Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged....thoughts?
9 Answers to "Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged....thoughts?"
-
This argument could be used as an abdication of responsibility by the government to protect its vulnerable. Two ideas:
1. The poor in most instances are to be blamed. If we help them, they should feel ever-so-grateful.
2. The poor in most instances are people who in our current society do not have the opportunity to improve their circumstances, given their abilities, and that there is a fundamental human dignity and responsibility to provide jobs, and in the absence of that to assure that, eg no child goes without food, shelter, health care and opportunities...Like (4)
-
TRUE Charity does help.. no doubt. Getting a receipt for it.. does NOT
Like (3)
-
Charity is NOT reliable and people in difficult straits still have to eat, regardless of the whims of the wealthy.
Like (2)
-
Yes, because charity is voluntary, while taxation is theft.
Like (2)
-
Give a man a fish and he eats for the day...teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time.
Like (2)
-
This is going on the assumption that the wealthy are competent and the poor are incompetent. That doesn't really seem to be how things work.Like (1)
-
Many of the best social programs supported by taxes include education: "teaching a man to fish", as it were.
Like (1)
-
I think recipients of social security should be made to contribute to society in some way. in america our problem is we penalize " normal people" ( non-felons, any class above poor) and put all financial burden on them to sustain those who are disadvantaged or being rehabilitated. THAT'S BULLSHIT. EveryoNE needs to contribute to keep our society afloat. no one gets a hand out but should the disadvantaged be assisted? I think yes. let's make all criminals do some form of public service labor under the eye of several prison guards. if you receive welfare you need to have some small job even if you only do it 3 days a week. but to just pacify and give to those who made poor decisions or are underprivileged puts the burden on the rest of us and that's unfair.
Like (2)
-
ahh see your case is different and for that I apologize . I am not saying we cut off those who are sick but it upsets me . i have a sister who had 5 kids..... got $800 a month + food stamps..... never cared to work a day and probably used less than $400 for her kids a month and sold her food stamps most of the time not to mention she kept hr apartment a ******* mess. i don't believe in supporting the lazy and those who make poor decisions but for someone with ailments it makes sense to support them .
Like (1)
-
-
Better when it works, but unreliable.
Like (2)
-
I had a thought once.......................pity.....................can't remember it................that dam dementia...........its a bother..............
Like (2)
Best Answer (Chosen By Asker):
Posted by BarvoDelancy Feb 5th, 2012 at 12:06AM
No, absolutely not.
The mark of society's greatness is by how it treats its weakest members. When you place the power of - quite litreally - life or death in the hands of the wealthy you ensure that the poor will suffer, and suffer greatly. There is no history whatsoever that shows that the poor do better when they have to rely on the kindness of the wealthy.
The charity before social security argument tends to assume that poor people are lazy and do not deserve 'free handouts'. The hardest working people I've known have been poor. Janitors, day labourers, support staff, retail clerks - whatever. They're the ones working strange shifts, often holding down two jobs and with no safety net - no protection from being fired unfairly and no comfy savings in case of an unemployment drought.
But more importantly -people want to work-. People take pride in their work and its ******* insulting to believe otherwise. People who are 'lazy' and do not have the motivation or desire to work are generally struggling with different issues that they may actually need help with. The point here is help.
There needs to be a safety net that is not reliant on the whims of "our betters" who have time and time again let people starve and die rather than part with a single penny. For every philanthropist like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates you get a thousand Koch brothers. Some people are unable to work, some people are between jobs, and some people are depressed and can't motivate themselves. It should not be some rich *******'s choice to hold life or death over them in the name of 'charity'.
Also, seriously - how much money is wasted on welfare cheats? Really? Welfare is pennies. There are many, many incredibly wealthy people who never did a thing to earn their money who are far more of a danger to society. Why is it such a drain on society that some people get - what - 220 bucks a month?
[ Reply ] | Like (3)
Reply by artbandit Feb 6th, 2012 at 11:00PM
Like (1)
Reply by BarvoDelancy Feb 7th, 2012 at 12:40AM
Like (1)