Alcohol & Welfare Programs: Topics on today's show

[brody196]

I apologize for my one childish post in this thread and I am glad it was deleted. I often "cut up" more than I should. I apologize to Steve and the others here.

God bless the best forum on earth!

-Brody

[steve]

No offense taken, Brody.

[Jepne]

I’m a bit late on this discussion, but just now read it and it sure got all my triggers blazing away!

Thank you, Steve, for your quick discernment and boldness – you make this a safe place to express one’s self.

Also, I loved what you said about the father of the prodigal son not sending care packages to keep his son in the depraved state he was in. In New York City, as a single mother, I met a woman in the park who was on welfare. I could relate to her well, but there was a lack of vitality in her due to her not having to go out and make ends meet. I had enjoyed learning to sew and make our clothing, and I could bake bread for a fraction the cost of bought bread – we did not have the costs of concerts, cable TV, CDs – we lived simply and well on very little. Our world did not revolve around money – our lack of it, or anyone else’s abundance.

Brody, Homer, I loved your input. Brody asked, “why on earth would anyone argue about the need for careful stewardship of our funds?...”

I know you meant it rhetorically, but wanted to say, because, if they were giving as they should, they wouldn’t be so worried about what everyone else is doing, and, very possibly because they want other people’s money for themselves.

KaufmannP: it's pretty hard to house and feed and clothe everybody on half of a minimum-wage paycheck.

Many people don’t appreciate a challenge. I thrive on challenge and most people do, once we stop whining and put the hand to the plow. The only time I considered prostitution was out of greed!! I refused to worry about money and I never went without. We lived on beans, potatoes and lard with a little sliver of cheese for more than a year and loved every bite. Maybe it was because we loved every bite that we were blessed with a better income that came very gradually. We were content as far as money was concerned.

KaufmannP: 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?

That will teach you where complacency with a handout will get you. When we were living in a poverty-stricken rural area of New Mexico, we made just enough money in town to drive back home with enough groceries and gas to finish the next project and get to town for the next 40$ (per month!). We never considered food stamps. Once I did apply for welfare, but withdrew the papers before leaving the office. When I got home, an acquaintance offered to loan me the money I needed to complete my earring order.

We saw lots of indigenous folks in the supermarket with baskets of pop, chips and other processed and canned food, with teeth missing and in obvious bad health, and when they got to the cashier, out came the food stamps. This was "throwing money at a problem" for sure.

Then some folks who came by the cabin with our weed boasted about their little patch of marijuana that brought them thousands of dollars, and they also got food stamps, and, they sat there all smug, bad-mouthing the government. I wasn’t too keen on the gov either, but that seemed to be in poor taste.

A friend lived in the Bay area of California who knew drug-runners who collected welfare and had fabulous lifestyles. They were greedy.

All these things triggered a thinking process that led me to call on God who delivered me from it all.

[Singalphile]

According to this recent Investors.com opinion piece...

http://news.investors.com/article/61621 ... tinues.htm

Thanks for the reminders about giving (Deuteronomy 15:7-11, James1:27, Matthew 6:19-21, I particularly like) and the stories.

I think I had some contact with that person before on a different site about 3 months ago... or else there are two people with the same unique thought patterns, writing style, and abnormal anger/obsession regarding Steve G. I don't know the situation and can't judge, but I pray for the best.

[jriccitelli]

Well said Jepne, Steve and others. Society is enabling millions to become dependant upon a system that destroys motivation, ambition, ingenuity, self dependence, self reliance, self respect and it 'removes' the dependence and need for God and Church. We should support some, not every one. (First widows and orphans, then neighbors)

I don't believe God is in the business of raising taxes, and forcing people to pay them.

[TK]

Now I remember. Wasn't it dorianleigh?

I just read this thread-- starting at the beginning it felt just like deja vu all over again!!

It is amazing how I started to realize it just as Steve did.

Style will tell.

TK

[Perry]

[brody196]

Well put Perry!

[Paidion]

Yes, seemingly a good "lesson" at first blush, Perry. However, there is obviously a categorical difference in this analogy.

Healthy adult animals that inhabit large areas of national parks are capable of fending for themselves from their natural food source which is abundant or at least available to them there. However, there are thousands of people, even in wealthy countries such as the U.S.A. and Canada who do not have the means of self-support, and who do not have equal opportunity to find employment.

Of course, I do not condone handouts to those who are capable of providing for themselves. But as one of George Bernard Shaw's characters succinctly referred to two classes of poor people: "There's the desarvin' poor and there's the undesarvin' poor!"

[kaufmannphillips]

RE: Perry's graphic

When the National Park Service asks "Please do not feed the animals," it addresses amateur visitors, who in large part are engaging numerically secure animal populations. But there are times when wildlife professionals do pursue "supplemental feeding" as part of wildlife management - say, in the wake of wildfires or drought.

And when wildlife professionals engage critically endangered species, they can be highly activist in supporting the members of a population. Sometimes professionals keep such members in facilities and try to help with the breeding/rearing process. Ultimately, the hope is to nurture a population and help it become re-established in the wild; but in the present term, it may be deemed necessary to act as caretakers for the species.

Wildlife professionals, then, must decide whether it is acceptable to allow dieback or deterioration in a population, or whether dieback and/or deterioration should be prevented through intervention.

When we draw the parallel to humans, then, we field two questions: how much dieback or deterioration is acceptable? ; and, should dieback and/or deterioration be prevented through intervention?

For some parties, human lives are written off as readily as mule deer. For other parties, human lives are as precious as condors.

============

P.S.: I am working on responses to earlier posts, and my aim is to submit them eventually.