If conservatives have a “darker” view of human nature, why do they think poor people should rely on charity instead of the government?

[sdeco]

I have a question I’ve been pondering, which is something I don’t really understand about conservatives. For the record, I am very pro-life and consider myself generally socially conservative, but economically I am much more liberal.

I’ve often heard that liberals and conservatives have different views of human nature. Liberals tend to believe people are basically good, whereas conservatives have a “darker” view of human nature, or maybe a more realistic view, depending on your point of view. If they are religious, they tend to believe in original sin, and that is reflected in their political views.

When it comes to addressing poverty, liberals tend to favor government programs like welfare, whereas conservatives think the poor should rely on their families or private charities. Conservatives will say that people should give to charity voluntarily and not be forced through taxation.

But here’s what I don’t understand. If you’re a conservative, you have a darker view of human nature and don’t necessarily believe that people are basically good. So WHY do conservatives think that people will voluntarily give enough of their money to charity to help the poor?? Sure, in an ideal world, everyone would be so generous that government programs like welfare and Medicaid would be unnecessary. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and the reality is that people simply don’t give enough. If people aren’t “forced” to give through taxation, the poor won’t get the help they need. This idea that the poor should rely on charity seems like pie-in-the-sky idealism, which is what conservatives often accuse liberals of.

Though the more cynical part of me sometimes thinks that conservatives simply don’t care much about the poor, and if people don’t give enough to charity – well, too bad.

And yes, I’m aware of the research that shows that conservatives give more than liberals to charity on average. I think that’s good, because it shows they practice what they preach. But even if individual conservatives give to charity, that doesn’t change the reality that most people simply don’t give enough.

And even though I believe we need government programs to help the poor, I still give money to charity. I’ve never thought that I don’t need to give money to charity because government programs exist. The poor need all the help they can get. Government AND charity should play a role.

Anyway – any thoughts on why conservatives have this view? It seems out of synch with their views on human nature.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Because power corrupts.

I can be sure that my money is helping the poor if I choose who it goes to. I cannot do that when it is taken from me by bureaucrats who are bent only on getting re-elected, who then promise to give it to the poor because they want to buy their vote. The poor are not helped by being given money indefinitely and nobody else is helped by having their money taken from them to do this. Charity gives me the option to stop if it is not helping. Private charities cannot grow beyond the capability of their members to finance them. The federal government has been doing exactly this for generations.

 

[ipwnuathalo2]

Because taking things from someone without their permission is stealing.

Giving the stolen goods to a poor person does not mean it wasn’t theft.

Ganging up with 100 million of ones fellow citizens to bureaucratize the process doesn’t change it either.

So, simply, what liberals do is morally wrong.

 

[JimG]

Mainly because the government is broke. And if we allow it to keep printing or borrowing money in order to give it away, it puts the nation at risk of financial collapse, which makes everybody poor, and makes the poor destitute.

 

[benjammin]

Where do you get that conservatives have a darker view of humanity. If anything most liberals do. They seem to think that people are greedy, selfish, discriminate against others, steal from others, take jobs away from people, and a whole host of other issues. Now I agree there are some things government needs to do to combat this (like the civil rights movement), but I like to think conservatives want people to be responsible for themselves and also for others. I kind of think they are like parents. Everyone would think parents are crazy if they had control of their lives from cradle to grave and made all the decisions for them. Instead, parents should instill good values into their kids and hope they make good decisions. A lot of times they don’t but you hope that they can learn and improve themselves. Thats my philosophy as a conservative. Yes, people sometimes do bad things, but I hope they will take more responsibility for themselves.

 

[St_Francis]

Where do you get that conservatives have a darker view of humanity. If anything most liberals do. They seem to think that people are greedy, selfish, discriminate against others, steal from others, take jobs away from people, and a whole host of other issues. Now I agree there are some things government needs to do to combat this (like the civil rights movement), but I like to think conservatives want people to be responsible for themselves and also for others. I kind of think they are like parents. Everyone would think parents are crazy if they had control of their lives from cradle to grave and made all the decisions for them. Instead, parents should instill good values into their kids and hope they make good decisions. A lot of times they don’t but you hope that they can learn and improve themselves. Thats my philosophy as a conservative. Yes, people sometimes do bad things, but I hope they will take more responsibility for themselves.

 

[MidnightSun12]

Because taking things from someone without their permission is stealing.

Giving the stolen goods to a poor person does not mean it wasn’t theft.

Ganging up with 100 million of ones fellow citizens to bureaucratize the process doesn’t change it either.

So, simply, what liberals do is morally wrong.

While I agree partly with what you are saying, I have to disagree in some regards.

There is such thing as a just level of taxation. Put simply, pure capitalism is not supported or accepted by the Catholic church. Our society needs to protect it’s most vulnerable members and governments need tax revenue in order to do this.

That said, however, I believe government support for the poor must not be viewed as a form of charity or something that should be desired except in situations where it is absolutely necessary. Charity demands an act of generous giving which requires full-consent on behalf of the donor (taxation is fundamentally contrary to consent). Government support for the needy, therefore, is not charitable. As a result, government support should be minimized as to not replace the role of true charity (which is morally superior to government wealth redistribution in all cases) or make tax burdens unnecessarly heavy on citizens (making it more difficult for them to perform acts of true charity such as a parent staying at home to raise the children, etc…).

 

[robwar]

the government is not meant to be a charitable organization. it does not effectively met needs of those it is suppose to help and just creates more dependents. Private charitable groups have a proven track record, they meet needs, help people and are flexible to do so.

 

[Nate13]

I’ve often heard that liberals and conservatives have different views of human nature. Liberals tend to believe people are basically good, whereas conservatives have a “darker” view of human nature, or maybe a more realistic view, depending on your point of view. If they are religious, they tend to believe in original sin, and that is reflected in their political views.

Actually its the exact opposite. The whole point of more government is that power needs to be centralized and focused because individuals are too stupid to handle their resources themselves. Marx had a very dark view of human nature and really believed you could not expect much of anyone. Liberals are all about more government because they don’t believe man is naturally very good and can be expected to ever act in societies best interest. Their solution is you continually consolidate power to a “few selected, highly enlightened” individuals who are tasked with looking after the common good.

The conservative view point is one that believes in the good of man and his own ability to handle the resources he/she earns. This view is most in line with our nature and how God made us. God gave use free will and the ability to give charitably or not to give charitably. I don’t see why the government should be tasked with doing something God did not see fit to do himself when he created us. He could have made us so we had to give to charity and had to love Him, but then it would cease to be charity and cease to be love. If its not an act of free will its not charity and its not love. Coerced taxation is not charity. Now if you decided you liked how the government handled your money and the services it provided so much you wanted to give them an extra $1000 in taxes that would be charity because it would be a free act.

Liberals always argue that you can’t depend on individuals giving to charity on their own to get things done. To a degree they are currently right. If the government cut off all services today, I do not think individuals would immediately pick up the slack in today’s day and age. Its similar to if a child’s mom cleaned his room for him all the way up until that child was 16 and then all of sudden told him it was his job. Its highly unlikely that child would jump right to the job of cleaning his room. There would most likely would be a very painful learning phase as the child learned to acknowledge their new duty and worked to accept the new responsibility. In America, our mom has been cleaning our room for quite awhile as well as doing our laundry, feeding us, clothing us, wiping our butts, etc… As a conservative I believe we slowly but surely need to move away from this continued pampering and give more responsibility to the people of this country to not only look after themselves, but others as well. True charity and love is always better than coerced or forced charity and love and the benefits of us moving our society in that direction will be immeasurable. I believe many seemingly unconnected ills our country is facing would be resolved as this happened especially concerning issues related to the family.

When it comes to addressing poverty, liberals tend to favor government programs like welfare, whereas conservatives think the poor should rely on their families or private charities. Conservatives will say that people should give to charity voluntarily and not be forced through taxation.

But here’s what I don’t understand. If you’re a conservative, you have a darker view of human nature and don’t necessarily believe that people are basically good. So WHY do conservatives think that people will voluntarily give enough of their money to charity to help the poor??

See above. Marx had a very dark view of human nature. The farther left you go, the darker the view of human nature you have and the ability of humanity to do good. The more power you believe you have to give a centralized government to enforce good, the less faith you have in the individual and families.

Sure, in an ideal world, everyone would be so generous that government programs like welfare and Medicaid would be unnecessary. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and the reality is that people simply don’t give enough. If people aren’t “forced” to give through taxation, the poor won’t get the help they need. This idea that the poor should rely on charity seems like pie-in-the-sky idealism, which is what conservatives often accuse liberals of.

As mentioned above people don’t give enough because we have been training people not too. I’d also point out the fact that for disasters like Hurricane Katrina and the disaster in Haiti, private donations and private service groups provided multiples times the money and service that the government provided. The spirit of helping one’s neighbor is still alive in America it just needs to be kindled. While I don’t support pulling out the mat from under America in terms of all of the services the federal government currently provides, we do need to start scaling back on them as well as managing these programs from the State and local level instead of the federal level where solutions are broad based and ineffective.

Though the more cynical part of me sometimes thinks that conservatives simply don’t care much about the poor, and if people don’t give enough to charity – well, too bad.

And yes, I’m aware of the research that shows that conservatives give more than liberals to charity on average. I think that’s good, because it shows they practice what they preach. But even if individual conservatives give to charity, that doesn’t change the reality that most people simply don’t give enough.

As I showed in my example above when your mom does everything for you, you learn that its not your responsibility… It’s also ridiculous to make assertions about how much people give to charity. All the money paying for all the government services came from the people. If we have to give it to the government to provide a service, then I obviously don’t have that money to give to charity privately anymore do I… There is also no reason for me to go and provide an identical service to what the government is providing… If you remember not to long ago families cared for their parents when they grew old in their own homes and that is how the elderly were cared for. The government then took it upon themselves to provide all these benefits for the elderly, and it was then no surprise when people stopped providing a home for their elderly parents and we started shipping our old people into homes.

And even though I believe we need government programs to help the poor, I still give money to charity. I’ve never thought that I don’t need to give money to charity because government programs exist. The poor need all the help they can get. Government AND charity should play a role.

Anyway – any thoughts on why conservatives have this view? It seems out of synch with their views on human nature.

No, you just have a very mal-formed idea of how either side views human nature. Go read John Locke on human nature, who was the influence of our founders philosophically, and then go read Karl Marx’s views on human nature. Your notion that conservatives have the darker view of human nature is where your logic fails. The difference between the right and the left is how much power government has. The far right believes in no government i.e anarchy and the far left believes in an all powerful government i.e communism. Liberals believe the far left is utopia, but actually as Catholics the far right would be defined as utopia. After the resurrection when we are reunited with our bodies in perfection we will be living in anarchy. If everyone is perfect we will not require an all powerful government to make sure we all do “good”. Obviously complete anarchy is impossible to achieve successfully on Earth just as perfection is impossible to achieve on Earth, but as we move closer to God we should slowly but surely move towards giving people more and more responsibility for their actions.

 

[PrayHarder]

Where do you get that conservatives have a darker view of humanity. If anything most liberals do. They seem to think that people are greedy, selfish, discriminate against others, steal from others, take jobs away from people, and a whole host of other issues. Now I agree there are some things government needs to do to combat this (like the civil rights movement), but I like to think conservatives want people to be responsible for themselves and also for others. I kind of think they are like parents. Everyone would think parents are crazy if they had control of their lives from cradle to grave and made all the decisions for them. Instead, parents should instill good values into their kids and hope they make good decisions. A lot of times they don’t but you hope that they can learn and improve themselves. Thats my philosophy as a conservative. Yes, people sometimes do bad things, but I hope they will take more responsibility for themselves.

To follow up on those thoughts, it seems like liberals feel there is a need to come up with laws and regulations for all aspects of life and how we interact with one another. Everything you buy, everywhere you go, and everything you do seems to require guidance through the force of law because humanity is so broken and dysfunctional we couldn’t function. You can’t leave anything up to the individual’s conscience and morality because you assume they will do bad things. That seems like a much darker view of human nature than letting people be free to make decisions trusting that they will make good ones.

Yes, I know that many nanny state laws are also created by conservatives. But when I think of all the over-regulated/law-laden cities and states, most of them tend to be more liberal.

 

[XianThinker]

I have a question I’ve been pondering, which is something I don’t really understand about conservatives. For the record, I am very pro-life and consider myself generally socially conservative, but economically I am much more liberal.

I’ve often heard that liberals and conservatives have different views of human nature. Liberals tend to believe people are basically good, whereas conservatives have a “darker” view of human nature, or maybe a more realistic view, depending on your point of view. If they are religious, they tend to believe in original sin, and that is reflected in their political views.

When it comes to addressing poverty, liberals tend to favor government programs like welfare, whereas conservatives think the poor should rely on their families or private charities. Conservatives will say that people should give to charity voluntarily and not be forced through taxation.

But here’s what I don’t understand. If you’re a conservative, you have a darker view of human nature and don’t necessarily believe that people are basically good. So WHY do conservatives think that people will voluntarily give enough of their money to charity to help the poor?? Sure, in an ideal world, everyone would be so generous that government programs like welfare and Medicaid would be unnecessary. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and the reality is that people simply don’t give enough. If people aren’t “forced” to give through taxation, the poor won’t get the help they need. This idea that the poor should rely on charity seems like pie-in-the-sky idealism, which is what conservatives often accuse liberals of.

Though the more cynical part of me sometimes thinks that conservatives simply don’t care much about the poor, and if people don’t give enough to charity – well, too bad.

And yes, I’m aware of the research that shows that conservatives give more than liberals to charity on average. I think that’s good, because it shows they practice what they preach. But even if individual conservatives give to charity, that doesn’t change the reality that most people simply don’t give enough.

And even though I believe we need government programs to help the poor, I still give money to charity. I’ve never thought that I don’t need to give money to charity because government programs exist. The poor need all the help they can get. Government AND charity should play a role.

Anyway – any thoughts on why conservatives have this view? It seems out of synch with their views on human nature.

The government doesn’t give money to the poor. The government steals money from hard-working citizens by forcing them to pay extra taxes against their will and then distributes it to the poor.

Besides the verses on stealing, the Bible teaches, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat. (2Thess 3:10)" In the US, the poor who receive welfare are often those who don’t work.

I think welfare is also wrong because it is racist. Most welfare benefits are only available to those with children. African-Americans have the lowest income of any race in the US and the welfare benefits are so generous ($50,000 a year tax-free per family) that many black women realize they are better off financially to have children out-of-wedlock in order to qualify for welfare than to work for a living. Once welfare became available, the number of children born out-of-wedlock skyrocketed. Now, 2 out of 3 black babies are born out-of-wedlock and that often means children growing up in broken homes without a father.

For those who don’t think welfare pays $50,000 a year, do some research. There’s a study called welfare pays more than work that shows these people get paid much more than middle-class working families.

Medicaid (free healthcare) - $15,000/year
Government housing - $12,000/year
Food stamps - $10,000/year
Cash welfare checks - $5,000/year

That’s $38,000 tax-free per year already. Add free heat, free electric, free phone, transportation assistance, and additional benefits for those with more children or higher housing costs for those who chose to live in wealthy neighborhoods (since the government pays for it) and a family can easily get over $50,000 a year in benefits. Where I live they built a brand new apartment complex with 5 and 6 bedroom apartments because liberals feels poor children should be entitled to their own room even though children in middle-class families often have to share a room. These family often don’t have health insurance even though they are forced to purchase health insurance for the non-working poor through payroll taxes for medicaid. A study showed these middle-class families would be better off financially if they quit their jobs and went on welfare. I don’t mind helping the poor but I think forcing middle-class families to pay for benefits they can’t afford for themselves is very wrong.

 

[RobbyS]

I have a question I’ve been pondering, which is something I don’t really understand about conservatives. For the record, I am very pro-life and consider myself generally socially conservative, but economically I am much more liberal.

I’ve often heard that liberals and conservatives have different views of human nature. Liberals tend to believe people are basically good, whereas conservatives have a “darker” view of human nature, or maybe a more realistic view, depending on your point of view. If they are religious, they tend to believe in original sin, and that is reflected in their political views.

When it comes to addressing poverty, liberals tend to favor government programs like welfare, whereas conservatives think the poor should rely on their families or private charities. Conservatives will say that people should give to charity voluntarily and not be forced through taxation.

But here’s what I don’t understand. If you’re a conservative, you have a darker view of human nature and don’t necessarily believe that people are basically good. So WHY do conservatives think that people will voluntarily give enough of their money to charity to help the poor?? Sure, in an ideal world, everyone would be so generous that government programs like welfare and Medicaid would be unnecessary. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and the reality is that people simply don’t give enough. If people aren’t “forced” to give through taxation, the poor won’t get the help they need. This idea that the poor should rely on charity seems like pie-in-the-sky idealism, which is what conservatives often accuse liberals of.

Though the more cynical part of me sometimes thinks that conservatives simply don’t care much about the poor, and if people don’t give enough to charity – well, too bad.

And yes, I’m aware of the research that shows that conservatives give more than liberals to charity on average. I think that’s good, because it shows they practice what they preach. But even if individual conservatives give to charity, that doesn’t change the reality that most people simply don’t give enough.

And even though I believe we need government programs to help the poor, I still give money to charity. I’ve never thought that I don’t need to give money to charity because government programs exist. The poor need all the help they can get. Government AND charity should play a role.

Anyway – any thoughts on why conservatives have this view? It seems out of synch with their views on human nature.

Because government is Leviathan, and it feeds itself before it feeds anyone else. No conservative wants to vest total power in government, which it will claim in order to take care of the poor. The sorry record of monarchy in Israel as related in the Bible is a cautionary tale.

 

[RobbyS]

To follow up on those thoughts, it seems like liberals feel there is a need to come up with laws and regulations for all aspects of life and how we interact with one another. Everything you buy, everywhere you go, and everything you do seems to require guidance through the force of law because humanity is so broken and dysfunctional we couldn’t function. You can’t leave anything up to the individual’s conscience and morality because you assume they will do bad things. That seems like a much darker view of human nature than letting people be free to make decisions trusting that they will make good ones.

Yes, I know that many nanny state laws are also created by conservatives. But when I think of all the over-regulated/law-laden cities and states, most of them tend to be more liberal.

Liberals seem not to believe in liberty.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

I personally don’t believe that the government has any desire whatsoever to help the poor. I think they have all the desire in the world to keep and expand their own power.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I have a question I’ve been pondering, which is something I don’t really understand about conservatives. For the record, I am very pro-life and consider myself generally socially conservative, but economically I am much more liberal.

I’ve often heard that liberals and conservatives have different views of human nature. Liberals tend to believe people are basically good, whereas conservatives have a “darker” view of human nature, or maybe a more realistic view, depending on your point of view. If they are religious, they tend to believe in original sin, and that is reflected in their political views.

When it comes to addressing poverty, liberals tend to favor government programs like welfare, whereas conservatives think the poor should rely on their families or private charities. Conservatives will say that people should give to charity voluntarily and not be forced through taxation.

But here’s what I don’t understand. If you’re a conservative, you have a darker view of human nature and don’t necessarily believe that people are basically good. So WHY do conservatives think that people will voluntarily give enough of their money to charity to help the poor?? Sure, in an ideal world, everyone would be so generous that government programs like welfare and Medicaid would be unnecessary. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and the reality is that people simply don’t give enough. If people aren’t “forced” to give through taxation, the poor won’t get the help they need. This idea that the poor should rely on charity seems like pie-in-the-sky idealism, which is what conservatives often accuse liberals of.

Though the more cynical part of me sometimes thinks that conservatives simply don’t care much about the poor, and if people don’t give enough to charity – well, too bad.

And yes, I’m aware of the research that shows that conservatives give more than liberals to charity on average. I think that’s good, because it shows they practice what they preach. But even if individual conservatives give to charity, that doesn’t change the reality that most people simply don’t give enough.

And even though I believe we need government programs to help the poor, I still give money to charity. I’ve never thought that I don’t need to give money to charity because government programs exist. The poor need all the help they can get. Government AND charity should play a role.

Anyway – any thoughts on why conservatives have this view? It seems out of synch with their views on human nature.

Wow! Can’t believe I found someone like me on CAF goes back into hiding.

Anyway, we need individual and charity help. That’s what the Church is for. But that doesn’t mean the government has no role either, which is what most conservatives I think seem to miss. Oops, just read that you posted that.

 

[XianThinker]

When people get welfare, they thank the government. When people get charity from the church, they thank the church. Charity makes the church and Christians look better and having a positive opinion of Christians helps lead people to Christ.

 

[bri89]

It’s a little depressing how conservative this forum is. I admire liberal Christians like Brazilian archbishop Dom helder Camara and Martin Luther king who both emphasized private charity and mitigating structural injustices. Camara supported the the independent trade union movement, the workers party, and the landless workers movement. He made a poignant remark about the criticisms he received, " When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist." King’s last demonstration was the poor people’s march which called for guaranteed annual incomes and a federal works program. Even if it’s true that conservatives give more to private charity, do they advocate for worker’s rights, better wages, low-income housing. These are some of the ways you show you’re a friend to the poor.

 

[JimG]

It’s a little depressing how conservative this forum is. I admire liberal Christians like Brazilian archbishop Dom helder Camara and Martin Luther king who both emphasized private charity and mitigating structural injustices. Camara supported the the independent trade union movement, the workers party, and the landless workers movement. He made a poignant remark about the criticisms he received, " When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist." King’s last demonstration was the poor people’s march which called for guaranteed annual incomes and a federal works program. Even if it’s true that conservatives give more to private charity, do they advocate for worker’s rights, better wages, low-income housing. These are some of the ways you show you’re a friend to the poor.

Well, I was serious about the government being broke. I would probably be more inclined to support more federal programs if the nation were not on the brink of fiscal disaster and debt disaster. Debt collapse will hurt everyone, most especially the poor.

It also didn’t help when one of our political parties made a 180 degree turn after 1973 and began to support unlimited abortion, and now is promoting gay marriage and removing religious liberty from Catholics. With those things on the table, it can’t get Catholic support.

 

[Bill_7154]

Because power corrupts.

I can be sure that my money is helping the poor if I choose who it goes to. I cannot do that when it is taken from me by bureaucrats who are bent only on getting re-elected, who then promise to give it to the poor because they want to buy their vote. The poor are not helped by being given money indefinitely and nobody else is helped by having their money taken from them to do this. Charity gives me the option to stop if it is not helping. Private charities cannot grow beyond the capability of their members to finance them. The federal government has been doing exactly this for generations.

Not only this, but private charities are forced to compete with government. Government is forced to compete against no entity. Government does business at the barrel of a gun. You pay or men with guns will make you pay. Money stolen by government has not the abiltity to find its way to private charity.

I used to be homeless. I lived in government run homeless shelters. They are sinful. They direct people to get onto permanent government entitlement programs which enslaves the desperate souls who find themselves at their doorsteps with few options.

Give a man a fish…

Government takes a fish from one man who fishes and gives it to another man, requiring nothing of him in return.

Remove government and fishermen will be able to have more resources to teach other men to fish, without having government (men with guns who force one man to give another man a fish, which arguably is not in his best long term interests) take 2 fish from him, keep one for itself and gives a man who can most often learn to fish a fish for nothing in return. It does this day by day, week by week, year by year. After a time the man expects fish for free. Goverment demands by gun fish be given to it. Clamining to be doing what is right.

But when measuring charities it me thinks is wise to look at administrative costs. Government beaurocracy administrative costs are much higher than good private charity administrative costs.

I do not know why people of different political parties think different things. But I do know the way government does things and me thinks it does not help the poor. I was not really ‘helped’ until I found my way to a private charity. I was, actually, lucky to escape the government run shelters. They don’t help the poor nearly as much as they would lead you to believe, and they help themselves much moreso than they would have you believe.

Two hundred years ago or whenever, one would need to ‘chop wood for oneself and a widdow’ in order to receive soup from a soup kitchen. Now one gets a monthly check, a free bed, free clothes, free medical care, free food, etc… and that person does not even have to make their bed in the morning. They do not have to say please or thank you. They do not have to flush the toilet after themselves. They do not have to try and stay off of booze or drugs. They only have to not do voilence and be able to walk to their beds.

How many who support government entitlement programs would take such and individual under their own roof and run their ‘mini homeless shelter’ the same way? Allowing the man to go out and drink and drug all day, never prepare their own meals, never wash their own dishes, never look for work or never attend a job training program or never attend church or never take any steps to try to learn life skills to improve their lot in life? Methinks not many. Methinks most who support government run programs that supposedly ‘help’ the poor, if they were running said program under their own roof they would soon see the negative impact said program had on the mans long term welfare and put a stop to it one way or another.

The sick part is that we are all forced at gunpoint to fund such programs. And pitched a song and dance how it is helping and how if one does not support them they are bad.

I lived it. It was not good. Fortunately I did not live it for long. Unfortunately much too many go from homeless shelter to jail then back to homeless shelter. And most (who are there for months) get a check each month. I was surprised to see the shelters literally empty out at the beginning of each month, even in the cold winder in the northeast. Only to be filled again by the 5th or so of the month. What was happening I wondered? I learned that most all of the people who lived there collected SSI and/or SSDI checks (distributed on the 1st and 3rd of the month, respectively) and once they got their money they left the shelter to go use drugs and alcohol, spending the whole check in a few days. Returning broke, begging for cigarettes. Month, after month, after month.

It is sad. I would venture to say it is sick. It is broken. I would not recommend holding one’s breath to have government ‘fix’ it.

 

[Seeker1961]

I think both sides think the worst of their fellow man. Liberals think all rich people are greedy and selfish and Conservatives think all poor people are lazy and want handouts.

And both sides think the other one is “evil”.