Welfare payments to support those in need

[Eric Hibbert]

There are hundreds of verses of scripture that pertain the poor, it’s very sad.

Yes, there are a couple dozen verses in the Bible about the poor, but not one of those verses supports a government run program that subsidizes poverty.

To the contrary, one of those verses tells us that if a person doesn't work, he shouldn't be supported.

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

To be fair, my objections to government subsidizing poverty isn't based on the fact that government entitlement programs are rife with fraud and corruption, although that is a valid argument, but based on the fact that it's Unbiblical, Unconstitutional (in our country, anyway), and actually does more harm to the poor than good.

 

[Hawisher]

Yes, there are a couple dozen verses in the Bible about the poor, but not one of those verses supports a government run program that subsidizes poverty.

To the contrary, one of those verses tells us that if a person doesn't work, he shouldn't be supported.

Which?

 

[dogs4thewin]

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.

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.

The trouble is, if I know you I know a little bit about how you live. Records only go so far when it comes to the government. If someone makes money, but wastes it do they deserve welfare no because they clearly do not care if they are spending money on addictions ( any addiction) or things that they do not need. Yet income only covers what they report. One they can waste money and two those who are on welfare sometimes work under the table thus unreported income. Drug tests seem like a good idea until you factor in the cost to test every person every month two months whatever it would be.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Which?

Somewhere in Paul's letters I believe it is in one of the letters to Timothy.

 

[Hawisher]

The trouble is, if I know you I know a little bit about how you live. Records only go so far when it comes to the government. If someone makes money, but wastes it do they deserve welfare no because they clearly do not care if they are spending money on addictions ( any addiction) or things that they do not need. Yet income only covers what they report. One they can waste money and two those who are on welfare sometimes work under the table thus unreported income. Drug tests seem like a good idea until you factor in the cost to test every person every month two months whatever it would be.

And you think that somehow a completely voluntary system run by individuals is a better idea? How? It's much, much easier to hide income from the people who aren't legally empowered to find out how much money you make.

 

[dogs4thewin]

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.

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?

yes

 

[dogs4thewin]

And you think that somehow a completely voluntary system run by individuals is a better idea? How? It's much, much easier to hide income from the people who aren't legally empowered to find out how much money you make.

If it is at the county or in larger counties ( population wise) city level I know who spends time where. I know who takes care of the kids. It worked for years.

 

[Gadarene]

So what are poorer counties who can't afford the level of healthcare funding their constituents need supposed to do when they can't raise enough?

The only solution is to widen the net.

 

[Hawisher]

If it is at the county or in larger counties ( population wise) city level I know who spends time where. I know who takes care of the kids. It worked for years.

For some values of work that happen to include "some people living in abject poverty," sure, it worked.

What do you do when donations dry up, or when there's an economic problem that decreases donations while increasing homelessness, or when a primary church in the area is a megachurch like Elevation with almost no financial transparency?

 

[dogs4thewin]

For some values of work that happen to include "some people living in abject poverty," sure, it worked.

What do you do when donations dry up, or when there's an economic problem that decreases donations while increasing homelessness, or when a primary church in the area is a megachurch like Elevation with almost no financial transparency?

The donations would be private on an as needed basis or they people could move in with others there are ways it can work. By the way, there are poor and there always will be so I do not think there was more when it worked. I mean people had less money but that was because less was needed.

 

[Hawisher]

The donations would be private on an as needed basis or they people could move in with others there are ways it can work.

I'm sorry, but you're basically just saying, "yes but it can work anyway." You're not actually demonstrating how these issues can be overcome on the donations side, not on the expense-reduction side.

By the way, there are poor and there always will b

And this doesn't bother you? Because if it bothers you, we can at least try to reduce that number. Heck, if we ever get zero-point energy or whatever, maybe people won't be poor. That would be awesome.

 

[Gadarene]

if we ever get zero-point energy

That I can assure you we won't get.

And unless you can eat ZPE, it will make little difference.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I'm sorry, but you're basically just saying, "yes but it can work anyway." You're not actually demonstrating how these issues can be overcome on the donations side, not on the expense-reduction side.
And this doesn't bother you? Because if it bothers you, we can at least try to reduce that number. Heck, if we ever get zero-point energy or whatever, maybe people won't be poor. That would be awesome.

It can bother me and I can do my part, but I still realize that there will always be people who do not have what they need to live comfortably.

 

[Hawisher]

That I can assure you we won't get.

And unless you can eat ZPE, it will make little difference.

Enough energy can solve pretty much any problem. Except global warming, because eventually we'd just cook the earth.

Also, don't be so pessimistic.

 

[Hawisher]

It can bother me and I can do my part, but I still realize that there will always be people who do not have what they need to live comfortably.

Or you encourage an organization that can actually accomplish meaningful change and be accountable and transparent to do so.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Or you encourage an organization that can actually accomplish meaningful change and be accountable and transparent to do so.

and the government has proven not to be it.

 

[Gadarene]

Enough energy can solve pretty much any problem. Except global warming, because eventually we'd just cook the earth.

Not quite. Energy needs to be usable. There'll be as much energy in the universe once we reach the heat death stage as there is now (conservation laws and that), but it will be so dissipated to be of no use whatsoever.

Having a nice long lasting energy source like fusion would be nice, but you have to consider portability for mechanical use - if we're talking about other basic needs it still needs to be convertible into an energy form we can consume. We still only have a few particular ways of generating energy for our physiological survival and that will be a limiting factor.

Also, don't be so pessimistic.

I'm not being pessimistic. I simply know my physics and that ZPE is not available usable energy in any way and that solving resource shortages is not as simple as churning out as much raw energy as you can.

 

[Hawisher]

Not quite. Energy needs to be usable. There'll be as much energy in the universe once we reach the heat death stage as there is now (conservation laws and that), but it will be so dissipated to be of no use whatsoever.

Right. That's why we can't just blindly solve all our problems by dumping more energy on them. Even if we were great at it, we'd still cook ourselves eventually.

I'm not being pessimistic. I simply know my physics and that ZPE is not available usable energy in any way and that solving resource shortages is not as simple as churning out as much raw energy as you can.

Debbie Downer.

You can pretty much be sure that if I'm talking about essentially free energy as the solution, I'm not being entirely serious.

 

[Hawisher]

and the government has proven not to be it.

When did this happen?

 

[dogs4thewin]

When did this happen?

When the government is wasting money and our debt is HUGE.