Does governmentalization of charity mean we've failed as a people?

[Langdell]

The (perhaps) imminent nationalization of healthcare has made me wonder whether the growing role of government in our lives has resulted from a moral failure on our part.

Throughout the 20th century, government – especially the federal government – continued to grow larger and larger, regulating more and more aspects of our lives. Some of the federal government’s biggest programs involve redistribution of wealth: welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security. (I include Medicare and Social Security because the beneficiaries receive more than they paid in, resulting in a redistribution across generations.)

Government redistribution programs put the government in the charity business. Actions that people ideally would take privately and voluntarily (through individual giving, churches, and so on) are instead taken governmentally and involuntarily. The government will pay out so many dollars in entitlement programs, and you will pay so much in taxes to support such programs.

Has government charity come about because we as a people failed to act justly and charitably in the disposition of our possessions and in our dealings with others? Is the growing governmentalization of charity a judgment on the “American experiment,” because we thought a republic could last without shared morals? Has our fear of giving faith any public role enabled utilitarianism to fill the moral vacuum in our secular society?

.

 

[CPA2]

I have been arguing with atheists for 40 years. ATHEISTS FAIL TO MENTION THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE! How convenient! The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are interdependent. The Constitution cannot be interpreted independently of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration establishes the PRINCIPLES from which the new American government would operate. July 4th is the date of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, not the date of the signing of the Constitution. Our government is dated from July 4th, 1776. That is how important the Declaration of Independence is.

John Adams said that the Constitution’s platform of virtue, its republic character, are from the PRINCIPLES within the Declaration of Independence. The virtues which were “infused into the Constitution” were principles “proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.”

“(Our fathers) established these great self-evident truths that…their posterity might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew that battle which their FATHERS began, so that TRUTH…and CHRISTIAN VIRTUES might not be extinguished from the land…(Abraham Lincoln).”

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

The (perhaps) imminent nationalization of healthcare has made me wonder whether the growing role of government in our lives has resulted from a moral failure on our part.

Throughout the 20th century, government – especially the federal government – continued to grow larger and larger, regulating more and more aspects of our lives. Some of the federal government’s biggest programs involve redistribution of wealth: welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security. (I include Medicare and Social Security because the beneficiaries receive more than they paid in, resulting in a redistribution across generations.)

Government redistribution programs put the government in the charity business. Actions that people ideally would take privately and voluntarily (through individual giving, churches, and so on) are instead taken governmentally and involuntarily. The government will pay out so many dollars in entitlement programs, and you will pay so much in taxes to support such programs.

Has government charity come about because we as a people failed to act justly and charitably in the disposition of our possessions and in our dealings with others? Is the growing governmentalization of charity a judgment on the “American experiment,” because we thought a republic could last without shared morals? Has our fear of giving faith any public role enabled utilitarianism to fill the moral vacuum in our secular society?

.

In a word, yes.

God save us.

 

[Langdell]

In a word, yes.

God save us.

It saddens me to think that the U.S. might be going the way of the northern European countries. I wonder whether their abysmal church attendance rates have anything to do with the extent their governments have penetrated into private life and taken up many of the functions of churches and other non-governmental organizations.

.

 

[Dale_M]

Government redistribution programs put the government in the charity business. Actions that people ideally would take privately and voluntarily (through individual giving, churches, and so on) are instead taken governmentally and involuntarily.

Ideally… I think that is the key word. I think the scenario of individuals and churches providing all the charity which is needed is entirely too rosy for human nature. Certainly programs such as Medicaid and Medicare were enacted because needs were not being met, and not being met on a huge scale.

 

[USMCatholic]

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other welfare programs hardly rise to the level of needs. Even if you make the claim that they are, these programs are all operating deep inside the red and are the reason for our wildly increasing deficit. Government intervention does not solve social problems; only individual action can do that. Unfortunately, the more we are taxed to support these entitlement programs, the further private charity is stifled. Look into Grover Cleveland’s veto of a bill in 1887 that sought to send aid to drought-stricken farmers in Texas. These government programs never accomplish what they aim for and only exacerbate problems, or create worse ones. Just imagine what could happen if we could take the money appropriated by Big Brother to end Poverty (or for who knows what other purpose), and instead give that money to the man in poverty on our street corner, make that change on a personal basis. It is anti-American to say that government’s role is to ensure a good livelihood for all. Even more so to say that it’s the government’s role to ensure an equal livelihood for all.

 

[Langdell]

I’m not ready to concede that it’s beyond human nature. IMO, it’s a moral failing and a flaw in our society that we let things come to a pass where government “charity” seemed like the only solution to most people.

EDIT: Just to clarify, this was in response to Dale.

.

 

[buffalo]

Yes and no. We moved away from the principle of subsidiarity and over time have been content to let government handle what we should have. It is now generational and expected and in some cases an enabling dependency.

 

[USMCatholic]

In response to questions raised by the OP, I don’t think this widespread reliance on government charity came about as a failing on the part of the ‘American experiment’ or the failings of individuals’ charitableness. I think it has numerous causes.
A, this has happened very slowly and incrementally over a large amount of time. It’s very reasonable to say that government should do some little thing to help out the little guy, and so support some increase in a welfare or entitlement program. However, people also generally feel that government should do what government does, ie, once it starts to provide a service, it’ll likely stay that way. Never decreasing, only increasing.
B, no matter how giving private charity is, to any hypothetical extreme that you’d care to posit, the problem of poverty or the less fortunate will never be solved. This should be clear to any Christian who has Jesus’ assurance that the poor will be with us always, and blessed are the poor, as well as to any person with a sound grasp of common sense. However, some are convinced that there is a final answer and way to solve it once and for all. Since there isn’t, charity that is concerned only with the removal of all objects of that charity is doomed to fail, and probably cause some damage as well.
C, there’s also quite the varied group of people who just want increased governmental control and power. Social welfare provides the perfect cover for this agenda. It’s so camouflaged (it’s all for your own good!), it’s on a massive scale ($1.5 trillion on medicare, medicaid, and SS alone), and at the end of the day, when government’s in control of ensuring my livelihood and well-being, what aren’t they in charge of?

 

[Dale_M]

I’m not ready to concede that it’s beyond human nature. IMO, it’s a moral failing and a flaw in our society that we let things come to a pass where government “charity” seemed like the only solution to most people.

A small percentage of people are truly altruistic. They give unselfishly, and at great cost.

However, most people are limited in their willingness to give. They “do charity” because they get something out of it. It may relieve emotional stress at seeing/hearing of suffering, or ( because it makes them feel like a better person. Its why we hear about college students paying $500 a piece to fly to Haiti to help out after the earthquake, instead of pooling their money and arranging for a bulldozer to be shipped there (which would have been more useful.) Its why people are willing to contribute canned goods and paper goods in a food drive, rather than simply donating money, even though the food drive is a very inefficient way to get food to the needy. Homeless people get lots of attention at Thanksgiving and Christmas (holidays to celebrate abundance and blessings), then are forgotten by most Americans. Our desire to help others is quickly satisfied.

Charity in the old days was very limited. It didn’t come close to meeting needs. There is no reason to think it would be different today.

 

[TenBobNote]

The only blame that could go on the individual American citizen, is the failure to elect competent leaders. We have elected politicians who are, many times, influenced by their own selfish desires, the falsehoods Keynesian economics, and progressive agenda. Thus reducing the individual to a collective in society, making him reliant on that failing collective.

 

[USMCatholic]

Dale: Can you point out to me a government welfare program that you would term successful? And by what criteria do you hold the program to be successful?

 

[Dale_M]

Dale: Can you point out to me a government welfare program that you would term successful? And by what criteria do you hold the program to be successful?

I haven’t studied this matter in a long time, so I don’t have a lot of resources to offer. I think all government welfare programs are likely to be flawed in some way. What is success? In the case of health care programs, I think it would be measured in terms of less sickness and possibly improved productivity.

A quick google search (again, its been a long time since I looked hard at the health care system) shows that Medicaid/SCHIP has been beneficial.

Uninsured children are much more likely than children covered by Medicaid and SCHIP to not have a usual source of care (32% versus 4%) (Figure 2). Having a usual source of care is strongly associated with better access to preventive and primary health care. The federally funded SCHIP evaluation found that access to care improved for uninsured children following their enrollment in SCHIP.1-2 Other studies have confirmed that publicly covered children are significantly more likely than uninsured children to have seen a doctor or other health professional, had at least one well-child visit, and received dental care in the past year.3-8Children with Medicaid and SCHIP report access to preventive and primary care at levels roughly equal to those for children with private health insurance.9-10

36Studies that have examined health status before and after a child is enrolled in a public insurance program provide evidence of a more direct, causal relationship between public coverage and improved health. State and national surveys of parents have found that children are in better health after just one year of enrollment in Medicaid or SCHIP.37-39 A study of children enrolled in California’s SCHIP program found that even those in the poorest health who were enrolled for two years had dramatic and sustained improvements in both physical and social health outcomes. Chronically ill children also showed clinically significant improvements in both types of health outcomes.40 Findings from the New York SCHIP study show that the program led to marked improvements in health outcomes among children with asthma – one of the most common childhood diseases – including far fewer asthma attacks, reduced unmet health needs, and lowered rates of asthma-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations (Figure 6).41

Studies of SCHIP’s impact have found an association between enrollment in the program and improved school performance among low-income children. Improvements include increased school attendance, greater ability to pay attention in class, improved reading scores, and increased ability to participate in school and normal childhood activities.42-44

kff.org/medicaid/upload/7645-02.pdf

 

[jordansignor]

I came to this realization a year ago and drew the same conclusion. Some people think
that Jesus was a liberal and a socialist, but I dont ever recall him telling government that it is responsible for taking care of the sick and the poor. And it is very sad that the support doesnt come from the people enough by their own submission.

I know that my feeling is that once the government takes the taxes to do Gods work then people arent being asked to give but instead are being taken from it creates resentment and increases tension between the poor and the “middle class”. Even in Europe the mentality is that you dont need to give to charity because the government is supposta do that(they are taxed enough already). But it does seem to me that the conincidence with the increase of athiesm in relation to the decrease of charitable contributions is on the rise. When you take out the human individual element of charity contempt and even more tightening of the purse happens.

 

[Langdell]

I came to this realization a year ago and drew the same conclusion. Some people think
that Jesus was a liberal and a socialist, but I dont ever recall him telling government that it is responsible for taking care of the sick and the poor. And it is very sad that the support doesnt come from the people enough by their own submission.

I know that my feeling is that once the government takes the taxes to do Gods work then people arent being asked to give but instead are being taken from it creates resentment and increases tension between the poor and the “middle class”. Even in Europe the mentality is that you dont need to give to charity because the government is supposta do that(they are taxed enough already). But it does seem to me that the conincidence with the increase of athiesm in relation to the decrease of charitable contributions is on the rise. When you take out the human individual element of charity contempt and even more tightening of the purse happens.

Yes. Jesus did not force anyone to give to the poor. Instead, he challenged them to do so, and left it up to each person to decide where s/he wanted his/her treasure to be.

.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

I think the concept of “charity as a people” is the beginning of trouble.

If a person fails to be charitable, pray for more charity. Wonder why a person isn’t charitable enough – he/she’s forgotten how to be charitable! “Let the government do it” is the typical response. If the private charity organizations don’t have what’s needed to provide proper assistance they had better start buying planes, heavy equipment, tools, material, medical supplies, fuel and food. Keep the government out of it.

Wondering about The US Constitution? The Constitution indicates “promote the General Welfare” or “provide for the common Defence and the general Welfare”. Promote and Provide do not mean own.

The same goes for healthcare also. Keep the government out of it. If people are suffering because of poor health or lack of proper nutrition, at judgment day God isn’t going to ask if the government helped, he’s going to ask if the person helped. What did the the person do to be more Christ-like? A person isn’t charitable enough? Pray for more charity!

Can it be imagined that if one stood before God and He asked if one was charitable, the response was “I paid my taxes”. I don’t know about anyone else, but if that was my response I’d be hanging my head in shame. Thanks be to God that won’t be my response.

Charity is a virtue not a tax. Why undermine virtue? Even better: Who wants to undermine virtue - Satan, the Liar, the Deceiver, that’s who.

Paying taxes is rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

Personal charity is rendering unto God that which is God’s.

If monetary charity is not enough then consider giving: time, materials, God-given talent.

I suspect that Europe and Asia are heading for a big, horrible fall. I think the countries have been deceived. They might think they’re happy and content in a Godless world, leading all the polls in “quality of life”. “Quality of life” has a price – Satan will require payment.

I think of this:

Mark 12:41-44 from the RSV-CE:

41 And he sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the multitude putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. 42 And a poor widow came, and put in two copper coins, which make a penny. 43 And he called his disciples to him, and said to them, “Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. 44 For they all contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, her whole living.”*

May God give me the Grace to be a charitable poor widow(er).