Welfare or Charity? Which should it be or can we do both?

[Cleita]

I am a firm believer that donor based charities cause more poverty than they prevent. I also don’t care for the feel good aspect of donors handing cash or goods over to groveling members of our under classes. When charities take over what should be our collective responsibility to help the least among us, it absolves the rest of us and our government from this duty. The charity dispensed is often unevenly distributed to members of a certain demography, those with religious ties and is unevenly spread according to geographic availability. So this is how a homeless man with cancer can die in a field like a feral cat, and how a family can be evicted from their home because the wage earner died and they couldn’t make their property taxes for that year. The children in that case ended up in foster care and the mother is probably sleeping under a bridge somewhere.

In a true welfare state, people in need would go to our government social workers to get their basic needs met until they can pick up themselves and join the mainstream. Many, because of illness or handicaps, may never be able to do that, but they should be able to access basic safety nets without having to beg for help from a fickle alms giver or church that has strings attached. Basic needs like housing, food stamps, clothing stamps and access to health care should be declared a human right for every one. Social workers could work out the details of helping a single person rent a room in a hotel or motel or a family an apartment. Food coupons could be grocery store coupons for families with kitchens and meal tickets for those without kitchens.

Access to health care would have to extend to detox centers and halfway houses on the road to recovery. Children of dysfunctional parents who must be housed with relatives while recovery takes place should get a stipend so that the relative or foster home can better take care of them and their school needs. Really, these basics should be available to everyone until they can pick themselves up and get on with their lives. There is no reason for anyone to have to beg for meals, for bed space in a shelter, or medical treatment in a hospital.

Now I do think charities do have a place for those who might want to do more. Habitat for Humanity, which we have been talking about lately, is one of these charities that help families to own their own home that otherwise probably couldn’t. It’s a helping hand up another rung of the ladder of the American dream and I certainly wouldn’t criticize the good work that they do. But by their nature they have to be selective as to who receives their charity. Collecting toys for children who wouldn’t have any or sending them to camp in summer is another niche where charity fits in. This is a fine thing to do for underprivileged children after they have been housed and fed.

What I’m trying to say is that we aren’t Haiti yet. Our government that squanders our tax money on wars and pork barrel spending should be allocating that money instead to see that every American has their basic needs met. Then charity can step in making a difference for people while helping them to climb that ladder out of the pit of poverty.

Do you know that 18,000 Americans a year die from curable diseases because they couldn’t get health care? We have to fix this mess of our inefficient and very expensive health care system. Our health care money is being wasted on CEO perks and high administrative costs. That money needs to be put into single payer universal health care by extending Medicare to all and outlawing the privatization of health care by the insurance industry. Sixty four percent of our health care is paid for by government anyway, using that squandered health care premium money will easily take care of the other thirty six percent. Read more about it at http://www.pnhp.org.

[Gormy Cuss]

1. On the whole I agree with you. It is better to bite the bullet and fund needs through taxes

rather than rely on noblesse oblige or faith-based charity to deal with fundamental needs. Medicare IS the model for national health care. There would still be inequalities in advanced treatment options but basic care and chronic illnesses wouldn't bankrupt anyone.

The Federal government needs to get back in the business of building rental housing for the poor and stop the nonsense of trying to pretend that the private market will supply it and the government need only subsidize it. We've had over 40 years of that experiment -- it failed. Federal initiatives to support home ownership need to take a back seat to provision of basic shelter (not "shelters," shelter like SROs or studio apartments for singles and couples and larger units for families.)

[calimary]

20. I think we need both, AND we should do it with some of our tax money.

I know where we can get 100-THOUSAND bucks A MINUTE: STOP THE WAR AND BRING EVERYBODY HOME!!! THEN, we'd have that 100-thousand bucks A MINUTE to spend on REAL homeland security - making sure our fellow citizens are safe and secure - with a decent place to live, enough food in their bellies, sufficiently warm clothing on their backs, and a sense that somebody out there REALLY DOES care - that we look after each other and take care of one another. THAT, to me, is REAL "Homeland Security." You're NOT gonna have any such thing as long as you've got people described as experiencing "food insecurity."

Furthermore, I heard a conversation I think on Al Franken's show with - I THINK - Norman Orenstein of the gawdawful American Enterprise Institute. He was saying he was starting to change his mind about taxes and spending and paying down the deficit - for this reason only: that sometimes it may not necessarily make sense to pay down the deficit (like Clinton did), because when you do, and you leave a lot of money in the federal coffers, what's to stop the next bozo from coming along and running through it. He said it might make more sense to use that money on, say, national health insurance or something that would really help a lot of Americans, even while it might not be sensible fiscal policy.

I heard this within the last couple of weeks.

[Cleita]

2. ...

[mdmc]

3. welfare

no need for charity

[nam78_two]

4. There is room for both-its not either/or .nt

[Sapphire Blue]

5. SOCIAL JUSTICE vs. CHARITY ...

SOCIAL JUSTICE vs. CHARITY
THROUGH OUR FINGERS
Ronald Stanley, O.P.

"Two men were fishing in a river. Late in the afternoon they started cooking some of the fish they had caught. Suddenly they heard the cries of a man being swept down the river. Immediately the men jumped into the river, swam out to the man, and were gradually able to pull him ashore. As they were on shore catching their breath, they heard the cries of a woman being swept down the river. They jumped back into the water, made their way out to the woman, and slowly brought her to shore. They were exhausted but happy to have saved both people. Then they heard to cries of a child being swept downstream. One of the men started back into the water to get the child; the other held back. "Aren't you going to save the child?" asked the first. "You go get the child," responded the second, "I'm going to go upstream to find out why so many people are falling into the river."

Charity is happy to spend all day pulling victims out of the river. Social justice asks: why are so many people falling into the river? Is there a pathway or a bridge in need of repair? Is there someone throwing people into the river? When there is a pattern of people repeatedly falling victim, social justice seeks to discover and remedy the root causes of the problem.

Charity does the important work of meeting the immediate needs of suffering people, for food, clothing, housing, medicine, etc. Most everyone today approves and praises charity.

Social justice, on the other hand, dares to ask troubling questions: if the earth's resources are meant to meet the needs of all the earth's children, why are 20% of the world's population consuming over 80% of the earth's resources, leaving 80% of the world living in misery? Isn't it only just that the privilege few live more simply, so that the masses might simply live?

(snip)

Our politicians smooth the pathways and bridges of the privileged, to the neglect of the poor. Little wonder then that so many of the poor keep falling into the river. Their falling is not simply an accident. They are not "falling through the cracks." They are falling through our fingers.

Continued @ http://www.ramapo.edu/studentlife/ministry/catholic_Ministry/Articles/social_justice.htm

[bobbolink]

7. Excellent point, and very clear imagery!

Why are so many people *IN* the river?!

Seems like a simple concept... thanks so much for continuuing to press this issue!

yer friend...

:pals: :hug:

bobbolink

[bobbolink]

6. Through some here on DU, I'm learning that the abuses against poor folk

are enabled and exacerbated with "charities". Even I had no idea just how huge a problem it is for poor folk to be treated so badly when they try to get "help".

Thank you so much for bringing up these thoughts! It's so easy to keep doing what we've always done, but it's waaay past time to rethink so much of this.

Having a strong nation depends on us strenghthening "the least of these"!

Thanks, Cleita!

[kineneb]

8. A truly civilized society

takes care of those who are incapable of caring for themselves, whether through accident of birth, lost of income, or illness.

No one in that society should have...
-to die alone, abandoned in a field.
-to impoverish their family to receive medical treatment (been there, am there).
-to watch their children go hungry and homeless.

By any definition, we are not a civilized society, as long as we ignore the poor.

[Bridget Burke]

10. We definitely need to civilize our society...

In the meantime, charities do some good work.

Houston churches were taking in Katrina evacuees before the Feds did squat. Of course, loathesome Second Baptist later tried to dominate the effort--but smaller churches did a good bit of the work at first.

[babylonsister]

9. Great post, Cleita! Can you imagine how much healthier this

country would be if war was taken out of the equation? To have all that money to fix the many ills of our society and to help its citizens is what it should be all about.

[bleedingheart]

11. Studs Terkel wrote about how humliating it was to receive help from

a charity...versus the type of help dispensed by the government...wish I could remember where that came from...

[bobbolink]

21. Yes, pleeeeez! I'd like to know if you can locate that source!

I'm gonna start collecting some of this kind of info.

Most people don't realize just how degrading it can be to try to get "help"

However, I will say that the gov't souces of "help" are also not kind.

Thanks!

[bleedingheart]

23. this isn't Terkel's work but it references him and is a very good read

http://ottawadems.com/fdrspeach.htm

it was a speech given about FDR but it reflects that era and can be applied today

[G_Leo_Criley]

25. thanks bleedingheart ...

for posting the link to that speech given by Paul Murphy, of Grand Valley State University! This is definitely worth reading!

The Repubs have been busy for a long time dismantling the programs brought about by FDR's bold thinking. It's time to take back the issues that have made the Democratic Party the party of the people.

glc

[bobbolink]

28. And, sadly, the Dems have *let* the RW dismantle.

At the time of Raygun, they could have countered the bullshit.

But didn't.

Now the fight is gargantuan.

Do they have it in them?

Not without lots of pushing from grassroots, and there are few who are willing to push.

Thanks for being a "pusher", G_Leo_Criley!!!

:pals:

[G_Leo_Criley]

34. you betcha!

That Raygun Revolution was pretty hard to counter. He was teflon.

Glad to push now! Can't wait. :-)

:pals:

glc

[bobbolink]

35. "Teflon president" ---courtesy of my Rep., Pat Schroeder!

She was soooo cool, and what a wit! This country missed out by not being smart enough to support her in becoming our first woman President!

But, I'm not buying that Dems couldn't have countered Raygun's crap. There were few strong voices like Pat's, so he slid and slipped away. REally, I can't remember really strong voices against that "welfare queen" shit.

Well, back to pushing that rock back up the hill... :) :pals: :)

[bobbolink]

29. Thanks so much for the link!

Got it saved.. some great quotations in there!

:hi:

Please feel free to enter these great nuggets in other poverty posts. :)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

41. Maybe that's why righties are OK with charity

With it, they get to make the recipient feel (more) miserable.

[Cleita]

47. I read a statistic somewhere that conservatives contribute more

to charity than lefties. Now I don't know if it's because they have more money or they like the tax deduction. However, they do prefer charity because it goes along with their concept of small government. In their minds everything should be privatized and thrown to market forces. But they do recognize that many people get lost in pure capitalism and prefer that almsgiving be voluntary. But it's really an inefficient system.

It's like everything else that the conservatives like. They haven't really thought through the ramifications of their ideals.

[truedelphi]

12. Thank U for the interesting discussion

My least favorite charity is The United Way.

Often they campaign for their dough by entering places where low income people toil away at jobs that pay minimum wage. But if you off TUW a fifty dollar donation - TUW will tell your employer to give you a day off w/o pay.

Had a friend who lived in the streets of Eugene OR. Was an amputee and had to be in a wheelchair. Decent wonderful man. I lived in a little cubby hole of a room at the time, or would have directly offered help to him. Tried to get TUW to do something.

"Well, does he have children?"
A - "No."
"Does he have a drinking problem?"
A - "Severe alcoholic at one time Totally sober now."
"Then we can't help him." <pause> "Unless he would choose to have a slip - then we could give him
three months of free housing living while he undergoes rehab."

Winter was approaching. It was getting cold. I approached him with the idea. A tear welled up in his eye.

"And who is to say if I have a "slip" that I will ever get right again?"

I went further up the chain - finally talking to one of the top people at TUW.

In the end, friends in another part of the NorthWest offered to let him stay with them. But fie on these bad charities with their weird protocols.

[mondo joe]

13. United Way doesn't provide direct services - they fund agencies that do.

So I really don't understand your post.

And I really don't get the day off w/o pay line.

[nam78_two]

14. kick.nt

[Ron Green]

15. It takes all three entities:

The Church, the State, the Market.

By Church I mean ALL non-governmental groups that seek to help, without something to sell. Ideally, the Church will give without strings attached, in real charity. The State alone has the power to tax and to move resources where they are needed, and to maintain accountability. The Market encourages personal accountability by requiring money for participation.

If all these facets of our society are healthy and in balance, poor people will be better taken care of. However, both the State and the Church have been bought up by the Market, in the person of multinational corporations. This is where the free-marketers and Libertarians (and anti-Church secularists) have it totally wrong, IMO. A representative government MUST keep the reins on the market, and a truly spiritual and tolerant Church must be allowed to do its good.

[TAPat]

16. Kick! For *obvious* reasons : ) nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. kick

[Jcrowley]

18. Great post

Maybe repost for more exposure at a later date?

In reference to Haiti a black male in Haiti had a longer life-expectancy than a black male in Harlem. I say 'had' as that was before the most recent overthrow of Aristide so I don't know if it sill holds true.

[H2O Man]

19. It is good for

people to make contributions in ways that fit their circumstances .... including their ability, and their belief system.

Our present economic system demands a large underclass. There is a fortune to be made on poverty. Changing that system will take a long-term change of values. Until that time, people of conscience should feed and cloth the poor.

[bobbolink]

22. Not to mention "house" ^_^ along with feed and clothe... ^_^

Thanks for the reminder that this is a long-haul transformation that will be required.

It's too easy to get deeply frustrated.

[calimary]

32. Astounding statement, made all the more astounding by the fact that it's

true. "There is a fortune to be made on poverty." Sheesh...

The wrong people are earning the dividends.

[bobbolink]

33. True, of course.... The other side is, "charity" agencies so often

do more than dispense "help" -- they often do it in ways that are demeaning, and incapacitating.

That is what is so astounding. Until talking about it here, I really had no idea just how pervasive this is.

Jim Wallis speaks to this in "FaithWorks". That book should be the guidebook for agencies.

Plus, recipients of that "help" should also be consulted in how it is run.

"There is a fortune to be made on poverty"

You said a mouthful there!! THere's a whole book in that, just waiting to be written!

:hi:

[Rosemary2205]

24. There's room for both and then some.

Back in the dark ages before welfare or worker's comp - my dad was injured at work and we really struggled. There was about 2 cups of flour left in the house and truly, that's it. One of our neighbors arrived at the door with 2 bags full of groceries and $20 for perishables (that was a lot of money back then) that she had collected from the neighborhood. She rang the doorbell and then ran off real quick but my brother saw her out the window. My mother cried for 3 hours straight in gratitude.

Over the years our neighbors handed off clothes, bedding, curtains etc to my mother that they actually considered rags. My mother was so grateful. She used them to make BEAUTIFUL clothing for us - she used them to make quilts for our beds or that she sold - she used them to make rag rugs for us to to sell.

People who are fortunate enough to recieve charity - even rags - they have a choice. Look at the love and kindness and opportunity with gratitude, or they can be resentful because those rich people are handing me their tattered rags and leftovers.

[Cleita]

30. I'm trying to figure out where you are going with this.

Apparently, people who have a shopping cart or only a car to live out of don't really have a place to make rags into riches, like quilting and making rugs. In my poorer relatives homes right after WWII, I remember my grandmother and aunt recycling their rags into quilts and rugs for their own use.

People today don't really send their neighbors their old clothes and left overs today. I gave my deceased husband's clothes, some of them new, to a homeless shelter only to find out that they sold them in a store instead of distributing them to the needy, which was my intent.

So as you can see, we really need a better system.

[bobbolink]

31. I was wondering that too......

I think a lot of what we were also talking about isn't about people receiving "charity" per se, but what it costs them to do so.

There are so many strings, which is NOT what those neighbors bringing groceries did.

There are also the criticisms and judgements that agencies now feel so compelled to dispense. Those criticisms and judgements drain the recipients' energy, then they get criticised for not having the energy to do more. Such a lovely spiral--downward!

bobbolink, off to make rugs....

[Rosemary2205]

37. Neighbors help each other every day

My own church has a "freestore" in the basement where people can come and get food and clothing and talk to someone that can help them obtain shelter and/or medical care if they need or want it. If your town lacks a decent charity maybe it's time to start one.

Charity doesn't have to be humiliating to the recipient and if a particular organized charity is actually abusive to those coming for help then lets get that out in the open, find out why and stop it. But I guess I'm blind on that really. I don't think of charity as an organization. I think if it as something an individual personally does when they see a need.

[Cleita]

38. My point is that we collectively as citizens should make

services available to those in need through our government and paid with tax dollars without having them rely solely on the generosity of strangers. There may be the day that your church can no longer do this for various reasons, and these people are left in the lurch again.

Charities no matter how well meaning cannot give consistent and equal help across the board like the government can when properly administered and funded. Also, remember that many of those people once had jobs and paid taxes, and if they are given the safety nets they need will probably do so again, so it's a good investment on the part of us more fortunate to help out the least of us in an institutional way.

There was a time that we did just that. You didn't have homelessness up until the 1980s because there were good government programs in place to take care of those who had fallen between the cracks. Charities like the Salvation Army then filled in helping alcoholics and substance abusers on skid row but they didn't have to assume the whole burden like they do now.

Even though maybe an alcoholic might have passed out in the street, a study showed that most of those men actually had rooms they rented to go home to. Republicans changed all of this starting with the Jarvis Ammendment in California that forced thousands of mentally ill and handicapped people on to the streets who were being cared for in institutions paid for by the state. Then this spread nationwide aided by the Reagan/Bush administrations' policies towards the poor.

I'm sorry but your church solution really isn't one. It's just a bandaid.

[Rosemary2205]

39. I said there is room for both.

and IMHO a place for both. There's a place for the government. There's a place for organized charity and there's a place for individual one on one charity. I personally do not see charity as something that is degrading to anyone, or at least it shouldn't be. And if an organized charity is degrading it's recipients then that needs to be well reported and changed. IMHO.

As I replied to the OP, I was saying that IMHO charity recipients have a choice on how to feel about the charity they receive. They can be grateful that it's there to augment government services or they can be resentful that the charity in question didn't make it easy enough or fancy enough. IMHO it's all about mindset.

[Cleita]

40. I believe I said the same in my original post.

It's just that charity cannot provide for the comprehensive needs of those who need help. Their basic needs must be met by, we the people, first whether willingly or unwillingly through taxes.

And there have been posts on this board in other threads where DUers who were homeless or are still homeless have stated some of the humiliation that have had to endure to recieve charity.

Really, even needy people have some pride and really hate the circumstances they have been forced into.

[Rosemary2205]

43. I know this is a really stupid question.

How does a homeless person get internet access? Please excuse me. I'm not making a judgement, I really genuinely don't know. Do homeless shelters have internet?

On humiliation with charity. I've been the recipient of quite a lot of charity. Both from organizations and individuals. I've run into some snippy dogooders who thought a cup of judgement went good with the meals on wheels they brought. I chose to let it go in one ear and out the other and concentrate on being grateful that judgemental person was willing to use up thier own gas to bring me a hot meal when I was still too sick to cook one for myself and my also sick husband. It's just a choice I made and I realize not everyone has the mental ability to make that choice.

[Cleita]

44. The public library. n/t

[G_Leo_Criley]

26. Excellent post Cleita

Thanks for posting this!

We absolutely have it within our means to take care of those in need.

We need to stop this war. We need to stop the corporate looting of America. We need to demand the health care that is our right. We need to have zero people, sleeping on the streets, sleeping in their cars, trying to stay alive on the streets of America.

One of the prime directives of this administration has been to shift the burden of caring for human service needs onto private charities. It's an old trick, and they've set people against each other to get much of the dirty work done. But the jig is just about up.

Looking forward to the 110th Congress, where we'll begin to unravel their foolishness...

glc

[Lone_Star_Dem]

27. Both are needed and they are very different in my eyes

Charity is excellent at helping a person out for a short period of time when a tragedy strikes their life.

Welfare is supposed to provide a comprehensive plan to get that persons life back on track and set them back on their own two feet.

I feel that a problem we're facing in the US now, is that more people think that it's up to charities to to do everything and not the responsibility of the government. This is causing huge gaps in providing those who are in need with the help required to get themselves back into mainstream society.

[shanine]

36. kick

[treestar]

42. In modern times, charities might be organized enough to do it right

If we kept more of the $$ we pay to the government in taxes, we could probably see it better used - and we could keep an eye on the charity better.

I say this not out of not desiring to see the poor helped, but in thinking they would be more efficiently helped by a non-government entity. Having familiarity enough with large government bureaucracies is behind this view. The most absurd things can occur, and no personal judgment gets used, and ultimately, some is needed somewhere. The bureaucrat naturally becomes all about covering his or her butt and has little motive to risk making what some other higher up bureaucrat could label a "mistake."

[Cleita]

45. This is a fallacy that government doesn't do things right that

the no taxes conservatives like you to believe. When a program is administered right the government does the best job with the least cost. Even non-profits can't get the bang for their buck that the government gets because they must spend so much money fund raising. Do you get all these charities begging for donations in the mail? Often they are stuffed with free gifts to get you to give. So much is spent in fund raising that could be spent on the needy.

Social Security and Medicare are two government programs that are run smoothly, reach all the people who are targeted and with the least administrative cost. I have been collecting Social Security for four years now and never have missed a payment on time. When my husband died, his SS stopped immediately. That's how efficient they are. Medicare needs more funding but otherwise my doctor bills are paid without a hitch or argument of the kind you would get from an insurance company trying to deny coverage. Also, I don't have lie bleeding while I make a phone call to get permission to go to the ER. I can go immediately and without hassle.

Imagine if everyone could get Medicare, how much better off we would be. If you go to http://www.pnhp.org, there is a video where Dr. Steffie Whollander explains how it could be funded. It really is so much more cost effective than the bloated privatized system we have today and would cover more comprehensively true medical needs.

Also, charities are only required to spend a third of their donations on the actual charity recipients. Much of the money goes to administrative costs especially bloated executive salaries. It's big business really. Yes, I know there are those honest charities out there, but they cannot really cover the genuine needs of our citizens who have sunk into poverty due to unfortunate circumstances.

Step away from the corporate propaganda for awhile and study Government programs and see how they operate more efficiently than hit and miss charities and how they can be destroyed by politicians handing money to corporations and cutting taxes for the rich that cover many of these programs.

[AlienAvatar]

46. I can't agree

more. You've said it all and just about as well as it could've been said. Bravo to you for making this post.

Your kind of attitude is so sane, and it's a crying shame that it's at all controversial.

[Cleita]

48. Welcome to DU.

:toast:

[AlienAvatar]

52. Thanks

I've been here years ago as sammythecat with 200+ posts. I thought my identity went out the window when DU changed their format or upgraded 2 or 3 yrs ago. I'd been lurking ever since. Just today it was pointed out to me that my old identity is still here. It was a real surprise to me. I'll have to think about going back to the old or keeping the new. If I keep the new I'll add a signature explaining that I'm not all that new.
I've already been rebuffed by someone because of my low post number. I completely understand that because, after all, if my post count is 4 how could I possibly have anything intelligent to contribute? I must be stupid, 8 years old, or else a freeper. That's just comnmon sense to some.
That just happened once. My post count now I think is 17 and almost half have been me thanking someone for welcoming me. I really, really, appreciate that.
If I keep this identity I'll definitely add some info with a sig line.

[Nikia]

49. My conservative grandparents were a big fan of charity

Because they felt that charitable giving encouraged civic responsibility without coercion (taxation) and that the giver could freely choose how much to give and where to give. They felt that forced giving (taxation) minimized the gift and that many charities appropriated the money better than the government. I have heard this arguement in various forms from mostly Liberatarians. I have always felt that they were wrong, although their arguement sounded good in some ways.
A few years ago, reading my hometown newspaper, I saw that this could not work all the time. The article was about how charitable giving at the main food pantry in town was down and that demand for services was up. It occurred to me that there were probably lots of other areas like that. Poor people relying on charity only works in prosperous areas with generous people. Government must provide some help.
I have also heard the arguement that the government should provide everything that a person would need for survival. A more radical of my friend said with no eligibility forms required. His point was that eligibility determinated may be a barrier to some because they are unable or unwilling to fill out the forms, that reviewing the forms costs money than it saves, and that strict elgibility criteria excludes some that need help and discourages them from getting jobs that are a little better (Someone getting aid at $7.00/hour might lose it if they take a job for $9/hour and overall might be worse off in having their needs met). Some charities are now helping these marginally inelgible people.

[Iris]

50. Interesting observations, Nikia. I once worked in a charity league thrift shop

and was dismayed at how great people seemed to feel while donating items that were for the most part worthless. Then, if they went into the store and found items they donated on sale for prices that people who shop thrift stores would be willing or able to pay, they complained. I think donating to charities is fine and good, but I also think that it creates an atmosphere in which the rich believe the lower classes should be grateful for anything they get. And then it's not really about charity but about making yourself feel better.

oh and thanks for the thoughtful, and thought provoking, post! :hi:

[LWolf]

51. Both and neither.

A right to adequate health care and housing, social programs to provide food, heat, etc. when necessary.

Charity as an individual action for individuals, not as an organized solution.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

53. Don't expect help from any religious group

I've asked several churches and a synagogue to help me find a job in the past. NOT CHARITY, but a job. Even volunteered to work there for a certain number of hours for free in lieu of membership dues.


Couldn't get any assistance. Wouldn't have cost them a dime.

[otherlander]

54. What about the AFSC?

[otherlander]

55. Neither.

Welfare and charity- the way I'm thinking of them, anyway, welfare being government-provided and charity being privately provided - can both deteriorate into relief of symptoms. And it seems to me that what's needed is to guard against outsourcing from developed nations, protect growing industries in developing nations, make sure jobless people have their basic needs met and are helped to find jobs again, and gain living wages for all people.

:waits for laughter to stop:

And I think that such reforms can come from the government or from outside of it. Socialist governments seem to work for some countries. Capitalism can work with changes like the ones FDR started to make, and LBJ, for all the other things he did wrong, tried to continue. But people, too, can help each other back onto their feet. Unions, if strong enough and not corrupt, can organize and kick corporate ass. So I guess what I'm saying is, not charity. Not welfare. Justice.