 kids by 9 different fathers. Welfare was her work of choice. Welfare IS needed, but we should do a lot more policing of recipients than we do. Of course that means more federal workers who can't be fired.

 

[yiostheoy]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

I remember once that Romney's wife during the '12 campaign talked about motherhood as the "hardest job on the planet", and therefore no one should question her struggle as a parent to 5 kids with a mega-rich husband. If that's the case, the REAL heroes in society are the single mothers. Unless you think motherhood is only a tough job if a man (and primarily a rich man) legitimizes it by agreeing to marry the mother in question.

Charity is nice, but it's been proven to not be nearly enough. It's unreliable, often comes with undue religious strings, and it's not universal. No comparison here.

What we are finding here is that welfare is now being supplemented by Charity. Most towns now have foodbanks which are run by the Salvation Army. You cant just turn up though.You have to be referred by a Dr or other kind of professional. Its a sticking plaster rather than a solution.

In California lots of working poor are showing up at soup kitchens to eat. These are charitable too.

Between the soup kitchens and the unemployment the out of luck people can barely eat and live.

The Crash of 2008 is still with us in large measure.

And it was all brought to us by Lehman Brothers.

 

[Care4all]

fyi

Due to President GW Bush's "Faith Based Initiative" programs, the Charities are the ones dispersing the govt monies for the poorest....

As example, Catholic Charities now receives 50% of its money for the poor from government entities...

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

I remember once that Romney's wife during the '12 campaign talked about motherhood as the "hardest job on the planet", and therefore no one should question her struggle as a parent to 5 kids with a mega-rich husband. If that's the case, the REAL heroes in society are the single mothers. Unless you think motherhood is only a tough job if a man (and primarily a rich man) legitimizes it by agreeing to marry the mother in question.

Charity is nice, but it's been proven to not be nearly enough. It's unreliable, often comes with undue religious strings, and it's not universal. No comparison here.

What we are finding here is that welfare is now being supplemented by Charity. Most towns now have foodbanks which are run by the Salvation Army. You cant just turn up though.You have to be referred by a Dr or other kind of professional. Its a sticking plaster rather than a solution.

In California lots of working poor are showing up at soup kitchens to eat. These are charitable too.

Between the soup kitchens and the unemployment the out of luck people can barely eat and live.

The Crash of 2008 is still with us in large measure.

And it was all brought to us by Lehman Brothers.

Its madness that a person who works full time cant put a roof over his head and feed himself.
Housing costs in the UK are extortionate and even well paid youngsters have to live with their parents.

Changes to benefits rules have also exacerbated the problem. You can get your benefits stopped buy being 10 minutes late for an appointment. Get stuck in traffic and starve for a week. What does that individual do ?

 

[yiostheoy]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

I remember once that Romney's wife during the '12 campaign talked about motherhood as the "hardest job on the planet", and therefore no one should question her struggle as a parent to 5 kids with a mega-rich husband. If that's the case, the REAL heroes in society are the single mothers. Unless you think motherhood is only a tough job if a man (and primarily a rich man) legitimizes it by agreeing to marry the mother in question.

Charity is nice, but it's been proven to not be nearly enough. It's unreliable, often comes with undue religious strings, and it's not universal. No comparison here.

What we are finding here is that welfare is now being supplemented by Charity. Most towns now have foodbanks which are run by the Salvation Army. You cant just turn up though.You have to be referred by a Dr or other kind of professional. Its a sticking plaster rather than a solution.

In California lots of working poor are showing up at soup kitchens to eat. These are charitable too.

Between the soup kitchens and the unemployment the out of luck people can barely eat and live.

The Crash of 2008 is still with us in large measure.

And it was all brought to us by Lehman Brothers.

Its madness that a person who works full time cant put a roof over his head and feed himself.
Housing costs in the UK are extortionate and even well paid youngsters have to live with their parents.

Changes to benefits rules have also exacerbated the problem. You can get your benefits stopped buy being 10 minutes late for an appointment. Get stuck in traffic and starve for a week. What does that individual do ?

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

 

[GaryDog]

One of the advantages of charity, is the charity might cut off the able bodied person that just doesn't want to work and welfare never will. As far as single moms go I'm all for helping them out, but it is a little like rewarding them for there poor choices in husband material. I once bumped into a welfare queen with 9 kids by 9 different fathers. Welfare was her work of choice. Welfare IS needed, but we should do a lot more policing of recipients than we do. Of course that means more federal workers who can't be fired.

100% untrue. TANF only allows 5 years of lifetime benefit.

So you're saying we should punish the children for their mothers' mistakes...specifically related to how desirable they are to men? That's some Taliban thinking right there. You must be a Christian.

 

[320 Years of History]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

There remain homeless and hungry people in the U.S., yet we have both welfare and charity. It's not clear to me that the "one or the other" approach has any hope of working better than the "both" approach we currently have in place.

 

[emilynghiem]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

Charity -
Pros - No cost to the state
Giver feels they are doing good.

Cons - Not guaranteed
Feudal

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.
Universal

Cons - Subject to political interference.
Workhouse stigma.

Anybody can fall on hard times so how do we help them get through it and back on the road to success ?

NB - I am not interested in the junkie round the corner who never works and drives a better car than you. Stick to the big picture.

Special Thanks to you Tommy Tainant
for starting a new thread to discuss this key issue.

* Pros to charity instead of welfare is that people can give and receive the ONE ON ONE attention and counseling needed that makes charities so successful.

The people I know who have worked in govt social work, in mental health, etc. complain that they can't work with people in that capacity. They have no capacity to offer what is really needed, but can only manage what is outlined for them.

The recipients from the welfare warriors, to the people complaining about CPS, can also tell you what's wrong with the system. It punishes them for trying to get ahead and limits them to sticking to staying stuck. The public housing tenants I volunteer with in my district wrote innovative federal legislation to change this welfare relationship to a proactive system of training families to get out of poverty. We are still working on organizing the help to enforce the laws and budgets written for this, that has been sitting stagnant since 1994 because of the political popularity of keeping the system as is, and keepin poor people stuck in poverty and prisons to protect govt jobs and contracts!!!

People have been pimping the poor through bad govt that benefits the profiteers.

Tommy Tainant if you read the book on the NEW JIM CROW it exposes the prison system that feeds the welfare cycle.

this isn't helping, it's profiting off the poor by keeping them politically dependent and enslaved under a no win system.

* Another Pro is OWNERSHIP. When people do the work themselves, they can replicate it and teach others to fish once they've been taught how to fish. With ownership and localized responsibility for one's own programs and resources, there is DIRECT accountability and community building. There is mutual education going on. We wouldn't have problems with police and residents not trusting each other if they worked together helping their own communities to get out of poverty, keep off drugs and out of prisons, and rebuild their schools and community centers as well as invest in businesses and medical facilities to grow together.

* Pros to govt programs through taxation:
What I'd recommend is using the given systems of VA, prisons, welfare and educational loans to set up MICROLENDING and training,

Where citizens are REWARDED with tax breaks or interest on LOANS where they have a CHOICE of which persons or programs to sponsor.

We still need accountability for taxes, where these are coming from and where they are going, which is centralized by federal govt. But from there, we can delegate to the states and the people so there is more direct representation and accommodation of diverse populations by state, by region or by party.

This delegation can be done collectively by PARTY where I'd recommend the Democrats take on the prison system which would also involve sponsoring immigrants, and I'd add to that the epidemic of trafficking victims who need SPECIALIZED care which the parties can organize by DISTRICT instead of federalizing everything through Congress which isn't designed to manage on such a personalized level as people need who are recovering from prison, trafficking, drugs etc.

I'd recommend the Republican Party take on reforming the VA and managing the military and border issues that require national security resources.
Why not build teaching hospitals, military prisons, and detention for dangerous criminals along the border?

This can still create jobs and educational internships for students and immigrant workers, but it ISN'T HANDOUTS. it's based on free market supply and demand, and competition to provide the best cost-effective services to reach the most people with the given resources.

If Republicans and corporate interests have more money than the poor being served, or the service providers being trained, the lenders can get tax breaks or interest from lending and mentoring the others to take on business and govt leadership. So this can help minorities WITHOUT HANDOUTS. People can choose which lenders or mentors to receive help from, and people choose who to sponsor or lend to. So it's free choice, and people will lend and receive from the most effective programs to keep them accountable.

Earned Amnesty
based on the campus plans from Freedmen's Town
national historic district under Congresswoman Lee
http://www.houstonprogressive.org

The role that only GOVT can fill is law enforcement, public safety and national security.
If we create jobs around that, then the social work can be delegated to the charitable programs and reserve govt for the functions that only govt can provide, so that govt is better focused and not bogged down in social programs better done by localized groups per community.

* Another PRO to handling welfare by Govt is RESTITUTION FOR CRIMES.
Again something only GOVT can administrate.

For example, with RICO and trafficking laws, victims of crimes including the community affected can claim property abused for organized crime as part of restitution.
For immigration and labor violations, for capital offenses, what if we passed laws requiring restitution for the same amount of time of the capital sentence? So inmates could serve time working the same jobs that sweatshop slaves are doing, and "trade citizenship" with immigrant workers on the waiting list who would love the opportunity to work for a living wage as a productive law abiding citizen. This prison exchange could either provide restitution for all the border crimes, or serve as a deterrent. Either way it would speed the end to corruption and criminal abuses violations and gangs along the border.

To manage health care for larger populations than currently served, I would recommend that the prison system be overhauled and converted into medical treatment centers, not just to serve the dependent prison population but to hold wrongdoers to pay restitution for the COSTS incurred by crimes in order to fund preventative health care for all.

Since this involves public health and safety and national security,
of course, govt has to be involved. But for the mental health treatment and "spiritual healing" required to successful diagnose treat and cure criminal illness, that part can be delegated to private programs designed to work "one on one" with each person and family affected.

That part is NOT something govt can micromanage, especially where spiritual healing and recovery is involved with cases of drug and criminal abuse and addictions.

So church and state, private and public initiatives would have to work together
to delegate the respective roles and programs under the right authority to manage both.

Thanks Tommy Tainant!
If you can manage more threads like this, hammering out the points,
there is hope we can fix our parties and govt yet! Let's do this!

 

[saveliberty]

Did they raise your rent Tommy?

You have a right to drop out of society. That does not obligate anyone to pay your way. I would suggest welfare should have a time limit. During the time you are eligible, you should be given every available resource, so you can build up your education and other tools to achieve past the end to your assistance.

 

[Andylusion]

FDR settled this when he took over office from Hoover.

So why are you revisiting it now?

Actually FDR merely continued the same policies as Hoover.

Regardless, he was wrong. That's why we're revisiting it.

 

[Andylusion]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

I remember once that Romney's wife during the '12 campaign talked about motherhood as the "hardest job on the planet", and therefore no one should question her struggle as a parent to 5 kids with a mega-rich husband. If that's the case, the REAL heroes in society are the single mothers. Unless you think motherhood is only a tough job if a man (and primarily a rich man) legitimizes it by agreeing to marry the mother in question.

Charity is nice, but it's been proven to not be nearly enough. It's unreliable, often comes with undue religious strings, and it's not universal. No comparison here.

What we are finding here is that welfare is now being supplemented by Charity. Most towns now have foodbanks which are run by the Salvation Army. You cant just turn up though.You have to be referred by a Dr or other kind of professional. Its a sticking plaster rather than a solution.

In California lots of working poor are showing up at soup kitchens to eat. These are charitable too.

Between the soup kitchens and the unemployment the out of luck people can barely eat and live.

The Crash of 2008 is still with us in large measure.

And it was all brought to us by Lehman Brothers.

Its madness that a person who works full time cant put a roof over his head and feed himself.
Housing costs in the UK are extortionate and even well paid youngsters have to live with their parents.

Changes to benefits rules have also exacerbated the problem. You can get your benefits stopped buy being 10 minutes late for an appointment. Get stuck in traffic and starve for a week. What does that individual do ?

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

If you raise the minimum wage, those jobs will disappear, and thousands will be unemployed. Not a solution.

 

[saveliberty]

It seems a third option is not even mentioned, family. That is where people should turn first.

 

[Andylusion]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

There remain homeless and hungry people in the U.S., yet we have both welfare and charity. It's not clear to me that the "one or the other" approach has any hope of working better than the "both" approach we currently have in place.

It depends largely on how the Charity is setup. And beyond that, it depends on the individual.

What people refuse to accept is that at some level, an individual that has his needs met, simply won't improve their lives if they don't want to.

When people are actually starving, is when they will actually change in some cases.

Several years back there was a blog about a lady who ended up in a messy divorce, and had no skills. She ended up on welfare and public housing for just a few weeks. The reason she was only on it for a few weeks, was because she met people in the public housing, who had no desire, no will, no motivation, no self-worth that caused them to want to change their situation.

This terrified her, and she got a job as quickly as she could and fled from the public housing, because she knew if she stayed there, she would end up with the same mentality.

Now she has a nursing degree, and a stable job.

The one good thing about most Charities, is that they push people to move forward with their lives. The shelter I was at, required that you meet with counselors to move forward with your life. Now you could still live there, and eat there, but you had a specific amount of time, and you had to meet with potential employers. If you refused to do anything, then you had to leave.

Government generally doesn't care about that. As long as you vote for Democrats which hand out free goodies, they don't care how long you are on the government dole. You can waste your life away in poverty and misery, so long as you vote for Democrats.