Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the late 1960s, I worked in a grocery store (I was in HS). Only the truly poor got what was then called "welfare". People on welfare got a grant; a paper which said how much money they could spend. Welfare grants I saw were for all monthly bills: the amount given was for rent, heat, water, elec and food. After someone paid all the first items: like rent, heat, water, elec... then they could come into the supermarket and tell you they had a grant and that they would be a long time. They had to buy food only and you had to write down what they spent and attach the register receipt on it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but back then in the 60s and 70s it seemed like "welfare" was relatively easy to get. Now isn't it called "aid to dependent children" and the more dependents you have the more you get in welfare? (can people without dependents get "welfare")? I know of several families who get aid for their disabled children, and from the outside it doesn't seem that they are all that "poor." But I don't judge because I don't know.
I think Boompa has some points...but his posts are horribly one sided. Contrary to what Boompa thinks, millions of people gaming the system in one form or another do run up a pretty significant tab.
Cites, please. Not only from you, but from everyone in this discussion who is making sweeping statements ...
Some think the admonition to do unto others as you would have them do unto you is from the Bible. It is, indeed, in the Bible (noted by Leviticus in the Old Testament and Matthew as well as Luke in the New Testament) and is a well-known Torah verse. It also is found in some form in every major religion, as well as all the great civilizations of the world including ancient Babylon, Egypt, Persia, India, Greece, Judea, and China. Some say the custom of naming that principle the Golden Rule was started by Confucius.
It's the very foundation of society as we know it. I'd say that it's what separates us from animals, but even most animals operate under an instinct of preserving their own species. The concept of charity is the most obvious manifestation of the Golden Rule. Of course people often feel embarrassment about accepting charity since it implies that in some way they have failed to provide for themselves and/or their families. But accepting charity gracefully when one is in dire circumstances should be considered a sign of the best breeding. And we should encourage people to give back when they are able and even "pay it forward" when they enjoy good circumstances.
Of course charity can be abused. Someone will always abuse any good intention; some of us are more highly evolved than others. But that is no reason to avoid giving. To me, having NO good intentions toward one fellow man is just as bad a crime.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am not talking abstract, I mean hell right here on earth.
Charity, while sometimes necessary, is never a good thing, and there is no way to accept it gracefully.
For every action, there is an opposite reaction, and the receipt of charity is paid for with ones self-respect.
No matter how you twist it, when you accept charity you are taking the fruits of someone else’s labor without earning it, and that is something to be ashamed of.
Long ago people understood that, and understood also the only way to begin to repay an act of charity was to get back on their feet and to help someone else who was in need.
Today as this poll shows, the vast majority of people do not even understand the concept of charity being shameful, and that we are doing a disservice to the majority of the people who are receiving it.
Like the old fable about teaching a man to fish, and making him self supporting and owing no one, being a better course than giving him fish and making him dependent and beholden.
Charity can often be more harm than help.
Cites, please. Not only from you, but from everyone in this discussion who is making sweeping statements ...
There are certain statistics that, by their very nature, are impossible to ascertain with any degree of reliability. But that does not negate the existence of the phenomenon in our society and allow us to go as if it were not happening.
"Millions of people gaming the system" is not an unreasonable assumption, since 3-million is only one percent of the population. When a system is abused by only a fraction of one percent of its beneficiaries, it violates the law of diminishing returns to dedicate too much of your resources to policing it, or to abolish a worthwhile enterprise entirely in order to prevent a tiny amount of abuse.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am not talking abstract, I mean hell right here on earth.
Charity, while sometimes necessary, is never a good thing, and there is no way to accept it gracefully.
For every action, there is an opposite reaction, and the receipt of charity is paid for with ones self-respect.
No matter how you twist it, when you accept charity you are taking the fruits of someone else’s labor without earning it, and that is something to be ashamed of.
Long ago people understood that, and understood also the only way to begin to repay an act of charity was to get back on their feet and to help someone else who was in need.
Today as this poll shows, the vast majority of people do not even understand the concept of charity being shameful, and that we are doing a disservice to the majority of the people who are receiving it.
Like the old fable about teaching a man to fish, and making him self supporting and owing no one, being a better course than giving him fish and making him dependent and beholden.
Charity can often be more harm than help.
I'll tell my 85-year-old mother and her acquaintances who are old, in pain, and home-bound that you feel this way. I suspect you think that they should be taken care of by their children. While my mother is (by me), some of her friends have outlived their children or never had any. Society encouraged them not to work outside the home, so they haven't contributed to Social Security and get the minimum. As a result, many of our elders -- especially widows -- have lost the homes they spent their lives paying for. I wonder if they would agree that charity cannot be accepted gracefully and "can often be more harm than help."
I'll tell my 85-year-old mother and her acquaintances who are old, in pain, and home-bound that you feel this way. I suspect you think that they should be taken care of by their children. While my mother is (by me), some of her friends have outlived their children or never had any. Society encouraged them not to work outside the home, so they haven't contributed to Social Security and get the minimum. As a result, many of our elders -- especially widows -- have lost the homes they spent their lives paying for. I wonder if they would agree that charity cannot be accepted gracefully and "can often be more harm than help."
I can't speak for everyone here, but I don't know if is people like your mother that are being criticized here. Some people do have a legitimate need, the problem is that there are far too many young and able bodied people that are "taking" and they shouldn't be. We should take care of our disabled and the elderly.
Once in my life I was desperate and needed food stamps for three months, I also recieved $180 toward heating oil for my house. That was so demeaning I will never get over it. The people who get them need them and I won't worry about them until we recover the 46% of our economy that the rich have STOLEN in the past ten years. Why should I fight those on food stamps for the scraps the rich have left us
I'll tell my 85-year-old mother and her acquaintances who are old, in pain, and home-bound that you feel this way. I suspect you think that they should be taken care of by their children. While my mother is (by me), some of her friends have outlived their children or never had any. Society encouraged them not to work outside the home, so they haven't contributed to Social Security and get the minimum. As a result, many of our elders -- especially widows -- have lost the homes they spent their lives paying for. I wonder if they would agree that charity cannot be accepted gracefully and "can often be more harm than help."
I admitted there are times when charity is necessary and in the case of the disabled, which include the elderly, this is clearly one of them. Although I have somewhat less sympathy for older people who have had a lifetime to prepare themselves financially.
And yes I do feel children have a responsibility to the parents who raised them, much more so than society in general.
The need for charity in the US has much more to do with the lack of accountability, than it does circumstances beyond people’s control.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
