Does the welfare system/state make people feel more useless?

[St_Francis]

There is no contradiction. The contradiction is in your interpretation. You are using the fact that there are abusers in-order to justify abuse. The church teachings on job-seekers allowance stands to day just as it stood in the past. Its a human right, not a social construct limited to a period in time; and to say that people out of work don’t need job-seekers allowance is just ridiculous and ignorant.

You are equivocating. You cannot equate unemployment with welfare as I saw you do on the other thread and assume you are doing here. Those who are on welfare are *not *job seekers, for whatever reason, and to equate the two and make a mishmash of them makes it impossible to discuss the issues involoved.

…you are simply drawing on possibilities that serve your agenda by making the poor and the oppressed look like undeserving immoral lazy people. This is just an accusation with no substance…

…But of course you will not find that agreeable since it is in your agenda to make people who are out of work look like slobs just so that you don’t have to pay for their dignity or feel guilty when they stave, or take responsibility for the common good in general. The way you think is repugnant and is quite simply a twisted perversion of true reality.
You are making assumptions without evidence. My agenda is *not *to make the needy look bad so that people are not obliged to help them; my point is that welfare is *inhuman, *bad for both the haves and the have-nots, and so incomplete as to be arguably abusive to the poor, for sure, and to others, quite possibly, and certainly has been very damaging to the family in our country.

I am not saying, oh, the poor are just lazy and we don’t need to help them, nor am I saying, oh, there are poor people, we need to set up a federal welfare system to help them. I am saying that there is a better way than welfare to do what does indeed need to be done, which is to help the poor.

My original point which started this discussion was that welfare *relieves *people of the need to pay attention to what is going on around them, to consider the needs of the poor, and to just let the government do its thing so we have the free time to do our thing. Paying others to do what we are supposed to be doing is simply *wrong. *

 

[TheRealJuliane]

My original point which started this discussion was that welfare *relieves *people of the need to pay attention to what is going on around them, to consider the needs of the poor, and to just let the government do its thing so we have the free time to do our thing. Paying others to do what we are supposed to be doing is simply *wrong. *

AMEN! Welfare dispensed by the government destroys altruism in those who should be involved in taking care of widows and orphans THROUGH THE CHURCH! And the people who need help should also be willing to work in return - not just take and take from others without end. When one is getting help from specific people, it’s kind of hard not to be grateful and want to get off one’s hind end and get back to a functional place again. Get a monthly check? Who the hell cares any more, I can just keep getting the check because I don’t know or see who it’s coming from.

The government is not supposed to take the place of the Church but it has.

 

[Black_Rose]

AMEN! Welfare dispensed by the government destroys altruism in those who should be involved in taking care of widows and orphans THROUGH THE CHURCH! And the people who need help should also be willing to work in return - not just take and take from others without end. When one is getting help from specific people, it’s kind of hard not to be grateful and want to get off one’s hind end and get back to a functional place again. Get a monthly check? Who the hell cares any more, I can just keep getting the check because I don’t know or see who it’s coming from.

The government is not supposed to take the place of the Church but it has.

I posted this before and it is quite appropriate here:

Well, if one’s ineffective, shouldn’t he be relieved for someone that is more effective? BTW, in a close game, wouldn’t a team want an effective closer, such as Mariano Rivera, pitching in the top of the ninth with a one run lead than a mediocre middle reliever.

The manager came to pitcher’s mound to relieve private charity, telling him that he is done, and give the ball to their star closer, the welfare state.

 

[Black_Rose]

In addition to the self=perceptions of the poor, there is the perception of others. When we “give” in a remote way–when money is taken out for taxes we don’t ever even have the money–then the poor just become a number. And when we think about people in terms of their ability to earn money, they become “worthless” in our eyes as well. ***Additionally, their problems become merely a lack of money. ***The poor become blank-faced numbers without worth and without money whom we give money to because everyone seems to think that is the right thing to do, and that takes care of any obligation that we have towards them. There is no reason for caritas, because the government has taken care of those in need.

Well, aren’t most of the problems of being are due to a lack of money? Well, they simply lack the skills or talent to compete in a globalized labor market so they do not receive high wages. Is that why they are poor or there is some more esoteric reason that cannot be comprehended with my intellect?

Isn’t being not being to pay the bills such as utilities, food, rent/mortgage, health care based on not having much purchasing power or a lack of money? Isn’t understanding poverty relative simple?

But the topic is whether the welfare state makes people feel **more **worthless, relative to a similar state without a welfare state. It is thread about the relative superiority/inferiority of a welfare state.

 

[St_Francis]

Well, aren’t most of the problems of being are due to a lack of money? Well, they simply lack the skills or talent to compete in a globalized labor market so they do not receive high wages. Is that why they are poor or there is some more esoteric reason that cannot be comprehended with my intellect?

Isn’t being not being to pay the bills such as utilities, food, rent/mortgage, health care based on not having much purchasing power or a lack of money? Isn’t understanding poverty relative simple?

Well, this is the point I have been trying to make all along. *We *are supposed to care for those in need, and they are not always poor. So all these government programs make us think that need = lack of money, and lack of money can easily be fixed with our tax dollars, so we don’t have to worry about taking care of the poor.

And the poor are left in the position of not being able to do anything to help anyone, because need is equated with lack of money, and those who lack money can certainly not do anything to alleviate the lack of money of others.

And even with just plain old lack of money, almsgiving is not supposed to be done in such a way that we don’t even notice, since the money is taken out of our paychecks before we even get them; it is supposed to be an activity which causes us to *think, *to have our minds and hearts opened to the plight of those in need.

But the topic is whether the welfare state makes people feel **more **worthless, relative to a similar state without a welfare state. It is thread about the relative superiority/inferiority of a welfare state.

Well, I don’t know what you mean by a similar state without a welfare program. For example, in the Middle Ages, people in the Church went out and helped people, or provided places where people could come to them. These people did what they did out of *love, *an understanding that they had something that they could share with those who didn’t. We had religious running leprosauriums and other types of hospitals, monsteries had hostel areas for the poor to stay in, etc.

When people give of themselves out of love, then those in need feel *loved, *not like disreputable relatives who are supposed to stay out of sight and not bother those with Important Stuff to Do.

It’s a system designed by our Designer which allows *everyone *to help; it’s wholistic, caring for the whole person, not just the body; it’s uplifting, allowing each person to be seen and cared *about *in a way which helps the helper, which increases each person’s sense of their own dignity.

 

[jilly4ski]

And the poor are left in the position of not being able to do anything to help anyone, because need is equated with lack of money, and those who lack money can certainly not do anything to alleviate the lack of money of others.

I don’t know if this is true. Like I said before, I an considered “poor” by the government, but I am still able to help people. Maybe it was because I didn’t grow up in a “poor” household. But my husband and I still volunteer when we have the chance, (work schedules and pregnancy make that difficult right now) and with the WIC program we were getting too much peanut butter, tuna, and beans than we could eat, so we would gather up the extra food and donate to the Cathedral emergency services food shelf at our Church. We figured this would go to help people who were poorer than us, or for some reason couldn’t get the help from the government.

I will say this about government welfare, is that it is a (relatively) centralized system. So when I signed up for food stamps they also knew that I could get a little money for heating costs during the winter and etc. While this opens the system up to those who abuse it, it is also helpful for those who are reluctant to seek the services they need and for those who don’t know where to look for these services.

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t know if this is true. Like I said before, I an considered “poor” by the government, but I am still able to help people. Maybe it was because I didn’t grow up in a “poor” household. But my husband and I still volunteer when we have the chance, (work schedules and pregnancy make that difficult right now) and with the WIC program we were getting too much peanut butter, tuna, and beans than we could eat, so we would gather up the extra food and donate to the Cathedral emergency services food shelf at our Church. We figured this would go to help people who were poorer than us, or for some reason couldn’t get the help from the government.

I will say this about government welfare, is that it is a (relatively) centralized system. So when I signed up for food stamps they also knew that I could get a little money for heating costs during the winter and etc. While this opens the system up to those who abuse it, it is also helpful for those who are reluctant to seek the services they need and for those who don’t know where to look for these services.

I am happy to hear that it’s working out well for you I have lived in several areas with lots of poor people (well, by government views, we’ve been poor too!), and so have heard about a lot of different problems.

 

[Kropotkin]

We live in a system that forces people to work, we are slaves to the rich and powerful. the welfare handed out is a kind of life jacket. also protects the rich from revolutionary activities,

Those on welfare need a job to be better off, not worse off,
those from the top end of town will try to keep the poor in their place, low wages handed out by greedy employers, ensure the workers never get a chance to better themselves,
Those poor are always living on Struggle Street.

Brilliantly said!

“I’ve concluded that genius is as common as dirt. We suppress our genius only because we haven’t yet figured out how to manage a population of educated men and women. The solution, I think, is simple and glorious. Let them manage themselves.” John Taylor Gatto

 

[St_Francis]

The manager came to pitcher’s mound to relieve private charity, telling him that he is done, and give the ball to their star closer, the welfare state.

I can make an analogy too: the welfare state is like communism, where a bunch of thugs and robbers take over, make the people totally dependent on them and dole out the tiniest amounts they can to the people while requiring that the people put their bodies and souls to the service of the state. So welfare is just the bones that thugs hand out to keep us dependent on them, to keep us voting for them, to keep us from revolting against them.

So you see that just because you can make an analogy doesn’t mean it’s correct. The best system was in place in the Middle Ages, until Martin Luther came along and created a situation in which greedy kings and princes could steal all the resources of the Church, which included the “safety net” for those in need, leaving them in true destitution, so naturally they turned to those who had stolen their safety net, the governments. Seems to me that my analogy is closer to the truth than yours is.

 

[athair_siochain]

I can make an analogy too: the welfare state is like communism, where a bunch of thugs and robbers take over, make the people totally dependent on them and dole out the tiniest amounts they can to the people while requiring that the people put their bodies and souls to the service of the state. So welfare is just the bones that thugs hand out to keep us dependent on them, to keep us voting for them, to keep us from revolting against them.

So you see that just because you can make an analogy doesn’t mean it’s correct. The best system was in place in the Middle Ages, until Martin Luther came along and created a situation in which greedy kings and princes could steal all the resources of the Church, which included the “safety net” for those in need, leaving them in true destitution, so naturally they turned to those who had stolen their safety net, the governments. Seems to me that my analogy is closer to the truth than yours is.

What truth, how would Christ answer that question certainly different than anyone who believes the Middle Ages was a great System, a System that approved of employers doing whatever to their working slaves, you only have to go back 70yrs in our history to see how employers created great wealth, my Great Grandfather was given the job of digging and picking 2 acres of potatoes took six weeks he was paid one dollar, he worked hard to harvest 10 tons of potatoes at the end of the job he helped himself to 2stone of potatoes. the employer called the police had him arrested. the reason I brought this up the employers brother was a Catholic Bishop,
I often wonder what is between some peoples ears,

We need a system free of greedy parasites

 

[athair_siochain]

I can make an analogy too: the welfare state is like communism, where a bunch of thugs and robbers take over, make the people totally dependent on them and dole out the tiniest amounts they can to the people while requiring that the people put their bodies and souls to the service of the state. So welfare is just the bones that thugs hand out to keep us dependent on them, to keep us voting for them, to keep us from revolting against them.

So you see that just because you can make an analogy doesn’t mean it’s correct. The best system was in place in the Middle Ages, until Martin Luther came along and created a situation in which greedy kings and princes could steal all the resources of the Church, which included the “safety net” for those in need, leaving them in true destitution, so naturally they turned to those who had stolen their safety net, the governments. Seems to me that my analogy is closer to the truth than yours is.

Capitalism is also made up of thugs and robbers, landlords and moneylenders have legalized their thieving activities,

 

[Pug]

Now seriously, what could they actually give if they are unable to materially provide for themselves and their immediate family?

People who cannot hold down an ordinary 40 hour a week job can still give to others! For example, they could help a friend by watching her children while the friend goes to grocery shop. Or perhaps they could be the one who is home to let in the repairman, the meter reader, the plumber, etc., so the other person can be away from home during the day. Perhaps they could be the one to ferry people to the airport, doctor, school, etc. The possibilities are endless. If they were part of a functioning extended family structure, they would have a role there. Even if they could do none of these things, they would be Aunt So and So to someone. To say that the elderly who are frail are of no use is not correct. It is the wrong approach of thought, even. I am enriched by each member of my family, no matter their health, of course. But I don’t view the elderly in terms of utility, nor any person, I hope.

 

[St_Francis]

What truth, how would Christ answer that question certainly different than anyone who believes the Middle Ages was a great System, a System that approved of employers doing whatever to their working slaves, you only have to go back 70yrs in our history to see how employers created great wealth, my Great Grandfather was given the job of digging and picking 2 acres of potatoes took six weeks he was paid one dollar, he worked hard to harvest 10 tons of potatoes at the end of the job he helped himself to 2stone of potatoes. the employer called the police had him arrested. the reason I brought this up the employers brother was a Catholic Bishop,
I often wonder what is between some peoples ears,

We need a system free of greedy parasites

First of all, the Middle Ages ended a few centuries ago and bear no relevance to what happened 70 years ago. Secondly, like the poor, greedy parasites we will always have with us, due to fallen human nature.

 

[St_Francis]

Capitalism is also made up of thugs and robbers, landlords and moneylenders have legalized their thieving activities,

That was not my point, nor are we discussing the broader economic system. We are just talking about the welfare system as it currently exists here in the US.

 

[Black_Rose]

Well, this is the point I have been trying to make all along. *We *are supposed to care for those in need, and they are not always poor. So all these government programs make us think that need = lack of money, and lack of money can easily be fixed with our tax dollars, so we don’t have to worry about taking care of the poor.

And the poor are left in the position of not being able to do anything to help anyone, because need is equated with lack of money, and those who lack money can certainly not do anything to alleviate the lack of money of others.

You could certainly say that most of the poor needs are due to a lack of a money and that this state prevents them from doing most things that would help other people. Can they pay someone’s utility or medical bills?

 

[St_Francis]

You could certainly say that most of the poor needs are due to a lack of a money and that this state prevents them from doing most things that would help other people. Can they pay someone’s utility or medical bills?

I have mentioned several times the sorts of things that people can do to help others. Because of the focus on the material and the takeover of social institutions by the government, it appears to all people that the only help that is needed is monetary, and that this help is taken care of by the government.

Caritas, or love for Christ in one’s fellow man is so diluted through this system that I believe that it is a bad system.

Either I am explaining myself very badly, for which I apologize, or the points of view we each hold are so far apart that you cannot understand what I am saying. But I cannot think of any other way in which to explain what I am trying to say.

 

[Black_Rose]

I have mentioned several times the sorts of things that people can do to help others. Because of the focus on the material and the takeover of social institutions by the government, it appears to all people that the only help that is needed is monetary, and that this help is taken care of by the government.

Caritas, or love for Christ in one’s fellow man is so diluted through this system that I believe that it is a bad system.

Either I am explaining myself very badly, for which I apologize, or the points of view we each hold are so far apart that you cannot understand what I am saying. But I cannot think of any other way in which to explain what I am trying to say.

I am primarily motivated the concern for people’s material welfare, since it can be easily measured and evaluated by various objective metrics. Because it is difficult for one to accurately provide a universal definition of “happiness”, this is achieved by reducing the suffering of citizens, since one can easily identify people who are suffering. For example, one can ask himself whether they want to exchange positions with a given person, and if the given person is indeed suffering, then most people would be repulsed at the notion of switching positions with that person. Certainly, insufficient funds to defray for housing, utilities, and medical services are a major cause of suffering in the modern world, and by definition, the poor, individually or collective, do not have the resources to satisfy those needs.

While a state based on “caritas” may adequately provide for other non-material needs, one would need to show that it is more effective at providing for palpable, material needs. It is often assumed that the welfare state, with access from an immense source of funds derived from taxation, can provide for the needs of the people more effectively.

The welfare state might not make people feel loved, but they would feel appreciated and respected by the state and their fellow citizens who have enthusiastically approved the social welfare function of the state.

 

[athair_siochain]

That was not my point, nor are we discussing the broader economic system. We are just talking about the welfare system as it currently exists here in the US.

What welfare system?
Why do we have tens of thousands sleeping on the streets,
People out of work, are surplus workers, employers create jobs, so they are to blame if there are no jobs,
The lazy greedy rich, are about to take control of our government. hundreds of millions of dollars are being used to gain power over the people,
no chance of a moneyless person becoming a member of government.

People do not feel useless, their hands are tied, they still have to pay the greedy landlord or moneylender, if not they could go to jail, I am not on welfare , but I do meet many who are suffering/victims of greed.

The greedy are on cloud nine.employers pay the lowest wage, workers have to accept low wages from employers-- they have to pay rent or interest

 

[athair_siochain]

First of all, the Middle Ages ended a few centuries ago and bear no relevance to what happened 70 years ago. Secondly, like the poor, greedy parasites we will always have with us, due to fallen human nature.

With respect… I don’t believe in fallen human nature. young people today are not as blind as their parents, they can identify/see the greater picture,

 

[ERose]

St. Francis, it looks like you need a little help here.

Anyway I find it very sad that so many of the “young” adults are so ignorant of the way of things and they are so mallable to believe that which is not true.

Here are the facts. If it wasn’t for those rich “greedy” employers creating jobs everyone would be poor as dirt. It is the rich that create jobs for the most part not the poor. Get over crying about how it is the rich that is making you poor. It isn’t the rich, it is you. You want a scapegoat look in the mirror. If you want to improve your life then do it. You want a better job than what you got work harder. The problem with the young now and these days is that they have a “welfare” mentality. They think that the salary that they are getting is a right and many don’t think that they really have to work for it. They look and see others around them getting pay raises when they are not and they wonder why the rich are picking on them. Maybe it is because you don’t deserve a pay raise.

In the past, any given company with a good number of employees that it was a give that 75% of all work is done by 25% of the workforce. Regretfully now it is closer to 90%/10%. You want a better job work for it. Go to school if you have the opportunity. If you don’t find out who is the best at the company you are working for and get him/her to teach you.

The welfare state is meant to be a tempory state. If one hits on hard times because of job loss and lack of finding a new one, disability, etc. the welfare system was to provide that person with a safety net. Regretfully it has for many become a permanant state and children are born and are taught to remain in this state. The amount of money a state gets from the federal government is based upon the number they have on the rolls. So there is no incentitive to get people off of the rolls. It needs to be reformed without a doubt.

There is nothing “wrong” with being on welfare if the person needs it. Where it becomes wrong is when abuse occurs.

Anyway get off of the rich. If it wasn’t for these rich people there would be no jobs in the first place. There are alot of high paying jobs out there as well as low paying jobs. One shouldn’t expect to get payed the same for working a McDonalds as an Engineer working a Boeing. You want to get payed more then make yourself more marketable.