Welfare almost never "makes people lazy"

[jordanriver]

So the colonists sat back and kicked their feet up while the natives catered to all of their needs? I wasn't aware of that. I always got the impression that the colonists, with the help of the natives, worked their butts off to build themselves a better society, but maybe I just don't know my history.

i bet that was AFTER they had a meal, (they were starving, remember) and the natives didn't know anything about 2 Thessalonians yet

[jordanriver]

If I can do it so can anyone. Life isn't fair. Life is hard. Deal with it instead of whining.

can't argue with that.


and I mean that in the literal sense, cant argue with someone who implies everyone is created equal when I don't believe everyone is created equal.

just have to be stuck at that point

[klaus54]

can't argue with that.


and I mean that in the literal sense, cant argue with someone who implies everyone is created equal when I don't believe everyone is created equal.

just have to be stuck at that point

Don't you have some beets and taters to dig?

[jordanriver]

no, just a floor to scrub, so I guess I better git going, Mr Klaus

[One Bad Pig]

I have come to be convinced that a significant underlying reason why so many Americans (compared to people of other Western countries) are so opposed to government welfare, is racism.

People of other countries tend to say to themselves, "well, it just plain makes sense to have a centralized system for helping the poor, because that ensures that everyone in need throughout the country gets helped, and that those who live in poor areas that lack generous and charitable people don't end up starving, and those that live in areas with a lot of wealthy charitable people aren't given excessive amounts of welfare."

Whereas a lot of Americans say to themselves "we can't have a centralized government system doing it, because that will give money to undeserving black people as equally as it does deserving white people. What we need is individualized control over who our money goes to, so I can ensure my money is only going to white people and not black people. So it's essential we don't have a government program that color-blindly helps everyone equally."

I'm not saying that every individual who expresses the sentiment that charity needs to be individualized and not government-run is racist, and I'm not trying to imply that Sparko himself is racist for expressing it (there are variety of different reasons people might come to hold that view, and Sparko has given a perfectly satisfactory explanation of how his life experiences led him to hold that view), I'm simply saying that I think the reason that such a view is so popular in the US as compared to other Western countries is racism. By and large there has been a widespread narrative in the US that it is black people who are the ones who are poor and on welfare, and that in general they are lazy and undeserving. (However, the facts actually show that the biggest users of food-stamps are white people in Republican states.) That popular sentiment then filters through a widely racist population and gives rise to a very popular view about how important it is that individuals know that the recipient of their charitable donations is suitably "deserving" (aka white) and how important it is that the government not just be giving out free money to the "undeserving" (aka blacks).

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

I'm so glad I have you around to tell me how I think.

You're no better a mind-reader than any other run-of-the-mill liberal. Do tell me where I can find this so-called "widespread narrative."

[Cow Poke]

This seems to be the difference in the thinking about this issue between conservatives and liberals. For conservatives its a dog eat dog world and they have very little empathy or compassion for those who for whatever reason don't make it in society.

What a fresh steaming pile of horsie poo!

The thing that is suprising to me about that, is that most of the conservatives profess to be christians, and that mindset is completely at odds with christian teaching. They will argue of course, and I say this because it is the argument often given on this site, is that christian teaching about concern for the other has only to do with ones interpersonal relationships, not with ones social policy agenda. That to me is just a self serving cop out.

Thank you Lord, for people like JimL, who, by comparison, make the most uneducated and ignorant of persons feel smart.

Amen

[Cow Poke]

Actually I would suggest that willingly paying taxes to assist those in need would indeed be an act of love and charity on your part.

So, lemme get this straight... instead of having the FREE car clinic at our Church last Saturday where we serviced vehicles for FREE and gave everybody who came a coupon for a FREE oil change, and bought tires for TWO of the people because they were running on bald tires ---- instead of doing that, we should have given that money to the government who could use it to fund studies like shrimp on treadmills.

To uncaringly look the other way and make excuses for rejecting government assistance in the face of their suffering is repugnent.

Look at the government money wasted on your education!

Where is your heart Sparko?

Where is your brain, JimL?

[Joel]

Robinson Crusoe lol.

He got there just in time, poor Man Friday was unemployed all of his life till job creator Crusoe showed up.

Irrelevant to what I wrote.

I have come to be convinced that a significant underlying reason why so many Americans (compared to people of other Western countries) are so opposed to government welfare, is racism.

A while back I started compiling a list of types of arguments against state welfare as I encounter them. Looks like I now have 17 in my list, and because-of-racism isn't one of them.

It's like you think, "I personally don't find the 17-some kinds of reasons that Americans give to be sufficiently compelling reasons, so surely Americans don't either, and all these reasons they give are just cover for their character failings--probably racism."

I've seen you do this often. Just the past couple days I saw you attribute certain positions of American voters to ignorance, propaganda, etc. They disagree with you, so you assume that they can't possibly think they have good reasons to think the way they do. They must be evil or stupid.

Jesus wants us to care for each other out of love and charity. He never said, oh yeah just give all of your extra to Caesar and he will distribute it to the poor.

Actually I would suggest that willingly paying taxes to assist those in need would indeed be an act of love and charity on your part.

I think the bigger problem is that even if I am convinced that I ought to give to Caesar out of charity, that doesn't do anything to imply that I ought to force all my neighbors to do so. I can give to Caesar without any law requiring it.

The question of whether to support a law is never a question of "Am I okay with following it?"; it is always a question of "Am I okay with forcing millions of others to follow it--with lethal force if necessary?".

[Adam]

This seems to be the difference in the thinking about this issue between conservatives and liberals. For conservatives its a dog eat dog world and they have very little empathy or compassion for those who for whatever reason don't make it in society. The thing that is suprising to me about that, is that most of the conservatives profess to be christians, and that mindset is completely at odds with christian teaching. They will argue of course, and I say this because it is the argument often given on this site, is that christian teaching about concern for the other has only to do with ones interpersonal relationships, not with ones social policy agenda. That to me is just a self serving cop out.

Well stated, and duly applauded "a thousand times over" by Starlight (though he forgot to affix an "Amen".
However, I have some perspective on this from the trials of a younger me.
Before I became a Christian (again, you might argue, as I went to Sunday School until I quit in disgust with the Westminster Confession at age13), I had settled upon pacifism and libertarianism. So, yes, I did know the stress of reconciling hard-nosed economics with my attempts to incorporate Christian teaching. I did so a different way (not just Grace overcoming Law, I. e. Paul overcoming Jesus). I read the gospels carefully and realized that the most difficult, heroic teachings were for Jesus's Twelve apostles in their ministry at the time. I found unclear how much of it pertained to living the ordinary Christian life.
I did hold then that Jesus's Golden Rule certainly applied to daily life. This means that in our personal dealings WITH PEOPLE we have human feelings and responsibilities. I still always give to beggars who ask me. Neither then nor now do I feel compelled or virtuous in volunteering extra tax money to the government. There it is, the Conservative Rationale for being Christian in spite of not giving all we have to the Poor (in abstract, elsewhere, elsewhen--no such word exists but it should) in general. This does not work out very rationally in practice, as the people I wind up giving cash are usually slackers. But that reconciliation between conservative economics and Christian morality is possible I have known for fifty-four years. (I'm not saying I am still a libertarian--I'm much too sophisticated for such over-simplication now.)
(True, I might not regard many conservatives' social policy as reconcilable with Christianity. One cannot properly condemn public policy that does benefit the Beatitude-qualified people. One might well argue that any particular benefit programs do not effectuate this goal, however.)

[RumTumTugger]

I have come to be convinced that a significant underlying reason why so many Americans (compared to people of other Western countries) are so opposed to government welfare, is racism.

People of other countries tend to say to themselves, "well, it just plain makes sense to have a centralized system for helping the poor, because that ensures that everyone in need throughout the country gets helped, and that those who live in poor areas that lack generous and charitable people don't end up starving, and those that live in areas with a lot of wealthy charitable people aren't given excessive amounts of welfare."

Whereas a lot of Americans say to themselves "we can't have a centralized government system doing it, because that will give money to undeserving black people as equally as it does deserving white people. What we need is individualized control over who our money goes to, so I can ensure my money is only going to white people and not black people. So it's essential we don't have a government program that color-blindly helps everyone equally."

I'm not saying that every individual who expresses the sentiment that charity needs to be individualized and not government-run is racist, and I'm not trying to imply that Sparko himself is racist for expressing it (there are variety of different reasons people might come to hold that view, and Sparko has given a perfectly satisfactory explanation of how his life experiences led him to hold that view), I'm simply saying that I think the reason that such a view is so popular in the US as compared to other Western countries is racism. By and large there has been a widespread narrative in the US that it is black people who are the ones who are poor and on welfare, and that in general they are lazy and undeserving. (However, the facts actually show that the biggest users of food-stamps are white people in Republican states.) That popular sentiment then filters through a widely racist population and gives rise to a very popular view about how important it is that individuals know that the recipient of their charitable donations is suitably "deserving" (aka white) and how important it is that the government not just be giving out free money to the "undeserving" (aka blacks).

I see Starlight is dishonestly using race war rhetoric to demonize those he disagrees with. No it is not about RACE it is about how we make sure those truly in need no matter what race or walk of life they are in get it not those that don't need it. most of us here think we can make sure to help those who need it we don't need the government to do it we can find those in need and give them the help they need. Starlight thinks government is the only entity that knows who need help and who doesn't. Which way is better well starlight dishonest tactic does not tell us that does it it. Let me give you a clue Starlight you do not show that your way is the only or best way by dishonestly demonizing those groups who do not hold your world view. you have to explain to us why you feel it is the best way.

[Cow Poke]

I have come to be convinced that a significant underlying reason why so many Americans (compared to people of other Western countries) are so opposed to government welfare, is racism.

Yeah, because white people don't get no foodstamps or government assistance.

[Starlight]

Yeah, because white people don't get no foodstamps or government assistance.

True, but I think most Americans don't realize that. Fox News would have everyone believe that the people on welfare are basically all criminal black lazy single-parent households, with the remainder being hippie drug-using Californian white-trash surfers. That's the kind of picture they like to paint of welfare users with their carefully selected anecdotes where they look "in depth" at particularly carefully chosen cases, and Bill O'Reilly does his rants about ghetto neighborhoods and black culture.

[Adam]

Jus'n cuz I'm Californian don't mean I surf none! Yu n yur staireeootiips!

[JimL]

You misunderstand. We want to help those who NEED the help, and we want to have control over how we help them. We don't want the government to pick our pockets and hand out our hard earned money to those who don't need it, which is what happens in many cases. Not to mention the outrageous overhead the whole welfare system has.

I have no problem with helping those who need it, and I do so. Usually with people that I know who are having a hard time. Even some here on tweb. I don't want the state to take my money and just give it to who they think needs it, because most of the time they are wrong.

Besides, it is not charity when the government steals from you to pay someone else. That is theft. Jesus wants us to care for each other out of love and charity. He never said, oh yeah just give all of your extra to Caesar and he will distribute it to the poor.

Really now. How do you help Sparko? Do you house and feed the homeless. We are not talking about helping out the down and out friend next door with a few bucks, admirable though that may be, we are talking about homeless, starving, and working poor families and children all across the country. How do you insure that they be helped without the support of government social policy? You don't, thats how. You know as well as I do that without government involvment those people are going to suffer their circumstances because the task of doing right by them is an overwhelming one for individual citizens to tackle individually. You turn a blind eye to this fact when you argue against government involvement and that is why I call your tact a cop out. If you truly cared, and have in mind the suffering of people in general then you would support a system that takes their plight into consideration rather than making excuses about the government stealing your hard earned money. Thats what government is all about, we pool together our resources, we pay our dues, our taxes, to make better the lives of all.

[lilpixieofterror]

If this is the case please enlighten us to this distinction.

If you're not smart enough to understand the distinction (clearly, others understood it too). I can't help you there, but since I'm so nice, I'll try anyway.

If you give a drunk a dollar, have you helped him or have you hurt him?

Let's start there and work our way from there.