Can we pursue capitalism____

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

Education is more readily available to the poor than it was even for our own four boys.

Education is not the answer to everything. There are many educated folks out of work and on food stamps.

Again Bonnie, you have a very snooty way of looking at folks who are poor. This world is wicked and there are many who try but are knocked down again and again....I see exploitation everywhere....I see the good old boy system at work. Everything is not all rosy for many. I wonder what you would do in such circumstances? Cry like a baby....?

Naughty,naughty,where is Shane when you need him for personal attacks.

Life has not been fair since Cain smacked able upside the head with a rock. Won't change either.

Exploitation also is able bodied people with opportunities given them because they are poor not utilizing those opportunities.

Been in those situations to many times to count in my life.No,I did not cry like a baby.I worked at jobs I hated till I could do something else. I took a wage that was less than the job should have paid many times. I kept looking for better and usually found it.

If five years of unconditional help is being snotty,so be it.

Yes,I know education is not everything. Motivation and hard work is often far more beneficial. Hungar that no one jumps in to alleviate is a very powerful motivator.

Many of us did not get the help or the advantages that a welfare recipient has. I didn't have a choice,they do. Have someone care for them for life.

[Robert]

Whether or not there is a college education there are numerous possibilities.

"Living wage"...Have you heard that phrase? Without it you are poor....

This world is wicked....It's all about money....It's a dog eat dog world and people, many who at no fault of their own get run over....As Jesus said, "You will always have the poor"....Why? Human nature...it exploits!

James 5:1 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.

[bonnie]

Quote:

"Living wage"...Have you heard that phrase? Without it you are poor....

Yup and many times worked below that.

Quote:

This world is wicked....It's all about money....It's a dog eat dog world and people, many who at no fault of their own get run over....As Jesus said, "You will always have the poor"....Why? Human nature...it exploits!

This is not about those that are in trouble thru no fault of their own.

This is about career welfare

Quote:

James 5:1 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.

Well,I haven't murdered innocents that oppose me yet so not sure what this has to do with the discussion.

I am pretty sure there will be other classes of people in this situation when they face God. I am not responsible for the rich.I am not responsible for you if you fail to give till it hurts.

I am being made responsible for those that feel they are entitled to handouts for life.

[bonnie]

This is a little more current

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/sr0067.cfm

September 16, 2009

Obama to Spend $10.3 Trillion on Welfare: Uncovering the Full Cost of Means-Tested Welfare or Aid to the Poor

by Robert Rector, Katherine Bradley and Rachel Sheffield

Special Report #67

Executive Summary

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent vast sums on welfare or aid to the poor; however, the aggregate cost of this assistance is largely unknown because the spending is fragmented into myriad programs.

As this report shows, means-tested welfare or aid to poor and low-income persons is now the third most expen­sive government function. Its cost ranks below support for the elderly through Social Security and Medicare and below government expenditures on education, but above spending on national defense. Prior to the current reces­sion, one dollar in seven in total federal, state, and local government spending went to means-tested welfare.

Means-tested welfare spending or aid to the poor consists of government programs that provide assistance delib­erately and exclusively to poor and lower-income people. By contrast, non-welfare programs provide benefits and services for the general population. For example, food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families are means-tested aid programs that provide benefits only to poor and lower-income persons. On the other hand, Social Security, Medicare, police protection, and public education are not means-tested; they pro­vide services and benefits to persons at all income levels.

In fiscal year (FY) 2008, total government spending on means-tested welfare or aid to the poor amounted to $714 billion. This high level of welfare spending was the result of steady permanent growth in welfare spending over several decades rather than a short-term response to temporary economic conditions.

Of the $714 billion in welfare spending, $522 billion (73 percent) was federal expenditures, and $192 billion (27 percent) was state government funds. Nearly all state government welfare expenditures are required matching contributions to federal welfare programs. These contributions could be considered a "welfare tax" that the federal government imposes on the states. Ignoring these matching state payments into the federal welfare system results in a serious underestimation of spending on behalf of the poor.

Of total means-tested spending in FY 2008, 52 percent was spent on medical care for poor and lower-income persons, and 37 percent was spent on cash, food, and housing aid. The remaining 11 percent was spent on social ser­vices, training, child development, targeted federal education aid, and community development for lower-income persons and communities. Roughly half of means-tested spending goes to disabled or elderly persons. The other half goes to lower-income families with children, most of which are headed by single parents.

Total means-tested welfare spending in FY 2008 amounted to around $16,800 for each poor person in the U.S.; however, some welfare spending goes to individuals who have low incomes but are not below the official poverty line (about $22,200 per year for a family of four). Typically, welfare benefits are received not just by the poor, but also by persons who have incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level ($44,400 per year for a family of four). Around one-third of the U.S. population falls within this lower income range. On average, welfare spending amounts to around $7,000 per year for each individual who is poor or who has an income below 200 percent of the poverty level. This comes to $28,000 per year for each lower-income family of four.

Welfare spending has grown enormously since President Lyndon B. Johnson launched the War on Poverty. Wel­fare spending was 13 times greater in FY 2008, after adjusting for inflation, than it was when the War on Poverty started in 1964. Means-tested welfare spending was 1.2 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) when Presi­dent Johnson began the War on Poverty. In 2008, it reached 5 percent of GDP.

Annual means-tested welfare spending is more than sufficient to eliminate poverty in the United States. The U.S. Census Bureau, which is in charge of measuring poverty and inequality in the nation, defines a family as poor if its annual income falls below official poverty income thresholds. If total means-tested welfare spending were simply converted into cash benefits, the sum would be nearly four times the amount needed to raise the income of all poor families above the official poverty line.

One may reasonably ask how government can spend so much on welfare and still have great inequality and so many people living in apparent poverty. The answer is that the Census ignores nearly the entire welfare system in its measurements. In its conventional reports, the Census counts only 4 percent of total welfare spending as income. Most government discussions of poverty and inequality do not account for the massive transfers of the welfare state.

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dol­lars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).

In his first two years in office, President Barack Obama will increase annual federal welfare spending by one-third from $522 billion to $697 billion. The combined two-year increase will equal almost $263 billion ($88.2 bil­lion in FY 2009 plus $174.6 billion in FY 2010). After adjusting for inflation, this increase is two and a half times greater than any previous increase in federal welfare spending in U.S. history. As a share of the economy, annual fed­eral welfare spending will rise by roughly 1.2 percent of GDP.

Under President Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than President George W. Bush spent on the war in Iraq during his entire presidency. According to the Congressional Research Service, the cost of the Iraq war through the end of the Bush Administration was around $622 billion. By contrast, annual federal and state means-tested welfare spending will reach $888 billion in FY 2010. Federal welfare spending alone will equal $697 billion in that year.

While campaigning for the presidency, Obama lamented that "the war in Iraq is costing each household about $100 per month." Applying the same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.

Most of Obama's increases in welfare spending are permanent expansions of the welfare state, not temporary increases in response to the current recession. According to the long-term spending plans set forth in Obama's FY 2010 budget, combined federal and state spending will not drop significantly after the recession ends. In fact, by 2014, welfare spending is likely to equal $1 trillion per year.

According to President Obama's budget projections, federal and state welfare spending will total $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years (FY 2009 to FY 2018). This spending will equal $250,000 for each person currently living in poverty in the U.S., or $1 million for a poor family of four.

Over the next decade, federal spending will equal $7.5 trillion, while state spending will reach $2.8 trillion. These figures do not include any of the increases in health care expenditure currently being debated in Congress.

In the years ahead, average annual welfare spending will be roughly twice the spending levels under President Bill Clinton after adjusting for inflation. Total means-tested spending is likely to average roughly 6 percent of GDP for the next decade.

Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in the Domestic Policy Studies Department at The Heritage Foundation. Katherine Bradley is Visiting Fellow and Rachel Sheffield is Visiting Fellow in Welfare Studies in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

[bonnie]

We have five young unwed mothers within a radius of about 3 blocks in our neighborhood.

Four are on welfare. Two should lose their children. The four are receiving full welfare benefits.One had a gastric bypass on the taxpayers dime about three years ago. She had pre-surgery counseling and post surgery counseling. She is once again morbidly obese.She also thinks because her little girl is growing so fast she would like another baby.They are such fun.

I took one to apply for welfare benefits. The waiting room has rows and rows of information leaflets and booklets. Services available,parenting classes,nutrition classes,stop smoking and many others.Problem with that is it is voluntary. The girl I took was given all information she would need,telephone numbers and transportation help.Guess who has not worked a day? Nor taken advantage of what was offered. The other three don't work either,they don't attend class,why should they. They can be taken care of by doing absolutely nothing.

The one girl not on welfare is self sustaining. She finished high school pregnant. her parents did not want her and the baby.It was sort of we raised our family,you did this now figure it out. I don't agree with that but what she has done with that is pretty amazing.

She rents a very small three room basement apt from a neighbor. She works a part time job,cleans houses two days a week and is on call for the local cafe. She has a older lady taking care of her little girl which she has to pay.

She is now in her second year of college. She takes courses online and two nights a week at the local high school.

She is also still paying her hospital bill for the birth of her daughter at 25.00 per month.

Which of these girls stands the best chance do you think?

Now explain to me again why the four should not have requirements to receive all the aid they are.

The state certainly is not helping these four to develop into self sufficient women. Whose child do you think stands a better chance of growing up to be a responsible,mature adult?

Human nature usually does not value what is received without effort.Nor does it do much to build self respect

[Dr. Shane]

Explain to me why we need to pay people to get married...

Right now we pay people not to get married. Given the choice, I think paying them to get married is the better policy.

[Dr. Shane]

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank. They are not a reliable source of information despite what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity may claim. They play with numbers to advance their agenda. If one is concerned about honesty they may really want to get better sources than the Heritage Foundation. They have about as much credibility as Media Matters or Micheal Moore.

[bonnie]

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank. They are not a reliable source of information despite what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity may claim. They play with numbers to advance their agenda. If one is concerned about honesty they may really want to get better sources than the Heritage Foundation. They have about as much credibility as Media Matters or Micheal Moore.

Shane saying something or someone is not reliable does not make it so.

[Dr. Shane]

People that want to believe in fairy tales will. I am a bit more skeptical than that.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

Explain to me why we need to pay people to get married...

Right now we pay people not to get married. Given the choice, I think paying them to get married is the better policy.

No that is not true. The intent was to provide for needs till the recipient could take advantage of the charity and work towards their own betterment.

It was not intended for a career or to support those in a married household.

By your reasoning I should have received welfare following my marriage. I was not a unwed mother but in financial terms we were as poor as those living off the government.

[bonnie]

People that want to believe in fairy tales will. I am a bit more skeptical than that.

If it disagrees with Shane it becomes a fairy tale. You are not skeptical,that is called something else.

You do not want people to work or to have demands and requirements placed on them for the free living off others. That is your choice.

Unwed mothers are not stupid or incapable of learning and putting that to good use. A child does not make one helpless with the aid that is out there.

If they do not have the motivation to help themselves all the freebies in the world won't change that.

Giving them the incentive and the means out of the welfare mentality is needed.

Welfare is big business and that is unlikely to change.

Of the unwed mothers in our neighborhood I have only pity for the four.Unless something changes they won't. The children stand very little chance of being anything other than what the mother is.

The one I have sympathy for,I am sure she gets really tired and discouraged.But I do not pity her.Her child stands a chance.

She doesn't have any special talents,no special breaks.If she can do it all alone the others should at least try with the money and opportunity they receive. Some effort no matter how small. The only effort is depositing the welfare check the first of every month

[bonnie]

More Welfare, More Poverty

by Michael D. Tanner

Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies and author of The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society.

Added to cato.org on September 21, 2006

This article appeared in the Charlotte Observer on September 12, 2006.

News that the poverty rate remained at 12.6 percent last year, statistically unchanged from the year before, has set off a predictable round of calls for increased government spending on social welfare programs. From the New York Times to the Democratic Leadership, we hear familiar complaints about how George W. Bush and congressional Republicans have "slashed" anti-poverty programs.

Yet, last year, the federal government spent more than $477 billion on some 50 different programs to fight poverty. That amounts to $12,892 for every poor man, woman, and child in this country. And it does not even begin to count welfare spending by state and local governments. For all the talk about Republican budget cuts, spending on these social programs has increased an inflation-adjusted 22 percent since President Bush took office.

Despite this government largesse, 37 million Americans continue to live in poverty. In fact, despite nearly $9 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared War on Poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where it was when we began, more than 40 years ago.

Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies and author of The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society.

More by Michael D. Tanner

Clearly we are doing something wrong. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient. But government welfare programs have torn at the social fabric of the country and been a significant factor in increasing out-of-wedlock births with all of their attendant problems. They have weakened the work ethic and contributed to rising crime rates. Most tragically of all, the pathologies they engender have been passed on from parent to child, from generation to generation.

Welfare reform was supposed to fix all that. And, indeed, it has had some positive effects. Welfare rolls are down. Since 1996, roughly 2.5 million families have left the program, a 57 percent decline. Critics predicted that welfare reform would throw millions into greater poverty. Instead, it led to modest reductions in poverty, particularly for children, black children, and single-mother households. Most of those who left welfare found work, and of them, the vast majority work full-time. As you would expect, studies show that as former welfare recipients gain work experience, their earnings and benefits increase.

But whatever successes welfare reform has brought, more can be done. And if we have learned anything by now, it is that there are limits to what government programs—even reformed ones—can do to address the root causes of poverty.

Observers have known for a long time that the surest ways to stay out of poverty are to finish school; not get pregnant outside marriage; and get a job, any job, and stick with it. That means that if we wish to fight poverty, we must end those government policies—high taxes and regulatory excess—that inhibit growth and job creation. We must protect capital investment and give people the opportunity to start new businesses. We must reform our failed government school system to encourage competition and choice. We must encourage the poor to save and invest.

More importantly, the real work of fighting poverty must come not from the government, but from the engines of civil society. An enormous amount of evidence and experience shows that private charities are far more effective than government welfare programs. While welfare provides incentives for counterproductive behavior, private charities can use their aid to encourage self-sufficiency, self-improvement, and independence. Private charities can individualize their approaches and target the specific problems that are holding people in poverty.

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Perhaps that's something to keep in mind the next time we hear a call for more welfare spending.

[Dr. Shane]

These organizations play games with the numbers. Some of these include SSI benefits - which should be lumped in with Social Security. They include means-tested veteran's benefits - which should be lumped into defense spending. They include tax credits - which is tax policy (actually taxing some people less). They include the cost of foster care and adoption. They include the cost of children's health insurance programs. Some even include veteran's pensions when calculating the cost of "welfare".

Yet when most people talk about "welfare" they are referring to food stamps, medicaid and family support assistance.

Of course, when most liberals talk about welfare they play with numbers too. They normally do not count medicaid in with food stamps and family support assistance.

[Dr. Shane]

I think Jesus would clearly not want us to limit welfare to only five years. Obviously Jesus has moved on President Obama's heart and Obama is responding to Him.

"Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in My name receiveth Me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:4-6)

[bonnie]

I think Jesus would clearly not want us to limit welfare to only five years. Obviously Jesus has moved on President Obama's heart and Obama is responding to Him.

"Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in My name receiveth Me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:4-6)

Now that settles it. You have determined what Jesus clearly wants.What is that? Unending welfare,ten years,twenty years.

Isn't there something in the bible about "if a man/woman does not work,he doesn't eat.

You seem to feel superior in your unending zeal to provide handouts with other peoples money.So be it.

I personally think it is cruelty to keep people beneath you as long as possible.

It is demeaning and degrading. Helping them out of their situation with demands of responsible adult hood is a lot kinder.

With exceptions of physical and mental handicaps if they cannot get it together with five years of education and charity supplied perhaps they should not have their children.

You seem to think women with children are incapable,stupid and cannot figure out they need to work as we all do.

We have the usual trailer park and subsidized housing with welfare families. The subsidized housing now has rules of unscheduled inspections as they could no longer afford to keep up the repairs. When people do not have anything invested they typically do not take care of what is given to them. Of course the residents tried with protests to block that as it was against their civil rights.Wasn't against the rights of the taxpayer tho to keep paying.

Trailer courts are demanding more stringent rules for rentals. Same problem,destruction and drugs and fights.

The daughter of a good friend is a social worker for Hennepin County.Her first hand experience with career welfare families is certainly different than your grand idea.

The irresponsible,neglectful or abusive parent or parents,refusing to care for the home they live in and provide a decent enviornment for their children far exceed the ones that value the help they are given.For her it is something to celebrate when she finds a hardworking caring mother/father.

After having foster children for a number of years and learning what their life was like and working with their caseworkers I think I will take their word on their day to day personal experience instead of yours.

Just watching what goes on in our town confirms what they say,not what you claim to know.

Working at the food shelfs,knowing many others that are there full time,working with the social service experts,knowing personally those that are in the trenches,not just spouting an idea,knowing the mess that subsidized housing was and is still barely controlled,the drug raids at the trailer parks,the fights,the children subject to that lifestyle bears little resemblence to much of what you have said.

Maybe those of us that believe they can and need to do better deserve that special place in hell you want God to provide,but I will take my chances.

You keep to your welfare for life or however long.

[bonnie]

These organizations play games with the numbers. Some of these include SSI benefits - which should be lumped in with Social Security. They include means-tested veteran's benefits - which should be lumped into defense spending. They include tax credits - which is tax policy (actually taxing some people less). They include the cost of foster care and adoption. They include the cost of children's health insurance programs. Some even include veteran's pensions when calculating the cost of "welfare".

Yet when most people talk about "welfare" they are referring to food stamps, medicaid and family support assistance.

Of course, when most liberals talk about welfare they play with numbers too. They normally do not count medicaid in with food stamps and family support assistance.

I read wikepedia on the Cato Institute. You certainly have your work cut out for you correcting everyone that does not agree with your unprofessional opinion.

For me,I will go with those that have far more personal hands on experience than you do.

[Dr. Shane]

The Cato Institute is every bit as conservative as the Heritage Foundation. The Cato Institute is probably a bit more Libertarian. It still goes back to a game of numbers. Many of these groups will toss the child-tax credit in with the welfare numbers. The child-tax credit is a tax credit available to the middle class but gradually is phased out as one climbs into the upper class incomes. Most middle class families earning $65K/year or $85K/year would be astonished that conservative groups considered them to be welfare recipients. There are also many veterans benefits that are only available to middle and lower class veterans that these conservative groups consider part of the welfare program. Many of these veterans consider such benefits as being part of the compensation for their service and would be offended if someone called them a welfare recipient.

So my point is that when the common person talks about welfare he or she tends to be talking about food stamps, medicaid and family support assistance. Most foster parents that get paid to take care of foster children wouldn't consider themselves to be welfare recipients either.

[Dr. Shane]

You have determined what Jesus clearly wants.What is that?

I just read what the Bible says and try to follow it.

Something in there about loving one's neighbor as themselves too. I am not sure what the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute think about that concept. I wonder what Rush would say.

[Dr. Shane]

The irresponsible,neglectful or abusive parent or parents,refusing to care for the home they live in and provide a decent enviornment for their children far exceed the ones that value the help they are given.

The problem here is a confusion between welfare and substance abuse. Welfare does not cause people to become irresponsible, neglectful or abusive. Substance abuse does. Most people involved with substance abuse end up on welfare but that is not to say that welfare caused the substance abuse. Substance abuse is a big issue and one that needs more attention. BUT remember that these conservative groups like Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute are going to include funding of substance abuse programs in their welfare totals and as a result oppose increasing funds to deal with it.

[Dr. Shane]

Maybe those of us that believe they can and need to do better deserve that special place in hell you want God to provide,but I will take my chances.

I was paraphrasing the Master. Jesus actually said there is a placed reserved at the bottom of the sea for those that harmed the children. Of course, that may well be the sea of fire - I happen to think it is but that is a bit of speculation on my part. I would rather not take my chances. I say, give them welfare as long as they need it and change public policy to encourage marriage, job training and deal with substance abuse.

[Robert]

I am being made responsible for those that feel they are entitled to handouts for life.

Well, as you say, the system ain't perfect....You have no choice in the matter unless you wish to stop paying taxes.....

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

You have determined what Jesus clearly wants.What is that?

I just read what the Bible says and try to follow it.

Something in there about loving one's neighbor as themselves too. I am not sure what the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute think about that concept. I wonder what Rush would say.

Personally I do not care what Rush would say.You seem to be hung up on that .

Jesus says nothing about continual handouts to those that will not use the help given to better life for themselves and their children. You make that assumption.

If you read what the bible says and try to follow it you would not be petitioning God to condemn others to a special place in hell for not reading it the same as you.You would realize that is not your job,your responsibility or your privilege.

I have not read anywhere that either the Heritage Foundation,The Cato Institute or Rush have called for the removal of welfare and letting children starve.What they and many others have said is it isn't working as it was designed to.Any government program rarely does.It is abused

[bonnie]

Quote:

The problem here is a confusion between welfare and substance abuse. Welfare does not cause people to become irresponsible, neglectful or abusive. Substance abuse does. Most people involved with substance abuse end up on welfare but that is not to say that welfare caused the substance abuse. Substance abuse is a big issue and one that needs more attention. BUT remember that these conservative groups like Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute are going to include funding of substance abuse programs in their welfare totals and as a result oppose increasing funds to deal with it.

You are confused. Not all neglectful parents are substance abusers. All that abuse the welfare system are not drug addicts. No matter how much money and rehab that is thrown at substance abuse it is not working.Unless forced to take the actions that will remove many others from welfare they don't take it.

Any handouts that are regular without restrictions,a salary without working and all that goes with that does create irresponsible people.

Most people understand what happens when you take all personal responsibility away from people and care for their needs.

As to the cost I don't believe it is as low as you say. But I said in the very beginning the cost was not the major factor.

It is what it does to the lives of children and the people that do not need to take any personal responsibility with the help they are given.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

You have determined what Jesus clearly wants.What is that?

I just read what the Bible says and try to follow it.

Something in there about loving one's neighbor as themselves too. I am not sure what the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute think about that concept. I wonder what Rush would say.

My husband was under contract for HUD for a number of years. He used to laugh and say it was great job security when work was slow.Hopefully it is somewhat different now but the mindset is the same for those without personal responsibility.

It was his job to rehab the houses for the next tenent. Sometimes having to go in while the tenent was still living there.

Holes punched in the walls were the least of it. Windows boarded up,bathroom fixtures removed,towel racks pulled of the wall,bm smeared on walls. Carpets ruined hardwood floors with deep grooves.

This was not the minority of homes,it was a surprise to find anything different. Year after year he would rehab the same homes. There was a reason for that. With nothing invested,no labor involved,none of their own hard earned money used, there was not the incentive to care. The people that would do that could not be thrown out on the street as most of us would have been. Being a welfare recipient protected them from that.

Not everyone living in the local subsidized housing or the section of trailer parks that are a mess are substance abusers. You can walk thru the trailer park and identify those that don't work.After subsidized housing is up for awhile you know it when driving by.

In contrast there are a couple of pretty shabby homes being rented out close to us. Yards are neat,flowers planted and no garbage laying around.The little the renters have and it doesn't look like much is worked for and paid for by themselves. You can see the pride of ownership quite easily.

Continued charity without personal responsibility breeds nothing but contempt for those receiving.

There is a reason the one young mother in our neighborhood works as hard as she does to stay away from other welfare recipients. She has not had any advantage over them,a couple had quite a bit more. She does not want her child raised like that.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Well, as you say, the system ain't perfect....You have no choice in the matter unless you wish to stop paying taxes.....

That isn't entirely accurate. While I cannot stop the most from throwing their live away and that of their children,there are those I can help and encourage.

The one young mother knows she can call me anytime if she needs a sitter or runs into trouble. When I find things I know a young single mother would need I pick it up and see she gets it.

The other four at this point would first have to be willing to work before I would do that. I did try with the one that is again morbidly obese. She knew I had a online business at home and asked if I had anything she could do.

I explained what I would need and she was sure she could do that. I offered her the opportunity to bring her little girl with to avoid paying daycare. Big mistake,the child,not quite four is uncontrollable. If she sees something she wants she will grab it,telling her to put it down results in it either being thrown at you or towards the window.

When the mother found out that she would have to be here at 8:00 AM she started backing off. She usually did not get up till around 10:00 AM as she was not a morning person.

We lasted less than a week.

She wanted me to pay her in cash because of welfare even tho she would be allowed to earn a certain amount while training. She could not get up every morning and be here by 8:00. The child is no longer welcome in my house without being restrained. The mother can't do that as all she does is scream.

There are others I can help,sometimes giving enough of a helping hand they don't get discouraged and quit.

Again Robert and Shane,feel free to judge me when you give enough to hurt and then still find other ways.