U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-24-2009, 09:42 AM
 
2,920 posts, read 2,906,882 times
Reputation: 3504

Advertisements

The Poor will always be with us. Most American Christians believe, among other things, that Christ charged us with caring for the least of our brothers. They also consider the United States to be a Christian nation, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers may have been divided on personal issues of faith, but not on their intent to found a nation where freedom of faith is fundamental. Their intent for the poor is to be found in the phrase "promote the general welfare", which was the basis for the Great Society movement of Lyndon B. Johnson.

Despite the huge infusion of money earned by other taxpayers and transferred to the welfare of the poor, they are, indeed, still with us. More and more the cry is heard for personal responsibility. I believe that an application of that creed, can help get our nation back on track in a number of ways. The question is, will the Christians also heed Jesus' dictum to "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's"? Currently we are rendering unto Caesar that which is God's, and it has created a different set of problems, among them welfare and Medicaid fraud.

Here are some of my ideas for solutions. They were inspired by a forum in which several posters were discussing the responsibilities for feeding the children of the poor. Be prepared, because some of them are beyond the pale.

First, eliminate welfare. Completely. Let's let those who can survive on their own do, and as far as those who can't, if charity doesn't step in, they can die. There was a forum a few months ago that I can no longer find where a poster was advocating this as one solution along with vigilante justice. A bleeding heart wrote that "surely you wouldn't let the children starve!" He replied that of course he wouldn't let the children starve, their parents would. Don't bring children into the world if you can't afford to feed them, he said.

Eliminate all subsidies for housing, health care, and child care. Eliminate public schooling. This would free up millions of dollars for the extra money that would be needed for policing until this Draconian social Darwinism weeded out the first two or three generations. This is also where the vigilante justice system steps in to cut down on court costs.

If churches and other charities wanted to step in, by all means let them. Their money is given, not taxed. Anyone who doesn't want to feed the hungry and clothe the naked shouldn't have to. One problem is that when the government took over the responsibility of the church, people began to see taking care of the poor as a government domain instead of a charitable one. Of course, many Americans don't have the stomach to see children literally starving right in front of them, so their response would be interesting to see. I don't really have any idea what would happen.

We are not too many generations removed from this type of care for the poor. As a nation, we decided during the early 20th century that our citizens should be sustained at government expense. Now that we have reaped the consequences, we may decide that we should return to a policy of "no work, no food."

Prior to that time, the poor were primarily maintained by charities--soup kitchens, shelters, and charity hospitals. Children were expected to pull their own weight, and working children did not clog up the few public schools that existed. Parents who could afford it could send their children to elite schools that had high expectations and delivered a quality education.

Poor people did not expect to be supported by government transfer of private funds to their households. There was a serious connect between being able to eat every day and working for that food which has been lost. If America is serious about returning to its roots, as I so often hear the conservatives say, then we should begin by closing down the public trough, refunding the money to the taxpayers, and see if they step up to meet the needs of the poor (not their desires) through charitable donations. And if they don't, let's see their reaction to the sight of ragged, sick, starving homeless children begging at the side of the road.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-24-2009, 09:48 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,556,197 times
Reputation: 35864
Read Charles Dickens and get back to us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 09:52 AM
 
8,195 posts, read 10,208,781 times
Reputation: 7485
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge View Post
The Poor will always be with us. Most American Christians believe, among other things, that Christ charged us with caring for the least of our brothers. They also consider the United States to be a Christian nation, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers may have been divided on personal issues of faith, but not on their intent to found a nation where freedom of faith is fundamental. Their intent for the poor is to be found in the phrase "promote the general welfare", which was the basis for the Great Society movement of Lyndon B. Johnson.

Despite the huge infusion of money earned by other taxpayers and transferred to the welfare of the poor, they are, indeed, still with us. More and more the cry is heard for personal responsibility. I believe that an application of that creed, can help get our nation back on track in a number of ways. The question is, will the Christians also heed Jesus' dictum to "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's"? Currently we are rendering unto Caesar that which is God's, and it has created a different set of problems, among them welfare and Medicaid fraud.

Here are some of my ideas for solutions. They were inspired by a forum in which several posters were discussing the responsibilities for feeding the children of the poor. Be prepared, because some of them are beyond the pale.

First, eliminate welfare. Completely. Let's let those who can survive on their own do, and as far as those who can't, if charity doesn't step in, they can die. There was a forum a few months ago that I can no longer find where a poster was advocating this as one solution along with vigilante justice. A bleeding heart wrote that "surely you wouldn't let the children starve!" He replied that of course he wouldn't let the children starve, their parents would. Don't bring children into the world if you can't afford to feed them, he said.

Eliminate all subsidies for housing, health care, and child care. Eliminate public schooling. This would free up millions of dollars for the extra money that would be needed for policing until this Draconian social Darwinism weeded out the first two or three generations. This is also where the vigilante justice system steps in to cut down on court costs.

If churches and other charities wanted to step in, by all means let them. Their money is given, not taxed. Anyone who doesn't want to feed the hungry and clothe the naked shouldn't have to. One problem is that when the government took over the responsibility of the church, people began to see taking care of the poor as a government domain instead of a charitable one. Of course, many Americans don't have the stomach to see children literally starving right in front of them, so their response would be interesting to see. I don't really have any idea what would happen.

We are not too many generations removed from this type of care for the poor. As a nation, we decided during the early 20th century that our citizens should be sustained at government expense. Now that we have reaped the consequences, we may decide that we should return to a policy of "no work, no food."

Prior to that time, the poor were primarily maintained by charities--soup kitchens, shelters, and charity hospitals. Children were expected to pull their own weight, and working children did not clog up the few public schools that existed. Parents who could afford it could send their children to elite schools that had high expectations and delivered a quality education.

Poor people did not expect to be supported by government transfer of private funds to their households. There was a serious connect between being able to eat every day and working for that food which has been lost. If America is serious about returning to its roots, as I so often hear the conservatives say, then we should begin by closing down the public trough, refunding the money to the taxpayers, and see if they step up to meet the needs of the poor (not their desires) through charitable donations. And if they don't, let's see their reaction to the sight of ragged, sick, starving homeless children begging at the side of the road.






how about using all the money being given to israel and iraq to use for the poor here? they are one of the biggest welfare recipients. lets stop taking care of other countries and take care of our own. those countries take in more than any welfare program we have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 10:07 AM
 
2,920 posts, read 2,906,882 times
Reputation: 3504
Default Dickens' poor

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Read Charles Dickens and get back to us.
Exactly. The Victorian Era was a Christian society caring for the poor. It was very conservative. Those who chose to give, gave. Those who didn't refrained. Taxes were not paid by low-income workers to support no-income workers. Instead, charities were set up to care for the poor and their children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 10:13 AM
 
3,566 posts, read 4,491,128 times
Reputation: 1846
Do you go to church?


*****
I think the first group of people who should not receive cash from the government are the churches. Yep. We could save a huge bundle right there.

2. Is there a hospital? Tax them. Save a bundle there. Lets get rid of the religious welfare baby.

Last edited by Pandamonium; 11-24-2009 at 10:26 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Houston/Heights
2,637 posts, read 3,879,832 times
Reputation: 961
With out Yin, there can be no yang. we have the rich, as well as the poor. It creates a Balance in the middle. these are not new concepts, but have been here as long as Man himself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 10:34 AM
 
2,920 posts, read 2,906,882 times
Reputation: 3504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandamonium View Post
Do you go to church?
Is this information necessary for a reasoned reply or is it the beginning of an attack?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 10:35 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
3,088 posts, read 4,544,006 times
Reputation: 1598
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Read Charles Dickens and get back to us.
Seems like he / she HAS READ Dickens. . . and approves of the kind of society that he wrote about. . . interesting!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 10:38 AM
 
3,566 posts, read 4,491,128 times
Reputation: 1846
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge View Post
Is this information necessary for a reasoned reply or is it the beginning of an attack?

I want to know that if your church receives federal money that you are willing to step up to the plate and tell the government that you don't want the money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,556,197 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by cap1717 View Post
Seems like he / she HAS READ Dickens. . . and approves of the kind of society that he wrote about. . . interesting!
Actually, Bob Cratchit was better off than a lot of Americans. They lived in a house with a garden, Mrs. Cratchit didn't have to work, they could afford to eat goose and plum pudding for Christmas, and their doctor made house calls.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top