How To Deal With Welfare Cases Colonial Style

I found some humor in this article. Back in the good old days if you were a vagrant hippie scumbag, you got ran out of town or thrown in a workhouse.

The article goes on to note how a destitute pregnant woman was bounced from town to town until arriving at the town of her birth where she was cared for. With laws like that on the books, I’d wager the welfare case pregnancy rate would be next to non-existent.

Of course, charity cases are just that – charity. Welfare is something private churches and charities should manage on their own. The idea that government should be responsible for forcibly taking property from a citizen and then handing that property to a welfare case only encourages people to engage in self-destructive behavior.

Warning Out the Poor in Early New England

Many towns in colonial New England had a practice called “warning out.” Under this practice, poor people who weren’t born in the town might be forced to leave the town.

In colonial New England, each town was responsible for the care of its own widows, orphans, elderly, disabled, hungry, and sick. Every town seemed to make some effort to see to it that no one starved or froze to death. Boston, for example, had a two-story brick almshouse for the poor, aged, and infirm, and a two-story brick workhouse for minor lawbreakers, “rogues,” and “vagabonds.” Other towns arranged to pay willing citizens to take in the destitute.

More proof of the incompatibility of living simultaneously as a Christian and a conservative.

Deuteronomy 15:7, 11

If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.

Originally posted by skunknuts
More proof of the incompatibility of living simultaneously as a Christian and a conservative.

Deuteronomy 15:7, 11

If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.

Actually the colonies were die-hard Christians, which is why they ran the poor out of town.

The people of the town had the responsibility of caring for the indigent. This was simply accepted as a responsibility and not something government took care of.

The poor were fed and housed, but ultimately the "out of town poor" were pushed down the road until they landed in the town they were born in.

It was the responsibility of those towns people to make sure the person didn't starve to death or die of exposure.

We can see that even though the resulting treatment might appear cruel, the poor were not dieing in the streets. The treatment was designed to keep welfare cases to an absolute minimum.

We could think of the State welfare program consisting of a worker that paired poor people with volunteer families that had the means to help care for them.


[edit on 31-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

I'd like to raise the question:

Who thinks Al Gore would let an indigent homeless man live in his palace with him until he got back on his feet?

Anyone?

How about Nancy Pelosi or Al Sharpton?

I think the fact that towns people were personally responsible for the care of the poor speaks volumes about their character.

Yeah, when welfare was first posited here in (you know where) it was for the deserving poor = widows and orphans = those who through no fault of their own... versus today's layabout sluts and cracksmoking bicycle-thieves... not that there's anything wrong with that...

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
Yeah, when welfare was first posited here in (you know where) it was for the deserving poor = widows and orphans = those who through no fault of their own... versus today's layabout sluts and cracksmoking bicycle-thieves... not that there's anything wrong with that...

LOL

You rock.

My step-daughter's mother Paula C. Paquette is currently living in a welfare motel in Western Massachusetts, in a room which would cost anyone else 150$ a night! She is a herion addict who in 2002, was convicted of multiple counts of prescription drug fraud. She stole 25K of narcotic prescription drugs from senior citizens. During her incarcation in 2002, she gave birth to her 4th child. Her parental rights for this child were later terminated. Her first 3 children all live with thier 3 different fathers. Following her incarceration she moved to Florida until she became pregnant again and moved back to Western Ma. She gave birth to her 5th child in March and is now living in a motel paid for by all of us! She abused and neglected all 4 of her other children, 2 of which were also born drug addicted! She has never worked a day in her life! She should not have custody of this child let alone be put up in a hotel off tax payers dollars! (See springfield republican archives for Nov 2002, to see her news reports of her conviction.)

why is the state paying for her? Why r we paying for her?
Recently in western Ma there have been 3 cases of families on welfare in these hotel situations abusing thier children! In one a younger child was killed by an older sibling while the mom was out down the hall doing drugs or turning tricks, a month or so later another couple beat thier children nearly to death and the last incident involved a man trying to sell his daughter for drugs! Well no wonder when u have people literally coming into the state to take advantage of the local welfare benetifits!

I'd like to raise the question:

Who thinks Al Gore would let an indigent homeless man live in his palace with him until he got back on his feet?

Anyone?

How about Nancy Pelosi or Al Sharpton?

Would Glen Beck? or Sarah Palin?

Would you?

forcibly taking property from a citizen

You pay taxes. You have the option to go somewhere else, somewhere your taxes don't go to help your neighbours.

Star and flag OP.

My two cents. We have too much government. Government cannot be everything to everyone. When it is, poverty will increase for obvious reason. I find through personal observations that as society is larger, we lose the personal accountability, where welfare is socially acceptable, WIC becomes the norm. There is no longer embarrassment or shame. Teenagers pregnant and proud of it, yet cannot write or read properly. Just look at the website called lame book.com. It's very, very sad.

I feel that in the context I outlined, less is more and that we should go back to these ways where accountability is in place.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by ArcAngel]

Originally posted by Merigold

Would Glen Beck? or Sarah Palin?

Would you?

Here's the difference between me and democrats:

I'm not advocating the government put a gun to your head and force you to pay some guys welfare check.

Would I? It depends on the indigent.

Obviously hot young single mothers would get first dibs.

I am always willing to help out hot young single moms for a brief period fo time.



[edit on 31-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


What a great post. . .people on welfare are, what did you call them? "vagrant hippie scumbag?"
Aren't you just a daisy!? Welfare recipients receiving benefits are subject to engage in self destructive behaviour?

Care to elaborate on that? As with much of ATS. . .can you offer proof of this? Or is it just another uneducated and unfounded opinion?

I used to sound like you. Scrooge used to be my favorite character. You'd better take the time to know your fellow man, OP! "Vagrant hippe scumbags", indeed. I truly hope you never have to know what it's like to have to receive some sort of assisted living. These people are your brothers and sisters! If you can have such a pompous opinion of these people and post this on ATS, should I be reprimanded for calling you a vagrant hippie scumbag?

Where's my Paxil!?

[edit on 31-8-2010 by Divine Strake]

Originally posted by Divine Strake
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

What a great post. . .people on welfare are, what did you call them? "vagrant hippie scumbag?"
Aren't you just a daisy!? Welfare recipients receiving benefits are subject to destructive behaviour?

Care to elaborate on that? As with much of ATS. . .can you offer proof of this? Or is it just another uneducated and unfounded opinion?

I used to sound like you. Scrooge used to be my favorite character. You'd better take the time to know your fellow man, OP! "Vagrant hippe scumbags", indeed. I truly hope you never have to know what it's like to have to receive some sort of assisted living. These people are your brothers and sisters! If you can have such a pompous opinion of these people and post this on ATS, should I be reprimanded for calling you a vagrant hippie scumbag?

Where's my Paxil!?

I have to agree with the other person... as the "average" welfare check recipient runs into two categories... 1) crackheads, lazy@sses, bikestealing, thug wanna-bes and their babies mamas.... 2) legitimate persons who do to illness or other detriment cannot handle their welfare themselves.

I live in Alabama where there seems to be a high degree of "lazy@ss" going on where there are 3rd or 4th (or more) generations of "welfare babies" as I have nicknamed them. Where I live, there are more section 8 housing than there is "regular" housing. I welcome illegal immigrants because at least I know if I call the cops they scatter and leave me in peace and don't steal my tires.

So, PERSONALLY, I believe welfare needs to be revamped that if you are on it and do not have a medical disability then you have to show up at a worksite daily just like day laborers for whatever duty is handed to you within scope of tests given to test mental acuity, dexterity and whatever else... ie, they get to clean toilets, fix streets, etc. for that "check" from welfare. It would solve several issues at once. 1) The lazybutts would get a real job where they could sit on their butt or at least be a little less busy. 2) Welfare check recipients would drop from the ranks asap (i.e. - less money spend on welfare). 3) theoretically, that would also lessen medicare/medicaid since the parents would then have insurance through work. 4) Punks/thugs/baby mammas would learn work ethic... or at least learn nothing is free... lol 5) the IQ of a majority of the idiots would increase if only marginally due to using that spark in their brain for other uses than how to break into a car, cheat the welfare system, etc.

Ooops, went on a rant... my bad... not really. I believe what I write above. if I couldn't find a job, I would have no problems working my welfare job until I could find one.

Sounds to me that colonial New England had a welfare system.

each town was responsible for the care of its own widows, orphans, elderly, disabled, hungry, and sick.

Today our "town" is the whole country. No difference. The townspeople had enough decency to take care of these people. Sounds like some good Christians.

Every town seemed to make some effort to see to it that no one starved or froze to death.

That is exactly what our welfare program is designed to do; keep people from starving or freezing to death. Substitute town for country and you got it.
And they even went a step further...

Other towns arranged to pay willing citizens to take in the destitute.

Everybody knows that there are some who scam the system, but that is still no reason to abolish the whole program, because it WILL result in people starving and freezing to death, and yes that includes children. Are you OK with that mnemeth? DO you think because some scam, we should let children die?

the government put a gun to your head and force you to pay some guys welfare check.

I am soooooooo sick of hearing you say this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When (or if) you pay taxes, does an IRS agent sit beside you with a gun to your head?

Mod Edit: Format.

[edit on 31/8/2010 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
Sounds to me that colonial New England had a welfare system.

You missed the main point of the post....which was that the welfare was instituted by individuals, churches, companies, etc., i.e. private means, rather than a centeral government believing it can provide a one-size-fits-all blanket of comfort and aid to those in need.

Locallized programs will always reach more people and will help more people than an overbloated, bureaucratic, slush funding program ran in Washington.

Oh, and the metaphorically saying the OP states in regards to a gun to our heads is best explained like this....

You can either inherit money, provide goods/skills in exchange for money or take money (force or taxes).....Since the Government cannot belong to the first two options, it seems there is only one more option for it right?

Disliking taxes and trying to fight an obviously bloated tax system doesn't mean one fails to pay taxes. I guess you'd like it if everyone would just shut up and stop complaining about how much the Federal Government takes to fund its numerous programs. Nearly ALL of them fail nonetheless....

Originally posted by mhinsey

I have to agree with the other person... as the "average" welfare check recipient runs into two categories... 1) crackheads, lazy@sses, bikestealing, thug wanna-bes and their babies mamas.... 2) legitimate persons who do to illness or other detriment cannot handle their welfare themselves.

Hey man, crack addiction is a disease man, it's legintimates and whatnot.

Those people really suffer because of their disease man, not cool.




Hehehehe. I'm a liberal now.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by Exuberant1]

I prefer welfare funds taken away from the Federal Government and handed down to the local communities to manage alongside churches and other religious establishments.

We should never get rid of our welfare system, but we need to send the people such as drug addicts, recovering addicts and law breakers on to charity instead of public welfare.

reply to post by mhinsey


Well, to many degrees, I agree. I don't believe that those who are just sitting around. . .doing nothing should receive benefits. It's too easy to judge those whom we do not know. Years ago, I knew a couple of people who lived in governement housing. They made sure to let a few people know that they got pregnant to ensure they'd get a bigger apartment.

Neither he nor his wife worked, and they were drunk most of the time. They had like 3 kids, and needed a fourth so they'd get a place with more bedrooms.
I do understand, but this guy just generalised everyone on welfare as vagrant hippie scumbags, ya know?

reply to post by kupoliveson

Okay. . .in that situation, I do see how the OP says that the welfare system helps breed self destructive behaviour.

Guess I didn't take into consideration other situation such as the ones you've written about.