Should the Government Care for the Poor?

[Sabertooth]

question is how much extra do you provide.

My 24yo has no interest in toys, media, electronics, make-up, jewelry nor even clothes. (She would run around naked, if we let her.) She has a very low overhead. A normally-developed 24yo could never be happy on such low income and it would provide a substantial impetus to seek out work.

 

[dogs4thewin]

My 24yo has no interest in toys, media, electronics, make-up, jewelry nor even clothes. (She would run around naked, if we let her.) She has a very low overhead. A normally-developed 24yo could never be happy on such low income and it would provide a substantial impetus to seek out work.

and that is the way it should be. Government assistance should not provide the same standard of living as working. ( Especially for people who are able-bodied but even those who are not should not exsect the same standard of living.

 

[Sabertooth]

There is also a difference in working and still coming up short to provide for basic needs...

At the same time, and of course there are people who do EVERYTHING right and still end up losing it all through no fault of his or her own,...

Group A.

...and not working at all.

..., BUT there are also cases ( and I know at least one couple like this) where they live outside their means...

Group B.

Should we fail to acknowledge group A because group B exists?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Group A.


Group B.

Should we fail to acknowledge group A because group B exists?

I do not understand

 

[Sabertooth]

I do not understand

You have contrasted

1. those who are "working and still coming up short" vs.
2. those who are "not working at all;" and
3. those who "do EVERYTHING right and still end up losing it all through no fault of his or her own" vs.
4. those who "live outside their means."

I was saying the people in items #1 & #3 comprise one group of people [Group A] and those in items #2 & #4, another [Group B].

Help for group A is easily justified. Help for group B may be questionable.

Do we refuse to help group A because we might inadvertently help out group B?

 

[Foxfyre]

In Matthew 25:35-40 Jesus promised a reward to those who cared for his poor. Is this the responsibility of the individual, community, churches and government?

The problem with government is that there is no way to do it justly and caring for the poor becomes an entitlement with as many negative consequences and corrupting influences as there are benefits. When the definition of poverty is reduced to a certain level of income, there is no discretion to tailor to individual situations and needs. It becomes a matter of 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' in which case the government can always count on the approval of Paul. And there is strong incentive to keep that approval intact for the benefit of government.

Long ago Benjamin Franklin once wrote:

. . .I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good for to the poor is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."--Benjamin Franklin 1776​

There is nothing in Matthew or anywhere else in the Bible that suggests that it is the responsibility of the central government to care for the poor, though certainly the government can step in to provide necessary emergency services in cases of major national disasters.

And certainly it is the responsibility of government to not divide the people into classes or otherwise create systems and rules that keep people in poverty. And government can go a long way to create socioeconomic incentive that encourages people at all levels to prosper. We are witnessing that very thing in the Trump economy. When the people can believe that things are improving, they see to it that things improve.

The Bible strongly suggests that it is OUR responsibility to care for the poor who are truly helpless in their poverty rather than those who choose to be poor. We may do that individually or how we organize our societies at the local level. And yes, I do think God works through us and multiplies our efforts when we do that out of a genuine and honest effort to help rather that assuage our consciences.

I don't pretend to know the mind of God. But I can't believe he gives much points for our concern for the poor when we pay our taxes and assume that absolves us of all responsibility.

 

[Sabertooth]

I think the best way of doing good for to the poor is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.

There you go, again, insisting that all of the poor are capable of helping themselves. That is only true of a particular subset. (And meager subsistence accomplishes both.)

There is nothing in Matthew or anywhere else in the Bible that suggests that it is the responsibility of the central government to care for the poor, though certainly the government can step in to provide necessary emergency services in cases of major national disasters.

True, but there was a civic precedent established in Leviticus 19:9-10.

 

[eleos1954]

In Matthew 25:35-40 Jesus promised a reward to those who cared for his poor. Is this the responsibility of the individual, community, churches and government?

Responsibility of All of these:
individual, community, churches and government

 

[Sabertooth]

We can't expect such from secular community or individuals, but it has a legitimate place in civic infrastructure and the Church's mission (as a group and as individuals).

 

[RocksInMyHead]

What exactly qualifies as ‘poor’? People who waste their money on booze, marijuana, cigarettes, the latest fashion and gadgets, yet complain they don’t have money to eat or pay bills shouldn’t be getting any free handouts. They should learn to spend their money more wisely. The leftists have created a sort of victim mentality and entitlement attitude among the welfare class that emerged during the disasterous Obama administration. There’s a difference between ‘poor’ and ‘poor money management’. Not everyone who claims to be ‘poor’ really is, they just waste their money on unnecessary junk and live well beyond their means.

Able-bodied people should work for their income, government handouts don’t do anything except create dependence and encourage slothfulness. It would be better if the government would generate more opportunities for people to provide for themselves.

I’m all for helping out people who genuinely need it. There are plenty of homeless out there with nowhere to sleep. But when someone with subsidized housing, the latest model smartphone, and newest clothing fashions is claiming to be poor, I think maybe they should manage their funds better and lose the victim mentality.

Assistance is generally based on your income, not the contents of your bank account. Whether or not people are wasting their income is largely irrelevant to the assistance they receive.

 

[dogs4thewin]

You have contrasted

1. those who are "working and still coming up short" vs.
2. those who are "not working at all;" and
3. those who "do EVERYTHING right and still end up losing it all through no fault of his or her own" vs.
4. those who "live outside their means."

I was saying the people in items #1 & #3 comprise one group of people [Group A] and those in items #2 & #4, another [Group B].

Help for group A is easily justified. Help for group B may be questionable.

Do we refuse to help group A because we might inadvertently help out group B?

Group B is why I feel that government aid should be stricter/more local and maybe even that most aid should come more in-kind for example food, housing, clothes as opposed to money that can be used to buy these things.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Assistance is generally based on your income, not the contents of your bank account. Whether or not people are wasting their income is largely irrelevant to the assistance they receive.

but if you waste so much of your income that you cannot afford the basics then you do not deserve help. Help in budgeting maybe, but not help in providing.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

but if you waste so much of your income that you cannot afford the basics then you do not deserve help. Help in budgeting maybe, but not help in providing.

Has anyone made that argument? Hypothetical scenario with made-up numbers here:

Person A: makes $20,000/year, wastes $15,000 of that on booze and cigarettes. He receives $10,000/year in assistance based on income.

Person B: makes $20,000/year, only purchases the necessities, lives frugally. He also receives $10,000/year in assistance based on his income.

Do you believe that one of these people is deserving of less assistance than the other?

 

[Foxfyre]

There you go, again, insisting that all of the poor are capable of helping themselves. That is only true of a particular subset. (And meager subsistence accomplishes both.)

True, but there was a civic precedent established in Leviticus 19:9-10.

Leviticus was not suggesting that the government leave provisions for the poor, but said that is what the farmer should do. And there was no suggestion that the food be gathered and delivered to the poor either. No. It was just giving the poor opportunity to gather for themselves.

 

[Rescued One]

That reflects more on English-speaking countries Calvinist pasts, and the fear of the non-elect getting blessings. Historic Reformed and Catholic countries in Europe were some of the last to adopt the comprehensive welfare state, because their religious systems encouraged people to see poverty as having spiritual significance, but in completely different ways.

That's a very strange comment, IMO.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 NIV
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."

The elect wouldn't be following Satan; they would be helping the poor and hungry and thirsty. By their fruits you will know them.

 

[Rescued One]

Has anyone made that argument? Hypothetical scenario with made-up numbers here:

Person A: makes $20,000/year, wastes $15,000 of that on booze and cigarettes. He receives $10,000/year in assistance based on income.

Person B: makes $20,000/year, only purchases the necessities, lives frugally. He also receives $10,000/year in assistance based on his income.

Do you believe that one of these people is deserving of less assistance than the other?

I, myself, do not judge between the two --- except that Person A should be helped to overcome addictions. Giving that person more opportunities to buy booze and cigarettes isn't helpful.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Has anyone made that argument? Hypothetical scenario with made-up numbers here:

Person A: makes $20,000/year, wastes $15,000 of that on booze and cigarettes. He receives $10,000/year in assistance based on income.

Person B: makes $20,000/year, only purchases the necessities, lives frugally. He also receives $10,000/year in assistance based on his income.

Do you believe that one of these people is deserving of less assistance than the other?

To an extent I do. If person A is wasting their income then they do not deserve free income while having those same behaviors. Now, I have no problem with helping person A in other ways such as job training, school or budgeting and money management ( if they choose to make use of those services, but in terms of providing them money or things that could be traded for money no they do not deserve help if they are not willing to put forth effort and help themselves/

 

[Rescued One]

What people deserve is God's judgement. Severely depressed people often depend on addictions to cope with pain. They don't understand how to cope with rejection or abuse. They could very well be atheists. They can't imagine a God Who cares about them. He did not keep their abusers from hurting them physically or mentally.

They are unable to work because of physical and/or emotional disabilities. How can we cure all these unfortunate people?