Stop Welfare

[TexasTiger 11,031]

It's time to slash federal spending, greatly reduce the size of the federal government and return to true federalism. Who's with me?

http://stopwelfare.com/

[BamaGrad03 146]

I dont understand what they are getting at...of course the poorest states are going to get the most welfare aid. Why should that be a shock to anyone?

Welfare sucks. But how do you stop it?

[Tigermike 2,603]

Once again the hypocrisy of the Democrats is evident for all to see. The premise is that since the "Blue" states pay more taxes why should those taxes be sent to the "Red" states. What about the Democrat talking point of "looking out for the little guys"?

Senator Kerry and the Democrats made a big deal of his Vietnam service. It seems to me that the Blue states still owe for the disproportionate number of servicemen killed in Vietnam. Where were the Blue states then? The statistics are similar for WWI & WWII as well.

Geographic Division..........Deaths Per

.......................................100,000

.......................................population

.

Mountain States................. 33.3

East South Central............. 32.6

South Atlantic.................... 30.8

South................................ 31.0

New England....................... 23.7

Mid Atlantic......................... 23.5

West.................................. 29.92

http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwc3.htm

[AURainman 6]

I dont understand what they are getting at...of course the poorest states are going to get the most welfare aid. Why should that be a shock to anyone?

Welfare sucks. But how do you stop it?

119569[/snapback]

Welfare doesn't suck.

Welfare abuse sucks.

The current USA welfare system sucks.

Helping those who TRULY need help never sucks.

Helping those ON welfare to finally get OFF of welfare is something America's welfare system has never had.

[TitanTiger 18,182]

Personally, I'd like to see a welfare system where those who chronically don't work eventually get nothing. Zilch. Nada. Have strict requirements for getting welfare.

BUT, those who do deserve welfare of some form: people who are working hard but unable to maintain a decent standard of living, those who are either physically or mentally unable to provide for themselves...I think these should get more than they are getting now. One part of the Democratic mantra rings true to me. In a country as prosperous as this one, it is immoral that people who cannot take care of themselves have to scrape by in substandard food, clothing, shelter, and basic health care. We do have a responsibility for those less fortunate who are not in that position because of chronic, proven laziness or unwillingness to be responsible.

The Bible puts forth two ideas that you have to uphold in tension, though they seem to be in opposition to each other. First, care for the poor, the widow, the orphan. Give generously and sacrificially to take care of those in need. The Old Testament is replete with commands from the Lord on considering the plight of the downtrodden, of not going back through your fields after harvesting for a second pass to glean what your initial run left behind. That's to be left for the poor to come gather so they can eat and have some dignity in the work involved in getting it. There's the year of Jubilee where debts are cancelled. The New Testament shows the early church living in a communal setting, sharing all of their possessions to make sure everyone was taken care of.

But secondly, there is the idea that we are to be diligent, not idle or lazy, and that "if a man does not work, he shall not eat." There is responsibility to be contributing in whatever ways you are able to the society. You are not owed food, clothing, and shelter just for taking up space and breathing. At some point, if you have demonstrated by your actions and life patterns that you just want to pretend to contribute, be chronically unemployed, aren't diligent or a dependable employee, etc., then you get nothing. When you get hungry, perhaps the idea that you have some responsibilities as well will kick in and get you back on the right path.

All too often Republicans and Democrats pick one side of this continuum and neglect the other. They cling to one end as the "moral" or "Biblical" way and don't incorporate the other end into their economic worldview. We don't get to do that. We must hold both ideas up together, in tension, accepting both, not one to the negation of the one we don't like or are uncomfortable with, or doesn't fit neatly into our party platform.

[BamaGrad03 146]

Once again the hypocrisy of the Democrats is evident for all to see.  The premise is that since the "Blue" states pay more taxes why should those taxes be sent to the "Red" states.  What about the Democrat talking point of "looking out for the little guys"?

Senator Kerry and the Democrats made a big deal of his Vietnam service.  It seems to me that the Blue states still owe for the disproportionate number of servicemen killed in Vietnam.  Where were the Blue states then?  The statistics are similar for WWI & WWII as well. 

Geographic Division..........Deaths Per 

.......................................100,000

.......................................population

.

Mountain States................. 33.3

East South Central............. 32.6

South Atlantic.................... 30.8

South................................ 31.0

New England....................... 23.7

Mid Atlantic......................... 23.5

West.................................. 29.92

http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwc3.htm

119590[/snapback]

ZIIIIING!

[BamaGrad03 146]

Titan you are hitting on some things that result in my question. I agree with what you say...but what can we do to instill accountability in the welfare system? How do we ensure that more people who can work...do work...and not live off of others?

And how to we seperate from those, the people who truly need the aid that they should get?

[WarTim 3,293]

The problem with "welfare" today is that the libs have made it a basis for their power. People are raised to believe that the federal govt. OWES them a living.

JOB? Why would they want to work for min. wage when they can make almost 90% of that amount and STAY HOME!

It is time for OUR govt. to stop providing a living for able bodied folks.

IF they choose not to work, take away their children and let 'em fend for themselves.

I am just sick of working my butt off to feed and clothe people that WILL NOT work.

When the majority sees the light, maybe things can change.

[TitanTiger 18,182]

As a follow up, I know some will say that none of this is the responsibility of the government...that churches and private charities should be doing this.

Well, that would be ideal. But there are two issues to consider. The church just isn't getting the job done. First, the percentage of regular church goers who actually tithe at least 10% of their income is sad. It's something like 20% of the regular attenders.

But secondly, there's an equally troubling problem...churches are not spending their money on the priorities they should be. All too often, churches go into debt to build bigger and bigger buildings. Or even if they pay cash, that's still money being disproportionately spent on themselves rather than in reaching out to the community. I'm not saying churches can't have buildings that meet their needs. But if you looked at a lot, if not most, church budgets for medium to large size churches, you'd wonder (in light of the Bible's admonishions to care for the poor) why so little of it is dedicated to such things. If the local churches were doing a better job of demonstrating this "others first" mentality, their tithes might even increase as right now many churchgoers listen with skeptical ears to appeals for more money and faithfulness in tithing.

[AURainman 6]

As a follow up, I know some will say that none of this is the responsibility of the government...that churches and private charities should be doing this.

Well, that would be ideal.  But there are two issues to consider.  The church just isn't getting the job done.  First, the percentage of regular church goers who actually tithe at least 10% of their income is sad.  It's something like 20% of the regular attenders. 

But secondly, there's an equally troubling problem...churches are not spending their money on the priorities they should be.  All too often, churches go into debt to build bigger and bigger buildings.  Or even if they pay cash, that's still money being disproportionately spent on themselves rather than in reaching out to the community.  I'm not saying churches can't have buildings that meet their needs.  But if you looked at a lot, if not most, church budgets for medium to large size churches, you'd wonder (in light of the Bible's admonishions to care for the poor) why so little of it is dedicated to such things.  If the local churches were doing a better job of demonstrating this "others first" mentality, their tithes might even increase as right now many churchgoers listen with skeptical ears to appeals for more money and faithfulness in tithing.

119655[/snapback]

You also need to remember, that the political left has been pushing for increasing Christian suppression in government. While upholding "separation of church and state," the side effect is inevitable putting 100% of the blame on the US government. I do not see why govt cannot be a partner with churches for this very reason. This forces welfare programs that take away from the Church's responsibility. "Out of sight out of mind." Its sad that it must be this way. Until the government can put MORE responsibility on churches to feed the poor, the church may never appropriately answer the call.

[TitanTiger 18,182]

Well, that's really the tail wagging the dog from a biblical perspective. The church is called to lead in these areas, not take its cues from government. While it would be nice for more gov't and church cooperation in these areas of common concern, it is not a requirement for the Church to be able to live up to her God-given calling on the earth.

There is nothing in government the currently prohibits churches and other private charities from stepping up in bigger and better ways to care for the needs of the poor. We've just abdicated to a large degree. We don't need state money to do some of these things. We just need people who attend church and call themselves followers of Christ to be faithful and generous in their giving and we need the local churches to see bigger and better visions than just nicer facilities, more amenities, and so on. We need to lead.