Welfare payments to support those in need

[Neenie]

Most Conservative Christians here in Australia vote for the conservative liberal party. Tony Abbott the leader of this party is one of the most toxic Opposition leaders in Australian History. He wants to cut pensions and give a big tax cut to millionaires furthermore, leaving the less fortunate to suffer in poverty. Yet he calls himself a devout Christian urging that a razor be taken to welfare policy and the like. There are many people with severe disabilities that prevents them from working full time. Yet this devout Christian and his followers are voting to take away the little these people have. There are hundreds of verses of scripture that pertain the poor, it’s very sad.

Its funny how conservative Christians and other conservatives how they all 'know' or 'know of' someone who bludges off the system, and then proceed to assume that ALL welfare recipients are the same? :o

It's like the way they 'know' that all unemployed are bludgers because 'my
brother's neighbour's on the dole and wants to be' therefore they all must
be the same.

They really do need to get outdoors more, and get a shot of reality.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I feel that many of the people want to be on it. This is why I support a LOCAL and/or free will welfare system as opposed to federal and state run taxes.

 

[Aconba]

...

 

[If Not For Grace]

I'm not sure about the situation in Australia, but most countries in the world today are insolvent. Also, the whole idea of a "Christian politician" is becoming a bit of an oxymoron.

What WE allow is what will continue-I find this to be true, but it is one of those things we let breed when we do nothing or fail to do our part.

As for the govt. it was never meant to be in the "helping" business. That is another area where Christians and Churches have let the govt take over OUR responsibilities. It is our job to take care of those in OUR communities not the bureaus of agencies. We should be feeding, clothing and providing for our neighbors..not the govt.

IF The churches can't get it right how do you excpect the Govt to handle it properly?

 

[dogs4thewin]

I'm not sure about the situation in Australia, but most countries in the world today are insolvent. Also, the whole idea of a "Christian politician" is becoming a bit of an oxymoron.

Do what?

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Ezekiel 34:16-22

King James Version (KJV)

16 I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the strong; I will feed them with judgment.
17 And as for you, O my flock, thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle, between the rams and the he goats.
18 Seemeth it a small thing unto you to have eaten up the good pasture, but ye must tread down with your feet the residue of your pastures? and to have drunk of the deep waters, but ye must foul the residue with your feet?
19 And as for my flock, they eat that which ye have trodden with your feet; and they drink that which ye have fouled with your feet.
20 Therefore thus saith the Lord God unto them; Behold, I, even I, will judge between the fat cattle and between the lean cattle.
21 Because ye have thrust with side and with shoulder, and pushed all the diseased with your horns, till ye have scattered them abroad;
22 Therefore will I save my flock, and they shall no more be a prey; and I will judge between cattle and cattle.

Every mountain shall be made low, but every valley shall be exalted. Vengeance is the Lords, he shall repay.

 

[Aconba]

...

 

[rturner76]

What WE allow is what will continue-I find this to be true, but it is one of those things we let breed when we do nothing or fail to do our part.

As for the govt. it was never meant to be in the "helping" business. That is another area where Christians and Churches have let the govt take over OUR responsibilities. It is our job to take care of those in OUR communities not the bureaus of agencies. We should be feeding, clothing and providing for our neighbors..not the govt.

IF The churches can't get it right how do you expect the Govt to handle it properly?

It is because the churches are inadequate to do the job that government must play a role in the helping business. What other agency can reach as far and wide as the government?

 

[Gadarene]

It is because the churches are inadequate to do the job that government must play a role in the helping business. What other agency can reach as far and wide as the government?

Precisely.

I can think of two prominent recent examples (both in the US) where this notion of "hey, the government doesn't have to do this, it should be churches and charities doing it" falls short.

The provision of healthcare in general, and the funding of healthcare for the 9/11 first responders.

If private donations were actually covering the problem in the first place, there would be no need for any suggestion of socialised healthcare in the first place.

Insisting that it's not needed and that private donation will cover it is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

And if private donations are what is relied on, then to cover an entire country of a few hundred million people then we will need a system to collect an adequate amount of money and then give it some organisation to supervise where it is handed out and to make sure the money is used responsibly. I'm trying to think of a name for this, but it's just not coming to me.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Precisely.

I can think of two prominent recent examples (both in the US) where this notion of "hey, the government doesn't have to do this, it should be churches and charities doing it" falls short.

The provision of healthcare in general, and the funding of healthcare for the 9/11 first responders.

If private donations were actually covering the problem in the first place, there would be no need for any suggestion of socialised healthcare in the first place.

Insisting that it's not needed and that private donation will cover it is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

And if private donations are what is relied on, then to cover an entire country of a few hundred million people then we will need a system to collect an adequate amount of money and then give it some organisation to supervise where it is handed out and to make sure the money is used responsibly. I'm trying to think of a name for this, but it's just not coming to me.

that is the problem the federal and state governments are about the WORST choice to hand out money.

 

[Gadarene]

that is the problem the federal and state governments are about the WORST choice to hand out money.

I disagree entirely.

They may fall prone to inefficiency and corruption, but at least with governments there is an expectation for transparency and accountability.

Individuals are subject to no such expectations.

 

[rturner76]

that is the problem the federal and state governments are about the WORST choice to hand out money.

WHo else can set up a system of rules and regulate them on such a massive scale? The churches can't agree on gay rights let alone how to spend charitable donations. IF you leave it up to churches, people in different areas will be treated differently depending on what church they live by and if they live by a church at all.

Some areas have more churches than others and who will decide how much each church gets and where do the churches get their funding from? Some churches have more money than others. Some have NO money at all and are looking for hand outs themselves.

 

[Hawisher]

I'm not sure about the situation in Australia, but most countries in the world today are insolvent. Also, the whole idea of a "Christian politician" is becoming a bit of an oxymoron.

ITT: People who don't understand how debt between countries works.

 

[Hawisher]

that is the problem the federal and state governments are about the WORST choice to hand out money.

[citation needed]

 

[dogs4thewin]

I disagree entirely.

They may fall prone to inefficiency and corruption, but at least with governments there is an expectation for transparency and accountability.

Individuals are subject to no such expectations.

I disagree on two counts. First, I am not sure about the UK., but here we should but do not have transparency but that is not what we get.

Secondly, the smaller population being served the more likely you are to get "right" as to who is needing it and who is abusing it.

 

[Gadarene]

I disagree on two counts. First, I am not sure about the UK., but here we should but do not have transparency but that is not what we get.

I'm aware it doesn't often happen, and that is a problem. However, there is no expectation of transparency or obligation to provide funding AT ALL when you are utterly dependent on individual donations. That is far worse, as you have far less available recourse when there is a shortfall in funding, because there are no expectations placed on the people you are getting your money from to deliver.

Secondly, the smaller population being served the more likely you are to get "right" as to who is needing it and who is abusing it.

I agree. But you seem to write off state government too. I don't really know how much smaller you can get without the system running into a shortfall due to uneven distribution of funds. County level?

 

[dogs4thewin]

[citation needed]

What do you want me to cite? that seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Hawisher]

I disagree on two counts. First, I am not sure about the UK., but here we should but do not have transparency but that is not what we get.

[citation needed]

Secondly, the smaller population being served the more likely you are to get "right" as to who is needing it and who is abusing it.

This is a popular argument that's never really supported. So support it.

 

[dogs4thewin]

[citation needed]


This is a popular argument that's never really supported. So support it.

Again not to be rude but on both accounts it seems quite common sense.

 

[Hawisher]

What do you want me to cite? that seems pretty clear to me.

Oh? We can do that now? So I could blindly say that "Government is the BEST way to distribute money for welfare," and say that it sounds like common sense, and you'd be forced to accept it? Tell me WHY the system that has agents pretty much everywhere, and has at least some records on just about everybody, especially including income and dependents, is the worst choice to administer welfare.

Again not to be rude but on both accounts it seems quite common sense.

You haven't demonstrated that the level of fiscal opaqueness in the US would be a significant obstacle to government welfare, and you definitely haven't demonstrated that the large population of the US is a problem, given that we are wealthier, per capita, than pretty much anywhere else.