Do the poor have any responsibility ?

[Bro. Curtis]

Or are the go-getters biblically obliged to meet their every need ?

I say people are responsible for themselves, and should trust in God, not the government, when they get in trouble. I believe the truly needy should be cared for, but a family that's been on welfare for three generations are not truly needy, they are lazy.

How do we seperate the needy from the lazy ? Should people who have to shell out money to care for both ?

 

[exscentric]

Hey what party are you gunna run for pres under :thumbs:

" How do we seperate the needy from the lazy?" In broad sweeping terms that the opposition seems to like, the needy are thankful and the lazy want more.

"Should people who have to shell out money to care for both ?" No

A possible ref for consideration in forming a principle: II Thess. 3.10 "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work , neither should he eat . 11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work , and eat their own bread. 13 But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. 14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet count [him] not as an enemy, but admonish [him] as a brother."

 

[JustChristian]

Or are the go-getters biblically obliged to meet their every need ?

I say people are responsible for themselves, and should trust in God, not the government, when they get in trouble. I believe the truly needy should be cared for, but a family that's been on welfare for three generations are not truly needy, they are lazy.

How do we seperate the needy from the lazy ? Should people who have to shell out money to care for both ?

President Clinton reformed welfare.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/welfare.htm


Welfare's Changing Face
By Dan Froomkin
Washingtonpost.com Staff
Updated July 23, 1998
Welfare as we knew it no longer exists.
The 61-year American tradition of guaranteeing cash assistance to the poor came to an end with the signing of legislation in August 1996.
Under the old system, founded during the Great Depression, the federal government provided fairly uniform benefits to the nation's poor – mostly mothers and children – without regard to the details of their personal circumstances, and with no time limit.
But over time, the system became increasingly unpopular. Political opinion turned against the idea of anyone getting rewarded for being idle. Social critics said welfare was responsible for a permanent underclass of people living off government checks because the incentives to go to work were so weak.
Now, a federal system that was once fairly consistent has been turned over to the states, where programs are diverging widely. And it is far from clear whether the poor will be better or worse off.

The New System
The welfare "reform" of the Clinton era consists of two major elements: a revolutionary change in the basic goals set by the federal government; and a dramatic "devolution" of responsibility – turning what used to be a federal, centralized system over to the states.
Reflecting the new federal mission, welfare rules now:
• Require most recipients to work within two years of receiving assistance,
• Limit most assistance to five years total, and
• Let states establish "family caps" to deny additional benefits to mothers for children born while the mothers are already on public assistance.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

So how's that working out ? Every pundit I read says it's a complete failure.

 

[JustChristian]

So how's that working out ? Every pundit I read says it's a complete failure.

Do you have hard information other than "every pundir?" What has Bush done by the way?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Why bring Bush into it ? I thought Clinton fixed it ? And do your own research. Google Clinton welfare reform failure, it'll give you hours of reading.

Back to the O/P, do the poor have any responsibility to help themselves ? Could God provide for them, thru other believers, without the Govt ? And would increased taxes mean less charitable donations, and actually hurt the poor ? Would a government office be a better steward of gift money than a real charity ?

And should how people became poor be a factor in the redistribution of wealth ? Should some get more than others ?

 

[Ps104_33]

There are some people that simply just dont want to work for a living. I know some and I am sure that you all do also. These are the ones that do not feel sorry for. I remember one time when I was a member of a church in Philadelphia Pa. a man would come to the church just to ask for money. Claimed that he was homeless, jobless. down on his luck, you know. The church would give him money to eat, get a motel room for a day or two so he could shower and get a good night s sleep. One day when he came to the church for money my pastor asked him if he could do some painting for him. Can you guess the ending to this story? We never saw him again. If you want to get rid of a beggar, offer him a little work to do. When you see a man with two good arms and two good legs standing on a street corner claiming that; " Will work for food", call him out on it.
At the same time there are many single moms trying to make it on $10.00 an hour and a dead-beat "father" somewhere who genuinely need help. Some dont have family that will help them. What do we do with them?

 

[carpro]

President Clinton reformed welfare.

:laugh: Under duress.

 

[rbell]

For those who fraudulently obtain welfare...restitution and repentance are the Biblical solutions.

What about this verse...

Ephesians 4:28--
"He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need."

 

[Salty]

How do we separate the needy from the lazy ? Should people who have to shell out money to care for both ?

Very simple. Virtually everyone who receives handouts (lets not confuse that with benefits) should work for them. Even if it is something simple like picking up trash around govt bldgs, answering a phone and ect. You refuse something simple, no check - period.

Of course we could also require a drug test - wait we don't even require that of our soldiers - do we

 

[StefanM]

Very simple. Virtually everyone who receives handouts (lets not confuse that with benefits) should work for them. Even if it is something simple like picking up trash around govt bldgs, answering a phone and ect. You refuse something simple, no check - period.

Of course we could also require a drug test - wait we don't even require that of our soldiers - do we

It's not that simple. For example, a single mother could receive subsidized child care to help her while she works for a living. What good would it do to require her to do additional work for which she would have to obtain additional child care? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose?

I am a big fan of giving strong preference to education. I wouldn't mind providing free child care, free health coverage, and free education for a single mother to obtain a credential sufficient to get her a good paying job that could support her family.

We're much better off paying more up-front to get someone an education than we are to just demand that they do work for the sake of doing work. If we can use education to lift the parent to a higher economic status, then the child will be more likely to succeed in the future. If we perpetually give out funds without incentive for education or if we demand that they take a dead-end job just to be working, we run the risk of having to do the same thing again with the next generation.

 

[chuck2336]

Of course we could also require a drug test - wait we don't even require that of our soldiers - do we

I am not sure if you were being serious or not, but the military does require random drug testing. We called operation golden flow! :laugh:

 

[Salty]

I am not sure if you were being serious or not, but the military does require random drug testing. We called operation golden flow! :laugh:

At HQ MATCOM back in 1974 I was the Gold Flow NCO!

 

[Salty]

It's not that simple. For example, a single mother could receive subsidized child care to help her while she works for a living. What good would it do to require her to do additional work for which she would have to obtain additional child care? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose?

At least she is working. I am talking about folks who refuse to work at all and believe they are entitled to free govt assistance.

Salty

PS, just wondering, why did you use the example of a single mother, what about single fathers?

 

[dragonfly]

:laugh: Under duress.

Why do you say Clinton reformed welfare under duress?

 

[JustChristian]

Why bring Bush into it ? I thought Clinton fixed it ? And do your own research. Google Clinton welfare reform failure, it'll give you hours of reading.

Back to the O/P, do the poor have any responsibility to help themselves ? Could God provide for them, thru other believers, without the Govt ? And would increased taxes mean less charitable donations, and actually hurt the poor ? Would a government office be a better steward of gift money than a real charity ?

And should how people became poor be a factor in the redistribution of wealth ? Should some get more than others ?

Do you know any poor people? Maybe in your church? In my previous church there was a middle aged man who was disabled from a fall he suffered on concrete. He used to earn a quarter of a million $ a year but everything he had had gone to save his life through one operation after another. He is on Medicaid and Social Security because he is permanently disabled. He was black. I suppose you would characterize him as just another black person living off your precious money.You would give him nothing. I gave him money when he needed it. Remind you of a story in the Bible?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Do you know any poor people? Maybe in your church? In my previous church there was a middle aged man who was disabled from a fall he suffered on concrete. He used to earn a quarter of a million $ a year but everything he had had gone to save his life through one operation after another. He is on Medicaid and Social Security because he is permanently disabled. He was black. I suppose you would characterize him as just another black person living off your precious money.You would give him nothing. I gave him money when he needed it. Remind you of a story in the Bible?

Your self piety is beginning to sicken me. Christianity is not a competitive sport, as far as I know, and how dare you tell me what I would give, or what I would do, in any situation. The bible also tells some pretty grim tales about those who brag about their charity. In fact, I formally accuse you of giving for show, and to exalt yourself above others.

Repent, Baptistbeliever. Repent.

 

[dragonfly]

Your self piety is beginning to sicken me. Christianity is not a competitive sport, as far as I know, and how dare you tell me what I would give, or what I would do, in any situation. The bible also tells some pretty grim tales about those who brag about their charity. In fact, I formally accuse you of giving for show, and to exalt yourself above others.

Repent, Baptistbeliever. Repent.

What a hypocritical thing to say!

You rail about Baptistbeliever not knowing what you give and then you accuse him of giving for show. Are you clairvoyant or are you just being your lovable self? Again, how hypocritical!

 

[StefanM]

At least she is working. I am talking about folks who refuse to work at all and believe they are entitled to free govt assistance.

Salty

PS, just wondering, why did you use the example of a single mother, what about single fathers?

Oh, ok. I'm with you, then.

I think it should be applicable to single fathers as well. Statistically, though, single mothers raising children are more common.

 

[Andy T.]

I gave him money when he needed it. Remind you of a story in the Bible?

Yes, as a matter of fact, that does remind me of a story in the Bible (Matthew 6:1-4):

1 “Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly." - Jesus