Country Living Series

Thursday, November 18, 2010

He who will not work...

This past Sunday in church it was my turn to do the Bible readings on which the sermon text was based.  I love giving the readings because there are few things to equal the majesty of reading Scripture out loud.

And it was an extra pleasure because the New Testament readings were one of my favorites:

2 Thessalonians 3: 6-10
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.  For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you.  We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate.  For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

This echoed an interesting post my friend Enola Gay recently had on her blog.  Her grandfather sent her a piece called The Truth of the Welfare State, which expresses the frustration many of us feel:

Like most folks in this country, I have a job.  I work, they pay me.  I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.  In order to get that paycheck, in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem).

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

So, here is my question:  Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.  I do, one the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their BUTT doing drugs or whatever they want while I work.

Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I guess we could call the program "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"!

This all reinforces the Great Divide in this country.  No, it’s not the Haves vs. the Have Nots.  It’s becoming the “Work” vs. the “Work Nots.”

Please note the Bible verse says “The one who is UNWILLING to work.”  Other versions say “shall not work” or “will not work.”  This differs greatly from CANNOT work.

People cannot work for a huge variety of reasons.  Some are too old.  Some are disabled.  Some are too young.  Some are single mothers (I distinguish between women who have been abandoned by their men versus women who crank out babies for profit).  And, especially in this economy, many are simply unable to find work, no matter how hard they try.

This greatly differs from those who WILL NOT work.

There are very few among us in this nation would are not willing to help those who are truly in need.  When we see people who are UNABLE to work, collectively there is a deep-seated instinct to help.  That’s one of the reasons I admire and support such organizations as the Union Gospel Mission, which takes people off the street and “teaches them to fish” rather than merely “giving” them fish (to paraphrase the old saying).  Charities such as this are privately run, efficient, and deserving of praise.

But just as there is a deep-seated instinct among us to help those in need, there is equally a deep-seated resentment among us to have our hard-earned money forcibly removed from our pockets and “redistributed” to those who, quite often, are UNWILING to work.

Giving money to those unwilling to work is cruel.  It destroys their incentive, ruins their work ethic, and supplies a false sense of entitlement.  It rips families apart (since the man is no longer necessary as the critical breadwinner).  It teaches children that age-old virtues are unnecessary.

In short, giving un-earned money may well lead, directly or indirectly, to the destruction of our nation.  It’s a chain-reaction downward spiral, apparently encouraged by our government so it has a built-in cadre of dependent voters willing to keep the entitlements coming if only they vote in the same ol’ politicians.

I would dearly love my girls to inherit a nation worthy of them.  We are endeavoring to teach them that hard work, self-sufficiency (from government assistance), and independence are the tickets toward true freedoms.  But our government is burning these notions down around their ears.

59 comments:

  1. To know the pure joy in working all my life and having provided for my family and our future. I am saddened that our government beginning about 1964 decided to deny that simple joy to millions and millions of people on welfare. Sure some get off the dole either partly or in total but many do not. Remember that sad picture in New Orleans with so many people waiting for the government to come save them. What happened to their spirit and self respect? Many lives were destroyed in the name of charity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Amen and amen. I have always been grateful to anyone who gave me a chance to work. No matter how it went down. Looking back they all were memories that I would not trade and was so glad(now that it is over) to have had the opportunity to work. Thanks y'all! I still work by the way and I will work till I cannot work anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Could not agree more with you, Patrice. I am sure a new business would develop if people had to pass a urine test before receiving their welfare check, however. Undoubtedly some enterprising college students would sell their urine to anybody who couldn't pass the test, and thereby circumvent the system. But a urine test would certainly be a good start. The only way to really succeed in restoring our nation's greatness is to change the people's attitude about work and welfare. Restoring the family unit and family values is the ultimate solution. I just heard on the radio today that fewer and fewer Americans believe marriage is necessary. That's a disturbing trend. The only good news out of the survey was that 70% of the respondants said unmarried women should NOT be having children.

    I think all politicians should have to pass the unine test before they can take office, and then again each month thereafter. Wonder how many of them would pass?

    Off topic, please indulge me. I want to say something that A.McSp. touched on in a previous topic. I thank you very much for allowing us to post on your blog. Having that privelege is the main reason I come here everyday, several times a day. I enjoy reading what you have to say and I also enjoy reading what others have to say and what's happening in other parts of the country (and the world) as well as having the opportunity to express my own opinions and thoughts and concerns. Having this type of virtual conversation is the main reason I have a computer. My neighbors are all socialists, I can't afford to move, and I find this blog (along with Enola Gay's) to be a refuge in the wilderness. Thanks for all you do.

    Anonymous Patriot
    USA

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am glad to share the reward of my work with those who can not. I resent sharing it with the will not.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I worked many jobs in my lifetime. One was for a utility for 32 years. I now have type 2 diabetes, an occlusion in my right eye, high blood pressure, arthritis and off-and-on gout. I can no longer work and am collecting Social Security. When a friend heard I was collecting SS, she said, "Oh, that's okay. You're a nice guy." A "nice guy?" What's that got to do with it? I told her I paid into SS all my life. I earned it and deserve it! It has nothing to do with my personality or how she feels about me. Just the same, I manage to keep busy, doing odd jobs and repairing guns and such for friends and neighbors. I've never collected welfare or anything I didn't earn. I agree, when someone can't work, they should be given a fish. But for those who are able, they should learn to fish or go hungry!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Forgive me if I've already said this on another thread, but with a small construction business we've been 'really feelin' it.' There have been too many months this past couple of years when the work's been way skinny to none, and yet we've seen high dollar union projects languishing, such as the local community college renovations...helloooo: prevailing wage..!!!...because they can't find guys who can pass a urine test.
    Huh? Say what??
    Oh that's right! The union guys get to draw unemployment...tax free. As a small business we're being taxed out of our drawers, and are
    disqualified for unemployment.

    Ohhhhh-taaay.

    A.McSp

    ReplyDelete
  7. Its not a black & white situation even for those "unwilling" to work. They are probably like that because of their upbringing for which they can hardly be held responsible. The truly compassionate approach, and probably the cheapest for society in the long run, is to provide them with subsistence and try to help them reform. This will also avoid the costs of them turning to crime or starving to death outside our local supermarkets.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This would be a Great WND column! Actually it would be good if it could appear on every news site. Good insight.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even when faced with the evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that their government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. to choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing on principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all!"

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am one of those people that qualifies for disability, but I have chosen to not receive it. Instead I fine tuned the skills I already had from cooking for my family for so many years and opened a small bakery. My husband did all the work himself and it took us a year, but we did it. When everyone else was zombied out in front of the TV night after night or out having fun we stayed home and worked on the kitchen. We built it as we saved the money and we went without quite a few things in order to purchase the materials.

    There are days when my physical limitations make it impossible to work, but with a really creative schedule and fantastic customers I am plugging along pretty good.

    It sure would be easier to just drive out to my mailbox every month and pick up a check, but that just seems so WRONG when there are people out there that absolutely cannot work and need that money.

    I don't know what is going through the head of the perfectly healthy 20, 30, and 40 somethings out there that don't care about working or bettering themselves and have no problem living off the government dole. I really don't.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It makes it very difficult to respond to comments when so many people call themselves "Anonymous". Why don't they give themselves a web name?

    ReplyDelete
  12. If you're not already familiar with it, a great book on the subject of work is Bob Schultz's Created For Work. Encouraging (and practical!) words of wisdom for men and women, of any age.

    Desert Bird

    ReplyDelete
  13. Quedula - It's not that we want people starving in the streets or resorting to desperate measures. There are plenty of charities from VOLUNTARY donations that aid people. I actually believe these are more accoutable than government because you are able select the one you think's best and they're often more hands on with the ppl in need. There's more of a "human element" in charities, than the cold nameless face of the government dole. Sometimes I think ppl are more likely to abuse gov't welfare because they feel entitled (afterall it's just communal gov't money) versus knowing you're receiving the kindness of your neighbours who cared enough to help you out.
    Whether or not this is really the case, the part I care about is if it's VOLUNTARY or not. I personally object to working 60hrs a week to put a roof over my head only to be forced to pay for welfare recepients who do nothing (but show up for benefits dressed better than me, with perfectly manicured nails etc,with money for cigarettes etc) I also believe ppl generally rise to the occasion when they're forced to (to eat, find shelter), but when it's easy (or a faceless welfare dole) they are more likely to just keep relying on me and the other hard workers
    Just some thoughts,
    ~Clare

    ReplyDelete
  14. Life can and SHOULD be difficult Quedula. I'm sure that you would disagree. Whatever way you choose to go about it life in a fallen world is not easy. Is it evolution? Maybe it is God teaching and burning off the trash. Pain brings growth Quedula. I am willing to bet that you have not had much pain in your 75yrs.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It is an unfortunate situation where in this society no one is responsible for themselves. In talking with my neighbor I ask him how long he has been on unemployment. He told me several months. He also commented that he could get a job, but then he'd have to pack a lunch. And why bother. It was just easier to walk to the mailbox and have the check equal to a $10.00 an hour job just waiting for him.

    And on another subject: Everywhere you hear of people who are asked to take pay cuts. Well, just a thought. How about every man,woman, and child that receives a welfare check take a $2.00 cut in their monthly income. Think how much money that would save the working taxpayer!

    ReplyDelete
  16. I believe we are in an emergency condition right now. Either you will suck it up and work a little longer or you can throw your children into the red hot arms of Baal! This is it. This is where we go on or we sink. This problem has been 75 or more years in the making so no one in particular is at fault. It is simply human nature(for the most part) to take free crap when it's offered. That's when they own you!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Clare, If in need, I would rather receive help from an impersonal government agency than a charity that picks & chooses who it will help based on its own prejudices and hidden (or not so hidden) agendas.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous at 4.46pm, "Life can and SHOULD be difficult". Why?

    ReplyDelete
  19. And, please tell me Anonymous @ 4.46pm, should life be difficult for everybody, or just the religious?

    ReplyDelete
  20. You are a child in a way Quedula. In spite of all your self promotion and horn blowing. A pampered child who has not been through the refining fire of hard times. I am not fooled.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Quedula- I firmly believe the more direct HUMAN involvement with the voluntary sharing of their money is the best way for all parties to be held accountable.

    Some of the ones receiving it may feel uncomfortable abit, but you know what?
    - I HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH HOOPS AT WORK FOR MY MONEY!!!!! -
    (and do things I sometimes don't agree with or think is silly) Why shouldn't someone receiving MY money have to have some strings attached?

    Human kindness and charity is a special gift that should not be taken advantage of and hammered into some cold fixed government institution

    ~Clare

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous. Resorting to "ad hominems" in an argument simply advertises the weakness of your position. How was I trying to fool you?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Trying to hijack this blog again? Tsk, tsk, tsk. Your own blogs failed, so you come here and stir up trouble just to make yourself feel superior. Well, you aren't superior. Instead, you are pathetic. I feel sorry for you because you obviously find pleasure only in starting arguments. Why don't you find a mean, progressive, atheist, snobbish blog to hijack instead of this one? IOW, go play with the rest of the elitists and leave us the hell alone.

    Anonymous Patriot
    USA

    ReplyDelete
  25. Quedula those fancy words show your background as a teacher. My less glamorous words are based on life experience dealing with people who shall we say...don't tell you the whole story.

    ReplyDelete
  26. AP, I thought the whole point of the internet was the interchange of ideas and not just the ones you are comfortable with. Presumably Patrice doesn't mind having me around or she would have blocked me long before now.
    Perhaps it is because I always argue to the point and don't descend to cheap, uninformed insults.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I told you before, have you forgotten? MY FRIENDs call me "AP." YOU may call me "Ms. Patriot." Got it?? I will not address you directly because to do so would acknowledge you as worthy of discourse, which you are not!!!

    As for the rest of your message, i couldn't care less what you think. That's MY point. I live surrounded by socialist atheist elitist snobs like you - I'm sick of the unadulterated BS that spews from your type. You want to destroy my way of life and I will not help you do so. Patrice likes the controversy - it's good for ratings. You are a tool, nothing more. Get a clue.

    Anonymous Patriot
    USA

    ReplyDelete
  28. AP. I do assure you, you shouldn't read any desire for familiarity into my use of the abbreviation "AP", I merely use it to save typing.

    You obviously DO care what I think or you wouldn't react so violently. You must feel very insecure to accuse a distant blogger of wanting to destroy your way of life.

    ReplyDelete
  29. You flatter yourself when you call yourself a blogger. You are not a blogger, you are an instigator who gains pleasure from irritating people. That appears to be your sole purpose.

    You find fault with everything. Apparently you got tired of ridiculing your own countrymen, so you come here and ridicule conservative Christian Americans just because you can through the anonymity of the internet and a broad ocean. Can't you find something constructive to do with your idle hours? You must have many idle hours because I don't imagine you have many friends - not with your negative attitude.

    You want to have the last word, good luck with that. You want to continue to "debate" because you think you are good at it, but you would again be wrong. You want to prolong the special attention you get here by going against the current, but soon you will be ignored again when the newbies tire of your constant barbs and snide comments against their religion, their rights, and their heritage. You, madame, are an itch that will go away when the right dose of flea powder is administered.

    Anonymous Patriot
    USA

    ReplyDelete
  30. Not many valid debating points there AP, but you certainly shine at invective. I'm sorry you find my comments so upsetting. I suggest you ignore them in future. It will make life the duller but I will have to put up with it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. There is something you obviously don't understand. Let me try to explain it to you one more time. I live amongst atheistic socialistic elitists like you. I am familiar with your tactics. I know that you will never concede a point. You will never look at all sides. You will only look at the world or the issue through your eyes, without regard for the needs and desires of those who disagree with you. And that is in spite of the fact that often their views do not impact you whatsoever. Therefore, the bottom line with people of your ilk is that you are never going to honestly debate - so I no longer try. It is a waste of my time and my efforts to try to show you there are other views that have just as much validity as yours, and just as much right to exist. You, however, would like to dictate to people like me exactly how I should live and what I should or should not do for the "sake of the planet," no doubt.

    As for invective, it's my opinion that you're very good at it yourself. You don't want to debate, you want to irritate, ridicule and "prove" your superiority. You're good at attacking people's beliefs, although those beliefs do nothing to you. You like to attack people's right to keep and bear arms in America, yet those guns impact you in no way. You like to ridicule conservative political ideology, yet you offer no "solution," you merely ridicule. In other words, you contribute nothing. You are a dull stick poked into our eyes, and the question is WHY? You really should ask yourself why you gain such pleasure in belittling people's beliefs here, people who have done nothing to you.

    Please cease and desist with the grandiloquence and join the rest of us here with our feet on the ground. You are not superior, we are not inferior. We happen to disagree, so why not live and let live? Why continue to belittle us? Perhaps some introspection would help you find the answer regarding why you like to prod and poke people who have done nothing to you. If introspection is not appealing to you, then I will conclude by saying...what a sad way to spend the remaining years of your life.

    I wish you no harm. I wish you a happy life. I wish you would discover a constructive way to spend your time. Adieu

    Anonymous Patriot
    USA

    ReplyDelete
  32. Quedula - you're really interested in debate? You never did answer why I have to jump through many hoops in order to earn my money (do things I sometimes think are silly,etc, and some workers even have to take drug tests)and yet others should NOT have to jump through hoops to receive my money? (by way of charity or gov't welfare) Really? How is this just?

    Sorry if some people may feel uncomfortable and wish to receive help from a faceless gov't agency, but there's lots of things that make me uncomfortable (like getting up for work at 6am on cold mornings :-))

    In the end I think a few hoops and some real human interaction encourages everyone (the receipient, the giver and the middleman) to be accountable for their actions and see the results of the transaction.

    Also, I know where my money comes from, and how hard I worked for it, and what I have to do to please my boss to get it. I certainly don't view it as 'free money', yet I hear too many clients refer to 'free money' or 'free stuff' - they truly have no connection as to where the money came from, who they're accountable to, and they certainly didn't have to work hard for that money.
    ~Clare
    P.S- I cannot stress enough, this is not being cold hearted. I really believe charitable giving warms the heart and heightens the human spirit. One neighbour helping another is what makes a society. I think forcing workers to give hard earned money to some government black hole where the visible results tend to be those welfare receipients with tons of time on their hands, brand name clothes,manicured nails, etc, only makes people bitter!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Sorry Clare, as you probably saw I got rather tied up with AP and overlooked your post. I sympathise with your point of view but I would still maintain that in a civilised country people unable to work or find work, or put out of work, through no fault of their own, should be able to look to the state for modest support as of right and not as charity. And of course not all government funds come from the modestly waged one would hope that a large proportion comes from the obscenely rich of which the USA appears to have quite a few.

    Whether it makes economic sense to weed out and treat separately no-hope, layabouts is another question. I suppose it all depends on how many they are in proportion to the total number of claimants.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Calm down AP, it's only a blog.

    ReplyDelete
  35. quedula wrote: "Its not a black & white situation even for those "unwilling" to work. They are probably like that because of their upbringing for which they can hardly be held responsible."

    It is not black and white which is exactly why we don't want the government, who doesn't do anything efficiently and rarely does anything well, to handle it, especially on a Federal level.

    Your past does not entitle you to a future nor does it give you the "right" to the fruits of others labor. I have more respect someone who climbs up the ladder even if it is only a few rungs than someone who is born into privilege then squanders it. One has Honor, the other is a fool.

    We have decades and generations worth of evidence that social programs do NOT solve the problems of society, instead they exasperate and perpetuate them. To continue doing what we do is the definition of insanity.

    I do not believe anyone here is without compassion. I suspect you'll not find a more generous bunch of individuals on a personal basis. As a group, I believe we are fed up with our labors being squandered. I am glad to see Americans standing up to the political elite and those that benefit from their favor (read corporate welfare). We see they are bribing us with our own money and taking a cut while they're at it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Quedula- Tax the Rich? Really? Basic socio-economic reality is that the rich have the ability to MOVE away from the higher taxes, either by physically moving, or finding loopholes to operate outside of the tax area (for instance cruise ships are always registered in countries with low or no taxes) The people who get squeezed are the middle class! I do believe we have to encourage all people to find success (from every level of life) Overly punishing those who achieve success (in the form of wealth) doesn't seem like a good idea either.
    No one is suggesting people should be starving in the streets and those countries where they are have corruption and warfare as mitigating factors (as we learnt from Ethiopia/Eritrea throwing massive amounts of aid money at them doesn't help)
    Finally, you may feel like your hearts in the right place but reality isn't producing the results. P.S- A very liberal friend of mine went into social work to help the poor and downtrodden. I have never seen someone become so disheartened so fast. And she's had to throw her politically ideology right out the window and her lofty ideals were not translating to reality.
    ~Clare

    ReplyDelete
  37. Before we simply agree to differ Clare, how would you like to see things arranged in practice? Complete abolition of government aid in favour of charities, or, government aid restricted to a particular type of claimant? If the latter, which type would this be, the deserving or the undeserving, (assuming, according to your views, that they can be clearly distinguished)?

    ReplyDelete
  38. For starters none of the mammoth "black box" social programs. The system should be as decentralized as possible and with as much local taxpayer involvement/auditing as possible and charities picking up everything but the basics. For instance, in some areas people freezing to death may be more of a problem than others, local programs could address that, whereas a national system may keep people in California toasty warm where's there's no need. The government should be bare bones/last resort. Think 'government cheese' and a bag of potatoes, none of this "fee money" where people buy smokes and pizza (I regularly see receipients buying expensive processed packaged food). Benefits should have more strings attached and should NOT be better than what low income workers would get. (For instance, a young family aquaintance had a baby out of wedlock and has a nicer gov't paid apartment and nicer things on welfare than many of the hardworking young couples I know at work. Absolutley foolish. I see dole receipients receive better Rx coverage than most of the public. Wrong. There should be pride in working and some shame in being able bodied and not working and yet I see clients all the time brag to their friends they get stuff free, etc (zero appreciation or guilt) (ie: one girl bragging "why pay for tums?" [costing a few dollars] when she can get a prescription [worth $60] for free. Again I see these things daily. This should not be the norm! We need to reign in all our spending and have some publically made audits (we have an Auditor General in Canada who's brought some things to light but we need more of this)
    After that, I guess we agree to disagree :-)
    ~Clare

    ReplyDelete
  39. Thanks Clare for your considered reply. It is impossible to disagree (especially for a UK citizen) when you cite specific examples of mis-applied aid . The critical question is how wide-spread are these examples in proportion to the whole program? Similar arguments are often aired over here and every new government comes in promising to do something about it, with apparently little result. I suspect that wholesale reforms such as you suggest might cost a lot of money to implement and be more expensive to run. Guessing that only a small proportion of your tax bill goes to social programs anyway, would you notice any significant difference in your pocket? Is not an important feature of federal aid programs the redistribution of wealth from the rich States to the poorer and, if you feel primarily an 'American', as opposed, say, to an 'Idahoan', you should be reasonably content with this arrangement? (This is not to suggest that incremental improvements to the system cannot be made)

    If you say never mind about the money in my pocket, I want to stop the 'undeserving' receiving 'excessive' aid at all costs, are you not dipping your toes into an ethical minefield. We all have to get through life as best we can. Who, in the final analysis ls undeserving? We are all victims to a greater or lesser extent of the society that nurtured us and it is not seemly for a Government to bully its members into becoming better citizens but to try to help them to become so, at the same time working to improve Society for future generations.

    Patrice started this blog with a quote from the bible in which she places so much trust, so I feel justified in ending this comment by referring you to Matthew 7.1 etc.
    A brilliant book the bible. You can find justification for almost any point of view. Thanks again for the interesting discussion. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  40. It's truly hilarious that a Canadian and a Brit discuss how Americans could/should spend American money on Americans.

    By the way, there are many areas within California that get very cold in the winter. This state is big and diverse, not just in population but also in climate and topography. It's always a mistake to paint with a broad brush. Always. Although I do agree with Clare about making government (actually taxpayer) money harder to get and having less of it available to those who won't work. Still, any government handout is a slippery slope, so no handouts would be optimum in my way of thinking. Americans lived quite well for 3 centuries without government handouts, I pray America returns to that self-reliant mindset. Charities could fill in the gaps, as they did in the past.

    As for our little british friend, there are no "rich states" or "poor states," there are some PEOPlE who have more money and stuff than other PEOPLE, but that doesn't make the states richer or poorer. The PEOPLE who determine where the tax money is spent are the reason some states are more efficient, and it is those politicians and their fiscal disciple (or lack thereof) who determine which states have a balanced budget and which don't. To equate that with "rich state" or "poor state" is a simplistic view. But I expect nothing better from someone who can't keep her nose in her own business and instead insists on sticking it into Americans' business. Is Britain so perfect that you feel a need to "fix" America? Why not "fix" India instead, afterall you Brits did your best to rape and pillage that nation before you left it.

    Anonymouos Patriot
    USA

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dear AP, I used the terms "rich" & "poor" to make it easy for you. I should have referred to the "per capita gross domestic product". For example California's is nearly twice that of Mississipi's. Some of the federal taxes paid by CA surely ends up helping your fellow Americans in Mississipi. As a 'christian' I would have thought you would have wholeheartedly approved of that.

    I do not know to what extent your comments here reflect your personality but they give the appearance of someone filled with anger & hate. As I've told you before, its only blogging, and In the interest of the free exchange of ideas you are perfectly open to "stick your nose" into the UK's business by the same method. I would hope you would be received with more courtesy than you extend to visitors here.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Save the scolding, I am not some little girl whom you can belittle in order to make yourself feel superior.

    As a Christian, I know what the Bible teaches. There is a time for everything, including a time to give charity and a time to demand personal responsiblity. This topic is about those who WILL NOT WORK, not those who cannot. Those who will not work drag down those who are barely holding on. Is that "fair" in your warped sense of "justice?" Surely even you can see that by taking from the hard working waitress, for example, and giving to some drug-addicted 30-year-old male is not humane to either one. Being an enabler is not helping, it's hurting. You are an enabler, you are perpetuating more pain and suffering than you are alleviating with your redistribution of income philosophy.

    In the future, please refrain from telling me what my religion says. You cannot know it unless you feel it, and you obviously don't feel much of anything.

    Be assured I would never have any desire to visit your country or post on any British blogs. I don't feel superior and I don't pretend to know what is best for your country. I have enough respect for the people of the UK to leave them to their own business. You should try living by the same maxim. You might have some friends if you learned to mind your own business.

    I know this personal communication is building your immense ego, so let me state clearly that I write not for your benefit but for those who lurk. People need to know how damaging socialism is. I may not be the best messenger, but at least I am trying to explain how very sick and depraved socialism is. You want it in the UK, fine. Don't try pushing it off on Americans or imply we are uncivilized if we don't desire it. Quite the contrary, those who live under socialism are the true barbarians. Despite what socialism claims, one size does not fit all.

    Anonymous Patriot
    USA

    ReplyDelete
  43. Furthermore, you could have used the per capita
    gross domestic product (or income) and it wouldn't have made a bit of difference as far as determining which state is "richer" or "poorer" because you failed to take into consideration one very important piece of the picture. You didn't consider the COST OF LIVING in those states. As a Californian, I may have earned twice as much as someone living in Mississippi who does the same work, but I am also paying double the amount for housing, 20% more for gasoline, 10% more for food, and 40% more in property taxes, etc. You really shouldn't try to debate with a native of the place you use in your examples. You will lose every time. Proving, once again, that you don't know as much as you think you do.

    Anonymous Patriot
    USA

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hi again! I see the conversation continues... I never for a minute wanted to say how other ppl should spend their money (especially one nation to another).
    That's the point entirely: that it's NO ones job to take anothers hard earned money and redistribute to whoever they deem fit. I think it's highly unethically on every level.

    There was some question (from Quedula) about the ethics of questioning who deserves help. Newsflash -> we already make ethical decisions everyday as to who gets "free money" and those who must work hard to produce this money (to be taken away). I really seriously do not understand how me making decisions as to who deserves my hard earned money, is somehow dangerously treading on an ethical minefield. Whereas, a gov't bureaucrat taking my money and giving it to someone that another gov't bureaucrat deems needy is.

    I'd rather have a society where we all have personal autonomy over our own money and our own destiny. Humans are diverse, and the areas we live in are diverse (different climates, COSTS OF LIVING, different opportunities), so to me it makes sense for local charities and local aid, with local decisions as to need, rather than some sort of mammoth social program.

    Anyways just some thoughts for the day. I certainly don't claim to know all the answers. I just see the world I live in daily. Hear the news about various economies needing bailouts (and the bailout countries having better entitlement benefits than giving $$$$ - crazy and unjust!) And was truly excited to see Patrice write a piece on "He who would not work". Thanks Patrice! I hope people start to re-evaluate the ethics of NOT working and receiving "free government money" taken from those who do work.

    ~Clare

    ReplyDelete
  45. -P.S- thanks Anonymous Patriot. I do enjoy reading your posts, appreciate your views and am glad you stuck around to contribute the debate.
    Happy Thankgiving!
    ~Clare

    ReplyDelete
  46. Thank you, Clare. And thank goodness you are back because I am losing far too much sleep trying to ensure she doesn't get the last word. Progressives always seem to get the last word, so it is my goal to see to it that doesn't happen on this topic. Silly, perhaps, but I am so sick and tired of them always getting in one more jab before they move on to the next institution they want to destroy.

    Speaking of which, the secular progressives in this country are now trying to destroy Thanksgiving. They have taken the last American holiday that had no financial gain associated with it and want to turn it into just another shopping day for Christmas. They call it "Black Thursday" now, instead of Thanksgiving. Even our Independence Day has become just another day of cut-rate shopping "specials" at the big box stores. Greed, secularism, redistribution of income, statism, it's all the same vile poison coming at us from a thousand different directions.

    It is good to know there are conservative Canadians whose backbones have not been bent. Keep up the good fight, my friend. We are all in this together. Canada, Oh Canada! ;) Come for a visit and I'll show you parts of California that get down to -40F and the windchill factor makes it feel like -80F. It ain't Los Angeles, that's for sure. LOL

    -AP

    ReplyDelete
  47. Clare, if you live in a country with a democratic government don't you have to accept that government's decisions until you can vote them out of office?

    ReplyDelete
  48. AP: sounds like you're outposted in the state of Jefferson.

    ReplyDelete
  49. This has been quite the interesting topic to follow!

    I don't know what it's like in other countries, but here in the US, there are nightly news stories about the inept and inefficient ways of our federal government (and a lot of state governments, too). There is an enormous amount of fraud in many government programs because the programs themselves are too big to manage! Ineptness, inefficiency and outright fraud means there's a whole lot of taxpayer money being flushed down the toilet!

    I definitely believe local non-profit organizations would do a much better job of taking care of people who "cannot" work and need assistance. Local groups are "in the know" about the local community. They have a much better chance of knowing who is scamming the system and who truly needs either temporary or permanent assistance.

    Again, I don't know what it's like in other countries, but non-profit groups here certainly don't have to be religious in nature. In fact, a lot of local charities that I can think of have nothing to do with religion. Our state's Food Bank Network (a private non-profit), for example, is all about feeding the hungry in our state and local communities. No hidden agendas.

    After decades of various government social programs in this country, it would definitely take some time to transition away from these programs. That shouldn't, however, keep us from tackling the issue.

    To start the transition, I believe moving most federal programs to the individual state level is a start. Move various state programs to the local level, wherever possible. As these programs are shifted more locally, begin to wind down the taxpayer dollars collected to fund the government projects. I believe non-profit groups will grow to meet new demand. This basically happens now, anyway, at least in the area where I live. The Food Bank is a perfect example.

    Get back to local communities helping out local citizens, and we will have a much better chance of reducing the bottomless-pit spending of our current government system.

    Mara :)

    ReplyDelete
  50. MO, I wish I did live in the State of Jefferson. It's a beautiful area and most of the residents there still believe in self-reliance and personal responsibility. Unfortunately, I live just south of there, in the mirror image of the State of Jefferson - in the infamous Emerald Triangle. Here, if you are not a welfare mother, a pot grower, a meth head, or a child molestor - you don't fit in. I moved here 17 years ago when things were still pretty normal. Legalizing "medical marijuana" several years ago was the straw that broke the back of common sense and decency hwew. Our national forest is controlled by the Mexican drug cartels. Our police won't answer our calls for help unless we first give them our entire life history (for their safety's sake, not ours). The neighbors have consisted of a child molestor, a pot grower who enjoyed jumping on his trampoline in the nude (TSA gropes would probably be no big deal for him) and now the newest neighbor is a hoarder who has begun to pile her trash in her driveway. Ah, the sweet sights and aromas of the Pot Belt, as I like to call this region of California. And get this, I live in one of the nicest neighborhoods in town. I can't afford to move, and where would I move to? This is my home and I want to help it get back on the right track. But I digress...this topic is about those who will not work. I live amongst them and I know that giving them money and benefits with no strings attached merely attracts more of them, it doesn't do anything to improve their lives. They use the money for drugs, booze, porn and noisy mufflers. I help those people who are trying to help themselves. I know who they are. The government has no clue who those people are because it behooves the government bureaucrats and union members/social workers to perpetuate the status quo. It's a sick and intertwined system. Inefficient is an understatement!!

    Anonymous Patriot
    USA

    ReplyDelete
  51. One can certainly sympathise with someone living under the difficulties AP describes (please ignore this AP) but the fundamental question I have been trying to put is; 'would the refusal, or strictest restriction of aid, do anything to improve such situations?' I suggest not. Some additional programs are needed and the more you localise such programs the higher the costs falling on the local area, which may be ill-placed to afford them. Irrespective of whether government aid is too high or too low the cost of providing it is, advantageously to deprived areas, spread over the whole country.

    ReplyDelete
  52. A.P - Oh my, I think I may hold off visiting until some of your neighbours move... (lol)

    Quedula-I think Mara did an eloquent job of re-iterating why local is better and will be more economical for everyone. Spreading money across the country just means ppl lose track of the money and "somebody else's money" is always easier to waste than your own! (true for the bureaucrats giving it away & those receiving it)
    Also Q. asked about living in a democratic country. The BUREACRATIC SYSTEM is NOT. It's heavily unionized and workers are there for life. They are the ones spending are money with very little oversight.
    Infact the more the gov't change, the more the new gov't spend time trying to get caught up on the going's on in departments.
    Waste is often exposed by the media first (by then too late) and our Auditor Generals here have started to point out some of the biggest oversights. But the day to day stuff is ridiculous. I deal with some of these departments on a daily basis, and when I see horrible $$ abuses with clients, I'm often told "just give it to them". The social workers will spend more time in red tape (paper work, appeals, angry clients) so they just appease the client. I cannot begin to tell you the red tape we all deal with. It's probably even more time & money consuming than the clients. None of this is democratic. None of this changes b/w gov'ts and infact, almost none of it can be made public because of privacy issues. (That's the most frustrating part that I see the scammers exploit! And my hands are tied - I'd be the one who'd get into trouble going to the media or a gov't representative)

    ~Clare

    ReplyDelete
  53. You keep asking the same question because you love the attention. The answers have been provided for you time and time again, but you refuse to acknowledge them. This is exactly why trying to reason with a socialist is an exerccise in futility. You are engaging in what is known as intellectual dishonesty. The answers are provided, yet you ignore them in order to continue the "debate."

    This is a game for you, it's not about learning anything or sharing ideas, it's about elitism. You think you know better than we do, despite the fact that you don't know anything about it - only what you read in the Times and Wikipedia. Your education is limited, and so is your ability to see a bigger picture.

    Ask again, maybe somebody slse will try to get through to you. There have been very many patient and earnest people who have tried to explain things to you. What they don't understand, because subterfuge does not abide in them, is that you don't want an answer. Instead, you want to yank their chains in order to feel important. When they get close to an answer that even you cannot deny, you will then slightly change the question. I can point to topic after topic in which this has been your modus operandi. Your scheme is nothing new to me, it's more of the same garbage I live with every day right here in my hometown. It's a tactic directly out of the Rules for Radicals playbook.

    I see your own country has eliminated poverty and slums. Oh, wait, I guess you haven't quite reached North London yet with your marvelous social programs and your wonderful income redistribution plans. If you socialists had reached that part of London, why is it still bleak there? Or how about Cesspool...um, I mean Liverpool? Has that hellhole been cleaned up yet?

    Ah, but the dirty little secret is that by depleting the incomes of the working people, you have created twice as many poor people and accomplished absolutely nothing positive. It's a failed plan. It's been a failed plan for generations. It will nevet be a successful plan.

    So here's a question for you: WHY CONTINUE DOING The SAME THING AND EXPECTING DIFFERENT RESULTS? Isn't that the definition of insanity? And since we all know it is, then doesn't that prove socialists are insane? Checkmate!

    OK, now it's time for you to throw around some more doubletalk and rephrase your tired and worn out question. Keep asking, that's the part you enjoy the most. That's the part that you think makes you so much more enlightened and civilized than conservative Americans; so much more clever in your mind. Yet, it is exactly the inability to accept the valid points presented by others that will lead you to ultimately end up on the scrapheap of history. Your nation, once remarkable for its work ethic, will die a quiet and unnoticed death because too many of its people have been absolved of any responsibility for providing for themselves through their own labor. Too many of you have forgotten what it was that had made Britain great. Instead, you got caught up in semantics and word games and forgot the whole point of the exercise. Like the Titanic, Britain will sink fast with all hands on board because it didn't recognize the iceberg, an iceberg that it created for itself, no less. The iceberg known as sacrificing those who work for the sake of those who refuse to. Social darwinism at work in reverse. When the lazy outlive and outnumber the ambitious, Britain will be no more. I don't wish your nation any ill will, but the writing is on the wall and I'm merely reading it to you because you are apparently unable to read it for yourself.

    Enjoy!!

    Anonymous Patriot
    USA

    ReplyDelete
  54. With a British mum who survived WWII, I grew up with stories of British ingenuity for survival and indeed triumph. I grew up knowing with all of these lessons and with the Scouts/Guides motto of "be prepared" (my mum being a lifelong Guider) At the time it was neither considered 'right' or 'left wing' just reality. Somewhere along the way, Britain and much of the world, lost those values. I am saddened when I see the state of my second home.
    I guess, in posting here, I have the faint hope that readers will rekindle the spark of personal responsibility and ingenuity before it's forever snuffed.

    Human potential is an amazing thing. People have overcome should incrediable odds. We need to celebrate this, encourage and reward this. Troubles are unfortunate, they test us and bring out strenghts we never new we had. They lead to great moments of triumph and the beauty of human kindness. (Plus alot of great inventions have arisen from need in difficult times) I'm not wishing trouble one anyone but it's a reality of life.

    Trying to artificialy prop up indivials or communities by throwing money at them, often allow them to avoid reality (why look for new ways to cope, new inventions, new ways to save or make money, new skills or even a new community when you can continue in your current state?) It's like the frog in the pan, the changes occur so slowly he doesn't know to hop out till it's too late. Yup we now have generations of wefare receipients who have never had to face the fire head on and jump. They've just grown accustom to their state and remain there - generation after generation frying the money and goodwill of those who DO work.

    They need their mettle tested. Let's see what a new generation can do when forced to step up. If nothing else, let's not punish the one's who DO work, who save, are 'prepared', who have human kindness to their neighbours, who have ingeniuty. They are the ones who make societies great

    ~Clare

    ReplyDelete
  55. Clare, you are an eloquent writer. Your mention of your mum, although brief, was done with much love, respect, and admiration. You're a good woman, and definitely your mum's daughter.

    Don't worry about my neighbors. They are too busy doing dumb things to cause me much trouble. Besides, I'm a tough-talking old woman who doesn't take any of their guff. They leave me alone. Come on down, I think we would have some fun visiting places and talking about you-know-who behind her back. ROFLOL

    -AP
    USA

    ReplyDelete
  56. I understand your ranting AP but not your reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Here is a supplementary question. If the government aid programs are as unsatisfactory as most people here seem to think why in a democratic country have they persisted for 80 years? Although I may be a fairly lonely voice on this blog I presume a majority of your fellow Americans must broadly share my views.

    Even the Roman Empire 2000 years ago, on which, I believe, the US constitution is based, had government help for the poor.

    ReplyDelete
  58. The US Constitution is NOT based on the Roman Empire and to even suggest that is another affront to Americans.

    I knew you would change the question in some way. That is so typical of you, you just won't play fair.

    Have you ever heard of the concept of jerrymandering? If you understand that practice, then you can perhaps understand how unwanted policies become law without the consent of the majority of the people. For a more recent example, there is Obamacare. It was unwanted and the people spoke out against it, but it became law anyhow because the voting districts have been so distorted in order to perpetuate the incumbents that there is little that can be done to stop them. That is why 90% of all incumbents are re-elected - they have created a decided advantage for themselves.

    I realize this answer will not be satisfactory for you and you will, therefore, continue asking one question after another just because you can. So, let me end this post by saying I am really tired of this game. Believe whatever you want, that's your right as a human being. By the same token, have a little common courtesy and leave us to chat without your incessant irritation.

    And if you ever want to leave England, as so many have, please go to France.

    Anonymous Patriot
    USA

    ReplyDelete
  59. Thanks A.P, although I always notice my errors after I post (d'oh!) That's what happens when I post while enjoying a cup of coffee. And glad to count you as 'online friend' to share a coffee with.

    Quedula-I've more than answered your questions, you might just need reflect on these things for awhile and see things from a different perspective. Also, feel free to re-read the parts about bureaucraic institutions outliving every elected gov't (and why they do), and how people grow comfortable with the status quo whether it's optimal or not. Something has to change. Also, as we've all said, no one is against helping the poor. Many of us are also inspired by Judeo-Christian ethics such as 2Thessalonians 3: 6-10 which Patrice started this post by posting (pls re-read aswell) Yes, there are many reasons why institutionalized welfare exists for 1000's of years but socio-economic REALITY is telling us we can't sustain the current system. At some point things are going to change whether we like it or not. I'd rather those changes be guided by individual incharge of their own destiny, underlined with values like 2Thessalonians 3: 6-10

    ~Clare

    ReplyDelete