Romney: Welfare Moms Need 'Dignity of Work'

[nickiwool]

You understand exactly what I was trying to convey. When you’ve exhausted all resources (savings, family, friends, Church), then you do what you must for your family.

God bless you and your family from a fellow Bay Area native.

God bless you as well and your family :hug1:

 

[nickiwool]

Somehow, we need to return to a sense of charity and subsidiarity. In other words, people need to give more to help others (not be taxed more) AND government involvement should be local instead of federal. I wish I knew the best way to get from here to there.

BTW…from a Romney standpoint, maybe some of the Mormon’s method of tithing and taking care of their community would be picked up by other faiths, including our own. Wouldn’t it be wonderful for Catholics to give as much as the Mormons do? There are so many more of us! Our Church’s various charities do a lot, but they are underfunded by us Catholics. The Church’s charitable works would thrive and lessen the need for bloated government bureaucracy, if we all gave more.

I agree it would be awesome if the whole catholic church tithed regularly. It would help us greatly.

-Nicki

 

[Lujack]

Please read nickiwool’s response to me. I stink at explaining my viewpoints, but she was able to pick up what I meant. I’m guessing we actually aren’t that far away in our thinking on the subject, Lujack, but it is easy to misread each other.

What’s the saying on the British and the Americans, two people divided by a common language?

 

[St_Francis]

Somehow, we need to return to a sense of charity and subsidiarity. In other words, people need to give more to help others (not be taxed more) AND government involvement should be local instead of federal. I wish I knew the best way to get from here to there.

This has always bothered me, even when I was still quite secular–the concept of government-funded welfare gives those who are able to support themselves and their families the idea that the government is taking care of people so they do not have to. Like Scrooge, when they see poverty, their hearts are not moved, instead they say, there are government programs which I give plenty in taxes for, I don’t need to do anything.

Conversely, when the poor receive aid from a faceless Government, which takes the money through taxes, they are not moved to gratitude, they do feel entitled, esp if they have paid into the system.

BTW…from a Romney standpoint, maybe some of the Mormon’s method of tithing and taking care of their community would be picked up by other faiths, including our own. Wouldn’t it be wonderful for Catholics to give as much as the Mormons do? There are so many more of us! Our Church’s various charities do a lot, but they are underfunded by us Catholics. The Church’s charitable works would thrive and **lessen the need for bloated government bureaucracy, **if we all gave more.

The government bureaucracy will never reduce itself, no matter how little the need.

The Rural Electrification Administration (REA) continued existing until 1994, when it was changed into the Rural Utilities Service.

 

[rlg94086]

This has always bothered me, even when I was still quite secular–the concept of government-funded welfare gives those who are able to support themselves and their families the idea that the government is taking care of people so they do not have to. Like Scrooge, when they see poverty, their hearts are not moved, instead they say, there are government programs which I give plenty in taxes for, I don’t need to do anything.

Conversely, when the poor receive aid from a faceless Government, which takes the money through taxes, they are not moved to gratitude, they do feel entitled, esp if they have paid into the system.

Exactly! That’s why I am impervious to the arguments Democrats make about their side being more in line with the Church on social justice. It’s not. My goal is less government, more charity. We need to change hearts and get government out of the way, so our love can be freely expressed.

 

[St_Francis]

Exactly! That’s why I am impervious to the arguments Democrats make about their side being more in line with the Church on social justice. It’s not. My goal is less government, more charity. We need to change hearts and get government out of the way, so our love can be freely expressed.

I do think that there is room for the government to help. Well, first I think that the government should move far away from being in the way! They put some crazy restrictions even on charities, and esp on small home businesses which if they weren’t there, not so much charity would be needed… but in terms of organizing, because sometimes one area would be devastated and not even have the resources to help themselves, and the government(s) could help with that. But overall, I think it would be great if we could shift the bulk of charity away from the government.

 

[rlg94086]

I do think that there is room for the government to help. Well, first I think that the government should move far away from being in the way! They put some crazy restrictions even on charities, and esp on small home businesses which if they weren’t there, not so much charity would be needed… but in terms of organizing, because sometimes one area would be devastated and not even have the resources to help themselves, and the government(s) could help with that. But overall, I think it would be great if we could shift the bulk of charity away from the government.

We’re on the same page. I’m not a zero government person.

 

[Slaney]

I’m sorry about poking my nose in this situation, I see the same thing over here, so it get’s to me.

 

[Ridgerunner]

BTW…from a Romney standpoint, maybe some of the Mormon’s method of tithing and taking care of their community would be picked up by other faiths, including our own. Wouldn’t it be wonderful for Catholics to give as much as the Mormons do? There are so many more of us! Our Church’s various charities do a lot, but they are underfunded by us Catholics. The Church’s charitable works would thrive and lessen the need for bloated government bureaucracy, if we all gave more.

The Amish are the same way. They take care of their own, and take nothing at all from the government.

 

[psr13]

I would be interested to know if charitable giving has gone down with government programs going up. People don’t see the need to help other people when the government is expected to do it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would be interested to know if charitable giving has gone down with government programs going up. People don’t see the need to help other people when the government is expected to do it.

Hmmm. Maybe I could find something on that. But it might be noted in passing that conservatives give considerably more to charity than do liberals. Since liberals generally promote governmental responsibility in that regard, it is not unreasonable to think they feel governmental, rather than private charity the superior way to go.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, let me add this. There is a formula I can’t repeat here because I can’t make the symbols, but it goes like this: I (income from labor) + I (income from property) = C (consumption) + T (transfer payments to all destinations)

That’s just a truism, but it clarifies things a little. Now, the more of “T” the government takes, the less there is to transfer to other destinations. Other destinations include gifts to others, charity, donations to church, inheritance. So, inherently, the greater the taxation level, the less a person has to donate.

But what about “C” (consumption). Can people reduce C and thereby increase T? Sure, to a point. At that point, life begins to be pretty hard. Presently, middle middle to upper middle class people contribute nearly 50% of “C + T” to the government at all levels. So, obviously that pressures C and can totally eat up T.

Clearly, then, the more the government takes of one’s income, the less one has to give to charity. But it gets worse. “T” also includes things like childrens’ educations and, indeed, their food, clothing, etc. The greater pressure government puts on T, the less are people able to afford such things. Does that lead to “demographic winter” at a point? Well, it can be observed that those countries with the greatest government taking of T also have the lowest birth rates. It is interesting to look at the overall tax rates of places with the worst birth rates, like Italy. In addition to higher income tax rates than ours at all levels, they have value added tax as well, which we don’t.

 

[mommamia]

Both sides are right

The rich do need to pay their fair share, and not have so many loopholes.

Welfare does need reform, and often doesn’t really help those who use it.

Folks like us can’t get help when we need it. We’ve paid taxes most years we’ve been married. We make just too much for EIC, or any kind of help at all (other than medical for our minor children). But not enough to pay for all we need.

I love to volunteer at the homeless shelter, and the soup kitchen! But I admit, it does annoy me a bit to see folks who I know get gov’t assistance, who have nicer clothes and toys than my family They can get food stamps, WIC, and free breakfast/lunch for their kids, and those who work get nothing. I watch people come in and buy ice cream and shakes on food stamps, and wish I could afford to treat my children to ice cream.

I once had a social worker tell me I should get pregnant or divorced, then she would be able to help us.

Personal responsibility has to be balanced with dignity. I wish I knew how to do that. Because I know that a lot of good people are hurting right now.

 

[St_Francis]

I would be interested to know if charitable giving has gone down with government programs going up. People don’t see the need to help other people when the government is expected to do it.

Part of the problem with examining this is that a lot of government programs started during the Depression, when people didn’t have a lot of money to give to charity.

Another is that huge amounts are given by mega-rich people in the form of foundations. Some of these foundations are not really what I would call charitable, or, whatever: eg, they give money to assure that people have access to abc.

One thing I noticed was that people who grew up with the idea of Social Security embraced abc and stopped having lots of children–are the two related? I don’t know…

Another thing to consider is how much we give to overseas charities. Americans and Australians are close in the amount of giving and the third-highest giving nation is waaaay behind us. But millions were given after the Haiti earthquake, the tsunami, etc. And we do give a lot domestically as well.

An interesting note: apparently conservatives give more than liberals…

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Part of the problem with examining this is that a lot of government programs started during the Depression, when people didn’t have a lot of money to give to charity.

Another is that huge amounts are given by mega-rich people in the form of foundations. Some of these foundations are not really what I would call charitable, or, whatever: eg, they give money to assure that people have access to abc.

One thing I noticed was that people who grew up with the idea of Social Security embraced abc and stopped having lots of children–are the two related? I don’t know…

Another thing to consider is how much we give to overseas charities. Americans and Australians are close in the amount of giving and the third-highest giving nation is waaaay behind us. But millions were given after the Haiti earthquake, the tsunami, etc. And we do give a lot domestically as well.

An interesting note: apparently conservatives give more than liberals…

It’s been said that the US is one of the most generous countries.

 

[St_Francis]

Both sides are right

The rich do need to pay their fair share, and not have so many loopholes.

Welfare does need reform, and often doesn’t really help those who use it.

Folks like us can’t get help when we need it. We’ve paid taxes most years we’ve been married. We make just too much for EIC, or any kind of help at all (other than medical for our minor children). But not enough to pay for all we need.

I love to volunteer at the homeless shelter, and the soup kitchen! But I admit, it does annoy me a bit to see folks who I know get gov’t assistance, who have nicer clothes and toys than my family They can get food stamps, WIC, and free breakfast/lunch for their kids, and those who work get nothing. I watch people come in and buy ice cream and shakes on food stamps, and wish I could afford to treat my children to ice cream.

I once had a social worker tell me I should get pregnant or divorced, then she would be able to help us.

Personal responsibility has to be balanced with dignity. I wish I knew how to do that. Because I know that a lot of good people are hurting right now.

I see this issue you bring up here as a huge problem.

First, it encourages divorce, discourages marriage, and frankly, encourages people to have babies when they are not in a position to care for them (not that I have a problem caring for babies! but coupled with the no-marriage part, to me, there is a problem). And of course there is the whole government-as-husband problem…

Second, it discourages people from getting off the dole, because they will be worse off if they do a little more for themselves, and it is hard to bridge that gap.

And third, I can see this as being a source of people feeling that people are staying on welfare, with the resulting agitation of emotions. It can be hard to see a neighbor on the dole with a nicer car than one’s own and not feel some resentment about the whole thing, but, in addition, *it is a difficult thing to bring up *without sounding resentful, altho one may have mastered those feelings.

 

[St_Francis]

Here is an interesting article, altho they seem to have left out Australia as a developed nation.

A couple of excerpts:

About 80 percent of American liberals say they think the government should “do more” to reduce income inequality, versus just 27 percent of American conservatives. This is another reason, besides religion, liberals in America give less than conservatives. For example, in 1996, people who believed the government should not take greater measures to reduce income inequality gave, on average, four times as much money to charity each year as those who believed the government should equalize incomes more. This result persists even after correcting for other demographics. It even holds for all sorts of nonmonetary giving. For example, people who stated in 2002 that they thought the government was “spending too little money on welfare” were less likely than those saying the government is “spending too much money on welfare” to give food or money to a homeless person…

…
Second, there is evidence that private giving is implicated in economic growth. Per-capita charity and per-capita GDP in America have moved together over the years. Evidence that the two forces cause each other comes from an analysis of how past values of one variable affect future values of the other. This analysis shows that a 10 percent increase in current GDP per American would lead to a 9 percent rise in charitable giving. At the same time, a 10 percent increase in giving per person would provoke a 3 percent increase in GDP. Given the size of our economy, this means $1 given privately would increase GDP by about $15…

(I have never quite understood the whole thing that Ridgerunner was talking about, but this last paragraph may be related to it. I think I have to read the book it came from…)

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Both sides are right

The rich do need to pay their fair share, and not have so many loopholes.

Welfare does need reform, and often doesn’t really help those who use it.

Folks like us can’t get help when we need it. We’ve paid taxes most years we’ve been married. We make just too much for EIC, or any kind of help at all (other than medical for our minor children). But not enough to pay for all we need.

I love to volunteer at the homeless shelter, and the soup kitchen! But I admit, it does annoy me a bit to see folks who I know get gov’t assistance, who have nicer clothes and toys than my family They can get food stamps, WIC, and free breakfast/lunch for their kids, and those who work get nothing. I watch people come in and buy ice cream and shakes on food stamps, and wish I could afford to treat my children to ice cream.

I once had a social worker tell me I should get pregnant or divorced, then she would be able to help us.

Personal responsibility has to be balanced with dignity. I wish I knew how to do that. Because I know that a lot of good people are hurting right now.

Thank you for your insightful post . I will be praying for you and your family.

 

[mommamia]

Thank you for your prayers!

I’m glad this thread has gotten back on track…I really do think we are all saying the same thing.

Helping the poor is not an option, its a direct order from our Lord!

But the way the welfare program is administered now, it really is only actually helping very few.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

I lost track – did Romney apologize for insulting stay-at-home mothers? Or did only Rosen have to?