Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Higher education should not be backed by government loans.

I think the best system would be that you pay for education retroactively, only after you finish it and get a job, and the amount you pay would be certain % of your salary for a specified time (not a fixed sum). That way, you dont have to worry about money or debt when you are studying, and at the same time universities would have an incentive to offer programs that would be financially profitable for their students (wanted on the market).
It would also eliminate unnecessary middlemen like banks.

edit on 3/6/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Sounds like a good idea in theory but what about the european model were college is totally subsidized by the government? First of all higher education has become a big business in the states and they encourage people with low gpa to attend. I myself have finished an associate of science program which is practically meaningless.

The parents put lots of pressure on their offspring to become great achievers in society as though everyone should work in an office. I think this is terrible logic, you can call it snob appeal if you wish. Those with great potential should go to college, the rest should go to a vocational school or just head out to the markets with hard labor.

The real issue is automation is killing skilled labor. Republicans have no solution for this or outsourcing. They only create problems!

The founders were NOT socialists:


“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
― Benjamin Franklin

reply to post by timetothink

I guess old Ben was no different than many of today's politicians. For the purposes of this thread I will also like to point out that he claimed to be against all kinds of charity.
Benjamin Franklin and the Poor Laws

"I have sometimes doubted whether the laws peculiar to England, which compel the rich to maintain the poor, have not given the latter a dependence, that very much lessens the care of providing against the wants of old age."

Franklin went on to include private and sectarian charities in his critisism.

But then he turns around and does this:

In 1750 Dr. Thomas Bond of Philadelphia decided that the provinces needed a hospital. He tried to interest the citizens but failed, so he went to Benjamin Franklin, who immediately and enthusiastically threw his influ ence behind the project, and prepared the public mind by newspaper public ity. Then, realizing that the amount of money which could be expected from private subscriptions would not suffice, he went to the legislature and asked for financial help. Failing in his original attempt, he suggested to them that if private subscriptions could be secured, totaling two thousand pounds, the legislature might supply an equivalent sum. The legislators, feeling confident that no such sum could be raised pri vately, agreed to the proposition. Thus armed with the first matching funds in history, Franklin was able to obtain two thousand pounds from the local citizenry - ”and got his two thousand pounds from the legislators. He says in his autobiography: "¿I do not remember any of my political maneuvers, the success of which gave me more pleasure, or wherein, after thinking of it, I more easily excused myself for having made some use of cunning."

Here we see that charity alone was not going to cut it so they turned to the government. Yes it was the British government because they were the ones in power at the time. I'm sure that if the US had been established they would have petitioned congress. But, in any case, he said one thing and did another.

Originally posted by timetothink
The founders were NOT socialists:


“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
― Benjamin Franklin

Sorry but in today's mismanaged world those words are nothing short of cultural suicide. We might as well take our .44 magnums put them in our mouths and pull the trigger. Alternatively fill our suitcases and head for china and india.

What about those that can't afford to move or those that prefer staying home? Should we be held hostage to the whims of big business or try to unravel the mess created by reaganomics and people who take a perpetual conservative stance to the constitution? Do you think the constitution was written for only the wealthy in mind and if so why should we take it seriously?

I await your thoughtful answer with baited breath!

reply to post by neo96


Wow neo, I've never seen someone more brainwashed against social programs in my life. Everyone is entitled to a good life in this amazing country, regardless of their health problems. God forbid the rich who would not even feel it, pay equal taxes, and help the nation equally. I hope for your sake none of your family get chronic health problems at a young age and are unable to get retirement. Then we'll see how fast your opinion changes, especially if youre the child living with them not knowing where your next meal will come from. So get off your "high horse" and realize not everyone is blessed with perfect health.

Obviously with over 1/3 (about 100million of about 300 million) Americans already on Public Assistance(while I will refer to as Welfare from now on ATS) and growing, and homelessness continually growing despite some 1/3 of the US population on or with section 8 and other government housing programs at their disposal, welfare isn't a viable solution for the American body.

See here: www.onefamilyinc.org...

As the number of Americans on welfare increases, the number of homeless is projected to continue increasing anyways. People don't want a few dollars from charity here and there. Yet seems neither can a significant amount of those on welfare even get back on their feet with hundreds of dollars per month for foods plus practically $1000 - $2500 per month for housing. Why, is America that sick? Is 1/3 of Americans permanently disabled, blind or permanently handicapped? I think not! So, what is their problem then?