«

»

Feb 23

Is Welfare Just?

Taking care of the needy:  it is a command of God to every compassionate man’s heart.  God requires His people to give to the needy widow, orphan, and foreigner.  Anyone with a modicum of humanity recognizes the mandate to take care of the needy people in his own sphere.  Do you?  I do.

But now let us look to the role of the welfare system.

It does not take a genius to recognize that there is an American caste of welfare dependency.  If it were simply that people chose dehumanizing beggarhood over self-sufficiency and preferred unceasing adolescence over adult personal responsibility, one might simply sadly allow this to proceed – it is a free country.  But this cultural prison of ignorance and depression is encouraged (dare I say imposed?) by those who benefit politically by the codependency of this welfare system.  Liberal government is driven by politicians who want the government to be the big daddy provider for the needy, and big daddy liberal government pimps the needy for their votes, abusing their humanity, enticing and/or forcing them to remain unfulfilled and beholden by their difficult-to-escape welfare policies, pretending to care while providing the solution of an abortion center in every neighborhood.

Did you know that minimum wage laws reduce the numbers of low-end jobs?  (Take microeconomics 101 and you can easily prove it.)  Minimum-wage laws say unequivocally that we would rather dehumanize you by taking away your job than allow you to work your way up, that we would rather give you free money (which would be less than minimum wage) than let you work for less than minimum wage.  “We want to dehumanize you.”  This is not justice, but it does promote a welfare codependency culture between the government and the poor.

Did you know that our laws make it difficult for people who want to better their condition to do so legally?  Make too much money and your benefits are cut off.  Better not try a job you might be able to do, because if you do, you will lose your disability status forever.  Wouldn’t it be better to structure things that would motivate someone to try to move ahead?  How could it possibly make good sense for a government to cut off benefits for someone trying to work his way out of dependency?  Only if that is where your political power comes from.  This is not justice.

Did you know that putting together a nuclear family – a stable, ordered home in which to raise the children – puts the needy at risk of losing benefits?  So our government financially encourages people to live together without commitment, to lie about their situation, and to teach their children to do the same.  This, in spite of the clear and mounting evidence that demonstrates that children have less success emotionally, educationally, socially, and economically when raised in single-parent homes.  I see: let’s invest in generations of downtrodden to maintain our liberal power through the decades!  This is not justice.

Did you know that the government fights against the entrepreneurs among the needy?  Yes, I am referring to the pimps and drug dealers.  What other opportunities can the downtrodden access?  First, the opportunity has to be under the table so that benefits are not at risk.  Second, the males that cannot get additional free money by having additional dependents need to be able to profit.  Third, the opportunity must be associated with a product that the “haves” would be willing to purchase from the “have nots” which can’t be stocks or high-end products or food or any other good thing.  So we provide them with lucrative illegal business opportunity and then put them in jail for it whenever we get a chance.  By providing the monetary incentives, we can surely destroy the moral fiber of the needy and perpetuate our liberal codependency through the generations.  This is not justice.

Please don’t give me your snide liberal “you conservatives look down at them” crap.  I serve these people.  I care for these people.  I could help these people more than they will let me right now.  But you liberals want to keep them on the dole and therefore down-and-out.

I believe that individuals have a responsibility to reach out to the less fortunate.  So I do that.  Conservatives generally do much more of this than liberals.  Liberals want to reach out to the less fortunate with other peoples’ money and leverage that money to maintain liberal influence.  The government is not the ideal entity to provide for the needs of the needy; according to the Mosaic law, it should be the people and the church.  Currently, neither the church nor the people are in a position to do it, and the governmental codependence is in the way.

Realistically, the government should not just cut off these programs.  But neither should we simply perpetuate this evil system – there are obvious better ways and ways we could make dramatic positive impact within months.  I will write on that later.  But the big daddy liberals don’t want to lose the votes when someone moves out of dependency into the satisfaction of personal responsibility and self-sustenance.  The system serves to perpetuate the system at the expense of the downtrodden.  This welfare system is not justice – social welfare as it currently operates in the US is oppression and injustice.

6 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. George

    Pearle Plowman commented:
    If the church and christians would step up we wouldn’t need welfare. It is not ideal, but what would happen to all the unfortunate if there wasn’t some sort of help available? There are those who abuse it as is in the case of almost everything. Just my opinion..

    My response:
    Thank you for commenting, and in a sense, I totally agree with you, but it is actually the other way around: the government needs to phase out its efforts so that the church and other organizations can be the go-to bunch. I do not think that this can happen over night. There are too many people dependent on the government. But it needs to begin to happen.

    The purpose of the article above is to recognize that the government’s role in the various welfare systems is not without its hooks. The reality is that there are portions of the government with a selfish and self-perpetuating motivation to maintain people on welfare. And they do such a great job of keeping people on welfare that there is very little the church can do for most people!

    The church’s role should not be to maintain people on welfare, but to help people become self-sufficient. God’s purpose for each person is to make him not only able to take care of his own, but to fill his cup so full that it overflows into other people’s lives. That needs to be our goal too.

    But that is not the current system’s goal. The only way to make the transition that you suggest is to gradually get the government out of the way — and in particular to get the government to do what should have been done all along: to help people become self-sufficient and not codependent on a government which is motivated to keep people in the slavery of dependence.

    Please keep up the comments, and feel free to argue — I need your perspective!

  2. Jocelyn

    Could we address the issue of someone who is looking to get off of Social Services and get on their own feet. Is there a way that the church could be of value to that individual now, without the support of government? I have such a friend that I want with all my heart to help, but she seems stuck. So I was thinking it would be good for her to get into an apprenticeship type program, but this morning I was reminded of something they did back in the old country. They had journeymen. These men went from one job to another (traveling and living in all different places) to learn a trade and became “Experts” in their fields. Is that a possibility with a little support from those of us willing to help? Now we don’t have to travel so far to get started. Moving from one company to anther. Maybe just spending a little time helping someone with resumes and teaching them how to sell themselves? Pulling strings and giving them references or even encouragement to step forward? Is that doable?

  3. George

    I like your question, Jocelyn. “How can we help?”

    First, we need to work together to reduce liberal government. I know that you want something more immediate, but we (ALL OF US) need to understand that liberal government in general – government that promotes socialism by ever-increasing social programs – and our liberal governments in particular are motivated to keep people dependent on welfare and disability. We must recognize that this is very basic human injustice, and educate our friends and neighbors in this arena.

    Secondly, you are asking a relevant question: “What can be done by individuals or groups to help people right now?” In a future post, I will propose a better government solution and an interim solution to move the government’s relationship with the needy to a healthier place.

    But the questions even before your question is “what needs to be done?”

    Your suggestion above partly answers this question… but let’s put our heads together as a community and get the broader questions asked, and then let’s see how these questions can be answered. What does someone on welfare or disability need? What does s/he need in order to find a place of self-sufficiency and the satisfaction that this entails? In what ways could people help?

    I see three general categories in what you said:

    1) Opportunity: A person needs these opportunities: To work (e.g. a job that is within the scope of a person’s capabilities, and possibly transportation to work). To receive additional education and/or training and/or start-up financing. To provide for his own needs and his family’s while this occurs. To improve her financial situation. To create a buffer for the emergencies of life.

    Each of these is difficult in its own right. And certainly, if many of these things had been in place, we would not have needed the help the government offered.

    2) Enculturation: You talk about teaching someone how to do resumes or sell themselves better. Those are parts of a much larger issue. The reality is, often people need to learn a different culture because the culture of the working successful is often not looking to hire someone with the value systems or communication skills of the dependency culture. That is a hard statement, and certainly overly generalized, but there remains some truth in it. Certainly anyone can get an entry-level job and retain the culture of dependency, but then only barely earn a living, and maybe not keep the job. Continual success rarely comes without knowing how and when to take risk, how to positively deal with and even grow from failure, how to use the influence of humility and respect, how to acquire and leverage valuable relationships, etc., and some of these are missing in many cultures of dependency.

    3) Encouragement and Motivation: I know of numerous people who would like to get out of the cycle, but are afraid to, or have tried and failed too many times. People do need encouragement… And motivation: if a person can do just as well on the government program, then why deal with the hassle at all?

    Are there other categories? Don’t like mine? Want to add something? Then comment!

    1. Lanz

      The alternative is foederm and voluntary charity, and that is a much more compelling argument than the false dilemma/scare tactic of accepting forced redistribution or chaos. One thing that is always left out in that false either-or scenario is the unseen cost of government in everything as we have it now. Strip away much of the unconstitutional role(s) the government has taken on – such as income redistribution – and costs of many things will plummet. At the same time, $4 trillion in lost GDP would instead be an additional $4 trillion in an active economy that employs people. Employment and wealth creation is a much more powerful force for social mobility and poverty elimination than any government program or even private charity (not to mention that there would be more individual wealth available for charitable donation and fewer people in need, magnifying the effect).

  4. MTB

    you have to go through an aienrtatlve organization, I only said private charity – that can be just you (in fact, it always is, because organization or no, the source is private and so is the choice). But there’s one major difference that makes all of the difference between the halves of your dichotomy that’s worth pointing out: if a charity wastes my money on exorbitant salaries, frivolous publications, etc., I can make sure they don’t get any of it. If the government does that, I go to jail if I try to make sure they don’t get any of my money. The point isn’t costs and benefits, actually. It’s choice. I don’t have any choice at all when it comes to government redistribution; I have a gun pointed at my head. Consequently, that’s why the title of the book is what it is.

    1. Simbarashe

      That’s a sutble way of thinking about it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>