Alcohol & Welfare Programs: Topics on today's show

[Singalphile]

I have read all posts in this thread and I am a bit confused.

It seems perfectly clear that God wants me to be both as generous and as wise as I can be with my resources (e.g., time/money). The verses quoted in this thread make both obligations clear, I think.

jesusrules777, I don't know if you'd agree with my previous two sentences because I don't understand your position. Perhaps you have politics in mind? There are threads about politics/government here - Role of Govt., Would Jesus be a liberal? or conservative?, Politics, and others.

[kaufmannphillips]

steve wrote:
If one thinks that loving one's neighbor means supporting their drug habit, or any form of enablement of our neighbor to ruin his life and the lives of others, then Jesus definitely does teach us to be undiscerning in our administration of our stewardship. I do not interpret love that way. I will continue to give my counsel to those who ask it concerning their exercise of stewardship. If they choose to support causes that I would not support, I will gladly let them interpret what it means to "love" their neighbor, and I will follow my convictions on the same.

Loving one's neighbor does not necessarily mean buying them needles and baggies of illicit substances. But loving one's neighbor might mean buying them supper when they're hungry, even though that means that if they get their hands on some cash later that day, they might spend it on drugs and not on food, since their hunger has been sated.

When Jesus fed the multitude, mightn't there have been some in the crowd who could have taken the "savings" from their daily food budget, and spent it that night on wine?

Loving and giving often can seem to backfire. But one is not relieved of the challenge to love and to give because of this. Even if one's generosity amounts to "enabling" on one occasion or another, the recipient may look back and recognize that somebody was generous and loved them, even when they took advantage of that generosity and love. And that may make a difference.

How many times have we received generously from G-d, only to turn around and mishandle what we have been given? If you have lived too righteous a life to have experienced this, Steve, I suppose there are others on this forum who can testify that G-d is not so "prudent" that he cuts us off whenever his gifts might "enable" us.

Even though it is desirable to be discerning in one's stewardship, one should not imagine that the risk of "enabling" settles the matter of discernment. Let one discern the inclination of the holy spirit, and consider its lead as to when to open one's hand and when to hold back.

[steve]

kaufmannphillips,

Everything you said is true, and was acknowledged in my first post at the beginning of this thread.

jesusrules777 and you have both argued for what no one is arguing against.

The controversy here is whether the government makes wise choices in its benevolence, or whether the private sector (including Christians) could make wiser ones. The social worker doesn't take a poor drug-abuser out to eat (though most of us here probably have done so—I know I have, times without number). Government welfare simply underwrites the whole lifestyle of the recipients, whether criminal or honest.

What has been at issue here, from the first conversation on air that sparked this thread, is whether it is better to leave it to private donors to decide whose lifestyles to sponsor, or to let the government confiscate other people's funds and simply to underwrite the lifestyles of prodigals.

[kaufmannphillips]

steve wrote:
Everything you said is true, and was acknowledged in my first post at the beginning of this thread.

jesusrules777 and you have both argued for what no one is arguing against.

I am not responsible for the postings by jr777. But there are some tensions between our posts in this thread:

Steve wrote: Some of us would not wish to thus displease our Master by the squandering of the little with which He has entrusted us. I wrote: One most eminent command is to love one's neighbor as oneself. ... One's neighbor might or might not be tempted to squander what you give to them.

A thing that is given might or might not be squandered by the recipient on any particular occasion. A recipient with a good track record might squander at this time; a recipient with a bad track record might not squander at that time.

But in any case, loving and giving is not all about the result in the recipient's life; very often it is about the dynamic in the lover/giver's life. A gift that might appear to be squandered in the recipient's hands may not have been squandered in the big picture, considering the edification of the lover/giver's soul.

Steve wrote: the qualifications for a widow seeking church support are very exacting—she must have been the wife of one man, have washed the saints' feet, have reared children, etc. I wrote: One most eminent command is to love one's neighbor as oneself. ... One's neighbor might have had two or more former spouses.

Given the economic/social paradigms of ancient societies, many women would have been pressed into remarriages. (This is, of course, reflected in Matthew 5:32.) We may add to this the mortality rates in ancient societies, and restricting support to women who had but one husband seems quite objectionable.

What is more, I Timothy 5 also pushes for young widows to remarry. Quite a policy to have - pushing them to remarry, and then denying them support if they are widowed again in later life!

Steve wrote: Even among those who are legitimately poor, and who would be proper recipients of charity, there are priorities. We are to do good to all, but especially those of the household of faith (Gal.6:10). I wrote: One most eminent command is to love one's neighbor as oneself. ... One's neighbor might or might not have the same faith.

The tension here is not with "do[ing] good to all," but with prioritizing those of Christian faith. You have indicated that some Christians have little to share with those in need. If one prioritizes members of one's own faith, then one may be inclined to neglect their non-Christian neighbor, especially if one has highly-limited means.

Susan may have a dozen brethren with legitimate needs; yet her responsibility may be to support her Sikh neighbor with all her limited means. Maybe there is nobody else who will attend to the Sikh, and maybe there are other people who will attend to Susan's brethren.

Steve wrote: I don't know why anyone spends his money on drugs and alcohol (and not all who do so have the same reasons for doing so), but it is the fact that he does so that tells me that there are other poor people whose actions it would be wiser for me to sponsor. I wrote: One most eminent command is to love one's neighbor as oneself. ... One's neighbor might or might not be making responsible life choices.

One must love and give even in some circumstances that appear to be foolish and unproductive. There are times when love and generosity must not be inhibited by wisdom - or at least, by human wisdom.

One problem here is that you say the fact that he does so ... tells me that there are other poor people whose actions it would be wiser for me to sponsor, and not the fact that he does so tells me that there are other poor people whose actions it might be wiser for me to sponsor. Heaven may consider a particular individual in the throes of addiction to be a wise prospect for giving - more wise even than another individual who is leading a well-ordered life.

And so we should consider the tension between seeking human prudence and seeking heavenly guidance. Many "bible-based" Christians are more comfortable with human reasoning than they are with mystical discernment (also a human activity, admittedly). But since there are times when human reasoning may yield a wisdom that differs from Heaven's wisdom, it is highly advisable to cultivate a mystical sensitivity, to be held in paradox with one's rationality. This will better equip one to handle those circumstances where "wise" sponsorship is foolish, and "foolish" sponsorship is wise.

steve wrote:
The controversy here is whether the government makes wise choices in its benevolence, or whether the private sector (including Christians) could make wiser ones. The social worker doesn't take a poor drug-abuser out to eat (though most of us here probably have done so—I know I have, times without number). Government welfare simply underwrites the whole lifestyle of the recipients, whether criminal or honest.

What has been at issue here, from the first conversation on air that sparked this thread, is whether it is better to leave it to private donors to decide whose lifestyles to sponsor, or to let the government confiscate other people's funds and simply to underwrite the lifestyles of prodigals.

Of course, the private sector did such a splendid job of addressing conditions in America prior to wide-scale government intervention. It's not like state-managed welfare was implemented because people's needs weren't being met; they just preferred bureaucracy.

So let us compare the matter to another large-scale challenge - say, providing for a military. Why not dispense with the waste and inefficiency of our military bureaucracy, and leave it to the private sphere? Volunteers could apply their own resources, at their discretion, to purchasing equipment and filling positions. And the various volunteers could obey or disobey orders as they deem wise, deploy and advance and retreat as they have interest, etc. Couldn't these volunteers make wiser choices than some bureaucracy? Whatever could go wrong?

It may be the case that certain individuals would do a superior job of applying their fistful of dollars to the needs of others. But the outlay from individuals who actually would do so is unequal to the field of need. Left to their own devices, many people will engage the needy only on a haphazard basis, if at all. And in the times of greatest need, many people will feel insecure and be even less inclined to engage the needy.

Bureaucracy can be imperfect and inefficient and at times counterproductive. But there are situations where ad hoc independent efforts would be still more unequal to the challenges at hand.

[brody196]

I'm sorry in advance for anyone I offend, but frankly, I don't need the government to decide whom I should give my money to. The truth is, government welfare programs do a lot more harm than good. Folks become dependent on them and have no desire to better their situation. My friend was working in a welfare office not to long ago and saw three generations(Grandmother/Mother/Daughter) in one family there "reapplying" for their food stamps and welfare. It's a horrible thing to expect government handouts and bailouts to get you along in life. The apostle Paul wrote to the Thessalonians "For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either." The church and other private sector orgs could do a better job than our government.

Getting back to the topic at hand, why on earth would anyone argue about the need for careful stewardship of our funds?...

[kaufmannphillips]

brody196 wrote:
I'm sorry in advance for anyone I offend, but frankly, I don't need the government to decide whom I should give my money to.

And some people don't need the government to decide what speed they should drive on the highway. And some people don't need the government to decide what substances they shouldn't put in their body. And some people don't need the government to tell them how to maintain a safe work environment, or how to produce a safe product for consumers.

But there are people who would produce unsafe products, and who would maintain unsafe work environments, and who would put certain substances in their bodies, and who would speed recklessly on the highway, and who would not fulfill their responsibilities to give - if it were not for impositions by the government - and society at large would suffer for it.

Now, when the government makes this or that imposition, there chronically will be cases where some party is hampered in a way that they personally don't consider to be necessary. But it is not practical for the government to sit down with every citizen and come up with a personalized plan that is custom-fit to their strengths and weaknesses and sensibilities. People have to understand that they may be inconvenienced or even offended by general rules that try to make an improvement in the big picture.

Of course, the government does not decide whom you must give all of your money to. The government makes an imposition upon some of your money, and you have a great deal of freedom about whom you do or do not give the remainder of your money to. Besides this, you can donate up to 50% of your adjusted gross income and write it off on your taxes; so in many cases, the government attenuates its imposition upon your money when you decide to give on your own.

brody196 wrote:
The truth is, government welfare programs do a lot more harm than good. ... The church and other private sector orgs could do a better job than our government.

I suppose you are not very familiar with the shape of American society prior to wide-scale government welfare. Poverty in America is not fantastic now, but in the past it could be stunningly wretched. Fiorello La Guardia, after touring New York districts in 1928: "I confess I was not prepared for what I actually saw. It seemed almost incredible that such conditions of poverty could really exist."

brody196 wrote:
Folks become dependent on them and have no desire to better their situation. My friend was working in a welfare office not to long ago and saw three generations(Grandmother/Mother/Daughter) in one family there "reapplying" for their food stamps and welfare.

This certainly is not always the case. Nancy Amidei, 1992: "Joan Growe, the Secretary of State of Minnesota is a former welfare mom. Judge Sedgewick, an appeals court judge, is a former welfare mom. Two members of the Montana legislature, two members of the Wisconsin legislature, a couple members of the Pennsylvania legislature. Whoopi Goldberg is a former welfare mom. Carol Burnett is a former welfare kid. Bishop Weakland in Milwaukee is a former welfare kid. Six members of Congress (that I have been able to identify) are former welfare kids. I have run into former welfare kids and former welfare moms who are now PhDs and County Executives, nurses, career Army officials, police, Head Start aides. They are all over the place; they are terrific people and they are welfare success stories."

But for discussion here, let's say that a generic family like the one you described has become complacent on welfare. Let's say we cut off their benefits. Then what happens? Will they just go get jobs? There are tons of jobs out there, you know. And I'm sure that hiring prospects for people with largely-blank resumes are pretty rosy.

So there's a passable chance they may wind up on the streets and/or be pursuing some illicit form of income. When people get desperate enough, they'll run drugs or steal or sell their bodies or what-all. These sorts of activities stand to improve their employability, of course. And they certainly don't lead to further costs for society, no way sirree.

brody196 wrote:
The apostle Paul wrote to the Thessalonians "For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either."

You left out the part where he wrote "...and the young children of anyone not willing to work, they are not to eat, either." A large percentage of persons on government welfare are children.

Besides, many of the people who receive benefits do work. I've worked in childcare for many years, and there are many single parents who are on state assistance of some form or another and who are employed. Sadly, you can work full-time at a worthwhile job and perform well, and still be unable to make ends meet. One can easily spend half their paycheck or more on the cost of childcare, and it's pretty hard to house and feed and clothe everybody on half of a minimum-wage paycheck. Some people are not sensitive to this reality, if they have never been in that sort of situation.

The fact is, society can either require decent compensation for workers, or it can suffer the costs of paying workers poorly. Guess which one our society has chosen.

brody196 wrote:
It's a horrible thing to expect government handouts and bailouts to get you along in life.

Not quite so horrible as living under bridges in winter, hearing your children cry themselves to sleep hungry night after night, watching your elderly parent waste away from illness without medication, etc....

brody196 wrote:
Getting back to the topic at hand, why on earth would anyone argue about the need for careful stewardship of our funds?...

Because sometimes notions of "careful stewardship" will close one's mind to doing the right thing.

[brody196]

And some people don't need the government to decide what speed they should drive on the highway. And some people don't need the government to decide what substances they shouldn't put in their body. And some people don't need the government to tell them how to maintain a safe work environment, or how to produce a safe product for consumers.

But there are people who would produce unsafe products, and who would maintain unsafe work environments, and who would put certain substances in their bodies, and who would speed recklessly on the highway, and who would not fulfill their responsibilities to give - if it were not for impositions by the government - and society at large would suffer for it.

So, you need the government to hold your hand and get you through this life? Your assumption that the nation would go to chaos without tight government regulations is unfounded. Liberty goes hand in hand with responsibility. And are you really suggesting that people don't speed down the highway or put certain substances in their body because of gov regulations?..

Now, when the government makes this or that imposition, there chronically will be cases where some party is hampered in a way that they personally don't consider to be necessary. But it is not practical for the government to sit down with every citizen and come up with a personalized plan that is custom-fit to their strengths and weaknesses and sensibilities. People have to understand that they may be inconvenienced or even offended by general rules that try to make an improvement in the big picture.

Where is this "improvement in the big picture" you speak of? All I see is our gov taking hard earned tax dollars and spending them on useless wars, entitlement programs, and padding their pockets with the rest.

I suppose you are not very familiar with the shape of American society prior to wide-scale government welfare. Poverty in America is not fantastic now, but in the past it could be stunningly wretched. Fiorello La Guardia, after touring New York districts in 1928: "I confess I was not prepared for what I actually saw. It seemed almost incredible that such conditions of poverty could really exist."

And your point? There are neighborhoods in my small town that resemble something you would see in a horror movie, and btw, I live in the poorest county in Georgia. Food stamps and welfare are a hugely popular item here in Richland, but guess what, they haven't made anything better! It is simply a crutch so many can get by in their current destructive lifestyle. Sad, but true.

This certainly is not always the case. Nancy Amidei, 1992: "Joan Growe, the Secretary of State of Minnesota is a former welfare mom. Judge Sedgewick, an appeals court judge, is a former welfare mom. Two members of the Montana legislature, two members of the Wisconsin legislature, a couple members of the Pennsylvania legislature. Whoopi Goldberg is a former welfare mom. Carol Burnett is a former welfare kid. Bishop Weakland in Milwaukee is a former welfare kid. Six members of Congress (that I have been able to identify) are former welfare kids. I have run into former welfare kids and former welfare moms who are now PhDs and County Executives, nurses, career Army officials, police, Head Start aides. They are all over the place; they are terrific people and they are welfare success stories."

Good for them. But I assure you that they are the small minority.

But for discussion here, let's say that a generic family like the one you described has become complacent on welfare. Let's say we cut off their benefits. Then what happens? Will they just go get jobs? There are tons of jobs out there, you know. And I'm sure that hiring prospects for people with largely-blank resumes are pretty rosy.

Excuses, excuses. There are jobs out there right now, but many don't want to work and will simply fill out the application to fool the welfare office into thinking they are actually looking for a job. I know this to be true, because I use to hand out applications and was told to my face by a young mother that "I ain't looking for a job, I just need an application to give the welfare office". Other business owners have told me the same. Are there people who have a genuine need? Yes, but I don't think the gov can do a better job than the church or charities.

So there's a passable chance they may wind up on the streets and/or be pursuing some illicit form of income. When people get desperate enough, they'll run drugs or steal or sell their bodies or what-all. These sorts of activities stand to improve their employability, of course. And they certainly don't lead to further costs for society, no way sirree.

Why do you assume that these people are just helpless victims who can't make it any other way without gov help? Are you suggesting that we as a society should just give these folks a free ride?...

You left out the part where he wrote "...and the young children of anyone not willing to work, they are not to eat, either." A large percentage of persons on government welfare are children.

Paul didn't say that, you did. Of course, given your disdain for Paul, I don't expect any less.

Besides, many of the people who receive benefits do work. I've worked in childcare for many years, and there are many single parents who are on state assistance of some form or another and who are employed. Sadly, you can work full-time at a worthwhile job and perform well, and still be unable to make ends meet. One can easily spend half their paycheck or more on the cost of childcare, and it's pretty hard to house and feed and clothe everybody on half of a minimum-wage paycheck. Some people are not sensitive to this reality, if they have never been in that sort of situation.

I don't mind helping those who are trying, I am referring to those who aren't and have no plans to.

The fact is, society can either require decent compensation for workers, or it can suffer the costs of paying workers poorly. Guess which one our society has chosen.

I don't buy that one bit. That notion has recently become popular with the "Occupy" movement, but all I see is a bunch of spoiled kids who have deluded themselves into thinking that the world owes them something. My family was brought up poor and worked hard to get what they have. They certainly didn't play the victim card.

Not quite so horrible as living under bridges in winter, hearing your children cry themselves to sleep hungry night after night, watching your elderly parent waste away from illness without medication, etc....

And you don't think that there is any other way to handle those situations, other than big gov taking money from citizens and allotting it as they see fit?

Because sometimes notions of "careful stewardship" will close one's mind to doing the right thing.

Your thinly veiled jabs are cute, but I ain't impressed. As for "doing the right thing", I will stick with scripture to tell me what that is, not the esoteric form of mystic Judaism that you hold to.

[Homer]

Seems to me the best way to help the poor is through the church or a parachurch organization. We contribute deliberately each month to World Vision or our church benevolent fund and a nearby large mission. I feel confident their discernment exceeds mine. Then we occasionally give on an individual basis as we feel led to give.

Kaufmanphillips wrote:

But for discussion here, let's say that a generic family like the one you described has become complacent on welfare. Let's say we cut off their benefits. Then what happens? Will they just go get jobs? There are tons of jobs out there, you know. And I'm sure that hiring prospects for people with largely-blank resumes are pretty rosy.

So there's a passable chance they may wind up on the streets and/or be pursuing some illicit form of income. When people get desperate enough, they'll run drugs or steal or sell their bodies or what-all. These sorts of activities stand to improve their employability, of course. And they certainly don't lead to further costs for society, no way sirree.

Seems to me the welfare state has destroyed the work ethic and character of many people. I grew up poor. When I was a kid I went door to door looking for work, pushing a lawnmower along as I went. I was ready to work. I bought all my own clothes from the time I was 14. In the summer, as a teenager, I worked 80 hours a week for six weeks straight. And my dad, who went through the depression, thought I was a lazy kid. Most people of his era would do almost anything legal to avoid being on welfare. Why do you suppose the people with the "will work for food" signs are not out knocking on doors and asking for work, even a small job for some money? How many of the Mexican immigrants do we see out on the corner holding up signs? Do they have a superior work ethic?

Not long ago there was an urgent plea by a mother, in the local city newspaper, asking people not to give money or even food to young people begging on the streets. Her daughter was a runaway and the people who gave her handouts enabled her lifestyle. The mom believed her only hope of getting her daughter home was for her child to have no other option for her food and place to sleep.

There was another article in the paper about a doctor in a nearby city who was trying to help an alcoholic lady who begged on the streets. After considerable effort he convinced her to go to rehab. He drove her there and left her waiting in the car while he went inside the make arrangements for her. When he came back out she was gone. She had panhandled some money from someone passing by and gone to get more booze.

Then today in a class at church one of the pastors told of an effort to give work on a temporary project to the street beggars, paying them more than double the minimum wage. Everyone they offered work to turned them down.

I am not buying the idea that Jesus meant for us to give money indiscriminately. I believe He taught us to be the kind of person who gives generously when there is a need; I see the Sermon on the Mount as teaching principles rather than a rigid list of rules or laws. Agape love is about giving what a person needs rather than what they want.

I do acknowledge that this is not always easy and that we must be willing to take a risk. We can not always know that what we give will be properly used.

[steve]

kaufmanphillips,

One most eminent command is to love one's neighbor as oneself. ... One's neighbor might or might not be tempted to squander what you give to them….

What others do with the gifts they receive is between them and God. I cannot control (nor do I wish to control) another person’s stewardship. I am responsible only for my own. However, if I know that one poor person will take my gift and feed his children, and another poor person will take my gift and give it to a drug dealer, my duty (at least to me) is clear.

One most eminent command is to love one's neighbor as oneself. ... One's neighbor might have had two or more former spouses.

I, of all people, would be in no position to recommend censures against a person because they have more than one former spouse! Being in that condition is often its own penalty! “Wife of one husband,” in my understanding, means “a one-man woman.” This speaks of a woman’s character, not the history of what she may have suffered at the hands of others.

One most eminent command is to love one's neighbor as oneself. ... One's neighbor might or might not have the same faith.

As I mentioned in my first post here. Though you do not share my convictions that the New Testament is authoritative, we who do so believe that the obligations to care for the family are the first priority, and may well be the means by which God intends to provide for His faithful children.

One most eminent command is to love one's neighbor as oneself. ... One's neighbor might or might not be making responsible life choices.

Then I should love my neighbor as myself by not supporting his irresponsibility, just as I would not wish or expect anyone to support my irresponsible lifestyle choices. The command is that I would treat others as I would wish to be treated if I were in their shoes. I have, in fact, been in the shoes of poor people very many times. I have never coveted another man’s money, even when I was not sure where my next meal might come from. I would not wish to accept assistance—like that provided by government agencies—which has been coerced or extorted from a grudging contributor (in fact, I won’t even let people know when I am in need, lest the knowledge should pressure someone to give, who otherwise would not have wished to do so).

Like the hypothetical poor person we are discussing, I myself depend upon the generosity of others to meet my needs and family obligations. The difference in my case may simply be that I trust God to provide, and He does—though not necessarily in abundance! I have not yet starved or died of exposure, which is proof of adequate provision, and is grounds for contentment, according to Paul—whom I respect, though I know you don’t (1 Tim.6:8).

My philosophy (you may disagree with it, but without compelling warrant) is that all people need, most of all, to be in a right relationship with God. When they are in that relationship, they can trust Him to meet their needs (whether by providing employment or through the benevolence of others), and need not rely on any individual donor, organization or government agency. Of course, God might use any of these as an avenue of provision, but that does not mean that they are all equally desirable as sources of benevolence.

An irresponsible lifestyle brings consequences. The modern mentality that people should be spared the natural consequences of their choices has spawned a generation or two who have ceased to be able to connect the dots, and see that their consequences are sending them a message. Those consequences may be the very thing God is wishing to exploit to motivate the irresponsible person to correct his behavior and to bring himself into proper alignment with God and the world around him. Once in the right relationship with God, the poor person needs to worry about nothing. Jesus said that, if one would seek first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness, then all needed things will be added to him.

What does a person need? In terms of material things, much less than most of us think (as I have learned by experience). The great need of all people is for God. If one turns to God, he will either find God’s supply for his need, or else he will find it is time to go see his Maker face-to-face. That time comes for all of us. It is only in pampered societies like ours that we think of starvation, sickness or exposure as unacceptable ways to transition from this life to the next (we are more accustomed to cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, violent crime, etc., as appropriate means). In any case, some people have, and some have not, placed their lives in God’s hands, and are trusting Him with outcomes.

God has given some of us more than we need, so as to allow us to assist those who have too little. The possession of surplus translates into stewardship responsibility. The discharge of that responsibility is informed by the teachings of scripture. You do not acknowledge the authority of the Christian scriptures, so you are not in the position to criticize those who do accept them and choose to follow them.

As I wrote to you previously, in this thread:

If one thinks that loving one's neighbor means supporting their drug habit, or any form of enablement of our neighbor to ruin his life and the lives of others, then Jesus definitely does teach us to be undiscerning in our administration of our stewardship. I do not interpret love that way. I will continue to give my counsel to those who ask it concerning their exercise of stewardship. If they choose to support causes that I would not support, I will gladly let them interpret what it means to "love" their neighbor, and I will follow my convictions on the same.

With reference to your suggestion that the military be privatized, I am not sure this would be a bad idea, so long as every nation followed the same policy. When other nations have nationalized militaries, however, it does not seem that private citizens in a nation lacking such would necessarily have the ability to protect themselves. This is not the same as the task of providing for one's own food or shelter. The latter can be done by the individual, in most circumstances. Not so with the national defense.

The scriptures that inform my opinions actually charge the State with the defense of the citizenry against unjust and violent attacks, and authorize the use of taxation for the support of the same. The State is not similarly charged with the redistribution of private wealth.

[brody196]

Amen Homer.

There is work available, it's just easier to apply for assistance. Take for instance the situation here in my county, a detainee center was opened here to help bring jobs to our area, but ended up not hiring many at all here because the folks simply couldn't do right by the job. They were stealing, bringing in supplies for the detainees and not being submissive to the bosses. Our society is in a sad state of affairs and gov handouts ain't helping.