I think I might be changing my mind about something

"God explicitly says that people who don't work are not entitled to food, and by extension, to those "necessities" of life. I don't find housing to be a right anywhere."
-----------------------------------------------
And this is why I had asked you Larry if you believed a young child should work. You just said "people" without clarifying which group of people you were talking about. Straining at a gnat, I know...but I have dreams of being Ben Matlock. haha

 

I should add that those of us who support a more social government also do not want people to grow lazy being reliant on the government.

The reality is that it is not so easy to separate the "lazy" poor from the "non-lazy" poor. And when you increase support for the poor, you are also increasing support for the "lazy poor". When you decrease support for the poor, you are also decreasing support for the "non-lazy" poor.

As much as we would like to have it so that welfare only goes to the "hard-working" poor, the reality is that our best efforts to do this cannot really make that distinction clear. The wrong solution is to completely eliminate support because of this lack of clarity.

In every system, there will be those who abuse the system. The solution is to minimize abuse, not eliminate the system.

 

Which does not illustrate anything unbiblical or unChristlike from what I actually said.

In our American system of government, this is not true, or at least is not supposed to be true. Furthermore, I am more concerned about a radically biblical way of living, rather than government sponsored socialism.

In America, the amount of money spent on poverty in the last 50 years could have simply been given to those in poverty and they would have been out. Simply put, the government is a very inefficient way of handlign these problems.

But you "believe" that; you have not demonstrated it from Scripture, and that is the standard of Christlikeness.

I did no such thing. I made no reference to those who are not lazy, or not able to work, or the like. You are reading into what I said, and painting it in a distorted light. That is not right.

 

Yes, it is not only attributed to me. I made it. So here again is the challenge: Show where what I said was unChristlike and use Scripture. Your own opinion doesn't count.

And I said nothing that contradicted this.

Some don't deserve help. They need to help themselves. I have people come by the church all the time who want help with food. We help them on the first time, and occasionally on the second. But we talk about jobs and what they are doing to find a job. We talk about Christ and salvation. Then I will tell them if they want more help, they have to come to church. Eventually, I will tell them I won't help them anymore in some cases. I have had guys come here asking for food while carrying 40 ouncers in a bag and cigarettes in their pocket. I don't help them. I tell them if they have money to buy beer, they have money to buy food. If they have money to buy smokes, they have money to buy food. I am not helping them if I don't do that. Help must be concerned with more than the immediate. The reason many of these people are in trouble is becuase they never think past the immediate.

So which part of this is relevant? I have not discussed helping those who are truly needy, which is what this passage is talking about. And the subject of this thread was specifically about government help, and therefore, this passage is completely irrelevant since it doesn't talk about the government.

You need to focus in on what is actually being said and being talked about. Pulling Scripture out of context and applying it to something it isn't talking about isn't a good way to go about making a point or deciding an issue. Ask yourself "What is this passage talking about?" The answer is individual Christians, not governments.

 

But desire has to be coupled with reality. While you may not desire something, it may be an unintended consequence. There are women who have babies simply because they can get more money from the government. That is wrong.

Sure it is. You make community service a stipulation for welfare. You pass out checks based on community service, such as street cleaning, mowing vacant lawns, etc. The "lazy" poor won't do it. And those who need the money will, and if they don't like the work, it will motivate them to find a job faster. It will not be a cureall, but something workable can certainly be found.

 

I agree that these inefficients and abuses need to be minimized, not the intent behind the system.

 

But desire has to be coupled with reality. While you may not desire something, it may be an unintended consequence. There are women who have babies simply because they can get more money from the government. That is wrong.</font>[/QUOTE]Agreed. Abuse of the system should be minimized instead of getting rid of the system.

 

I support this idea for increased benefits. Ontario is doing something similar with mixed results.

Workfare Watch
Workfare : Interim Report

But there are still many who are not "lazy" and abusing the system but really cannot perform these community services or very much of it.

 

Here is the official Ontario Works website.

Ontario Works

 

In our city they are doing a good thing.....for welfare benefits you have to go through a job training class. They help you write up a professional resume, you are required to spend a certain amount of hours each week looking for a job until you find one, and then you have meetings with your rep. to help you until you no longer need it. Oh, and the training classes are not conducted by the gov't., they are contracted out to a private company that specializes in it....so you aren't just being shoved around in alot of gov't beauraucracy.

It actually is helping get people back into the workforce........at least those who want to be working. There are still some who try to get around it all.

 

Larry: "Sure it is. You make community service a stipulation for welfare. You pass out checks based on community service, such as street cleaning, mowing vacant lawns, etc. The "lazy" poor won't do it. And those who need the money will, and if they don't like the work, it will motivate them to find a job faster. It will not be a cureall, but something workable can certainly be found."
I agree. Unfortunately, sometimes this isn't the case. If you work (no matter how little you make) welfare cuts you off.

bapmom:"It actually is helping get people back into the workforce........at least those who want to be working"
Not here. Most programs are only for people between certain ages and there is so much red tape to even get into them. Also, many job programs as they stand now get you nowhere except maybe McDonalds. It's hard to survive on McDonalds pay isn't it?

 

KJ,

Im sorry to hear that about your area. Ours doesn't have all that much red tape to get into. And once you start making money, your welfare is reevaluated. Depending on how many people are in your household, the pay amount is done on a graded system. Did I say that right? We've seen the paygrades, and it amazes us how much a family can make and still be eligible for benefits.

And the job programs here get you way more than McDonald's jobs. In fact, the thing I like the most about it is the fact that they do the resume for you. They work with you on it, make sure all typos are fixed, they help you word your experience right so that you look as good as you can, etc.

Its often the people who feel "stuck" in their McDonalds job that go ahead and do the program so they can get something better.

 

Good post bapmom. As far as I know I am too old to access any government work programs except for truck driving school (which has already been denied) and self-business guidance (which would be deined on the same grounds as truck driving school was). If you want to start your own business they limit what you can do. I would have started a religious bookstore but we can't have anything to do with politics or religion in it. *sigh* nuts eh?

 

Here is a pretty good report produced by the City of Toronto that surveyed 804 folks who left Ontario Works in 2001 for employment or other reasons to evaluate the success of the program

Toronto Social Services : After Ontario Works

 

I tried the link but nothing came up.

 

I should have stated that it is a pdf. You need Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

oh ok. i'm pretty sure i have acrobat reader...don't know why it didn't come up

 

Try this page and clicking on the Reports & Research links.

http://www.toronto.ca/socialservices/

 

I was just doing a little thinking about this scenario and ways to avoid it without harming those who legitmately have a lot of children and need the support.

I think the one of the key concerns is the welfare of the children. If the welfare of the children is evaluated to be dangerous because a woman continually has kids to increase her welfare check, then children's services should be able to put the children into foster care and the mother then getting a single adult welfare check. I hope there is some good way to distinguish between mothers who genuinely love their many children and need financial assistance over those who see their kids as dollar signs.

I'm not sure if this is already the case and whether that threat actually keeps women from abusing the system or not. Of course, some will always manage to find loopholes to abuse the system.