Government Welfare vs Private Charities

agreed good will should never be forced by government, that is why private charity is best because people should freely give with their hearts.

of course that means many will starve because there aren't enough people of good will to fill the demand of those in need, so maybe the taxpayer can pay for a hole to be dug for the unfortunate ones at a minor expense.

agreed, for example private christian charities offer a stepping stone out of poverty because they do not force people to do the right thing, but give them the opportunity to do the right thing freely of their own will.

government welfare keeps people trapped in poverty because it forces them to do the right thing against their free will, which presumes all people are inherently evil who ask for handouts specifically.

while most are guilty, some are innocent and should not be judged as guilty. and while all people are inherently evil, harsh judgement should not be specific to some people while merciful for others.

 

That post explains a lot, and is a perfect example of why the welfare system is a disaster and the root of the nations political collapse.

"...experts said I can't be trained up to do any kind of job..."

And yet here you are, using a computer and posting on a forum. "cant be trained up to do any kind of job"? Total BS, what a scam.

 

My typing speed is 10wpm, with one useable hand, and although my IQ is 124 my mind is wired bad I can focus on one thing at a time decently not multitask as well as I get confused easily under stressors and get other issues. I did apply for jobs I had to note however I would need adaptive software for any keyboard work and a simple job doing one thing in a quiet work station, and since I can't drive, would need to work days. I can't lie when I have multiple disabilities and due to my mind wondering all over.

What makes you more of an expert than vocational experts who know all the industries and what they demand for skills.

I'm not ashamed for getting help now, I need it.

 

Most of the money going to "charities" are in fact going to support religion not public assistance. Joel Osteen runs a charity. Tithing is just as compulsory as taxes. If you do not pay your taxes, the IRS comes after you. If you do not pay your tithe, the church comes after you. You can choose not to join a church and you can choose to structure your income to pay as little in tax as possible under the current tax laws.

 

Not all charitable organizations are religious based. As I'm an Atheist I'm unaware of how a Church has any means or power to force anyone to tithe.

As I've pointed out previously in other threads, there are some people, perhaps a significant number, who work part time earning up to the limit allowed that will not reduce their government (taxpayer) provided assistance.

 

Well, if you want to be a Catholic, get your kids baptized, get married in the church, etc, you must tithe. The Mormons really enforce it. Tithing is your ticket to heaven, God needs money.

 

I am definitely referring to rent, and how on earth could it be rightful that landowners take from the community -- from everyone, in their capacity as taxpayers -- without contributing anything in return? How could it be rightful that the poor must hand over to rich, greedy landowners everything they get from government and charities? How could it be rightful that taxpayers are forced to pay taxes to fund desirable services (including aid to the poor) and infrastructure, and must then pay landowners for access to the exact same services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for?

 

One cannot produce unless one has access to opportunities to produce, and one must pay a landowner full market value for access to such opportunities. Many people are quite able to produce enough to sustain themselves, but not to meet the extortion demands of rich, greedy parasites for permission to produce.

It is the privileged who have licenses to thieve from others. The landowner, the IP monopolist, the bankster all own privileges that legally entitle them to take a potion of production from producers without making a commensurate -- or, in most cases, any -- contribution to production. They are the thieves. The greed of the welfare chiseler for unearned wealth is to the greed of the landowner as the brightness of the moon is to the brightness of the sun.

Read, "The Mayor of Casterbridge."

 

some people just don't want to work, and the government welfare system enables them to stay in poverty with fancy labels and diagnostics from 'experts' that encourage victim-hood.

private christian charities give handouts and love without stipulations and that encourages employment, because they use it on a as needed basis until they can stand on their own.

 

My primary care doctors want me in a nursing home or ALF, does that sound like I'm healthy?

 

I wouldn't dare judge you.

Matthew 7:2

For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

 

Some here do, so I can keyboard a bit and if I focus with no distractions can be pretty coherent online that doesn't equal employable in various industries which have serious demands to be able to be hired. I'm not considered to be able to get to that level. I used to work even was a Busker but if I can't play an instrument then I can't work at that either and a I was quite a respectable saxophonist.

 

Why is getting printing paper so toughness way?

 

What is being ignored is that poverty creates a financial burden on society in all civilized cultures.

Government welfare and private charities both mitigate the effects of poverty by providing financial assistance. They don't always meet the actual financial burden which is quantifiable based upon analysis as well as subjective based upon philosophical ideology.

MIT has quantified poverty with it's Living Wage Calculator which reflects the minimum/mandatory costs of the household. Any income less than the MIT Living Wage Calculator is quantifiable poverty.

Philosophically we can refer to the income necessary for the "Support" (i,e, the MIT Living Wage Calculator) and "Comfort" (income in excess of the bare minimum/mandatory expenditures) based upon economic philosophers like John Locke.

If we address the commonality of the two different approaches we find that the "median income" is a relatively accurate compromise between the two effectively dividing the people into those living above poverty and those living in poverty. If the household, on the average, has median income or above it's not living in poverty while if it has income below median income then it is living in poverty.

So if the median income is $50,000/yr and the median household has $35,000/yr in income it then requires $15,000/yr in "financial assistance" that must be provided for by government welfare and/or private charity.

Of note the average "personal income" of the United States is about $100,000/yr so we have more than enough income to mitigate the effects of poverty in the United States.

 

would you kindly post some proof to support this bit of propaganda?

 

Just open your eyes and ears, look around and listen.

 

typical right wing reply - not so much as even one word of proof for their anti-America lies

 

Anti-America? What needs proving? What do you feel is a lie?

 

You made the unsupported claims in your OP, buddy. As is usual for this forum, right wingers either pose an issue in the form of a leading question or they make an unsupported assumption which they never back up with any proof. It is time to end such baseless nonsense. The burden of proof is yours.

 

Typical left wing response?

I'll ask once again, Anti-America? What needs proving? What do you feel is a lie?

 

see post 41 - prove every single nonsense point listed there

 

I looked but found not a single nonsense point listed.

Why not just post your own comparison of Government Welfare vs Private Charities?

 

Private charity is great and should never be viewed as something that government assistance is meant to replace. Someone in need of assistance should not have to live or die by the whim of those who might be feeling generous, because people in need aren't just folks who don't want to go get a job. Not in my country. Not in any country that claims to have any type of moral foundation. And certainly not in the country that invented the "right to life".

Private charity is not big enough to meet the needs of the people. So government assistance and private charity should never be seen as opposing forces, but rather teammates. Kind of like the Army and the Marines. Yeah, they operate differently and may have differing viewpoints as well as other things, but they both play for the same team towards the same goals.

 

we have spent 15 trillion dollars on the so called war on poverty and the poverty rate is the same today as it was when the war was declared that is the only fact you need to know to come to the rightful conclusion that it is a utter failure