How sad all this is. drug test everyone on Federal programs and all the
politicians and most of the problems will go away.
So many of the comments are right on.The Federal Government is flat wrong.The
one thing I did not read in the comments was drug testing for all Federal
programs.As far as that goes all federal employes should be made to take monthly
drug tests.The private sector does it!. If All these programs were temporary
except for special circumstances more people would work their way back into
society. The unfortunate thing about these programs is that they take away
incentive and our integrity. So 1) should change to short term benefits 2) drug
Mark, I'm having a really hard time understanding your justification of our
current welfare model. We have stranded generation upon generation on welfare,
quelling life affirming motivation to excellence and achievement. Do you think
that was the goal of the Savior? The fact that you liberals on these posts have
the temerity to defend this blood sucking leviathan is beyond the pale. I
don't think any of you will be satisfied until we're all considered
poor. But, I guess, that just might be your goal. Sure seems to be the goal of
the current resident in the white house....
Worf...I'm curious? What was the tax rate in the
50's/during the Eisenhower Administration?
So, the war on poverty has been at best a push. Whats next?
Determining the war on cancer, drugs, & terrorism are smoke and mirrors as
well? at lost in DC 7/11 8:59 pAnd in voting for Mitt,
we can keep making sure that the 1% are well cared for & exacerbating the
current situation for the rest of us.
LDSCedar City, UT,Success is not a negative as it's being
presented by our leaders.Yes we help the poor and needy, but not the
idle. Please quit miss interpreting the scriptures.A sixteen
trillion dollar debt is because of corrupt leadership, not greedy citizens
holding to the fruits of their labors.
@Too -- Through the ages people actually did starve when they had to rely on the
kindness of their neighbors. It works for neighbors to help each other when
the needs are relatively small (a few meals, some day care, a little bit of rent
money, etc.), but what about when needs are more drastic. For example, payment
for cancer treatments, payment of rent long term because someone is disabled,
etc. How do you propose to care for those people without doing it collectively,
through our elected representatives (i.e. the government)? I think sometimes
people focus on the "welfare queens" or some story of how someone was
ripping off the system and forget that there really are people who need help,
and sometimes that needed help is just too large for the neighbors to provide.
Poverty rate of 15 percent? Then why so many on the dole, and half our people
don't pay income taxes? Why do our children need to be fed at school? Why
unemployment at over eight percent and many with low pay?Wasn't
like that in the 1960's. We've been lied to scammed.
All this religious talk about what Jesus would or wouldn't do to justify
bad behavior and greed only goes to show that religion and government are the
same thing. They are there for those who can't tell the difference between
right and wrong and therefore need a set of rules written down with punitive
actions either now or later as a threat to behave like a human.Christ wrote nothing and only gave ONE rule, but that's to simple to ask
people to treat others as they would want to be treated. People like many above,
need to justify treating others poorly as they quest for their version of the
Golden rule, Thank You religion
If you want to increase poverty don't graduate from high school and have
children outside of marriage. Looks like those things are working.
I was surprised that Mitt hit the nail on the head at the NAACP.
Your chance of being poor are 77% if you don't graduate from high school
and have a child before you are married. Your children will not do as well in
school and life if you are a single parent.
Too, Okay, fine, and like I said: Religions and charities, get on
the ball and start taking care of the needs of the poor and we can get
government out of the picture. Don’t just talk, get it done. I’d be
happy to let you guys do it. Just get it done. But, you’re not, are you?
And I don’t expect you to do it yourself (don’t be
silly, you might want to read Matt. 6:2-4., though). But you claim religions and
charities can do it, then they need to get it done, because people are starving.
And I realize that there are charitable and religious people out there working
hard, but they really don’t have the resources. In the USA if
we removed all government assistance to the poor, people would be starving in
the streets here. If religions are truly willing to take on all the needs of the
poor then do it. But they aren’t, are they? Maybe you guys
should look at these: Ezek. 22:29,31; Is. 10:1-3.; Jer. 5:28f.
We need to understand the Church's welfare assistance process.Church welfare recipients must first seek and obtain assistance from State and
Federal programs. And Family assistance is also necessary.Then
after these sources are utilized and the needy require additional help, then the
Church program provides limited assistance.The underlying principal
here is that we live in a country that is governed by Judeo-Christian principles
of caring for the poor. The governmental welfare systems are an essential part
of the web of care we all depend on one way or another.Our taxes are
used for defense, law enforcement, environmental protection, education,
infrastructure, health research and science and many other purposes for our
benefit.Government welfare assistance is part of all those important
programs the various levels of governments provide.And the Church
expects us to support and use those webs to protect, educate and provide for
each other.It really is a Divinely inspired Constituional
It seems that Jesus was correct when he said, "The poor you have with you
Re: mark Salt Lake City, UT"Have you given everything you have to the
poor, Too? Are you a Christian?""Give a man a fish and you
feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." -
Chinese ProverbJesus never taught that it was OK take from the man
who worked for his money and give it to the man who was to lazy to support
It is silly to evaluate programs for seniors and people with disabilities as if
the goal of those programs was to turn them into millionaires. Of
course, nothing can compete with Cato's Soylent Green plan when it comes to
The Old Testament is probably the worst book to use for examples of
compassion.Judges 19:22-30For some reason, Christians
love to jump back to the Old Testament to justify their beliefs, but ignore
Jesus' socialistic ideals in the New Testament. How do so many
people misinterpret the following scripture?Mark 10:21 "Then
Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy
way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have
treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me."If Jesus came today, many of us would not be considered Christian!
LDSWhen Jesus said to care for the poor, I don't recall him
speaking to the Government and telling them to compell the citizens to socialize
the funding of the poor. I thought he was speaking to individuals about having
compassion for the poor and voluntarily giving of their own personal means to
care for those in need. All of Jesus's teachings that I have read seem to
be about changing my personal heart towards compassion. Personal voluntary
compassion to help the poor is much different than government involuntary
compulsion to help the poor. We all have an responsibility to help the poor, I
prefer my moral duty as taught by Jesus as opposed to my compelled obligation as
required by government. Perhaps it's the same money out of my pocket, but
one builds my character, makes me feel good and gives me the opportunity to help
those I see in need. The other way brings no such feelings or satisfaction.
Mark,familiar with the Old Testament? You know the story of
Joseph who was sold into Egypt? Of the seven years of fat and seven years of
lean?Read the story again, and note that during the 7 years of lean,
Joseph did not just give food to the people, he sold it to them. And when they
ran out of money, he had them pledge assets to borrow to buy the food. All this
was done so the people would not become dependent on the govenrment, but would
realize they were responsible for themselves. Otherwise, in year 8 they would
have shown up at the steps of the royal grainery demanding to be fed, because
that is what they had become accustomed to during the prior 7 years.If you esteem Joesph to have been inspired, you would expect what he did to be
in line with what Christ would teach a couple thousand years later.in other words, help the poor to help themselves. The infirm, diabled we will
always have, and we SHOULD provide for them, but we should NOT make the
able-bodied dependent. It hurts them MORE than it hurts us.
Folks we have not even begun to see the fallout from all this misplaced
“compassion” for poverty that has only increased it! Wait until we
are forced to correct it!
Poverty will always be with us. By definition, poverty includes those on the
lower tier of the income scale, no matter what their income is. How we chose to
deal with poverty is a reflection on the quality of the culture, its people and
institutions. We can do better. Where this article goes wrong is in its
assumption that our welfare programs were designed to end poverty. They were
designed to assist those in the lower income bracket have the basic necessities
for life which include food, housing, health care and education and help many
get into a position where they no longer need this assistance.
MarkTalk about taking things WAY out of context. You really expect
me to feed 6 billion people? I know there are obviously people starving, I
never denied that. But yes, I do give lots to the poor. Obviously I
can't give EVERYTHING. My wife and I made 13K last year--of that, 3K went
to charitable organizations, 7K went to school. We lived off of 3K. I'm sure when you were a newly-wed you were able to afford to give
everything, but I can't. I give what I can, and that's all Christ
expects. Libs are so high in their own eyes that they can't accept the
fact that conservatives really do give--when they can, what they can. That is
the true teaching of Christ. He didn't force anything from anyone. Yet I
have to pay what I can PLUS what the Government thinks I can afford.
Christlike? More like demonic.
CottageCheese asks: . . . would Jesus keep feeding them? I hope thats an obvious
answer. Yes, the answer is obvious, of course He would feed them.
Why in the world do you think He wouldn’t?Mt. 5:42. Give to
him who asks of you. . .Luke 3:11. "Let the man with two tunics
share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise."Is. 58:66ff. . . . divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless
poor into the house; when you see the naked, to cover him. . .Deut.
15:7. . . .you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor
brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him
sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.Ezek. 16:49ff.
"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had
arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and
needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I
removed them when I saw it."There are no loopholes, no strings
attached, He never asks WHY someone is poor. Why are you?
Article title: "Study: $15 Trillion In Welfare Spending Since 1964 Has Had
Little Impact" News flash: conservatives have known this since
at least 1975.(and some of us around here new it would not work even
BEFORE Lyndon Johnson started his so-called 'Great Society')
Conservatives don't have compassion. Dogmatic liberals don't have
competence (and they probably aren't even compassionate either, consider
Obama's black list for political enemies and his hit list of terrorists).
We need a new liberalism. Jack Kemp (a Republican senator from New York)
described himself as being a bleeding heart conservatives. We need bleeding
Mark...If the multitude found out that there was free food every
night out at the mount - and quit working to provide their own... would
Jesus keep feeding them?I hope thats an obvious answer. PLUS youre taking that story out of context. The multitude wasnt fed because
they had nothing... They were fed because they had lefy their homes to follow
Jesus and hear his teachings. Having left their own food and resources they
grew hungry and Jesud fed them. There
LDSI think you are confusing Jesus, who asked individuals to give of
their own free will, and using their own good judgement, with Robin Hood, who
robbed from the rich to give to the poor so he would be popular with the people
and become famous.
"Do you really think that we are going to let people starve? Do you think I
would let my family or neighbors die of hunger? "But you are.
People are starving, Too. And we are letting them. Your neighbors are starving.
Children are starving. Oh, wait a second, you mean only your immediate
neighbors, right. You aren't talking about all of God's children
around the world, are you? Just Americans. That live next to you. Ah, of
course. Well tell you what, why don't all you charitable people and
religions get on the ball and start taking care of the needs of all the poor and
we can get government out of it. Hurry up, they are waiting. You say
Jesus didn't give handouts? What Bible do you read? The one I know says
that Jesus fed the multitudes. And he asked for nothing, absolutely nothing, to
do it. He gave them a handout. The Jesus I know said for the rich to give
everything they have to the poor. Everything. No strings attached. Give it to
them, a handout, Too. Have you given everything you have to the
poor, Too? Are you a Christian?
NO! You mean that wealth redistribution doesn't work?!Exactly...
NO EFFECT?I don't think so.By creating a dependent
underclass and destroying the black family (now over 70% of black children are
born to single mothers because welfare requirements at one time said there could
not be a father in the home in order to receive payment) all that welfare
spending has had a horrible, devastating, and long-lasting NEGATIVE effect.
Well, in the new normal world of today's Democrat party, the reason it has
had little impact is because we have not spent NEARLY enough money on these
programs. As Vice President Biden pointed out, "We have to spend to keep
from going bankrupt." And along this line, the agency that administers the
food stamp program is now advertising on the radio so that more people will take
advantage of the program because only about 60% of those eligible are using the
program.This is the new normal. Trillions in debt with plans to
spend much more. Higher taxes for EVERYONE. 8% unemployment. Fewer people
looking for work. More people depending on the federal government. This is
Barack Obama's 'fundamentally changed' America. If we elect him
again, this IS how it's going to be permanently.
I have observed the college married students taking advantage of government
assistance. Many of them have families who spend thousands of dollars on
weddings and receptions, baby clothes and furniture, even furniture for the
couples apartment and travel to and from family events. The family will pay for
all those things that are not available through welfare to make life fun and
comfortable, yet they do not pay for the necessities for their children. The
parents have learned how to work the system quite well in the U.S. This allows
the students to take out minimum loans to attend college. Government welfare
has been used not only today for college students, it was used back in the early
70's too. It could be called generational welfare in planned situations
passed on from parent to child.
Before commenting further on the welfare issue, let me first acknowledge that
there are many, many different reasons why people find themselves below the
poverty level whether it's within the United States or elsewhere in the
world. We will always have those who need help because they simply cannot
adequately do for themselves. I acknowledge that and I accept that. That said,
however, we SHOULD NOT be supporting (on a long-term basis) those individuals
who CAN do for themselves but who refuse to do so. We have four basic
categories of people who are getting help: 1) Those who face genuine long-term
health, age and/or mental/physical challenges which make it impossible for them
to live without help; 2) Those who need help on a short-term basis due to
temporary factors such as unemployment, divorce, health challenges; 3) Those who
have decided that being supported by the government (think redistribution of
wealth) is just grand because it enables them to live an easy lifestyle; and 4)
Those whom the Supreme Court calls "Undocumented Aliens" who seem to
have the best of both worlds. Needless to say, defunding 3 and 4 should be our
DN should tell us what percentage of these numbers occurred under Obama's
watch. It is not government's job to care for the needy. It is just
another excuse to pick the pockets of the working class. And if liberals
continue to get their way with our money, we will not always have the working
class among us.
Most if not all of the money spent by the government on welfare programs ends up
in the pockets and bank accounts of the people who sponsored the legislation
that created the welfare programs. The notion that the people of poverty had
any hand in the creation of welfare programs is silly. And so is the notion
that government itself profited.Every action taken by the government
through legislation, regulation and even the preemption of war is done at the
behest of private commercial business owners. Not that that’s
any thing new, governments have be operating under the thumb of business since
the beginning. America promised a new sharing of the wealth of humanity, but
over the years business has caused our government to default on those promises.
Since the 1960s and LBJ's so called War On Poverty, the taxpayers of this
country transferred over $16 Trillion of their hard earned money to the poor and
low income through means tested welfare programs. We have over 70 such
programs. We now have a huge poverty problem and are $15 Trillion in debt. I
guess all that giving didn't work out very well. Maybe we should try
giving away another $16 Trillion. Maybe it will work better the second time
around.BTW - I don't hear any of the liberals telling the people who
took the $16 Trillion without earning it that they are "Greedy".
LDS Off the high horse for a second. Jesus didn't let
the poor starve--neither do I. I give what I can, not what the government
thinks I should be able to give--actually I'm forced to give that too. I
give because I know it's right. The problem with Liberals is that they
lose faith in society. Do you really think that we are going to let people
starve? Do you think I would let my family or neighbors die of hunger? Get
real. The left paints a drastic picture of an inhumane society and tries to
force us into utopia. They need to wake up and realize there are good people
who will do what they should--out of their own good hearts, not because the
government forces them to do it.Jesus didn't give handouts.
Many of his parables talked of work. Many of his apostles were chosen as they
were working. Where did Christ say that we should live off the rich? Where
does he say we should stand idle?
What would Jesus do?He'd set up a TEMPORARY assistance program,
monitored by a priesthood leader and a relief society leader and set up work
opportunities to work for assistance.Free labor would be used in the
production and delivery of the food.And I doubt you'd get a free cell
phone from Him.
Like a friend said the other day: "I'm voting for Obama because
I'll get more free stuff and I need free stuff to survive."
The reason that poverty is unchanged by our efforts is because our efforts only
treat the symptoms of poverty and not the cause. Seems like I’ve heard
that you can’t cure a disease just by treating the symptoms.Little if anything was done during this period to fight the causes of poverty.
Instead our society has reduced the need for American labor through technology,
automation and foreign labor. But we’ve not done anything to replace the
jobs and provide the means for people to live above the poverty. There needs to
be a new way for ordinary people to earn their way. Perhaps there needs to be a
new way to own and profit from the existence of our society.Further
during this time period, public education has been denigrated, diminished,
starved and become the subject of hate. It is proper now to trample on the
teachers and keep people from proper education.
@LDSJesus would not spend more money than he hadJesus would
not allow for inefficiencies and duplicity Jesus would not brush aside
fraud and abuseJesus would not just GIVE he would TEACHJesus would
not perpetuate a system that traps its participantsJesus would not promote
a process that paralyzes peoples progressJesus didn't give
Peter fish... He told him where to drop the net.Jesus would want
NOTHING and I mean NOTHING to do with the United States welfare system.
The CATO Institute policy analysis also found that the rich are not getting rich
The deseretnews is not dedicated to the pursuit of truth. That's a fact or
they wouldn't publish nonsense political garbage like this with data from
the CATO Institute that is not only non-scientific but politically one sided and
agendized. Justlook up the CATOInstitute and see. But there is no mention in the
article that it's a right wing think tank.And I'm sure all
those kids that ate the food from welfare thought there was a difference in
being full vs hungry thank you.To present this information without
describing the source, as apposed to simply naming it knowing that most will not
look it up is just dishonest. I've learned to always look up the source of
There is always room for improvement and evaluation. However,
possibly the poverty programs are working, but other factors are increasing the
poverty rate--like increasing inequality, loss of maufacturing-middle class
jobs combined with more service sector jobs and/or more single-parent female
headed families (who have a lower earning potential). Perhaps we
need to examine/address those issues rather than arrive at the conclusion that
anti-poverty programs aren't working.
Our government needs to take a step back and really see what they are doing with
our money. There really is a sense of entitlement that has left us addicted and
dependent. I have no problem helping the poor. I like to do it in my own way.
One example was when I saved my own personal money to pay for a volunteer
mission down south. With an allowance to pay for some of my needs of only 150 a
month excluding gas, people were astonished that not only was I only allowed
such a small amount, but they were baffled that I was not lining up to get my
food stamps. "everybody has food stamps down here, didn't you
know?" was a common question. There needs to be a more defined
During His ministry Jesus said "ye will always have the poor among you".
He also charged His disciples to feed and clothe the poor.Did
anyone think we could eliminate poverty? NO.Are there those that
want to end our assistance to the impoverished? YES.What should we
do? I think the answer is in Jesus' words.
Wow, a conservative think tank came up with a conservative conclusion.
That's news for you. The one thing I agree with is it seems we could be
much more efficient if we could consolidate and trim down all those
"126" separate programs into something more streamlined.
So press releases and studies by the Charles Koch Foundation are now disguised
as "news?" I have no qualm with the idea that there are too
many overlapping programs out there to help the poor, but come on, how about
some actual journalism where both sides of a story are shown, and research
outside of the press release are done.
That's a surprise! Nancy Pelosi said herself that the quickest way to
inject money into the economy and to spur it's recovery is by giving away
money to poor people.The problem with that theory, is that first it
doesn't work. Second poor people buy made in china junk which only spurs
their economy. Third the reason poor people are poor, is because they don't
invest in themselves or in items that generate wealth. They are consumers, run
up credit cards and believe a car is valuable or a home is an investment, or
they just rent and never save up to buy a home.I know I'll get
attacked because their are a few situations that are out of peoples control (ie
health care, disease, accidents etc). If that's the case then 50% of the
people in this country fall into that exception, a statistic I have a hard time
believing.If I can prosper working at minimum wage jobs, put myself
through the university on my own dime, save and invest....99% of the people on
welfare can do what I did, if they just worked. I'm not special...