Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

Originally posted by neo96

the general welfare means the general standard of living of the people.

No it doesn't

General Welfare means the well being of the Government not people,

God help me..The preamble begins with what 3 words?..."we the people"...not "we the government"

Welfare dollars for those that actually need them are some of the best investments a government can make.

Everytime someone loses their job and spirals into homelessness and hopelesness rather than remain afloat to work another day, the economy loses out.

Everytime someone get's sick or in a car accident and is bankrupted, the economy loses out.

Most government investment has a poor return, but every unemployment dollar, every food stamp is SPENT...and spent quickly for necessities. Welfare dollars stimulate the economy and are returned to tax-payers more quickly than any other investment, including tax refunds...which are typically saved.

Welfare abuse is an idealogical boogeyman...not to say it doesn't occur, but it is much more rare than the idealogues who scream about it will ever admit. It is a rhetorical convenience more than an economic drain.

Safety nets are what civilizations are premised on. If we can help eachother in our greatest moments of need then we are a team that survives together...otherwise we are doomed as we will all get old, sick and suffer through and economic depression of some sort.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I am arguing that charity can do the same

I see no proof that it can do the same. Charity can help, but can it help equally well like state welfare systems? Or would it have a capacity to help a fraction of the people in need, and leave the rest with no help? Thats the question. I dont believen it can. If it could, it will be already done before the welfare was instituted, and there would be no need for it (and no consequent decrease in poverty).

Perhaps the best would be a hybrid system - people would be eligible for welfare only if they show they tried to get help at private charity first, and failed. That way, if private charities would be able to help the same amount of people, welfare payments would be approaching zero. If not, welfare would simply pay the difference.

The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.

“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.

“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”

“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “ I wish I could say they were not.”

“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.

“Both very busy, sir.”

“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”

“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”

“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.

“You wish to be anonymous?”

“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”

“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”

“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.

It's simple. STOP giving people free handouts of which you are training them to rely on for a lifetime and start using that money to teach them how to provide for themselves. NONE of you want to agree with me though...

reply to post by Indigo5


No it doesn't how about people actually thinking of what "general welfare" means.

General welfare means to the benefit of the entire nation and it's ability to function case in point defense spending as guaranteed in the constitution

Money spent that every person benefits from is general welfare meaning the prosperity of the nation and provide safety and security so that they can live, and work and prosper.

Where as general welfare is known today is just throw money at people and maintain their existence never being able to prosper:

pros·per/ˈpräspər/ Verb: Succeed in material terms; be financially successful: "his business prospered". Flourish physically; grow strong and healthy.

Which the people are not doing by taking from others they are not succeeding they are not flourishing they are maintaining a meager existence.

The antithesis of what general welfare is defined as.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Yes, this is a known shortcoming and a valid criticism of current prevalent Birsmarckian welfare implementation paradigm. Current welfare systems work by basically subsidising non-working. If you read the thread I linked earlier, I am talking exactly about this under the "Shortcomings of the current systems" section:

Social system fails to motivate people to work - there is a huge barrier between working and non-working. The difference between net income in the case of non-working and net income in the case of working for a low or minimum wage is very low, sometimes even negative (!).

Our social system works on alimentation of non-working. The fundamental mistake is in paying social benefits only as a substitute for wage versus an addition to wage. We give alms instead of a helping hand, fish instead of a fishing rod.

However, the main reason why our current social system fails to motivate people to work for low wages is the nonexistent consonance between social benefits and low wages, bringing about de-motivating marginal taxation. As long as taxes, contributions (SS taxes) and social payments are treated separately, such a consonance will never occur. A single system defining the financial relationship between the state and a citizen must be in place and must apply from zero to infinite income. A single continuous solution is needed, without leaps, plunges and breakpoints. As a mathematician would say, first derivative cannot be discontinued.

The proposed Contribution Bonus tax and welfare system elegantly solves this problem. Since the benefits are payed in the form of negative income tax, there can never be a situation that someone unemployed has more total income than someone working, for any arbitrarily small wage (there is no minimum wage in CB, as its not needed). Its mathematically impossible for this situation to arise.

This is the so called compassion that all these socialist "welfare" advocates are preaching. This is their ideology.

Strawman. This only shows you are unfamiliar with easy solutions to problems you describe. They are not inherent in the welfare state paradigm. They are only present in current, suboptimal implementations, and can be easily addressed by superior welfare systems.

reply to post by Maslo

The proposed Contribution Bonus tax and welfare system elegantly solves this problem. Since the benefits are payed in the form of negative income tax, there can never be a situation that someone unemployed has more total income than someone working, for any arbitrarily small wage (there is no minimum wage in CB, as its not needed). Its mathematically impossible for this situation to arise.

Again, you want to play fast and loose with the word "welfare" pretending that the welfare of a nation is quantified in the amount of socialized programs a government has.

The National Debt is over $15 Trillion Today!

The National Debt at the Time the Income Tax began in 1913 was $2.9 Billion.

We're looking at an increase of 400,000 percent for the national debt since the federal government began collecting revenues in the form of income taxation. Why is this? This is because the federal government keeps borrowing money on the predictions of future revenues based upon income taxation, but predictably their predictions continually fall short, so the U.S. is nowhere near paying off this national debt and continues to borrow in order to fund programs that you are admitting are not working as well as so many in this thread want to insist they are.

reply to post by Maslo

Charity can help, but can it help equally well like state welfare systems? Or would it have a capacity to help a fraction of the people in need, and leave the rest with no help? Thats the question. I dont believen it can. If it could, it will be already done before the welfare was instituted, and there would be no need for it (and no consequent decrease in poverty).

It was, in fact, in the United States, being done before the institutionalization of the "welfare" state. That has all ready been established in this thread. You seem to want to go back and forth demanding hard figures until you get them and then you want us to pretend that private charity wasn't doing what the welfare state does now, a hundred years ago. Even so, private charities continue to help the poor even under the "welfare" state. As I all ready pointed out yesterday, Charity Navigator reports that charitable donations - and that would be reported charitable donations - amounted to "$290.89 billion in 2010 (about 2% of GDP)."

This chart claims the U.S. spends less than 17% of the GDP on the "welfare" state.

Think Progress claims:

More importantly, SNAP spending as a matter of dollar amounts does not indicate whether the program is sustainable. What counts on that score is spending as a percentage of GDP, or what share of the wealth produced annually by the American economy is required to fund the program. In 2000, SNAP accounted for 0.19 percent of GDP. By 2008 that had risen to a slightly larger small slice of 0.27 percent of GDP. It then spiked to 0.52 percent in 2011 as a result of the recession. But over the coming years, as the economy recovers and fewer Americans will be in need of economic assistance, it’s projected to drop back below 0.3 percent.

The federal government is spending less than 1% of the GDP to feed the poor, but these programs are administered on a state and local basis and then the states bill the federal government for the expenditure. There is very little oversight or accountability in this method of expense and the federal government is simply taking the states word for it that what they spent on food stamps is a true and accurate figure.

The Charity Navigator reports are in regards to IRS sponsored 501c3 not for profits, and the $290.89 billion in donations were what was made to a 501c3 and does not reflect the non-reported charitable donations made by individuals to poor people.

Of course, countless cities and towns have engaged in prohibiting panhandling, or what many cities like to call "aggressive panhandling" which includes begging for money near an ATM machine, soliciting after dark, and being "too loud" about soliciting, but panhandlers do so because people give and those who do do not get receipts from the beggar to write off as a tax deduction, and even if they tried could not because generally panhandlers are not a 501c3.

Philadelphia, that city of "brotherly love" has banned churches, charities, and individuals from feeding the poor. New York City has outlawed food donations to homeless shelters because they cannot assess the level of salt in that donated food. Food Not Bombs a charitable organization that specializes in feeding the poor points out that not just Philadelphia, but Huston and Orlando are also engaging in this unlawful legislation. One of the Food Not Bombs activist Brian Jenkins, claims he paid $1,000 in fines simply for feeding the homeless!

These are just some of the consequences of the rise of the "welfare" state, and of course, with more than $15 trillion in debts, the general welfare of the nation has been largely ignored in favor of the aggregation of power.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Free enterprise isn't extreme. It encourages innovation, imagination, and its a part of what has made America so great.
Most Americans (people, not parties!) are waking up and realizing they can no longer ignore what is happening around them. Its quite confusing at first but with every bitch slap in the face by those who are infringing on the lives of our children, over ruling the parents, Americans are coming out of their stuper rather quickly.
If a parent wants to enroll their child into a private school or home school the child, who the hell are you to judge them for that?

Many comatose Americans are very tolerant, very patient. They allow leeway for those who seem to keep stepping on their feet, their loved-one's feet but when they finally realize its deliberate, they deal with the fecal matter as soon as possible.
That isn't extreme either. It's tolerant people who won't allow others to bring them down to levels of such lowly depths. Social Democrats push government interest onto others and yet they heavily demonize those who don't agree, and in the same breath, they claim to be in the middle.
Why then, are you so intolerate to those who do not accept your god of welfare, power and control?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It was, in fact, in the United States, being done before the institutionalization of the "welfare" state. That has all ready been established in this thread.

No it hasn't because it was never done by charity alone. One example would be Blockley Almshouse

With the Friend's Almshouse operating since 1713 the city put off construction of it's own facilities until 1732, and the Philadelphia Almshouse was established. Occupying the entire block between Third and Fourth, Spruce and Pine Streets this was the first government funded poorhouse in the United States and was regarded as a model institution, it had separate facilities for the indigent and the insane, and also an infirmary.

There was "government welfare" even before there was a United States.

reply to post by daskakik


In 1864, The New York Times reported:

A terrible disaster occurred at the Blockley Almshouse this morning, caused by the walls of the Female Lunatic Asylum being undermined by workmen. It is reported that thirty or forty of the inmates were killed or wounded.

Then there was the problem of cholera at the Blockley Almshouse:

Blockley Almshouse did not report its first case (cholera) until June 27th, but soon the disease swept through the facility, killing 85 of 1,456 inmates in a single week. Nonetheless, the Board of Guardians voted against hiring additional physicians, although it did eventually open two temporary cholera hospitals adjoining the Almshouse.

And of course, your own citation begins with referencing the Friends Almhouse which was a private charity preceding this government funded Almshouse you point to. The Catholic Heritage Center now stands on the same site that was once the privately funded Friends Almshouse, meaning the Quaker privately funded almshouse has been replaced by a different privately funded charity.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Whatever problems may have existed, and 1864 is 132 years after it opened, does not change the fact that government played a part in aiding the poor and it wasn't being done by charity alone. There is no time in the history of the United States where charity was the only aide available so you can't claim that charity alone has been proven to work.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Whatever problems may have existed, and 1864 is 132 years after it opened, does not change the fact that government played a part in aiding the poor and it wasn't being done by charity alone. There is no time in the history of the United States where charity was the only aide available so you can't claim that charity alone has been proven to work.

Sure, let's ignore the problems that came with a government run poor house, and only focus on the date it was established, which was still behind charities all ready in existence doing the same thing. The Philadelphia agency tasked with funding this almshouse was The Guardians of the Poor:

By an act of January 12, 1705/1706, the officers of Philadelphia's Corporation were empowered to appoint annually "one, two, or more" Overseers of the Poor who were to lay and collect a poor tax and distribute its proceeds among the City's indigent. In 1735 the Assembly placed the newly erected Alms House and House of Employment in the Corporation's control and required the Overseers to provide funds for its operation out of the poor tax, leaving them only the administration of direct relief payments. In 1749 the Overseers were incorporated; in 1766 the Assembly also incorporated The Contributors to the Relief and Employment of the Poor of the City of Philadelphia, the District of Southwark, and the Townships Northern Liberties, Moyamensing and Passyunk a body of citizens who were given authority to erect a new Alms House and to administer it through a Board of Managers appointed by them annually; the funds for its operation were still directed to be provided by the Overseers out of the poor tax. Since no provision was made for adding members to their body the Contributors' eventual failure to function led to the Alms House's transfer in 1788 to the Overseers of the City, Southwark, Moyamensing and the Northern Liberties who were newly incorporated under the title of the Guardians of the Poor.

The indigent of Philadelphia directed to this government run almshouse were housed along with the insane, which is a telling attitude of government regarding the poor. Nice find! Let's just house the poor with the insane, that's the ticket! Nice compassion!

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by antonia

 

Beanskinner associates the photo with extreme poverty. Its what he feels America would look like if Welfare abruptly ends.
You replied to him that there are in fact, places in Texas and Miss.
You spoke about the tent cities and drainage tunnels.
I posted to you because the photo isn't a photo that represents welfare or charity neither is it a failure of welfare or charity.
Its a photo of men digging for possibilities...

As far as extreme goes, I feel if someone or something forces people to fund welfare, its called thieft.
Its also a lack of trust in Americans, that we wouldn't care enough to help our neighbors.
What would you consider a middle ground?

Thanks

I associate it with extreme poverty because I have never seen a man with a suit

taking a Donkey a quarter of a mile into an already pick over trash dump.

A photo of men of digging for treasure sounds like a cute way to spin it.

People actually live on the landfill is Mexico City FYI -



And the point is, as American's we have ZERO idea what it is like to have two

cities site besides each other, the official one and the one built due to poverty.

It is easy to talk fast and loose until it is the norm, all around you... Poverty

costs a lot

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You made a claim about charity having been proven to work.

It was, in fact, in the United States, being done before the institutionalization of the "welfare" state.

The welfare state has existed longer then the US so charity in the US has not been proven to work on its own because it has never been on its own.

If you want to focus on the problems then go ahead, but like I said, it doesn't make your claim true.

reply to post by daskakik


A British funded almshouse in Philadelphia is hardly the welfare state. You are desperately stretching in order to dismiss charity and praise big government. Let's make no mistakes about that. Charities had existed long before the United States was even a glint in the Founders eyes, and certainly longer than this modern welfare state:

Charity: what can we learn from history?

If you take the long view of charities, you can find both continuity and change. Before the late 1940s, charities were central to welfare provision in a range of areas, such as hospital services. With the coming of the welfare state, many of these organisations disappeared, or were absorbed within state-run structures.

As a result, it was widely thought that charities would wither away during the 1950s in the face of the welfare state. Commentators, especially those on the left, believed that publicly-provided services also removed much of the stigma associated with charitable provision, as individuals were treated as citizens, not as supplicants. However, by the late 1960s, confidence in the ability of the state to cater fully for every citizen’s needs was beginning to be undermined.

A series of scandals around issues such as homelessness, child poverty and drug use revealed that public provision was inadequate or nonexistent in many areas. As a result, new voluntary organisations came into being to campaign for, and often provide, improved services. Many now familiar charities, such as Shelter, the Child Poverty Action Group, and Release, which offers advice to people arrested for drug possession, were established in this period.

That's from the BBC talking about charity in their own land, and of course this who you are praising with your sourcing of the Blockley Almshouse, not the U.S. federal welfare state.

You have shown a profound disregard for charities and the work they do, and you've done this merely to advocate big government. When it is shown the deaths caused by inadequate administration of the Blockley Almshouse, you had nothing at all to say about the tragic loss of life, and attempted to dismiss that as being a few problems. This is your compassion, and these are your ethics.

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by antonia

 

Its also a lack of trust in Americans, that we wouldn't care enough to help our neighbors.

No, i don't trust you would. I trust most of you would let others die if it increased the bottom line. I live in a country where a guy ate another guys face off. I don't have much faith in the inherent goodness of strangers.

Please, you can find stories about people selling their daughters for crack and you expect me to trust the inherent goodness of man? Laughable.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

But poorhouses existed from then until:

The poorhouse population was even more narrowly defined during the twentieth century when social welfare legislation (Workman’s Compensation, Unemployment benefits and Social Security) began to provide a rudimentary “safety net” for people who would previously have been pauperized by such circumstances. Eventually the poorhouses evolved almost exclusively into nursing homes for dependent elderly people. But poorhouses left orphanages, general hospitals and mental hospitals -- for which they had provided the prototype -- as their heritage.

So the time frame that you are using as proof that charity works is a time when both charities and government aide was operating, thus negating your claim.

You have shown a profound disregard for charities and the work they do, and you've done this merely to advocate big government. When it is shown the deaths caused by inadequate administration of the Blockley Almshouse, you had nothing at all to say about the tragic loss of life, and attempted to dismiss that as being a few problems. This is your compassion, and these are your ethics.

I'm not commenting on what works better because that is not my point.

reply to post by doomedtoday


I do agree with you...welfare the way it is now is accomplishing nothing but producing more "need".

I am glad we came to an understanding of each other...I am so tired of bickering on here, I just want to brainstorm and work things out.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Before there was welfare there was charity where philanthropy has been replaced by despotism.Where a secular monopoly thinks their way is the only way, and everyone else is wrong.

There argument's have been the antithesis of liberty and freedom.