Alcohol & Welfare Programs: Topics on today's show

[SteveF]

"Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social. The kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of Communism nor the antithesis of Capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It's found in a higher synthesis that can combine the truths of both."

Martin Luther King Jr.

[Perry]

Where there is charity, there will be abuses of charity.
Where there are people of limited means who wish to be charitable, there will be decisions about who does and who does not receive their charity.
I haven't seen anyone here advocate being uncharitable for either of these reasons, nor would I.

[kaufmannphillips]

brody196 wrote:
So, you need the government to hold your hand and get you through this life?

I have strengths, but I also have weaknesses. Sometimes it helps to have a hand; sometimes I even need a hand. And sometimes people in my society need a hand.

Some people look upon weakness or self-insufficiency with contempt, some look with compassion; some look with condemnation, some look with mercy.

brody196 wrote:
Your assumption that the nation would go to chaos without tight government regulations is unfounded.

So let's take a look at conditions in America before expanded government regulation. Contaminated food. Unsafe workplaces. Polluted air and water. Onerous work conditions. Commonplace discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, gender, and religion.

And, besides this, rioting that claimed lives and destroyed property and disrupted civil and commercial activity. When people are desperate and crushed and frustrated, these things fester and simmer until they boil over.

brody196 wrote:
Liberty goes hand in hand with responsibility.

And its other hand is bitten by irresponsibility. So the hand of liberty must be prudently reserved.

brody196 wrote:
And are you really suggesting that people don't speed down the highway or put certain substances in their body because of gov regulations?..

Some people will do neither of these things, even without regulation. Some people will do either or both of these things, even with regulation.

But there are many people who would do either or both of these things, but do not because of government regulation. And there are many more who will do these things, but in an attenuated form: they will speed, but rarely more than five miles over the limit; they will use drugs, but never in public, and only to extents that risk minor penalties. Are you really suggesting that government regulations have no impact on the behaviors of people?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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.

brody 196 wrote:
Where is this "improvement in the big picture" you speak of?

Minorities, women, and disabled persons are more protected from discrimination in the employment and housing markets; environmental quality in the US is markedly improved; consumers are more protected from dangerous products; many workers have safer workplaces; illicit drug use has dropped dramatically; transportation safety has improved (this is not necessarily an exhaustive list). But people will complain about government regulation in each of these arenas.

brody 196 wrote:
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.

Then you do not see the entire picture.

brody196 wrote:
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.

I suspect you are not old enough to remember conditions before food stamps and welfare, so I may weigh your assertion that "they haven't made anything better" accordingly.

Your locality is a tremendously small sample: Richland, pop. 1473; Stewart County, pop. 6058. Also, it is a demographically unrepresentative sample: Richland demos ~69% African-American / ~28% Caucasian / ~2% Hispanic / ~0.5% Asian; Stewart County demos ~47% African-American / ~28% Caucasian / ~24% Hispanic / ~0.7% Asian. All this in a rural Southern locality, which (I would imagine) is not indicative of much of the country, economically. It would be quite imprudent to gauge national welfare policy based on this sort of sample.

Please imagine for me, and for the benefit of other readers, what is likely to happen to the "many ... in their current destructive lifestyle" if welfare and food stamps are terminated. And once you have imagined this, please imagine what the "ripple effect" will be for the communities these "many" live in.

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.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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."

brody196 wrote:
Good for them. But I assure you that they are the small minority.

I'll ask for more than your "assurance." Do you have any solid data to indicate what percentage of welfare recipients live complacent on welfare, and what percentage move on to successful lives?

In the meantime, here are some tidbits for you:

In 1996, congressional testimony indicated that ~66% of women who used welfare (then AFDC; soon replaced by TANF) would do so for five years or less over the course of their lifetime, and ~40% would spend less than two years receiving assistance over the course of their lifetime. And a few months later, legislation established new federal welfare reform, capping lifetime benefits to five years (in implementation, some states cap at less than five years; and some make exceptions for children). By 2000, the number of federal welfare recipients had dropped ~50%. And now, with few exceptions, TANF recipients "must work as soon as they are job-ready or no later than two years after coming on assistance"; and minimum totals of hours are prescribed for work activities, with few exceptions.

The food stamp program was also modified in 1996. Able-bodied adults who had no dependents and did not meet certain work requirements were limited to assistance in 3 months out of 3 years (later legislation allowed states to exempt 15% of able-bodied adults without dependents who would have been rendered ineligible). Food stamp participation also dropped significantly in the late '90s.

Given fiscal year 2010 data for food stamps recipients: ~49% are children; ~15% are aged 60 and up; ~20% are non-elderly disabled people. (Also, congressional testimony in 2008 indicated that food stamp benefits yield a 1.73 multiplier in economic stimulus; a 2002 USDA study indicated a 1.84 multiplier.)

Please note that many of the individuals named by Amidei were welfare kids. In 2006, three out of every four recipients of TANF (family welfare) were children. And in nearly half of TANF cases in fiscal 2006, the child was the only beneficiary in the household. Children can hardly be tarred with being complacent on welfare. But their success later in life may build upon the benefits they received.

brody196 wrote:
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.

Well, now ... as a citizen of Georgia, please tell me: was it the church and the private sector that shut down institutional racism in the South, or was it the intervening hand of the federal government?

How many people took applications and said, "I'm on unemployment/welfare/etc., and I really hope I get this"?

Roughly zero?

How many people want to trumpet that they're on welfare when applying for a job, if they're hoping to make a good impression?

Just because a job is available does not mean that it is a viable option. Many people have limited education and/or limited skills and/or limited experience, and they are not viable candidates for many jobs in the market. One recent survey of private companies indicated that "the inability to find qualified workers was ... the biggest obstacle to growth. Some 40 per cent of respondents said they were being held back by the skills gap, compared with just 13 per cent by lack of demand."; another recent report indicated that "US manufacturers have 600,000 unfilled positions because of a lack of qualified skilled workers." How many welfare recipients are likely to be eligible for these positions?

Beyond this, some people have other constraints on their ability to work, e.g., personal handicaps, lack of availability to work on a sabbath, responsibility to care for small children or elderly or disabled relatives.

kaufmannphillips 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.

brody196 wrote:
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?...

I did not say that all people on welfare had no other way of making it without government help; I said "there's a passable chance...."

The problem is not that nobody would find some other way of dealing with their straits; some persons would find tolerable ways of dealing, but some persons would find problematic ways of dealing, and some persons would collapse altogether.

I support mandatory employment for all but the profoundly disabled. Not a lot of free rides in that outlook. As a matter of fact, there's not even a pass for people who have enough money that they could afford (financially) not to work.

People who can't find work could show up at the state work center and spend their required shift picking up litter, helping out at the senior center, digging a hole and filling it back up again, etc.

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."

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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.

brody196 wrote:
Paul didn't say that, you did. Of course, given your disdain for Paul, I don't expect any less.

Ummmm.... " "

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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.

brody196 wrote:
I don't mind helping those who are trying, I am referring to those who aren't and have no plans to.

OK - so you don't mind helping the working poor. And we already saw that the majority of TANF and food stamps recipients are children or older folks or disabled.

And we saw that federal welfare links benefits to work requirements, and caps periods of support. So how many lazy loafers does that leave to leech off the system?

Shall we burn down the entire structure, tossing children and senior citizens and disabled folks to the curb, for the sake of those lazy loafers?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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:
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.

Kudos to your family for working hard. But working hard does not excuse complacency about justice in worker compensation.

If I use Terry's life (i.e., work capacity) to make a decent business, then it is only fitting that I should provide Terry with adequate compensation to afford a decent life. This is what Terry's work is worth; to pay Terry less is exploitation.

If Terry does good work, full-time, then Terry should be able to afford to raise a child, and for Terry's family to live in decent housing, and to eat healthily, and to dress sensibly, and to receive necessary healthcare, and even to pursue a few modest pastimes.

Of course, if each worker is paid what they are worth, it must be admitted that many things will not be priced so cheaply as we have become accustomed to. But it also must be admitted that so many things in our marketplace are priced cheaply because working people's lives are treated so cheaply.

If it winds up that my Burrito Supremo costs $6, then I should not complain that workers are being overpaid, but I should consider that the fair cost of producing a Burrito Supremo is more than I have imagined. This should not lead to my being resentful, but to my being more appreciative of the cost of things in terms of human lives.

“The appropriate emotion is shame – shame at our own dependency, in this case, on the underpaid labor of others. When someone works for less pay than she can live on ... then she has made a great sacrifice for you, she has made you a gift of some part of her abilities, her health, and her life. The ‘working poor’ ... neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be ... a nameless benefactor, to everyone else.” {Barbara Ehrenreich}

Now - it would be one thing for workers to receive meager compensation if this were a hard land, and the best yield one could expect from decent labor is a marginal existence. But plainly this is not the case. Rather, some parties clutch an irresponsibly large portion of the yield for themselves.

In 2010, the CEOs of the Forbes 500 companies received a combined compensation of ~$4.5 billion. Put roughly, if these 500 individuals shared this compensation evenly with 100,000 other workers, each would receive compensation of ~$45,000/year.

Put another way, if these 500 individuals shared this compensation evenly with a million low-wage workers, those workers would each receive a raise of ~$375/month.

And this is just considering 500 executive workers - a tiny fraction of all the executive-level employees at thousands of major American companies. And even those companies represent only a fraction of the American economy. In 2010, the United States' Adjusted Net National Income came to ~$40,000 for each man, woman, and child. Put another way, that would be ~$160,000 for each family of four. Pour 35% of the ANNI into venture expansion, and that still comes out to ~$104,000 for each family of four. So it is hard to believe that our society lacks the aggregate yield to support a better share for poorly-compensated workers. (The estimated median income for a family of four in fiscal year 2010, given the way we actually distribute income in our society, was ~$72,000.)

Besides which, when wages afford a decent life, there is increased incentive for persons to work. (Who wants to work a full day for half a loaf?) And decent wages reduce the need for government welfare expenditures, and they increase revenues for Social Security (given our current system, with its tax ceiling).

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

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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:
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?

There are numerous other ways to handle those situations: lotteries, euthanasia, private charities... But would those other ways satisfactorily meet the outstanding need?

According to Giving USA, American individuals, foundations, and corporations gave ~$35 billion to human services in 2011.

Americans also gave ~$96 billion to religious organizations. Let's suppose those organizations applied one-sixth of that in turn to human services. That would give us ~$51 billion.

Americans also gave ~$26 billion to foundations. Let's suppose those organizations applied one-third of that in turn to human services. That would give us ~$59 billion.

Americans also gave ~$13 billion to individuals and unspecified recipients. Let's suppose four-fifths of that was applied to human services. That would give us ~$70 billion.

Americans also gave ~$21 billion to public-society benefit organizations. Let's suppose two-thirds of that was applied to human services. That would give us ~$80 billion.

Americans also gave ~$25 billion to health organizations. Let's suppose one-fifth of that was applied to human services (as opposed to research for cures). Altogether, that would give us ~$85 billion to human services.

Now, in fiscal year 2011, federal means-tested welfare programs' expenditures were estimated at ~$940 billion (including state co-pays). (Interestingly, about half that expenditure was on medical care. Also, about half of means-tested spending goes to disabled and elderly persons, and about half goes to low-income families with children.)

Let us imagine, then, that the private sector could be twice as efficient (on average) as government. Even so, Americans would have to give five-and-a-half times as much as they do now to replace federal means-tested welfare. How likely does this seem?

(Of course, the scuttling of welfare might yield about a one-fifth reduction in their federal tax burden, and states (in light of the co-pays) might add some further tax relief. But then again, federal and state governments might maintain tax rates and apply the funds to other purposes. Many state governments, in particular, are revenue-strapped.)

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

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

brody196 wrote:
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.

If you consider my stance to be "esoteric mystic Judaism," just try to get your head around kabbalah.

But what is more esoteric - personal prayer and sensitivity to G-d (i.e., the mysticism I endorse); or studying texts written in multiple foreign languages, situated in cultures some 6500 miles and 2000 years or more removed from your Richland, Georgia (i.e., the scripturalism you endorse)?

I don't abstain entirely from jabs or from cuteness. But this is a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. Heaven does not always call us to be "careful." Does not even your scripture teach you that?

[kaufmannphillips]

Homer wrote:
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.

When I was younger, I had a summertime stretch working two jobs - only about 70 hours a week, but I observed the sabbath.

But I suppose it might not occur to some persons that by working 80 hours a week they are taking the space of two workers, putting somebody else out of a job opportunity. Right now, there are millions of unemployed or underemployed workers in America. But there are also millions of people working two jobs or working sizable amounts of overtime. If the high-hour multi-job workers dropped down to a conventional work week, there would be more work available for others.

And it might not occur to some high-hour multi-job workers that their schedule might compromise the service they provide to their employers; "overtime" is (understandably) linked to reduced productivity.

Not to mention that working too many hours can be bad for one's health, which might not be (...um...) good stewardship.

Homer wrote:
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 people holding those signs, do you suppose, are on government welfare?

The persons who are in the welfare system and the persons who hold those signs might be two different subpopulations, for the most part.

Homer wrote:
How many of the Mexican immigrants do we see out on the corner holding up signs? Do they have a superior work ethic?

Some Mexicanos might be pessimistic about how much Anglos are likely to hand them on a street-corner.

In our part of the country, Mexican immigrants might be ill-inclined to stay for long in a place where they can't find work; if they came looking for work, and it's not available in one place, they might readily try somewhere else.

But people who are rooted in their locality might be reluctant to move elsewhere for work; they might seek assistance for a while, hoping something will improve so they won't have to pull up stakes.

Homer wrote:
Not long ago there was an urgent plea by a mother, in the local city newspaper...

There was another article in the paper about a doctor in a nearby city...

Then today in a class at church one of the pastors told...

Without tackling each case given, I will stipulate that some persons abuse others' charity.

But how representative are these stories? When we go about our day, are we more likely to find it colored by the 90+% of persons who interact with us decently, or by a couple of highly troublesome persons? When we go home after work or meet a group of friends for supper, which persons are we more likely to tell an anecdote about?

Beyond this, many people tend to be reserved about telling stories where they help deserving parties who are responsible and grateful. Spreading those stories might seem immodest; and for some religious folks, it might seem contrary to the sense of the Sermon on the Mount (q.v., Matthew 6:1-4). In some cases, those stories might be considered humiliating to the recipients of the charity - another reason to be discreet about them.

So if people are easily impressed by a minority of bad behavior, and comment on it readily; and if people are reluctant to mention their good deeds for deserving persons; then how likely is it that we hear a disproportionate number of negative stories when it comes to charitable activities?

Homer wrote:
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.

Love is about giving people what they want, need, and/or deserve. Sometimes.

Love is about not giving people what they want, need, and/or deserve. Sometimes.

In different instances, giving or not giving might be called for. Why is it, then, that some folks prefer to invent policies rather than appeal to discernment?

Homer wrote:
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.

Thank you for this statement, Homer.

[kaufmannphillips]

steve wrote:
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.

This is the problem - your vision seems clear to you, but Heaven's vision may be clearer, and Heaven may disagree.

Perhaps Heaven knows that the spouse of the first poor person has just received an adequate gift to meet the needs of that family; and perhaps Heaven considers that the drug use of the second poor person is of relatively little significance, in the big picture, and the money given to the drug dealer may be passed along to an old friend, feeding her hungry children.

An eminent principle of faithfulness is to be sensitive to G-d's discernment, and not just to rest upon one's own "knowledge." {Proverbs 3:5f.}

steve wrote:
“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.

Yours is a charitable interpretation, and I can appreciate a charitable interpretation. But if the concern here was only chaste character, the epistle quite simply could have proscribed enrolling women who had not maintained chaste character.

I wonder if this paradigm might not have something to do with a concern for civic respectability. That is, the roll for widows is not merely an exercise of charity; it also is an exercise in public honor.

It seems that people of low public honor were accepted into the early church - including women who had led promiscuous lives. It would not be surprising for some of these women to rely upon material support from the church when exiting their previous way of life. A former prostitute might, understandably, need some charitable assistance as she transitioned into a new economic niche.

So perhaps part of the idea here is to develop a formal roll reserved to womanly paragons, whom all in society would hold in the highest respect. Should some outsider wish to snark that the church subsidized women of ill-repute, the church could point to its roster of widows - as much an honor roll as a welfare roll. And even though society might be understanding of a woman who had buried a husband or two and remarried, the widow of one lifelong husband might have been a more perfect icon of respectability.

All this would not necessarily mean that the church no longer helped women of ill-repute, nor that women who had been widowed and/or divorced a number of times would receive an empty hand. These needs might have been met on a less formal basis. But the enrolled paragons might have enjoyed a certain priority in support - not only due to how they were esteemed in the church, but also due to their value as propaganda.

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

steve wrote:
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.

Given my imperfect memory, would you please cite the verses that indicate "the obligations to care for the family are the first priority"?

If you take care of people in your sodality, what favor redounds to you? Do not the Masons and the bowling leagues do the same?

kaufmannphillips 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.

steve wrote:
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.

If I am to love my neighbor as myself... I hope for patience and generous mercy even in the midst of my evolution as a person, even when I am seriously flawed. I hope that, through such patience and generosity, I might be able to move forward with fewer wounds and impediments.

Perhaps you are a bit too good to understand the kind of love poor sinners hope for. Perhaps you have been too good to have experienced the kind of love poor sinners have received - and still receive - from the one whom you should aspire to emulate.

steve wrote:
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).

It is the role of governments to coerce persons into right behaviors, when those persons would fail to behave rightly otherwise.

If a person has an evil eye and begrudges supporting the poor, how is the soul of that person any worse off if the government makes them fulfill their duty? That person is a begrudger with or without the intervention of the government. But the poor suffer when both the begrudger and the government fail to do their duties.

steve wrote:
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.

Love does not require that we shelter persons from all consequences, but love often militates toward acting to mitigate consequences, entering in and helping to bear consequences or cope with consequences or even to neutralize consequences. Often, that kind of love reveals G-d; often, it is the very thing that brings persons into grateful communion with Heaven and merciful communion with those on earth.

steve wrote:
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.

When unnecessary starvation, sickness, and exposure transpire because of the selfishness and negligence of other humans, it is unacceptable. And complacent acceptance of such injustices is a betrayal of love.

steve wrote:
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.

So - if somebody does not accept the authority of the Book of Mormon, they are not in a position to critique its adherents, whether in their thought or their practice or their interpretation of it?

If somebody does not accept the authority of the Qur'an, they are not in a position to critique its adherents, whether in their thought or their practice or their interpretation of it?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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?

steve wrote:
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.

So one problem, in the case of the military, is that a private/voluntary construct is likely to be unequal to the challenge it will face.

The same is true when it comes to the economy. When individuals face an economic field that is dominated by very powerful competitors - parties with immense resources and tremendous influence over the state of play; parties that are naturally self-interested and often voracious - it is doubtful that individuals will necessarily be equal to the challenge of providing for themselves.

Now, if one is unwilling to build a stronger military, one had better build a decent medical corps to take care of the casualties. And so it is in the economic field - if we are unwilling to bolster individuals in the economic fray, then we had better build a decent welfare system to take care of the casualties.

But if you think a laissez-faire approach to national charity will be adequate to the challenge, please peruse my discussion with brody above. It seems questionable that voluntary contributions would meet the need - all the more so if charitable efforts were not coordinated, but implemented anarchically by thousands of different organizations and millions of different individuals.

steve wrote:
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.

The bible is not a poli-sci primer. But in the bible, national leaders are frequently spoken of as shepherds; and shepherds have a responsibility not only to defend their flock, but to pasture and water it as well. How did Joseph respond to the impending famine in Egypt? With a laissez-faire policy? Even Herod melted down palace gold to feed the needy in time of famine.

So what does a good shepherd do? A good shepherd doesn't leave lagging sheep to learn by consequences. No - a good shepherd swats and cajoles and carries and nurses and patiently and sacrificially does what is feasible, trying to help the laggards through.

And sometimes the shepherd makes arrangements to obtain water and pasturage from other parties. Indeed, the shepherd may shear the flock and exchange the wool for access to grazing land and water. Now, some of the sheep may give more wool than others, but the good shepherd takes as much wool as is needed to ensure that the entire flock is fed and watered.

In our society, every voter is a shepherd. And if I am a voter, the question is: will I be a good and prudent shepherd, or will I be a neglectful and naive shepherd? Do I expect the flock will naturally take care of itself, or do I expect that it will be necessary to intervene to make sure that all are cared for?

[kaufmannphillips]

Jepne wrote:
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 the parable, we don't see the father reach out to his son in any way until the son journeys homeward. But lots of ex-prodigals would testify that G-d reached out to them repeatedly while they were pursuing their wayward lives. And lots of ex-prodigals would testify that G-d looked out for them and provided for them and cushioned their blows, even in the midst of their wandering astray.

There is more to G-d than there is to the parable.

Now, for what it's worth, the Christian God so loves the world that he humbled himself to share their burdens, while they were yet sinners; and he did this, knowing he would be ill-treated by some who were unappreciative; and he did this, knowing that in the cases of many, his efforts would not bring them to his side...

So how should Christian charity embody the love that the Christian God has for the world?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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.

Jepne wrote:
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.

I appreciate challenges. I don't appreciate unnecessary challenges that consume people's lives and energies, when they could be engaging other challenges instead.

We could make a long list of great minds who tackled great challenges to achieve great things, improving the lives of millions of people. But we don't have a list of all the persons who might have achieved great things - great technologies, great philosophies, great medical advances - but whose potential lay unrealized while they clawed out a meager living.

We are flesh and blood, and we can only plow so much. Why abandon people to plow and plow for so little gain, with so little opportunity to tackle further challenges?

Jepne wrote:
We lived on beans, potatoes and lard with a little sliver of cheese for more than a year and loved every bite. ...

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.

In other words, you spent more than a year malnourished. But at least when you were living off lard and potatoes, you weren't eating chips and processed food.

Now, I'm not sure if your year-plus of malnourishment occurred at a time when food stamps were available to you. But if a person has the opportunity to receive food stamps, and instead they make do with a diet like you described, that seems like questionable "stewardship." And if one declines food stamps and subsists on an improper diet, out of pride - then that one should be informed that pride is a greater failing than self-insufficiency.

As for the "indigenous folks" - a 1999 US HHS Dept. study indicated that there was a relatively high dentist-to-patient ratio amongst American Indians and Alaska Natives, and that much less was spent on dental care for those populations than on average. It might have been worse in previous decades. At any rate, there are multiple factors going into a population's health besides its diet, and of course there are sundry issues amidst Native populations besides the intake of soda and processed foods.

But if you would prefer that food stamps be curtailed to the purchase of healthy foods, I won't argue against that. I don't have much of a problem with the government making people eat broccoli.

[kaufmannphillips]

Singalphile wrote:
According to this recent Investors.com opinion piece...

The "war on poverty" cannot be "won" through welfare alone. As indicated in my response to brody196 above, lots of people have dipped into welfare for a limited period and moved on. Welfare is an important safety-net for people like this, and it may stave off their succumbing to poverty for longer periods.

But we still had an ongoing flow of "short-timers" into welfare, even before the recent slump in the economy. And why? Because we have an economic system that impoverishes people. Not all people, of course! Our economic system makes some people wealthy, and some people stunningly wealthy. But because our system allows decent labor to be compensated indecently, and because our system is lacking in concern for finding a way for every willing person to work decently, the safety-net is perennially in use, and it is perennially necessary.

The website you reference might not be interested in discussing that. Investors might not be able to enjoy their prevailing margins of wealth, if all the willing were employed and compensated decently - and it's Investors.com, not Decency.com.

On a related note, it may be recognized that the minimum wage doesn't carry the punch that it did forty-some years ago. From a different sort of website:

"The minimum wage hit its peak buying power in 1968; to have the same buying power today, the minimum wage would have to be $9.92. If the minimum wage had been indexed to the Consumer Price Index since 1968, it would be approximately $10.40 today."

Right now, the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. - about a 27% decline in buying power. So the "war on poverty" is being fought, in part, with outdated weapons.

[kaufmannphillips]

jriccitelli wrote:
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.

And it emerges in the last ... the secret motive many Christians have (I'll wager) for wanting civil welfare to be mothballed - they want the credit for their party instead.

But is the church willing for the needy to suffer more, so the church can reap more glory?

Bad news, sir - the church inadequately addressed the needs of people, so the government stepped in. And until the church is demonstrably willing and able to adequately address the needs of people, it would be folly for the government to surrender that role.

Good news, sir - there are lots of other societies on this earth where their governments are inadequate and/or unwilling to step in. So if the church wants to go glory-hunting, there is ample rangeland for doing so.

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

In your bible, your God mandated payment of a tithe, and allocated some of the proceeds to supporting the disenfranchised (cf. Deuteronomy 14:28f.). Your bible also poses a pretty nasty list of threats for failing to fulfill that mandate (cf. Deuteronomy 28:15ff.).

[Perry]

And it emerges in the last ... the secret motive many Christians have (I'll wager) for wanting civil welfare to be mothballed - they want the credit for their party instead.

Good news, sir - there are lots of other societies on this earth where their governments are inadequate and/or unwilling to step in. So if the church wants to go glory-hunting, there is ample rangeland for doing so.

You seem kind of bitter.

[backwoodsman]

kaufmannphillips,

Wow -- that's a lot of writing! I have to admit, I didn't read it all. But I did read enough to get a pretty good idea of where you're coming from: You're a socialist with a rather large chip on your shoulder against "the church." But your idea of "the church" seems to have little or nothing to do with anyone here.