Charity vs. welfair

[Ezra]

NOT YOURS TO GIVE

From The Life of Colonel David Crockett, compiled by Edward S. Ellis
(Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)

David Crockett
Member of Congress 1827-31, 1832-35

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in it's support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker-- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and----'

"Yes, I know you you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

"This was a sockdolager....I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intended by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.... But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

"'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, For I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.'

"'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the back woods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some suffers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'

"'Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve it's suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to anything and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief.

There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the suffers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditable; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch it's power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you...'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, for the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head, when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully, I have heard many speeches in congress about the powers of the Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied: "Yes Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the distinct, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

"'If I don't,' said I. "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

"'No Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none.. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'

"'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.'

"'My name is Bunce.'

"'Not Horatio Bunce?'

"'Yes.'

"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him --- no, that is not the word -- I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times a year; and I will tell you sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian, lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted---at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying: "Fellow-citizens --- I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgement is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.'

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"'It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came upon the stand and said:

"'Fellow-citizens --- It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or shall ever make, as a member of Congress.

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many verywealthy men-- men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased -- a debt which could not be paid by money --- and the insignificant and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

[SAM]

Awesome story! If only we had such Congressmen now!

[davedan]

Charity does not mean welfare. Charity is your love of God and desire to do His will over your own will. (Pure love of Christ ..... for the Father)

1 James 1:27 Pure religion is welfare and virtue.

Separation of Church and State: Government needs to get our of the business of religion. The State is great about symptomatically doling out the money, but they dont speak at all with the poor about the root cause of poverty which rest on issues of virtue (sex and chemical addiction).

The Church needs to start doing its job so that state welfare is not needed.

[KMCopeland]

the root cause of poverty which rest on issues of virtue (sex and chemical addiction)

A revolting thing to say. Aside from the fact that it's a lie.

[Fiannan]

the root cause of poverty which rest on issues of virtue (sex and chemical addiction)

A revolting thing to say. Aside from the fact that it's a lie.

I know you are probably plugging your ears (so to speak) and saying nananananananana but sex that creates children without fathers in the home, or adulterous sex that leads to broken homes in many cases or illegitimate kids, creates single-mother homes and that is the prime cause of poverty in the USA as well as a huge contributer to high crime rates in poor white and black communities. As for drugs and alcohol anyone aside from someone living in a "High School Musical" world knows how that devastates lives and leads to poverty.

[KMCopeland]

the root cause of poverty which rest on issues of virtue (sex and chemical addiction)

A revolting thing to say. Aside from the fact that it's a lie.

I know you are probably plugging your ears (so to speak) and saying nananananananana but sex that creates children without fathers in the home, or adulterous sex that leads to broken homes in many cases or illegitimate kids, creates single-mother homes and that is the prime cause of poverty in the USA as well as a huge contributer to high crime rates in poor white and black communities. As for drugs and alcohol anyone aside from someone living in a "High School Musical" world knows how that devastates lives and leads to poverty.

Single mother homes are certainly not the prime reason for poverty in the USA. It is certainly not a huge contributor to high crime rates anywhere. Where do you people find this nonsense.

[Fiannan]

Single mother homes are certainly not the prime reason for poverty in the USA. It is certainly not a huge contributor to high crime rates anywhere. Where do you people find this nonsense.

So I suppose your insights would be that the main cause of poverty is lack of money? :o)

[medved]

Single mother homes are certainly not the prime reason for poverty in the USA. It is certainly not a huge contributor to high crime rates anywhere. Where do you people find this nonsense.

So I suppose your insights would be that the main cause of poverty is lack of money? :o)

Poverty is an incredibly complex concept, and not amenable to a succinct "cause and effect" theory. Is it true that some single mother homes could fairly be described as poverty stricken? Absolutely. Is it true that some children that reside in or lived in a single mother home remain in poverty? Absolutely. The empirical data--if we care about that sort of thing--however, suggest that there are myriad other factors that contribute in a much more significant way to poverty than simply being or coming from a single mother home. Examples include level of education of the head of household, income level of the head of household, environmental and/or congenital health challenges, food security, and with whom individuals interact--chiefly because those in poverty have dramatically different language styles than the middle class, just as the middle class has dramatically different language styles than the affluent.

This is a complex question. On this point DaveDan makes a great comment when he says: "The Church needs to start doing its job so that state welfare is not needed."

There is an oft quoted statement from President Hunter that says: "The government will take from the 'haves' and give to the 'have nots.' Both have lost their freedom. Those who 'have,' lost their freedom to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they desire. Those who 'have not,' lost their freedom because they did not earn what they received. They got 'something for nothing,' and they will neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift. Under this climate, people gradually become blind to what has happened and to the vital freedoms which they have lost.”

What's interesting to me is the statement he makes immediately preceding the foregoing statement; to wit: ""Personal unrighteousness can lead toward a welfare state. What is the real cause of this trend toward the welfare state, toward more socialism? In the last analysis, in my judgment, it is personal unrighteousness. When people do not use their freedoms responsibly and righteously, they will gradually lose these freedoms. If man will not recognize the inequalities around him and voluntarily, through the gospel plan, come to the aid of his brother, he will find that through 'a democratic process' he will be forced to come to the aid of his brother."

DaveDan's point is spot on; in my estimation we need to be doing more for those in need.

Take it FWIW.

[KMCopeland]

Single mother homes are certainly not the prime reason for poverty in the USA. It is certainly not a huge contributor to high crime rates anywhere. Where do you people find this nonsense.

So I suppose your insights would be that the main cause of poverty is lack of money? :o)

Worldwide the main cause of poverty is war, next is disease. In this country it's a little more complicated, but it is no less horrific for those who endure it. And its main cause certainly isn't single motherhood for goodness sake.


I have so little patience with this conversation. It infuriates me. So I take a few deep breaths, and I usually say this:

When people assign causes for poverty in this country that are basically the poor person's own fault, I know they have very little contact with the truly poor. (That's actually a back-handed compliment, if you just think for a moment before you react.) And I don't think they're really interested in hearing about any causes of poverty that aren't the poor person's own fault. So I'll just say something this particular group of posters should understand better than your average meanie who thinks the poor can all go straight to hell because they're all low-life people with no morals or hopelessly lazy or both: Jesus wasn't concerned about why people were poor. He was concerned that we do something about it.

[KMCopeland]

The Church needs to start doing its job so that state welfare is not needed.

Do you understand that isn't going to happen? If it was going to happen it would have happened by now. It isn't going to happen.


That's just another infuriating excuse for not helping our own fellow citizens who need it.

[Rensai]

the root cause of poverty which rest on issues of virtue (sex and chemical addiction)

A revolting thing to say. Aside from the fact that it's a lie.

I know you are probably plugging your ears (so to speak) and saying nananananananana but sex that creates children without fathers in the home, or adulterous sex that leads to broken homes in many cases or illegitimate kids, creates single-mother homes and that is the prime cause of poverty in the USA as well as a huge contributer to high crime rates in poor white and black communities. As for drugs and alcohol anyone aside from someone living in a "High School Musical" world knows how that devastates lives and leads to poverty.

Much of the problem with the single mother homes can be blamed on the way the welfare state rewards that behavior. You could also make a case to blame the other things you describe on government as well. I would say a government taking 50%+ of our income, not to mention the red tape and other hindrances the government inflicts on honest businesses, is far more responsible for poverty than anything else. That said though, if you want to get right down to it, you could say the root cause is sin and the corruption it has caused of our entire society. Look at the difference between our wicked society that celebrates sin, and the one that founded this country where almost the entire country was christian and would fast and pray for God's guidance constantly.

I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers - and it was not there . . . in her fertile fields and boundless forests and it was not there . . . in her rich mines and her vast world commerc - and it was not there . . . in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution - and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.

[Fiannan]

Want to help the poor? Encourage two-parent households. Of course if a career woman who is 35 and makes a fortune but is single can go to a sperm bank and her children will probably turn out just fine. However, this is a small fraction of the single women having kids in the USA today.



http://www.medicalbillingandcoding.org/ ... nancy2.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[KMCopeland]

Much of the problem with the single mother homes can be blamed on the way the welfare state rewards that behavior.

Nice theory. Too bad it's a crock.

You could also make a case to blame the other things you describe on government as well. I would say a government taking 50%+ of our income, not to mention the red tape and other hindrances the government inflicts on honest businesses, is far more responsible for poverty than anything else.

How is red tape a cause of poverty? What government takes 50% of our income? Who do you know who pays 50% in his income in taxes? What are you talking about?

That said though, if you want to get right down to it, you could say the root cause is sin and the corruption it has caused of our entire society.

The root cause of poverty is sin and corruption? I mean, have you even thought about this?

Look at the difference between our wicked society that celebrates sin, and the one that founded this country where almost the entire country was christian and would fast and pray for God's guidance constantly

Ah. So the society that founded this country had no poverty huh?


Somebody shoot me.

[Cowboy]

Single mother homes are certainly not the prime reason for poverty in the USA. It is certainly not a huge contributor to high crime rates anywhere. Where do you people find this nonsense.

So I suppose your insights would be that the main cause of poverty is lack of money? :o)

Worldwide the main cause of poverty is war, next is disease. In this country it's a little more complicated, but it is no less horrific for those who endure it. And its main cause certainly isn't single motherhood for goodness sake.


I have so little patience with this conversation. It infuriates me. So I take a few deep breaths, and I usually say this:

When people assign causes for poverty in this country that are basically the poor person's own fault, I know they have very little contact with the truly poor. (That's actually a back-handed compliment, if you just think for a moment before you react.) And I don't think they're really interested in hearing about any causes of poverty that aren't the poor person's own fault. So I'll just say something this particular group of posters should understand better than your average meanie who thinks the poor can all go straight to hell because they're all low-life people with no morals or hopelessly lazy or both: Jesus wasn't concerned about why people were poor. He was concerned that we do something about it.

What color is the sky in the world you live in?
You have to stop watching MSNBC and listening to Obama and actually do some research.

[KMCopeland]

What color is the sky in the world you live in? You have to stop watching MSNBC and listening to Obama and actually do some research.

What is it, precisely, that I said that you disagree with?

[Ezra]

We are taxed on this country more towards 85% of our income. 15-25% being direct income tax. Then you have road tax, taxes on top of taxes. Most things you buy have been taxes numerous times driving the price up. when you buy it and are taxed again.

Poverty is cause simply by this.
D&c 98
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

When wicked people rule is what causes poverty.
What davey Crockett said is pretty perfect.
When government oversteps it's constitutional boundaries the people morn.

And if we want to give away our wealth to help others we are free do to so. The church should not have to.!!!!!!
We should be doing it on are own.
The government should stay out or our god given duty to take care of others.

Welfare in the hands of the state will always produce evil and hinder good people from doing it the right way. Welfare in the hands of the state is government acting as gods.

Charity is all that we should have in this country. Freedom to give our money away as we choose.

[Ezra]

If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty--four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; And the sixteen being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; But be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains around the necks of our fellow sufferers; And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on 'til the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering...and the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.

-- Thomas Jefferson

[KMCopeland]

We are taxed on this country more towards 85% of our income. 15-25% being direct income tax. Then you have road tax, taxes on top of taxes. Most things you buy have been taxes numerous times driving the price up. when you buy it and are taxed again. Poverty is cause simply by this.

You have a good point that income taxes are not the only taxes. I strongly question your 85% figure -- but you still have a good point.

Now I'll ask you what your solution is. I really hope you have one, because I don't like taxes any more than you do. Please don't give me a scripture to justify your belief that nobody should have to pay taxes because the D&C said that when wicked people are in charge the people mourn. That's a cop-out. What's your solution to running a country?

When wicked people rule is what causes poverty.

Nonsense.

And if we want to give away our wealth to help others we are free do to so. The church should not have to.!!!!!!
We should be doing it on are own. The government should stay out or our god given duty to take care of others.

Do you understand that answer doesn't begin to address the problem? What "should be" and "what is" are far, far apart here.

Welfare in the hands of the state will always produce evil and hinder good people from doing it the right way.

The facts prove that to be completely false.

Charity is all that we should have in this country. Freedom to give our money away as we choose.

Oh good. Another "should." And you certainly do have the freedom to give away your money as you choose. You have lots of choices. I think you just like complaining a whole lot more than putting your money where your mouth is.

[Desert Roses]

KMCopeland, I'll say it again as I have on another thread--I've "been there, done that." I've lived in poverty, and experienced it first-hand. Statistically, the overwhelming majority of people in poverty are a) single mothers caused by divorce or the idea that sex outside of marriage is acceptable, and in our modern society, that rearing children out of wedlock is an acceptable choice; and b) substance abuse or mentally ill in some way.

I am not insisting that poverty is "caused" by illegitimacy or by drug addiction, but I am saying the two are very connected, and that when women are married to the fathers of their child(ren) poverty is a much less likely scenario. Additionally, despite your claims of the wonder of Social Security and other government programs, I will tell you from firsthand experience and observation that they cause far more problems than they eliminate.

For 4 years, I lived/worked in rural Nevada, serving as a mental health professional there. My clients were almost 100% on Social Security Disability. Only a very, very few were genuinely disabled. Most were disabled because "I hurt my back" or "My knees are bad" from obesity. At least one has ADHD. I watched one client who was collecting unemployment: his statement to me was telling. "I'll apply for disability when my unemployment runs out." He was in no way disabled. Those with "bad backs" could very easily be retrained and return to the workforce, and gain dignity, hope, and a sense of accomplishment instead of living to get their check on the first and figure out how to make their $750 last all month.

I saw one client who was cut off his housing subsidy for drug charges--and the only success story I believe I saw. He asked for help, and I got permission to turn to the LDS Church. They provided some temporary assistance so he was not homeless after being evicted from his HUD housing. He got a job despite a great deal of problems in his feet and legs that would have qualified him for SSI, got established in a home he paid for out of his earnings, and his depression, anxiety,and other mental health issues evaporated!

I watched mothers teach their children by example that living in a trailer on Disabilty and not having a job was the normal lifestyle, and to be envious of those who work, that their success was just "luck" or the way fate was. I watched teens and children reared this way fail to understand how to care for themselves in even basic ways, and in one case, I saw a great-great-grandmother who had been on welfare in the 60's now rearing her great-great-grandbaby because her daughter, granddaughter, and great-granddaughter had all had babies in their early teens without bothering to figure out the importance of a father for them other than in biology. All except the great-great-grandma were drug addicted and completely unfit to parent (and I certainly had doubts about the great-great-grandma but of course she was the choice of the child welfare agency because she wasn't on drugs!)

Poverty has gotten increasingly worse and worse in the kinds of lives people live since the "New Deal" and the "War on Poverty". My father grew up in the Depression, and described the ways that poor people were able to lift themselves and help themselves and neighbors. Neighbors and friends helped, and though it was tough, there was at least hope. No, the new government programs bring despair, helplessness, and lack of hope. I've lived it as a single, divorced mother, and I've witnessed it from the other side as a mental health therapist.

When I did my BA in the 80's (paid for myself by working and going to school) I took all the courses on ethnic studies, women's studies, and the like. I came away with the same high, liberal ideals you espouse. Then I began to live real life. Real life soon disabused me of all my lofty liberal ideals, and gave me the clarity that reliance on God and His way, including the ongoing counsel of leaders that reliance on government was a dangerous path, is the only safety. Social "safety nets" provided by an oppressive government is more like a smothering blanket than a safety net.

One of the most dangerous ideas of liberals is that people, including the poor, are too foolish, inept, or helpless to care for themselves. The liberals I talk with believe that from their lofty vantage point, they can better assess and determine the needs, wants and how to provide relief for the poor. They are wrong--people are always better suited to solve their own problems with loving encouragement and support that does not just hand them a check and assume that more money is the solution. That is why the Lord's system works best. By its nature, the Church welfare program encourages people to find solutions that work for THEM, not solutions that work for the government agency that needs to be sure things are kept status quo so their job stays intact!

I realize that never, in all my years of experience, have I known a liberal (who by definition are really conservative because they don't want the radical change of allowing humans to accept responsibility for their lives and using agency) who would open their mind enough to consider that government is the problem, not the solution. But perhaps this forum is better as a way to coalesce and distill my own ideas and experience in writing--in effect, this post is something of a therapeutic tool for me rather than a convincer for you.

[KMCopeland]

Statistically, the overwhelming majority of people in poverty are a) single mothers caused by divorce or the idea that sex outside of marriage is acceptable, and in our modern society, that rearing children out of wedlock is an acceptable choice; and b) substance abuse or mentally ill in some way.

That is simply not true.

I am not insisting that poverty is "caused" by illegitimacy or by drug addiction, but I am saying the two are very connected

Important rule of argument, and of research: correlation is not cause.

and that when women are married to the fathers of their child(ren) poverty is a much less likely scenario.

That is true. And if you wanted to, you could explain that by saying there are probably two incomes in a family with two parents. If you weren't so in love with the more sanctimonious explanation that is.

For 4 years, I lived/worked in rural Nevada, serving as a mental health professional there. My clients were almost 100% on Social Security Disability. Only a very, very few were genuinely disabled. Most were disabled because "I hurt my back" or "My knees are bad" from obesity. At least one has ADHD. I watched one client who was collecting unemployment: his statement to me was telling. "I'll apply for disability when my unemployment runs out." He was in no way disabled. Those with "bad backs" could very easily be retrained and return to the workforce, and gain dignity, hope, and a sense of accomplishment instead of living to get their check on the first and figure out how to make their $750 last all month.

"Easily retrained?" Who's going to pay for that?


You make a point I don't think you meant to make. When people jump through those kinds of hoops for $750 a month, something else is wrong. It's not exactly a king's ransom in other words. With a very few exceptions, they wouldn't do it if they could find work. Even minimum wage work is 2-3 times that per month, and that isn't enough to lead a decent life on either.

Poverty has gotten increasingly worse and worse in the kinds of lives people live since the "New Deal" and the "War on Poverty"

Even if those two assertions were true, and they aren't, I repeat: corellation is not cause. It could be true for instance, that without those two programs who knows how horrific the lives of the elderly and the poor would be.

No, the new government programs bring despair, helplessness, and lack of hope. I've lived it as a single, divorced mother, and I've witnessed it from the other side as a mental health therapist.

A mental health therapist whose paycheck was part of the new government programs, and you yourself acknowledge that you've taken advantage of welfare for yourself, which you wouldn't have done if you had any other recourse.


When you advocate for eliminating these programs you're not just saying they don't help the poor. You're talking about taking paychecks away from all the people, like you, who they employ. If you think unemployment is bad now, just do that. If you could all just set aside sanctimony, and examine the actual value of these programs, overall, to the entire country, your arguments would make better sense.

I would like to see you, and all these anti-government posters, to be brutally honest about the extent to which you benefit from government. I mean really, really honest. I'd venture to say that not a single one of you would last a week without the federal government's help, in some form or another. If you're honest.

None of you ever comes up with an actual way, to actually help their fellow citizens who need help. It's always "if only they were as wonderful as I am or the Church is they wouldn't be poor." And then you go about your own heavily subsidized lives, conscience-free of any responsibility for making the world a better place for everyone, including and especially people who simply didn't, and don't, have your blessings to work with.

Government programs almost by definition include a lot of waste. They can all be tightened up and they should be. But this is still an extremely wealthy country. Assistance for people whose lives basically suck is something we can easily afford and it should be a priority. Despite your experience, and the conclusions you drew about how nobody really deserves the pittance they get from the goverment in the form of SSI, and without commenting on how impossible it would have been even for you to be positive they didn't deserve what you decided they didn't deserve, we can afford to help them and we should.

The way we take care of the vulnerable among is determines our decency as a nation. You, and others of like mind, do a real good job of saying why we shouldn't have government assistance programs. You do a terrible job of proposing an aternative that makes some kind of humane sense.

You all go on and on about evil and how the country should be run by the righteous. But you don't really believe that. Because if we did get an actual follower of Jesus in office, he would understand that, as Jesus said, "The poor ye always have with you." They aren't going away. He also said "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Then there's the whole problem of Matthew 25, where He basically said you better take care of the poor, no questions asked, or else.

The sanctimonious, mean-spirited approach to the poor on the right in this country always infuriates me. But I get madder than usual when I hear it from people who claim to be Latter Day Saints.

[Ezra]

Jesus asked the We take care of the poor. Did he say we should use satan's plan of force to do this through government?
You don't want scripture explaining this. Why wouldn't you want to know what god has asked of us?

We as individuals are to take care of the poor.
When you use force of government to compel people to do what god has asked you are following satan's plan.
He was cast out if heaven for convincing people to follow that plan. Do you think the same would happen to you for trying to convince people to follow his plan now in this life?

When force is used it takes Away peoples agency to do it on there own.
Whenever the God of Heaven reveals His gospel to mankind, Satan, the archenemy to Christ, introduces a counterfeit. . . Communism introduced into the world a substitute for true religion, It is a counterfeit of the gospel plan . . . Today, we are in the battle for the bodies and souls of man. It is a battle between two opposing systems: freedom and slavery, Christ and AntiChrist. . . (Ezra Taft Benson, “A Witness and a Warning,” Ensign, Nov. 1979, 31)

Ezra taft benson

{Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. Charity must be voluntary if is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today's socialists, who call themselves egalitarians, are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right. One HEW official said recently, "in this country, welfare is not longer charity; it is a right. More and more Americans feel their government owes them something."}

Ezra taft benson.
We have been taught by our prophets not to support communism socialism. That both are satan's plan reincarnat in our day.
“Now we should all be opposed to Socialistic-Communism, for it is our mortal and spiritual enemy – the greatest evil in the world today. But the reason many liberals don’t want the American people to form study groups to really understand and than fight Socialistic-Communism is that once the American people get the facts they will begin to realize that much of what these liberals advocate is actually helping the enemy.


For Communism is just another form of socialism, as is fascism. So now you can see the picture. These liberals want you to know how much they are doing for you – with your tax money of course. But they don’t want you to realize that the path they are pursuing is socialistic, and that socialism is the same as communism in its ultimate effect on our liberties. When you point this out they want to shut you up – they accuse you of maligning them, of casting aspersions, of being political. No matter whether they label their bottle as liberalism, progressivism, or social reform – I know the contents of the bottle is poison to this Republic and I’m going to call it poison.” (Ezra Taft Benson. Stand Up For Freedom. Assembly Hall at Temple Square, Feb 11, 1966. Given to The Utah Forum for the American Idea)

You ask what the answer to the problems are.
Simple. Go back to the constitutional form of small government which the state is over which the people are over the state.

When out government was under that system. It worked its way completely out of debt by collecting tariffs from goods coming into the states. No taxes on the people.
Just as people are free to give up there own wealth people are free to make as much as they are willing to using there own means.

[KMCopeland]

Jesus asked the We take care of the poor. Did he say we should use satan's plan of force to do this through government?
You don't want scripture explaining this. Why wouldn't you want to know what god has asked of us?

In the church, we should never use Satan's plan. In the government, since another way to describe Satan's plan in government is taxation, yes, we should use that plan.


You are taxed. It's not voluntary. Your taxes go to pay for many, many things far less admirable than to help your fellow citizens who have fallen on hard times. Yet this is what you object to. This is what you get all up in arms about -- your taxes helping the poor. Jesus would be disgusted by it.

Whenever the God of Heaven reveals His gospel to mankind, Satan, the archenemy to Christ, introduces a counterfeit. . . Communism introduced into the world a substitute for true religion, It is a counterfeit of the gospel plan . . . Today, we are in the battle for the bodies and souls of man. It is a battle between two opposing systems: freedom and slavery, Christ and AntiChrist. . . (Ezra Taft Benson, “A Witness and a Warning,” Ensign, Nov. 1979, 31)

You're quoting Ezra Taft Benson because you can't find anyplace where Jesus ever said something so ridiculous. You can, however, find a great deal that Jesus said about how we should take care of the poor among us. Do you belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or the Church of Ezra Taft Benson of Latter Day Saints? And Ezra Taft Benson wasn't even talking about welfare for Pete's sake. He was talking about Communism and Socialism, and you've let fools like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh convince you that federally funded aid to the poor is one or the other. It isn't. Stop listening to those two liars. Also Bill O'Reilly. Fools and liars. Evil and designing men. That's all they are.

“Now we should all be opposed to Socialistic-Communism, for it is our mortal and spiritual enemy – the greatest evil in the world today.

When you oppose federal welfare programs, you are not opposing socialism or communism. You are opposing federal aid to the poor and the democratic process that produced it. When you tell yourself that your opposition to federal aid to the poor is opposition to Satan's plan, you're either rationalizing away a position that Jesus would find horrifying, or you are being used, by some very bad people, to prevent the Savior's charge to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the widows and the fatherless in their afflictions from being carried out. Or to get yourself off the hook from carrying it out yourself, by giving your government your blessing to do it with your tax dollars. That's what you're really doing.

But the reason many liberals don’t want the American people to form study groups to really understand and than fight Socialistic-Communism is that once the American people get the facts they will begin to realize that much of what these liberals advocate is actually helping the enemy.

Oh for Pete's sake. Do you really believe liberals don't want the American people to form study groups to really understand anything? What in the world are you smoking?


This "liberals=bad, conservatives=good" nonsense that you folks cling to like drowning men is the best way I can think of to make sure you identify a great many good things as bad, and a great many bad things as good. And a bunch of other stuff I'm too polite to mention.

You claim to be on God's side. If you are, you'll examine things, issue by issue, in light of the teachings of the Savior. If you oppose federal aid to the poor based on what Ezra Taft Benson taught instead of what Jesus taught, which is exactly what you're doing, I think that's a pretty serious mistake.

You ask what the answer to the problems are. Simple. Go back to the constitutional form of small government which the state is over which the people are over the state.

I asked what the answer to the problem of poverty in this country. Despite the fact that there's no such thing as the constitutional form of small government you describe, even if there were you haven't answered the question.

When out government was under that system. It worked its way completely out of debt by collecting tariffs from goods coming into the states. No taxes on the people.

You would actually hate the life you'd lead in 1780, but even if you'd love it (you wouldn't), this is 2014. You might actually believe that no taxes whatsoever would be a good idea (I can't quite tell), but listen carefully: you would not want to live in the United States of 2014 without taxes of any kind. But if I'm wrong, and you really do want to live somewhere where there are either no taxes or nobody collects what taxes there are, you can easily hop a plane for the western Sahara, Antarctica, or Somalia. They don't have taxes to speak of. So bon voyage. If, on the other hand, if you've become accustomed to things like electricity and municipal water services, police and fire protection and traffic lights that work, you might want to stop complaining about one of the least-taxed countries in the industrialized world, and start counting your blessings instead. And you'd also get in line to urge your country to stop spending all but a few of your tax dollars outside the country, and start spending the lion's share of it here, not only on your crumbling infrastructure but also on your own fellow citizens who need your help. And please. Stop suggesting that churches and/or individuals should take care of the poor. Of course they should. THEY AREN'T GOING TO DO IT. If they were, there would be no poor in America now. IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN THAT WAY. Maybe it should. It hasn't yet. It's not going to. And starving children, and hopeless parents who simply don't know where to turn to feed them, are things that should not exist in this country, period. It's disgraceful and it could be fixed.
Face the fact that the churches and individuals aren't going to take care of it, roll up your sleeves, put your shoulder to the wheel, and do something besides point your finger at somebody, or something else to do what Jesus clearly taught was the most important responsibility we have.

[Cowboy]

KMCopeland, I'll say it again as I have on another thread--I've "been there, done that." I've lived in poverty, and experienced it first-hand. Statistically, the overwhelming majority of people in poverty are a) single mothers caused by divorce or the idea that sex outside of marriage is acceptable, and in our modern society, that rearing children out of wedlock is an acceptable choice; and b) substance abuse or mentally ill in some way.

I am not insisting that poverty is "caused" by illegitimacy or by drug addiction, but I am saying the two are very connected, and that when women are married to the fathers of their child(ren) poverty is a much less likely scenario. Additionally, despite your claims of the wonder of Social Security and other government programs, I will tell you from firsthand experience and observation that they cause far more problems than they eliminate.

For 4 years, I lived/worked in rural Nevada, serving as a mental health professional there. My clients were almost 100% on Social Security Disability. Only a very, very few were genuinely disabled. Most were disabled because "I hurt my back" or "My knees are bad" from obesity. At least one has ADHD. I watched one client who was collecting unemployment: his statement to me was telling. "I'll apply for disability when my unemployment runs out." He was in no way disabled. Those with "bad backs" could very easily be retrained and return to the workforce, and gain dignity, hope, and a sense of accomplishment instead of living to get their check on the first and figure out how to make their $750 last all month.

I saw one client who was cut off his housing subsidy for drug charges--and the only success story I believe I saw. He asked for help, and I got permission to turn to the LDS Church. They provided some temporary assistance so he was not homeless after being evicted from his HUD housing. He got a job despite a great deal of problems in his feet and legs that would have qualified him for SSI, got established in a home he paid for out of his earnings, and his depression, anxiety,and other mental health issues evaporated!

I watched mothers teach their children by example that living in a trailer on Disabilty and not having a job was the normal lifestyle, and to be envious of those who work, that their success was just "luck" or the way fate was. I watched teens and children reared this way fail to understand how to care for themselves in even basic ways, and in one case, I saw a great-great-grandmother who had been on welfare in the 60's now rearing her great-great-grandbaby because her daughter, granddaughter, and great-granddaughter had all had babies in their early teens without bothering to figure out the importance of a father for them other than in biology. All except the great-great-grandma were drug addicted and completely unfit to parent (and I certainly had doubts about the great-great-grandma but of course she was the choice of the child welfare agency because she wasn't on drugs!)

Poverty has gotten increasingly worse and worse in the kinds of lives people live since the "New Deal" and the "War on Poverty". My father grew up in the Depression, and described the ways that poor people were able to lift themselves and help themselves and neighbors. Neighbors and friends helped, and though it was tough, there was at least hope. No, the new government programs bring despair, helplessness, and lack of hope. I've lived it as a single, divorced mother, and I've witnessed it from the other side as a mental health therapist.

When I did my BA in the 80's (paid for myself by working and going to school) I took all the courses on ethnic studies, women's studies, and the like. I came away with the same high, liberal ideals you espouse. Then I began to live real life. Real life soon disabused me of all my lofty liberal ideals, and gave me the clarity that reliance on God and His way, including the ongoing counsel of leaders that reliance on government was a dangerous path, is the only safety. Social "safety nets" provided by an oppressive government is more like a smothering blanket than a safety net.

One of the most dangerous ideas of liberals is that people, including the poor, are too foolish, inept, or helpless to care for themselves. The liberals I talk with believe that from their lofty vantage point, they can better assess and determine the needs, wants and how to provide relief for the poor. They are wrong--people are always better suited to solve their own problems with loving encouragement and support that does not just hand them a check and assume that more money is the solution. That is why the Lord's system works best. By its nature, the Church welfare program encourages people to find solutions that work for THEM, not solutions that work for the government agency that needs to be sure things are kept status quo so their job stays intact!

I realize that never, in all my years of experience, have I known a liberal (who by definition are really conservative because they don't want the radical change of allowing humans to accept responsibility for their lives and using agency) who would open their mind enough to consider that government is the problem, not the solution. But perhaps this forum is better as a way to coalesce and distill my own ideas and experience in writing--in effect, this post is something of a therapeutic tool for me rather than a convincer for you.

This was excellent!
Stop listening to the theoretical arguments put forth by those who are clueless and full of the propaganda from their college professors.
It is funny how when you quote information that has come about from solid studies, all they say is " That is not true! "
The Gospel is the only way to raise people from reliance on government welfare. This crap that the bureaucrats put forth about job training programs and the like are nothing more than extended welfare. They work for one out of a thousand and they all point at the one. Crazy!

[KMCopeland]

This was excellent! Stop listening to the theoretical arguments put forth by those who are clueless and full of the propaganda from their college professors.

Oh yes. Clueless people who went to college. College professors who only teach propaganda. And you're calling other people brainwashed.

It is funny how when you quote information that has come about from solid studies, all they say is " That is not true! "

She didn't quote jack from solid studies. And me, when someone tells me something I said isn't true, I set about proving them wrong. Not complaining that they contradicted me. Google is our friend.

The Gospel is the only way to raise people from reliance on government welfare.

That may be true. But since no one knoweth the day and the time of the coming of the Son of Man (which is when everyone will be living the gospel), there are a whole lot of hungry kids who need to go to school with breakfast in their stomachs.

[Rensai]

Much of the problem with the single mother homes can be blamed on the way the welfare state rewards that behavior.

Nice theory. Too bad it's a crock. No its not. There are many reports on this

You could also make a case to blame the other things you describe on government as well. I would say a government taking 50%+ of our income, not to mention the red tape and other hindrances the government inflicts on honest businesses, is far more responsible for poverty than anything else.

How is red tape a cause of poverty? What government takes 50% of our income? Who do you know who pays 50% in his income in taxes? What are you talking about? 50% is a pretty conservative number for what the government takes from the tax paying American. Many calculations place it higher when you figure in all the taxes and inflation, which is just a hidden tax.

That said though, if you want to get right down to it, you could say the root cause is sin and the corruption it has caused of our entire society.

The root cause of poverty is sin and corruption? I mean, have you even thought about this? Yes, and there are numerous examples from scripture. Are you even LDS?

Look at the difference between our wicked society that celebrates sin, and the one that founded this country where almost the entire country was christian and would fast and pray for God's guidance constantly

Ah. So the society that founded this country had no poverty huh? I did not say they had no poverty, but during the war they were in GREAT poverty. Afterwards, it took only a few years to repay the debt and begin the transformation into the wealthiest society on the planet.


Somebody shoot me.Since you have this all figured out and we're all so wrong, what do you think is the problem and how would you fix it?