How did people in need get help before Welfare?

"tis much easier to kill people than it is to help them"


- Big Business/Military Industrial Complex

How did people in need get help before Welfare?

I believe it's called begging, which used to be much more prevalent back in the 'Good Old Days' when the majority scrounged in mighty hordes.



You can still see such behavior in first world countries if you look hard enough.

They lived in the streets and died from exposure, poor sanitation and hunger. Some turned to a life of crime bootlegging. What do you think these programs came about for no reason? Do you think really think the labor movement was just a bunch of thugs wanting money they didn't earn? There is something to be said about how things were back in the day when you really wanted to work for a company that had it's own little town for the employees. Sure they paid you in company script to shop in the company store with it's jacked up prices, but at least you had a roof over your head. It isn't the food stamps and the welfare that is the problem, it wouldn't be the publicly funded healthcare system if it ever existed fault.

It is a corporate culture that has a desire to eat itself to death. A culture that keeps paying the handful at the top greater and greater shares of the profits while stagnating everyone else's. A culture that encouraged people to shortcut through the university system to get ahead, while rejecting those that would work their way up while learning the business. Remember back in the 80's when everyone was like look at how the Japanese run these amazing lean businesses?

Ford and the other welfare capitalists understood it. The high wages, benefits and time off they were offering not only attracted the best employees. They were an investment in creating a robust economy that would ensure steady and growing profit down the road. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have free trade with low cost labor markets and expect continued economic growth. It isn't social policy killing the economy. It is bad trade policy and a parasitic corporate culture that is killing it. TANF, SNAP, UEC, SS, and Medicare stimulate economic growth. They aren't just a bill that gets paid they are an investment in economic activity. Take them away and what you will get in return is a collapsed economy.

Originally posted by Hefficide

Most didn't get help. Here is a link to a Library of Congress link to just one work on the period of the 1890's and what life was like for the poor.

It is tempting for us, today, to look back at history and see it through a certain lens. But it isn't an accurate one. The fact is that there were many, many disenfranchised, sick, orphaned, and dying people before our modern age. But it was considered improper to speak of them - thus they have inadequate representation or mention in the historical record.

European countries did slightly better during these periods. But, by no means was life in, say, Ireland or the UK itself anything near humane for the poor.

~Heff

Heff, this is a total misrepresentation. It is not fair at all to go back as far as the 1800's to make a case that Charity did not work. Using this logic, I can go back to the 1800's and make a case that medical care and medicine does not work.

Fact is, by the time the 50's and 60's rolled around, we became A LOT better at taking care of those who were truly needy. Many times people went through their local Church to find help. Today? Not so much, we turn to Government.

Charity worked and it worked well. People gave when they could, corporations gave, the Churches gave and distributed. Doctors decided their own cost for treatment. This was even taking place in the 90's and I know this for a fact because I was one person who was helped.

Back in the 90's as a young man I developed in cyst on my scrotum. I saw a doctor who basically said, if it does not hurt and gives you no problems, dont worry about it. Well eventually it did give me a problem when it became infected and my testicles swelled out to the size of a large grapefruit. I could not walk, I could not sleep, I could not do anything and the pain was unreal. Contrary to popular belief, your sack should never be that big

I went to a private Doctor. I had very little money, no insurance. I was honest with the man about my financial situation and as it turned out I needed immediate surgery. He performed that surgery for me, free of charge. I had to pay the surgery clinic for use of their operating room and the anesthesiologist, but the doctor himself was able to waive all cost. Today, they can not do that anymore. Today, I would have to pay $2000 up front for the same procedure. Back then, I had to pay $500 up front because the doctor was kind enough- and allowed to wave his own fees.

It was called "Charity" and people were able to do this of their own free will. Today, big business and Government have involved themselves in every aspect of our lives and "Charity" is a thing of the past.

reply to post by MrWendal


I have to disagree on this. The Social Security Act was placed into law late in 1935. And there was even a four year period, from 1939 until 1943 when a food stamp program existed.

An interesting aside is this comment about that first run of food stamps:

The program ended when the conditions that brought the program into being (unmarketable food surpluses and widespread unemployment) no longer existed.

Wait... the first concern was not the hungry, but the fact that there was food that couldn't be sold? OMG businesses PROFIT from evil social programs!!!

Back to the point,

I never said that charity did nothing. Another member presented the following graphic:



And noted that hunger was not listed. The fact is that there is only 45% of the total deaths accounted for, and it states a life expectancy of 49.2 years. That is horrible, even by earlier standards.

This source says:

Later crashes in 1873 and 1893 caused millions of people to lose their jobs and many businesses to fail. Homelessness during this era was an epidemic; among the riots and strikes, newspapers of the period report on the gang culture of street children and the desperate situations that made vagrancy a lucrative option.

In my original post I included one of the few graphic historic examples of what life was like for the poor or "working class". A study of the links on this page shows how bad it was on the working man. Just as things started to improve the great depression hit. Then WWII. From then until today it's been fairly clear sailing.

Charities do what they can, some effectively, others are excuses for executives to pull large salaries. But they cannot be and never have been a safety net large enough even to help even a fraction of those in need. Before social programs, many sick, elderly, disabled, people - or abandoned or orphaned children - simply fell off the radar and out of the pages of history. Unsung and unaided.

~Heff

This thread is tragic,

Yet I want you guys to know something.

The agencies are letting people fall through the cracks so badly this year.
For example, we have a kid with severe autism.
Our family is breaking up over the strain.
We're involved with CPS with a court shelter order that CPS has not been able to service for almost three weeks.
Since then I had a nervous breakdown followed by a restraining order,
and now my husband has the flu and is watching our crazed child break everything in the house and cry for me,
who can't be there because of the court failures.

DDD, we asked them for help many times, even for medical foster placement.
They reported us to CPS every time we said we had trouble handling care of our son.
So now I look like a total scumbag criminal, my grandfather gets away with molesting my sister because it was out of state and CPS doesn't give a damn,

and here I am facing homelessness when my motel runs out. and it's winter.
Nice how the state takes care of veterans, the mentally ill, and the victims of the newest children's pandemic,
AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER; i.e. vaccine damage, neglect, lack of stimulation, dietary sensitivity, infection.

Etc.

We are gonna die like this if someone doesn't help.
And we can't be the only white family in Seattle going through this crap either.
Autism is ENDEMIC here.
You wouldn't believe it.
Kids on leashes, kids in wheelchairs,
parents who look like Vietnam victims.

I can't accept that as "life".

reply to post by Hefficide
I repeat. People do not die of starvation. They die of diseases they cannot defend against because of starvation.

Pneumonia, TB and diarrhea are diseases that thrive in poverty and hunger

and while we're at it we should lower their taxes so they can make more money so they can give the poor more charity!

In a perfect world, I see how Mitt Romney came to this conclusion.

Problem is we don't live there.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Hefficide

 

I repeat. People do not die of starvation.

You can repeat it as often as you wish, but it isn't true. It's a semantic argument.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization considers a person as undernourished
when caloric intake is below the minimum dietary energy required for light activity and a
minimum acceptable weight for attained height. This minimum varies from country to country
and year to year depending on the gender and age structure of the population. FAO uses
“undernourished” and “hungry” interchangeably. (FAO2009:8).
The FAO estimates that in 2009 a total of 1.02 billion persons worldwide are undernourished --
a substantial increase from its estimate of 915 million in 2008. In the 1970s and 1980s the
number of hungry persons worldwide actually declined for two major reasons: investments in
agriculture and a combination of better grain yields and declining grain prices. However, this
trend has been reversed for the past 20 years.

Source

Starvation is a severe deficiency in caloric energy, nutrient and vitamin intake. It is the most extreme form of malnutrition. In humans, prolonged starvation can cause permanent organ damage and eventually, death. The term inanition refers to the symptoms and effects of starvation.
According to the World Health Organization, hunger is the single gravest threat to the world's public health. The WHO also states that malnutrition is by far the biggest contributor to child mortality, present in half of all cases. Six million children die of hunger every year. Figures on actual starvation are difficult to come by, but according to the FAO, the less severe condition of undernourishment currently affects about 925 million people, or about 14% of the world population.

Source

Children are the most visible victims of undernutrition. Children who are poorly nourished suffer up to 160 days of illness each year. Poor nutrition plays a role in at least half of the 10.9 million child deaths each year--five million deaths. Undernutrition magnifies the effect of every disease, including measles and malaria. The estimated proportions of deaths in which undernutrition is an underlying cause are roughly similar for diarrhea (61%), malaria (57%), pneumonia (52%), and measles (45%) (Black 2003, Bryce 2005). Malnutrition can also be caused by diseases, such as the diseases that cause diarrhea, by reducing the body's ability to convert food into usable nutrients.

According to the most recent estimate that Hunger Notes could find, malnutrition, as measured by stunting, affects 32.5 percent of children in developing countries--one of three (de Onis 2000). Geographically, more than 70 percent of malnourished children live in Asia, 26 percent in Africa and 4 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean. In many cases, their plight began even before birth with a malnourished mother. Under-nutrition among pregnant women in developing countries leads to 1 out of 6 infants born with low birth weight. This is not only a risk factor for neonatal deaths, but also causes learning disabilities, mental, retardation, poor health, blindness and premature death.

Source

You are fixated upon the symptoms but not the underlying cause. People do die of hunger. So say otherwise is to ignore the hard data.

~Heff

Sell their bodies, sell contraband, offer services, sell their children, sell their souls, sell their assets, cause an un-expectant natural death to occur to a loved one who just happened to be insured. Et cetera.....

Most of them starved or froze to death. Others went to jail.

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Hefficide

 

I repeat. People do not die of starvation.

You can repeat it as often as you wish, but it isn't true. It's a semantic argument.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization considers a person as undernourished
when caloric intake is below the minimum dietary energy required for light activity and a
minimum acceptable weight for attained height. This minimum varies from country to country
and year to year depending on the gender and age structure of the population. FAO uses
“undernourished” and “hungry” interchangeably. (FAO2009:8).
The FAO estimates that in 2009 a total of 1.02 billion persons worldwide are undernourished --
a substantial increase from its estimate of 915 million in 2008. In the 1970s and 1980s the
number of hungry persons worldwide actually declined for two major reasons: investments in
agriculture and a combination of better grain yields and declining grain prices. However, this
trend has been reversed for the past 20 years.

Source

Starvation is a severe deficiency in caloric energy, nutrient and vitamin intake. It is the most extreme form of malnutrition. In humans, prolonged starvation can cause permanent organ damage and eventually, death. The term inanition refers to the symptoms and effects of starvation.
According to the World Health Organization, hunger is the single gravest threat to the world's public health. The WHO also states that malnutrition is by far the biggest contributor to child mortality, present in half of all cases. Six million children die of hunger every year. Figures on actual starvation are difficult to come by, but according to the FAO, the less severe condition of undernourishment currently affects about 925 million people, or about 14% of the world population.

Source

Children are the most visible victims of undernutrition. Children who are poorly nourished suffer up to 160 days of illness each year. Poor nutrition plays a role in at least half of the 10.9 million child deaths each year--five million deaths. Undernutrition magnifies the effect of every disease, including measles and malaria. The estimated proportions of deaths in which undernutrition is an underlying cause are roughly similar for diarrhea (61%), malaria (57%), pneumonia (52%), and measles (45%) (Black 2003, Bryce 2005). Malnutrition can also be caused by diseases, such as the diseases that cause diarrhea, by reducing the body's ability to convert food into usable nutrients.

According to the most recent estimate that Hunger Notes could find, malnutrition, as measured by stunting, affects 32.5 percent of children in developing countries--one of three (de Onis 2000). Geographically, more than 70 percent of malnourished children live in Asia, 26 percent in Africa and 4 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean. In many cases, their plight began even before birth with a malnourished mother. Under-nutrition among pregnant women in developing countries leads to 1 out of 6 infants born with low birth weight. This is not only a risk factor for neonatal deaths, but also causes learning disabilities, mental, retardation, poor health, blindness and premature death.

Source

You are fixated upon the symptoms but not the underlying cause. People do die of hunger. So say otherwise is to ignore the hard data.

~Heff

You miss the point. Starvation, poverty is the driver, the reason but you don’t die of starvation so when the person who showed a graph for deaths claiming it did not mention starvation, every disease listed takes hold in a impoverished, starving group.

The child mortality rate will not say cause of death: starvation or poverty it will list some other disease as the cause of death. A direct result of poverty and hunger.

So why you are arguing with me when your post supports exactly what I have said and am saying is beyond me.

Soup lines in the dirty 30's, the country a wash is dust bowls, the bennet buggy was the standard mode of transporation, I remember it like I was yesterday sonny boy, even though I'm only in my 30's.

To answer the OP question- It was called FAMILY and COMMUNITY.

People took care of their own. Old people were not put in some cold lonely "rest home". They were kept at home with the family until they died with dignity. If a neighbor needed a barn or needed some help, the community all pitched in. Everyone grew their own food, got medicine from nature via the natural remedies already provided.

(Yes, modern meds have increased life expectancy, but at what price? EX: childhood immunizations now suspected to be the cause of autism, etc etc etc....)

We have lost a lot of what we always relied on in this country, mainly ourselves and our family and our neighbors. We gave it up for the "quick fix" of government help. Most young people today couldnt even grow a tomato if they needed to in order to feed themselves.

During the Depression, the reason many people were starving is because although the knowledge of self sustaining was still with most people, BUT the GOVERNMENT started confiscating lands, turning them into parks, etc, or into government sites or facilities. The ability to grow one's own food became less and less. While people had no choice but to try to feed their family via "govt aid".

Dependency on the govt is what is causing much of today's chaos. Look at the current election, a lot of it is about how many handouts people get, is what will determine their votes.

In addition, modern travel has caused most families to be spread far and wide and the concept of multiple families living on the same family land is lost. Native Americans did ti quite well for centuries. They took care of each other, and depended on just their own hard work to survive.

When did hard work become something in this country that shouldn't be admired and respected? When did having an easy life (no matter what the long term results are) become more desirable than keeping your clan nearby and raising families to support each other as needed?

When did the idea that we dont owe anyone anything, or that if we didnt work for it we dont have it, become repulsive to our society?

My grandmother was a young mom in the 30's. She raised her children on her little piece of land, and now just 2 generations removed, all her knowledge is lost. I have been trying for several years now to relearn it and to apply it in my own family.

Americans are a smart people but when it came to our own self reliance, we also became a seriously lazy people. Our fathers swallowed the govt lie that only THEY can provide, etc... Reagan, said "the scariest words ever spoken are 'I'm from the government and I am here to help.'

A lot of it came from the 50's generation when the war ended and many people wanted their children to have a "better life than they had", but what if this "better life" only taught their children (my generation) that it was better to lose your own self reliance and depend on the government. Maybe it wasnt openly said, but it was taught nevertheless, by people growing up and accepting the state of welfare.

I dont mean just in food, housing, etc, just look at how far we have fallen in that we gave govt so much control over our lives that NOW we cant even make a move of most any kind without govt's approval, such as something like having to have a govt approved "license" just to own a biz, or drive a car. etc.

Nevertheless, we are nwo at the point where the govt al;ways wanted us to be. Do what I say or no food, electricity, housing, (and soon helath care) etc unless we say you can have it .

A mixture of charity, family and government helped people out before the creation of the welfare state. Many people went hungry or were trapped in terrible working conditions with no hope of a better life.

In England we've had the poor laws (which have gone through several incarnations) since the Tudors (en.wikipedia.org...)

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by jimmiec

 

Today is much different than back then. Today we have a very large percentage of our society that doesn't just need help, we also have a large section of society that thinks everything should just be handed to them. They are used to not doing for themselves, so will be angry if what they are used to, stops. That is one of the biggest problems I see facing us as a whole.

Yes, there will be those with compassion who'll step up to the plate in offering a helping hand...but the hands reaching for help, will far outnumber the hands that are giving. I don't know how this monumental problem will be dealt with. I blame it on our own government in creating this mess to begin with. They certainly haven't done anything to fix it, and it just keeps getting worse.

Des

Yep. 2 things to illiustrate this:
We do a kids meal program in the park during the summer since a lot of kids only get a balanced meal at school.. and when school is out many fend for themselves. Over the last 4 yrs we have exploded in the number of kids ( and teens) who show up. Now THIS YEAR parents are showing up. We dug deep to provide what we could.. and called it Parents Day twice a week.. but this isnt enough. Make your hair stand on end when you have LITTLE kids walking ( being sent) to the park for lunch unattended. There simply isnt enough food or money or resources to go around.
Last yr I decided to rent one of our basement set of rooms out.. for a handyman. No rent in exchange for work on the house, its a furnished bedroom, bathroom, liv rom, Sat TV and wifi... and Id even include them in one fam meal a day - dinner. The response was OVERWHELMING. Background checks and things excluded many, but so many were just previous contributors who fell on bad times. Im telling you, its worse for many than is really being recognized. Its about to get horrible IMO.