I think I might be changing my mind about something

I believe I am already a kingdom citizen. I don't plan to wait until I die to start acting like one.

 

Amen. That's why when someone wrecks their life, it should be an occasion for them to go to the "light" in this world to seek not only help but counselling so that their behavior if not their heart is changed.

Welfare isn't a safety net for many, many people. It is a hammock.

There is an economic truth that you guys are dealing with: You get more of whatever you subsidize.

Give private contributions to poverty relief through charities and "faith based" organizations... and you get effective help for the poor that is judged by how many people get on their feet. People expect a return on investment.

Give money to social programs... you get ever growing bureaucracies and programs and a permanent entitlement class that lose all sense of morality and dignity.

 

I believe I am already a kingdom citizen. I don't plan to wait until I die to start acting like one. </font>[/QUOTE]Me neither. That's why I won't use my vote to send government to forcefully confiscate under the threat of prison or violence the property of someone else just because I have decided to play God and decide that one has too much while the other has too little.

God has given me wealth to be the steward over... He did not give me your wealth or Michael Jordan's or Bill Gate's to be steward over.

 

I agree that bureaucracies are part of every large organization, even private and "faith based" ones. Minimizing bureaucracy in welfare is a good thing.

I also agree that an attitude of entitlement for welfare is wrong. I don't see how that sense of entitlement is avoided when a steady stream of welfare comes from a private or "faith-based" charity.

 

Scott,

I wish there were jobs available for anyone willing to work. That certainly hasn't been the case in my city. The biggest employers were an army base, a restaurant chain's corporate office, the medical industry and the local university. The university put on a hiring freeze, the goverment closed the air base, putting a lot of civillian people out of work because they supplied the air base. The restaurant chain moved their corporate office, and the hospital did rounds of layoffs 350 at Thanksgiving, 300 more at Christmas, 300 more at New Years. The private sector couldn't absorb it all, even people willing to work for minimum wage at places like McDonalds who had once held 40,000 a year jobs at the hospital were unable to find work. To move, you need money.

To say that anyone who wants to work can is just wrong. Its not accurate.

You just said that the woman who had 7 children as immoral, yet, she would probably have judged you that way. When did you get the authority from God to declare that God was wrong when he allowed this woman to conceive 7 children? Which ones are you suggesting shouldn't live? The eldest who is literally a war hero, decorated for saving lives in combat? The middle one who is a cardiologist today? Maybe you think the youngest shouldn't have been born. Heaven knows, you obviously know more than God knew. Pick one Scott! Who shouldn't have been born?!

There have been discussions on that theme on this board. Some Baptists believe that birth control is wrong. The woman I am referring believed birth control was a sin. However, at the time, it was irrelevant. At the time she and her husband together had an income that supported their children. She didn't know he was going to run out. So how can you call her immoral and label her as unworthy of help? She worked and she worked hard, her kids went to work at the earliest age the government allowed. How is that immoral?

What brings on any emergency Scott? An unexpected illness, an accident, a pipe that bursts, an appliance that wears out. Now people have to justify to you why they have a crisis in their life? There are tornados, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes in this world. Do people need to clear them with you first?

If people did what the bible said there would not be a NEED for Government welfare systems. The bible says you should take care of your family, extended family. If your brother dies, you take in his wife and kids. How many people do that? It says if there isn't family, the church takes care of them? How many churches would continue to support a widow if the job she can find doesn't cover the cost of childcare? Sure, they step in for a week or two, maybe even a month or two. Will they be there, in the long run, for years, when the reason for no work is terminal cancer? A debilitating car accident?

My life was turned upside in a heart beat by a drunk driver. Was it sinful of my husband to take the kids to see his parents that night? Maybe he was wrong to drive them home! The accident did, after all, happen on our own street corner! Is he "unworthy" of assistance because a head injury cost him his job?

I didn't go on welfare because - in all honesty, I ignored the majority of Baptists I know who had, since the day I gave birth to my oldest child, called me a "bad mother" for "not staying home with the children." Had I NOT ignored them, we would NOT have survived the ordeal financially. As it was, we barely survived it, and there are still days I doubt we will. I don't use credit cards. My house payment is less than apartments, my car is paid for. I don't take trips, I save what I can. But unanticipated doctor bills, higher than usual utilties, school expenses, repairs devastate our family. If I ever got laid off we would be homeless.

And people like you and Larry have made it VERY clear that you'd rather look the other way, make up some excuse that it has to be "our sin" than consider helping in an emergency.

No wonder people tell me that Christians are hateful. The heathen take better care of people.

 

Did God establish our government that gives you a vote? Then God established you to be a steward over that vote, even when that vote impacts Michael Jordon or Bill Gate's tax dollars.

 

I agree that bureaucracies are part of every large organization, even private and "faith based" ones.

I also agree that an attitude of entitlement for welfare is wrong. I don't see how that sense of entitlement is avoided when a steady stream of welfare comes from a private or "faith-based" charity. </font>[/QUOTE]Compare the results.

Charities for many reasons have an incentive to conserve resources... to get value out of each dollar. Welfare programs don't.

Charity has people who love giving to people in need... with a real interest in seeing good. Welfare has bureaucrats administering a program that transfers wealth from one group of people they don't care about or else resent to another group of people they don't care about or else respect.

In fact, it would be wrong for administrators of government programs to be anything less than dispassionate. They are supposed to be acting out "law". That precludes any emotion or sentiment being a part of the equation.

You really should know that private charities have proven to be far more effective than federal bureaucracies in relieving the poor.

 

Did God establish our government that gives you a vote? Then God established you to be a steward over that vote, even when that vote impacts Michael Jordon or Bill Gate's tax dollars. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. That's what I said. I won't exercise my vote to steal from someone else by proxy... even if I think I am playing Robin Hood.

 

Scott,

Ronald Reagan truly believed that if we pulled back on government support of the needy the churches and charities would step in and replace the government programs.

However, when he did exactly that, the public and churches and charities did NOT step up. They screamed foul and said we were over burdening them.

We also left out huge segments of the population that didn't quite meet some minor "private club" qualification of whatever the group was.

Now, a huge number of charities rely on government agencies because the private sector is simply not coming through for them.

 

What if I exercise my vote to steal from me by proxy? Is that still stealing?

 

It depends on your metrics and probably your metric shows this by virtue of them being smaller. If a faith based or private charity was the size of a nation's welfare system, it would have similar levels of inefficiencies as well.

When you add up all the faith based and private charities, both efficient and inefficient ones, you may get a similar level of inefficiency compared to the government.

 

Texas,

lets be fair. Ive read most of this thread. And you keep saying that others have said that ALL poor are there because of their own fault.....they haven't ever said ALL. They are speaking against the "entitlement mentality." That mentality that says that they ought to be able to not do anything because the gov't will take care of them. There ARE many people who have that attitude. I know lots of them. Personally. Im not talking about some group of people I've just heard of. I could take you to some of their houses and point them out to you as they sit on their front porch.
Ive seen all these people cite the fact that they understand that there are legitimate emergencies and legitimate cases in which the gov't actually OUGHT to step in and help, and sometimes even take over completely.

Let me say too, there's a whole side of my city that is poorer than most places anyone on here has ever frequented. There are cases where the mom was left alone with X amount of children to care for on her own......they need help. There are cases where the family has fallen on hard times and needs legitimate help. Ive been in that situation myself not too long ago.

Ive also described the good job program we have in our city. When my hubby went through that program, there were 30 people signed up to take the class with him. Want to know how many showed up for class? 10. Less than half. And the teacher said this was not unusual. There was always a large percentage signed up who never showed. If they were signed up for that class, then they were able-bodied. The definition for "disabled" is very broad here. It also was not due to a girl being unable to find day care for her child....there was FREE daycare provided on-site for the entire time of the class, OR if she preferred they would PAY someone of HER choosing to watch her little ones. The building was on a major bus line, so it wasn't hard to get to.....they also would pay your bus fare for you if you couldn't get the $1.75 together yourself. That group bends over backward to make it possible for people to take that class and better themselves. If they take the class, their likelihood for getting a job is HUGE, as there are employers who actually walk in and ask for someone who might like to work for them, they have other employers who drop off job opportunities every day, and they get numerous contacts for jobs through the phone every day, too.

Obviously there are many cases who have true emergencies. There are many who really need some help, even on a long-term basis. But please, don't go overboard when someone points out that there are huge abuses by many people who just have an entitlement mentality. I really believe that's all we're trying to point out.

 

BapMom,

Larry actually said "the majority."
The majority is NOT the entitlement group. That is a myth that far too many people buy into.

 

Thing is Texas,

I think you'd be shocked at how many there really are. We also have to look at the fact that much of it is caused by SOMEONE's sin, whether the people actually needing help, or whether someone else's sin caused them to be like that. Drugs are rampant, and are a huge cause of suffering. This includes alcohol abuse. You hear a "bad-luck" case, who says that he lost his job, lost his car, etc., but when you delve into it you find out he lost his job because he was showing up to work late all the time, or he lost his car because he was driving drunk and slammed into a pole.
I don't know if its a majority, but its not what Id call a small minority, either. I see too much of it. I work with their families every day.

 

With all due respect TS, there are. The question is, "Are people willing to do those jobs?"

Rightly or wrongly, illegals fill a void in our labor pool. They do the hard labor/jobs that Americans turn their noses up at. I have been in manufacturing for about 20 years and have worked all over the country. I have never been able to find enough people who were willing to be responsible, show up, and work hard.... even though those who did were rewarded by moving up from that entry point.

I apologize in advance for the hard feelings you will have about my answer but... "Tough"... move somewhere else.

Now before you go off, I left a hometown that I loved and never would have left if there had been an opportunity for me there. But sometimes, we do what is necessary... to include moving to places where we can support our families.

The biggest employers in my home county were tourism and government. In the winter, unemployment reached as high as 30%. Almost all of the young people grow up knowing they can't stay there.

This brings up an answer so obvious that people 100 years ago would have laughed you to scorn.

Why are you waiting for someone else to create a job for you? Start a business. You'd be surprised how cheap you can buy used equipment. With all the skilled people free there, more than half the problem of starting a business is solved.

Well. Frankly. It is accurate. In Atlanta, I had many Mexicans working for me in jobs that we couldn't get Americans to do well because it was hard monotonous labor. Did they have a better ability to get to Atlanta than the people in your town?

The truth is probably that there isn't work that the people in question are willing to humble themselves to do.

No. I said she had poor judgment. I didn't say she was immoral and regardless- my responsible decisions have worked while hers have not.

Where did you get the authority to put words in my mouth... again?

I didn't say any of them shouldn't have been born. I didn't say any of them was worthless. I said that the decision the woman made was hers and came with responsibilities. She didn't ask me when she decided to have all those kids... so what gives here the right to take money away from my kids to support them?

And that is certainly their prerogative. But at what point are you going to show that they should not be wholly responsible for the outcome of their decisions?

And I fit into this picture as a responsible party where?

1) I didn't say she was immoral. I did question her judgment with relation to mine... having only 3 kids that I could support with my income with having my wife go to work. 2) I didn't say she shouldn't be helped. I said that she wasn't entitled to help... she has no right to demand that others pay the costs of her decisions.

I thought you said she lived off of welfare? The kind of person you seem to be describing would have found a way with or without the government.

Are those now somehow not predictable? My wife and I are careful to account for such contingencies before we take on extra expenses or buy things. People can be overwhelmed and that is certainly where the church and Christias should come in... but if the problem were limited to just these types of situations then there would be plenty of private money to take care of them.

They do if they expect me to pay for their poor decisions.

No. They should clear it with a good insurance company first... like my wife and I have.

Further, we weren't talking about these types of capacities. I wouldn't be too opposed to government help for these except... people in Minnesota don't get mild winters, free snow removal, or a tax break because they will never be hit with an earthquake or hurricane.

Why should a Minnesotan have his taxes go up because someone else took the risk to live on the beach?

 

Not enough. But there was a time when Americans did... and it worked.

Amen... in fact, the church sharing "all things in common" should take her in and support her.

I agree that the church's priorities are wrong and that we have abdicated our responsibility and authority... but that doesn't mean that what we have is right, does it?

The Bible isn't a pragmatic book. It doesn't say if people won't do it the right we you are excused to do it the wrong way.

That is a more difficult proposition. But it is also something that can be covered by any of a number of insurance options.

Not if you were willing to let my family and I give you a place to stay. I am sure there has to be a few like minded Christians in Texas?

If that is what you have taken from either of us then you haven't been paying very good attention.

I refuse to buy into your false dichotomy: It isn't a question of government or nothing... it isn't a matter of supporting the nanny state or being unconcerned for the poor and down.

I don't equate government programs with Christian love or am I deluded enough to believe that they are taking care of people other than keeping them breathing... while destroying their soul.

 

What if I exercise my vote to steal from me by proxy? Is that still stealing? </font>[/QUOTE]Nope. But you do have to ask why any idiot would give money to a bureaucracy that is less than 50% effective when they could just help someone in need in their own community.

 

It depends on your metrics and probably your metric shows this by virtue of them being smaller. If a faith based or private charity was the size of a nation's welfare system, it would have similar levels of inefficiencies as well.

When you add up all the faith based and private charities, both efficient and inefficient ones, you may get a similar level of inefficiency compared to the government. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually TS hit on the other component of God's "welfare system". People should be caring for their own families... or else God calls them worse than an infidel. And no, that doesn't mean taking them down to the welfare office.

 

What if I exercise my vote to steal from me by proxy? Is that still stealing? </font>[/QUOTE]Nope. But you do have to ask why any idiot would give money to a bureaucracy that is less than 50% effective when they could just help someone in need in their own community. </font>[/QUOTE]Or you could do both. The "ineffective" bureaucracy may be able to help those who don't have access to community or "faith based" charities or enough of them. It may even be more effective in some areas than those groups.

 

I disagree... or else I could have found Americans to work packing printed materials in Atlanta for $9/hour. Instead, we used Mexican temps for $6.50... who subsequently not only showed up for work every day, they were twice as efficient as the Americans and didn't complain.

All but two of my permanent employees were black... you wouldn't want to hear what they had to say about the black temps that came in as compared to the Mexicans. They basically dared me to bring in anyone other than the Mexicans because the other's laziness made their jobs harder.