Charity, especially from Christians, betters not only beneficiaries, but it also stimulates the Church. As Christians, we must see to it that charity thrives, particularly since federal spending doesn't seem to be as effective.
A Stimulating Proposition
But what about taxpayer money for the poor? Surely, compassion dictates that government support the "less fortunate." Unfortunately, guaranteed public charity for the able-bodied and able-minded creates a dynamic that depresses the incentive of both the giver and the given. Following his tour of America resulting in his 1835 masterpiece, "Democracy in America," Alexis de Tocqueville toured England. He wanted to know why England, then the most affluent nation in the world, experienced the highest number of paupers. Tocqueville blamed the English welfare system.
In "Memoir on Pauperism," Tocqueville suggested public charity only for the non-able-bodied. He even argued in favor of taxpayer-provided public education for the poor. For the able-bodied, however, Tocqueville said, "There are, however, two incentives to work: the need to live, and the desire to improve the conditions of life ... Well, a charitable institution indiscriminately open to all those in need, or a law that gives all the poor a right to public aid, whatever the origin of their poverty, weakens or destroys the first stimulant and leaves only the second intact."
Tocqueville spoke about the negative effect of government-guaranteed charity. Kennedy spoke of the negative effect on taxpayers' initiative. Again, does government spending "stimulate" the economy, or does the economy function better, more efficiently and more humanely when citizens keep and spend as much of their own money as possible? Does the Jobs Training Partnership Act "work"? Wouldn't the Small Business Administration loan default rate get a private sector bank CEO fired? Has local education improved under the federal Department of Education, which now spends approximately 7 percent of our total education budget?
Moral to the story: Why wait until a war to "stimulate" the economy? A government that spends as little as possible on non-defense-related matters says to taxpayers, "Work hard, keep your money, and we trust you to spend it."
Pretty stimulating, huh?
Charity is not the government's job
Opponents began yelling immediately after President George W. Bush announced his plan to encourage federal funding of so-called faith-based programs. Bush said, "I've seen how effective and committed these groups are at saving and changing lives. ... Government, of course, cannot fund -- and will not fund -- religious activities. But when people of faith provide social services, we will not discriminate against them."
Foul, says Barry Lynn, head of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Lynn stated, "This is one more example of a president who seems to think he's the pastor of the country. George Bush believes religious conversion is the answer to every problem. He has every right to believe that, but he doesn't have the right to use taxpayer money to convert others."
Lynn is correct. But this train left the station some time ago. Taxpayers already provide day-care vouchers redeemable at religious-based preschools. Similarly, Pell Grants and national student loan programs provide tuition assistance for religious as well as secular schools. Local communities provide busing at taxpayers' expense to religious schools, while also providing taxpayer-funded textbooks.
President Bush properly questions the effectiveness of welfare as we know it. The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 sparked a dramatic decline in welfare recipients, but government-provided-no-questions-asked welfare remains a crutch. Charles Colson, Watergate offender, and now chairman of Prison Fellowship Ministries, says, "What the experts have shown is that crime is caused by the lack of moral training during the morally formative years. There has to be a moral solution, a transformation of the individual."
Colson founded a Christian prison program called the "InnerChange Freedom Initiative." He claims that the prisoners who go through the program show a recidivism rate of less than 5 percent, compared to a national average of between 40 percent and 60 percent.
Stuff like this scares people.
But those opposing federal funding of faith-based charities see no problem with non-faith-based government welfare.
But what about the poor, the handicapped, the infirm? How could they survive without government-provided welfare, if not through government-funded, faith-based programs? In "The End of Welfare," the Cato Institute's Michael Tanner points out that even during the Great Depression, self-help groups stepped up. "Private charitable groups," he said, "were indeed beginning to rally. Americans were contributing more to charity than ever before. In New York City, for example, a group of philanthropists contributed $8.5 million to put the unemployed to work. In 1932, despite worsening economic conditions, the Community Chest set a record for contributions."
In "The Tragedy of American Compassion," Marvin Olasky writes about Benjamin Franklin's 1766 criticism of a British welfare act. Franklin said, "There is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken and insolent. The day you passed that act you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health for support in age and sickness ... " Economist and author Thomas Sowell estimates that nearly 70 cents for every dollar intended for a needy beneficiary gets burned up in bureaucratic transfer costs.
Charity properly falls to the citizen, not the government. James Madison, Founding Father and principal author of the Constitution, said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents ... "
Economist and author Walter Williams points out that earlier presidents understood that governmental charity lacked a Constitutional basis. When Congress, in 1887, sought to spend money for a charitable purpose, President Grover Cleveland said, "I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. ... I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."
Will Americans "step up to the plate"? Of course they will. The amount of "humanitarian money" our country provides for other countries amply demonstrates our generosity. Do we care more about foreigners than down-on-their-luck Americans? Remember the Chicago fire of 1871? Private donations from all over the country rebuilt the city with virtually no government assistance.
During his campaign, the conservative Bush repeatedly talked of how he "trusted the people." And liberal former House Speaker Tip O'Neill famously uttered, "All politics is local." Well, isn't charity? So, trust us, Mr. President.
Christian charity for poor
-
Dan
- Valued Member
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:58 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Syosset, New York
We have to give charity ourselves, it is our duty, not the government's. Federal spending isn't the christian way, charity is the christian way. The government... governs. We have to carry out charity ourselves because just as the government has certain duties, one of our duties is charity and relying on the government to do so for us isn't good.
I would favour both, because not only is it our responsibility as part of humanity it's the govenrments responsibility because they are responsible for all their nation.
I believe in the OT it even tells kings not to hoard their riches while their people go hungry. The bible also tells us that treasure on earth will be no good to us in heaven.
I believe in the OT it even tells kings not to hoard their riches while their people go hungry. The bible also tells us that treasure on earth will be no good to us in heaven.
Church tradition tells us that when John, son of Zebadee and brother of James was an old man, his disciples would carry him to church in their arms.
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
The problem is that government spending gets caught up in bureaucracy, which is why too many social programs don't work well. Some social programs along with charity are the key.Deborah wrote:I would favour both, because not only is it our responsibility as part of humanity it's the govenrments responsibility because they are responsible for all their nation.
I believe in the OT it even tells kings not to hoard their riches while their people go hungry. The bible also tells us that treasure on earth will be no good to us in heaven.
Wow, I am quite impressed by how well written ochotseat's initial post was. I admit that I have pushed him pretty hard (see Marijuana/Prostitution thread) to post something substantive rather than snippy one-liners or (non)compassionate criticism, so I would like to be the first to congratulate him on this effort.ochotseat wrote:...
I also agree that private charities should do a lot (but not all) of the work that the government is doing. However, I would like to see a much larger scale back in government handouts of all sorts though, not just individual welfare. For example, cutbacks in road-building for timber companies, sugar and other subsidies, etc. A much smaller and more limited government would be a vast improvement.
sandy
We have too many inflated social programs as of now. Anywho, your sarcastic tone is unwarranted considering you couldn't find a post that everyone else did and demanded to see it when I told you where it was several times. That also applies to the credible sources I posted yesterday. Then again, the posters who discovered the post are young and not advanced in years.sandy_mcd wrote:Wow, I am quite impressed by how well written ochotseat's initial post was. I admit that I have pushed him pretty hard (see Marijuana/Prostitution thread) to post something substantive rather than snippy one-liners or (non)compassionate criticism, so I would like to be the first to congratulate him on this effort.
I also agree that private charities should do a lot (but not all) of the work that the government is doing. However, I would like to see a much larger scale back in government handouts of all sorts though, not just individual welfare. For example, cutbacks in road-building for timber companies, sugar and other subsidies, etc. A much smaller and more limited government would be a vast improvement.
sandy
Last edited by ochotseat on Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
What they government need to do is get them to do community work for the handout. This gives them back their self respect. And I don't mean make slaves of them! I mean a fair days work for a fair days pay!
20 hours a week would be enough to cover benifits given. but them people couldn;t called the bludgers because they would be earning their benifit.
20 hours a week would be enough to cover benifits given. but them people couldn;t called the bludgers because they would be earning their benifit.
Church tradition tells us that when John, son of Zebadee and brother of James was an old man, his disciples would carry him to church in their arms.
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
If you had no interest in the topic or reading about it, why are you posting an irrelevant comment on this thread? To start an argument? For a young nursemaid, you sure like to play devil's advocate when it's uncalled for.kateliz wrote:ocho, aren't these just articles you've pulled from somewhere on the internet, and not written by you as sandy has said?
I haven't read them yet either way!
Last edited by ochotseat on Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The main problem is most of them don't want to earn a living. If they did, they'd take any minimum wage job to get off the streets.Deborah wrote:What they government need to do is get them to do community work for the handout. This gives them back their self respect. And I don't mean make slaves of them! I mean a fair days work for a fair days pay!
20 hours a week would be enough to cover benifits given. but them people couldn;t called the bludgers because they would be earning their benifit.
The problem is lack of training and experience! it is not as clear cut as you make out. We also have a lack of confidence, and alot of other problems in our society. You cheapen the problems of people who clearly need help. It is our job and our governments job to help, afterall we society allowed it to get this bad.ochotseat wrote:The main problem is most of them don't want to earn a living. If they did, they'd take any minimum wage job to get off the streets.Deborah wrote:What they government need to do is get them to do community work for the handout. This gives them back their self respect. And I don't mean make slaves of them! I mean a fair days work for a fair days pay!
20 hours a week would be enough to cover benifits given. but them people couldn;t called the bludgers because they would be earning their benifit.
Church tradition tells us that when John, son of Zebadee and brother of James was an old man, his disciples would carry him to church in their arms.
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
The government provides free and discounted educational programs.Deborah wrote: The problem is lack of training and experience!
I know, but most of them depend too heavily on help.it is not as clear cut as you make out.
Charity's great, but pumping more money into programs that don't seem to work as planned doesn't make sense to me. These programs need to be modified or reduced, because a lot of the money goes to overhead rather than to the intended targets. Do you agree with people having equal opportunities but not equal results?It is our job and our governments job to help, afterall we society allowed it to get this bad.
all I know is we have to try and turn it around.
and the government has to help.
they can make it compulsary for those recieving benifits not including aged, by having them either in study or doing community work.
and before you say oh yes study is the easy way out. it's not, because more hours would be spent studying than doing community work.
one course I did turned out to be 50+ hours a week all up. It is very hard work. 20 hours a week is alot less work than studying.
and the government has to help.
they can make it compulsary for those recieving benifits not including aged, by having them either in study or doing community work.
and before you say oh yes study is the easy way out. it's not, because more hours would be spent studying than doing community work.
one course I did turned out to be 50+ hours a week all up. It is very hard work. 20 hours a week is alot less work than studying.
Church tradition tells us that when John, son of Zebadee and brother of James was an old man, his disciples would carry him to church in their arms.
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
Government needs to overhaul its way of aiding the less fortunate. Too many selfish and lazy people are receiving help that the truly need deserve. Sounds like you agree that the government should provide equal opportunity but not equal results.Deborah wrote:all I know is we have to try and turn it around.
and the government has to help.
they can make it compulsary for those recieving benifits not including aged, by having them either in study or doing community work.
and before you say oh yes study is the easy way out. it's not, because more hours would be spent studying than doing community work.
one course I did turned out to be 50+ hours a week all up. It is very hard work. 20 hours a week is alot less work than studying.
-
kateliz
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 811
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:07 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
- Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota, US
I have now read all of this thread, (I skimmed before.) I really like that article, though I still doubt ocho wrote it.) I had never had the idea presented to me that people'd do better without welfare. I do know that it's extrememly lenient as it is now, and definetely needs to require much more from the recipients. The way it is right now has people too reliant on it and discourages them from picking themselves up and out of their rut. It seems we all agree on that.
My mother used the welfare system appropriately after she divorced my father for abuse. She was a stay-at-home-mom with my dad, and went to college while on welfare after the divorce. She now is able to contribute much to society as an RN. Her welfare story is a good one, and exemplifies what welfare should be used for.
My sister is raping the system though. She conceived at the age of fourteen, got her GED, and worked at Target and a daycare for a few years before deciding to become a cosmotologist. Inside of all of that, though, she spent over six months, (most of it all at one time,) sitting on her butt at home watching TV while she received welfare and had her son at daycare, (this is while he was in preschool.) Why in the world was she allowed to do that? It got me so mad! She's been on welfare for years, and because it has supported her in her laziness, she's been encouraged to be lazy. This is an example of a very poorly set-up and/or managed welfare system.
Whether to replace welfare with charity all depends on the specifics of each. If welfare is done right, it's just a charity everyone contributes to. Then it'd be able to be mangaed "under one roof." I'd be afraid to trust charities to do what's right in each situation, because all of the charities are different. But then you could strictly regulate charities and use them in place of welfare, with people only contributing who actually want to. It makes better sense, though, to have it all "under one roof" so it can be all regulated in the same proper way, if that way is found and executed appropriately.
Welfare should make sure that people's jobs can eventually support them. If their job cannot provide that, give them the education for a better job. Or is that too simple?
My mother used the welfare system appropriately after she divorced my father for abuse. She was a stay-at-home-mom with my dad, and went to college while on welfare after the divorce. She now is able to contribute much to society as an RN. Her welfare story is a good one, and exemplifies what welfare should be used for.
My sister is raping the system though. She conceived at the age of fourteen, got her GED, and worked at Target and a daycare for a few years before deciding to become a cosmotologist. Inside of all of that, though, she spent over six months, (most of it all at one time,) sitting on her butt at home watching TV while she received welfare and had her son at daycare, (this is while he was in preschool.) Why in the world was she allowed to do that? It got me so mad! She's been on welfare for years, and because it has supported her in her laziness, she's been encouraged to be lazy. This is an example of a very poorly set-up and/or managed welfare system.
Whether to replace welfare with charity all depends on the specifics of each. If welfare is done right, it's just a charity everyone contributes to. Then it'd be able to be mangaed "under one roof." I'd be afraid to trust charities to do what's right in each situation, because all of the charities are different. But then you could strictly regulate charities and use them in place of welfare, with people only contributing who actually want to. It makes better sense, though, to have it all "under one roof" so it can be all regulated in the same proper way, if that way is found and executed appropriately.
Welfare should make sure that people's jobs can eventually support them. If their job cannot provide that, give them the education for a better job. Or is that too simple?