American Charity!

[cantata]

As for the starving children, their parents would have to get a job to feed them, like they should be doing anyway.

What if they don't?

 

[angellica]

What if they don't?

CPS?

 

[cantata]

CPS?

The what now?

 

[wanderingone]

I don't think welfare should come to an end, to be clear. I think incentive is a good idea though.

"Incentives" exist all over the place. When someone on welfare gets a job we don't count most of their earnings. working people get child care subsidies, transportation money, earned income tax credits, heap money, food stamp benefits have increased dramatically. ANYTHING to get people earning a paycheck... even though it actually costs the taxpayer MORE, because we have to support the idea of working for income as the only way individuals contribute to their community and their family. While I take no issue with the realistic concept that one has to be able to obtain employment I do take issue with spending more on childcare for someone to work at McDonald's than their gross earnings will be. I think it would make far more sense to allow them to work part time and fund some sort of education and training that is not limited to "no more than 12 months".

Certainly the poorly managed versions of employment training of the past shouldn't be in existence, but leaving me alone for 3 years paid off with a college degree and no need for any assistance at all in the 21 years since.

 

[wanderingone]

The what now?

Children's Protective Services (or some version of them, they are different in every state) Should we point out all the tons of foster care agencies that are contracted by the states and are faith based?

 

[cantata]

Children's Protective Services (or some version of them, they are different in every state) Should we point out all the tons of foster care agencies that are contracted by the states and are faith based?

So... this isn't aimed specifically at you, by the way, wanderingone, but um, is it better to probably spend more money taking children away from their parents and housing them elsewhere than it is to just give the parents some money to raise their own kids?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Think you could paint with a larger brush there, buddy?

But hey, in the spirit of your post, it's the democrats who are always trumpeting their "charity" work - problem is, they're never the ones that end up paying for it, the taxpayers are.

I suspect the reason why [some American Fundamentalist Christians] hate Government spending on the poor and advocate private charities is:
With Government sponsored charity; the taxpayer remains anonymous and only the Government gets the credit. Whereas in Private charities; Donors are heaped with accolades and thus get direct credit for their magnanimity. This way they are sure God will favour them when the time comes.

On the other hand when it comes to their taxpayers money being used for arms and war; then they prefer to remain anonymous so as not to be directly blamed for the killings and maiming that comes with the territory.

Jesus once said after seeing a rich man give a substantial amount of tithes in the synagogue; "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven"

The very notion that one must receive recognition for helping others is immoral and unethical.

 

[Braunwyn]

"Incentives" exist all over the place. When someone on welfare gets a job we don't count most of their earnings. working people get child care subsidies, transportation money, earned income tax credits, heap money, food stamp benefits have increased dramatically. ANYTHING to get people earning a paycheck... even though it actually costs the taxpayer MORE, because we have to support the idea of working for income as the only way individuals contribute to their community and their family. While I take no issue with the realistic concept that one has to be able to obtain employment I do take issue with spending more on childcare for someone to work at McDonald's than their gross earnings will be. I think it would make far more sense to allow them to work part time and fund some sort of education and training that is not limited to "no more than 12 months".

Agreed. If we subsidize anything, it should be quality childcare. IRT incentives, I'm thinking more along the lines of having to work for the welfare check or at least work for an increased check. People might not be able to leave their homes because they have children, but given current technology, I think there are ways to utilize welfare recipients (providing they aren't mentally disabled). Also, not working for periods of time isn't good for an individual's resume or their heart/head. OTOH, I don't think flipping burgers is the way to go.

I know a few people on welfare. They are smart and computer proficient. It would be wonderful if our gov. would employ these folk as home-based employees. I don't know. These are just some ideas.

Certainly the poorly managed versions of employment training of the past shouldn't be in existence, but leaving me alone for 3 years paid off with a college degree and no need for any assistance at all in the 21 years since.

I'm not understanding this sentence if you wouldn't mind rephrasing it.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Wanna know something really funny? Pastors get screwed by the government three ways to Sunday. While we live in a parsonage and don't have a house payment, we still pay taxes on the value of the house. Our house is valued at something like $275,000 even though it's a crappy neighborhood in Detroit and no one would probably pay more than $80,000 for it (it is nice and big though...). Since social security isn't taken out of hubby's check and church doesn't pay for it, we STILL end up owing the government money, even with three children being born in the last three tax years. Since hubby has to claim the parsonage as income, we don't qualify for programs like WIC. We do qualify for medicaid, but medicaid has this habit of not wanting to cover my sons' asthma medicines. I have no idea why. So right now, without any assistance from the government, we're raising four boys, three of whom are still in diapers and one of which is still on formula, on roughly $28k a year. And yes, we are up to our eyeballs in debt, but that has more to do with a house fire than with our current situation. We're working hard at saving money and scrimping. Thank goodness I love second hand stores!!

Welfare is a great system when it's not abused. I think we SHOULD be helping those less fortunate. And I think that we should set stricter (more strict?) regulations on that help. I think it is wrong when you have mothers on welfare who don't get out in the workplace. Trust me, I've been job searching for the last year and there is no shortage of jobs - it's just a matter of what will you do to support your family and make a living.

 

[angellica]

So... this isn't aimed specifically at you, by the way, wanderingone, but um, is it better to probably spend more money taking children away from their parents and housing them elsewhere than it is to just give the parents some money to raise their own kids?

If they are living in deplorable conditions, if they are hungry, if they are cold, etc. then they need to be taken away to someone who loves and cares for them.

 

[cantata]

If they are living in deplorable conditions, if they are hungry, if they are cold, etc. then they need to be taken away to someone who loves and cares for them.

Only parents who have jobs can love and care for their own children.

You heard it here first.

 

[angellica]

Only parents who have jobs can love and care for their own children.

You heard it here first.

Hey, I'm eating lunch right now, but I'm having a hard time because of all the words you just put in my mouth. Please refrain.

All the love in the world won't keep the kid from starving to death or freezing to death.

 

[Nihilismus]

Hey, I'm eating lunch right now, but I'm having a hard time because of all the words you just put in my mouth.

And people claim that Christians have no wit...

 

[cantata]

Hey, I'm eating lunch right now, but I'm having a hard time because of all the words you just put in my mouth. Please refrain.

All the love in the world won't keep the kid from starving to death or freezing to death.

No, but a little cash, maybe in the form of, y'know, welfare, might.

I honestly find it bizarre that you would rather a child be taken away from its parents essentially because they are poor and jobless than you would give those parents some money with compliments from the state to raise their own child.

 

[angellica]

No, but a little cash, maybe in the form of, y'know, welfare, might.

I honestly find it bizarre that you would rather a child be taken away from its parents essentially because they are poor and jobless than you would give those parents some money with compliments from the state to raise their own child.

If they are actually looking for a job, if they are OUT trying to find one then of course help them. But when they lay around and do nothing and brag about living off the state, when they look forward to their next kid because it means a little more cash in their pocket, I disagree with paying them anything.

 

[cantata]

If they are actually looking for a job, if they are OUT trying to find one then of course help them. But when they lay around and do nothing and brag about living off the state, when they look forward to their next kid because it means a little more cash in their pocket, I disagree with paying them anything.

Have you ever met someone who does this?

Or do you just read about it in whatever your equivalent is of the Daily Mail, and get OUTRAGED?

I'm still horrified by the idea that you would rather take children away from their parents - even lazy parents - than give them some money to support their family.

 

[angellica]

Have you ever met someone who does this?

Or do you just read about it in whatever your equivalent is of the Daily Mail, and get OUTRAGED?

I'm still horrified by the idea that you would rather take children away from their parents - even lazy parents - than give them some money to support their family.

Yes, I have! It could also have to do with where I live - there's a LOT of people like that here.

If a parent is so lazy that their child is cold or hungry or sick, they have bigger problems than being lazy and they don't care enough for their kids to go out and get a job, then they do not deserve kids! If they are ACTIVELY trying, truly trying hard to find a job, then sure, help them out. The laws on welfare need to be a lot stricter.

 

[cantata]

Yes, I have! It could also have to do with where I live - there's a LOT of people like that here.

If a parent is so lazy that their child is cold or hungry or sick, they have bigger problems than being lazy and they don't care enough for their kids to go out and get a job, then they do not deserve kids! If they are ACTIVELY trying, truly trying hard to find a job, then sure, help them out. The laws on welfare need to be a lot stricter.

So you're advocating taking the children away to punish the parents.

Never mind that you're quite possibly punishing the children indirectly.

 

[angellica]

So you're advocating taking the children away to punish the parents.

Never mind that you're quite possibly punishing the children indirectly.

Not to punish the parents. Did you read my post? I said if the child is SICK, COLD, HUNGRY, etc. Would you rather keep the child in a household where it's starving and just give the parents money? How do you even know they'd spend it on the kids? It may be going to drugs and maybe that's why they don't have a JOB in the first place.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Yes, I have! It could also have to do with where I live - there's a LOT of people like that here.

If a parent is so lazy that their child is cold or hungry or sick, they have bigger problems than being lazy and they don't care enough for their kids to go out and get a job, then they do not deserve kids! If they are ACTIVELY trying, truly trying hard to find a job, then sure, help them out. The laws on welfare need to be a lot stricter.

I agree with most of what you're saying (aside from taking away the children - that should be a last ditch thing).

However, I totally disagree with the way you are wording it.

I know many families here in Detroit who are "lazy" about job hunting but a big part of that is because the jobs they can get are low paying jobs (but still employment, granted) and they end up making less than they did while on welfare. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a person in that situation to run out and get a job that's gonna take them out of the house PLUS pay less.

You can't judge all situations the same because of some preconceived notion that we have of people on welfare. Sure, I don't want anyone abusing the system, either. But there are better ways to do this than declaring that anyone who doesn't have a job and whose kids are cold are unfit to be parents.

have you ever seen The Pursuit of Happyness? If not, you should watch it.