## Charity

Post by zanev » Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:22 pm

Saint Francis of Assisi once said
"Where there is charity and wisdom there is neither fear nor ignorance."
Acts of human charity have been documented since the beginning of recorded history, yet even now in the most democratic and economically advance nations charity is still necessary. Does this mean charitable acts are failing to affect meaningful change? Should charity even be the responsibility of individual citizens or is it the obligations of government? do hand outs make people lazy and dependent instead of resourceful and responsible for their own livelihoods? Is it every man for themselves or are we all in this together?
I close my eyes, Inis Mona
And reminisce of those palmy days
I moon o'er you, Inis Mona
As long as I breathe
I'll call you my home

### Re: Charity

Post by sarobah » Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:32 pm

My ideal position would be that nobody should donate to charity, so that the government will be forced to assume its proper role in providing for the welfare of the people. Unfortunately it is the failure of government to do this (or rather the failure of the citizens to insist on government doing this) which makes charity necessary.
For those who claim there is no communal responsibility for welfare, it’s worth noting that the very words we use to describe our civic and political institutions – republic, commonwealth, democracy, etc. – refer to collective not individual responsibility.
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

### Re: Charity

Post by xtc » Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:18 am

The DIggers (no, not your lot, Sarobah!) were right!
Boxer shorts are cool,
but little speedos rule!
More by the same author: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22729

### Re: Charity

Post by Jason Toddman » Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:46 am

> sarobah wrote:My ideal position would be that nobody should donate to charity, so that the government will be forced to assume its proper role in providing for the welfare of the people. Unfortunately it is the failure of government to do this (or rather the failure of the citizens to insist on government doing this) which makes charity necessary.
> For those who claim there is no communal responsibility for welfare, it’s worth noting that the very words we use to describe our civic and political institutions – republic, commonwealth, democracy, etc. – refer to collective not individual responsibility.

Precisely what I disagree with conservatives in the US about the most - their idea that all charity should be left entirely up to the public. The idea sounds good in concept, but in practice is another matter. Odd too that the Conservatives talk loudest about Christian values but ignore the value preached most often in the New Testament: Charity. It is something both Jesus and the apostle Paul emphasized in their teachings, a fact that is often ignored today.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Charity

Post by zanev » Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:26 am

Forcing someone to give charity no longer makes it charity, it makes it more of a tax. Also the expectation that people should give charity is almost on the same thought, just because you're homeless, or hungry etc. doesn't mean you should expect others to help you. It should either be the governments position, or you need to deal with it and help yourself. Don't expect that others should help you.
I close my eyes, Inis Mona
And reminisce of those palmy days
I moon o'er you, Inis Mona
As long as I breathe
I'll call you my home

### Re: Charity

Post by Jason Toddman » Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:10 am

> zanev wrote:Forcing someone to give charity no longer makes it charity, it makes it more of a tax. Also the expectation that people should give charity is almost on the same thought, just because you're homeless, or hungry etc. doesn't mean you should expect others to help you. It should either be the governments position, or you need to deal with it and help yourself. Don't expect that others should help you.

True enough. My point was however that IMO at least Christians who don't do what they can to help the poor are, essentially, hypocrites. The person they claim as Lord virtually commanded them to do this, yet they do not do so.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Charity

Post by Kyle » Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:47 am

The fact government ever got involved at all means there was a failure somewhere along the way of people taking care of each other. Many people do it of course, but overall we aren't doing it nearly as much as we should. Ideally we wouldn't have to have the government involved but it's pretty much a requirement now. We don't live in an ideal world. I'm not necessarily knocking others here. I've given to charity before but don't do it as much as I should so I can't give myself a pass either.
Charity by definition is something you give freely. The government taxing people and then handing it over to others is not charity in any sense of the word. Forced donations are not charity. You might support that but don't ever call it charity unless you want to look like an uneducated idiot.
As for whether handouts make people dependent, that's a tricky one. It's certainly something that can be true.

### Re: Charity

Post by Tieup1 » Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:15 am

I give to charity, I think its a good thing, its my personal choice.
Governments can't pay for everything, if they did have to, I'm sure taxes would rise steeply.
As a rule charities just don't benefit one person, they can help the wider community.
For example, if you gave money to fund Cancer research, and in the future new treatments and medicines were available, many people would benefit from this, so, imo, giving to charity, is money well spent.

### Re: Charity

Post by Jason Toddman » Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:35 am

> Kyle wrote: Charity by definition is something you give freely. The government taxing people and then handing it over to others is not charity in any sense of the word. Forced donations are not charity. You might support that but don't ever call it charity unless you want to look like an uneducated idiot.

You are correct as far as that goes. When government is involved it's not charity - though as it IS for the same purpose that seems to be quibbling. Whatever you wish to call it, the fact is that unless you think having people around who are poor and destitute doesn't affect you at all (in which case you are deluded) having the government step in to fill in the gap is crucial to prevent a lot of unnecessary suffering... which by the way like all misery has a way of spreading if untended. Higher crime rates for one thing are symptomatic of hard times.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Charity

Post by sarobah » Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:49 pm

> zanev wrote:Also the expectation that people should give charity is almost on the same thought, just because you're homeless, or hungry etc. doesn't mean you should expect others to help you. It should either be the governments position, or you need to deal with it and help yourself. Don't expect that others should help
> you.

That is all very good in principle. However it is appears to be premised on the assumptions that (1) poverty is somehow the fault of the poor and (2) there is some way in which poor people, who by definition lack sufficient resources to provide for their basic needs, can somehow find the extra resources needed to raise themselves out of poverty.
Both assumptions are generally held by people who have never been poor and have no empathy with anyone not born with the same rights and privileges they enjoy.
I am curious to know how a poor five-year-old child helps his/herself. If the child’s parents are incapable or unwilling to care for their child and it’s not the government’s responsibility, then do we just let the child suffer?
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

### Re: Charity

Post by drawscore » Tue Oct 09, 2012 5:39 pm

Funny. Romney donates a third or more of his income to charity, and Biden donates about 2%.
Drawscore

### Re: Charity

Post by Jason Toddman » Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:42 pm

> drawscore wrote:Funny. Romney donates a third or more of his income to charity, and Biden donates about 2%.
> Drawscore

Yeah... the vast majority of it to the Mormon church. Big deal. A member in good standing is supposed to give 10% of his income to it anyway.
For another POV (which I know Drawscore will diss as biased despite its accuracy):
http://www.thenation.com/blog/170105/ro ... donations#
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Charity

Post by zanev » Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:08 am

> sarobah wrote:

> > zanev wrote:Also the expectation that people should give charity is almost on the same thought, just because you're homeless, or hungry etc. doesn't mean you should expect others to help you. It should either be the governments position, or you need to deal with it and help yourself. Don't expect that others should help
> > you.

> That is all very good in principle. However it is appears to be premised on the assumptions that (1) poverty is somehow the fault of the poor and (2) there is some way in which poor people, who by definition lack sufficient resources to provide for their basic needs, can somehow find the extra resources needed to raise themselves out of poverty.
> Both assumptions are generally held by people who have never been poor and have no empathy with anyone not born with the same rights and privileges they enjoy.
> I am curious to know how a poor five-year-old child helps his/herself. If the child’s parents are incapable or unwilling to care for their child and it’s not the government’s responsibility, then do we just let the child suffer?

Yes. It should not be mandated that people give to others. Let me ask, why should I need to give my money to help someone? Why shouldn't it be my choice?
I close my eyes, Inis Mona
And reminisce of those palmy days
I moon o'er you, Inis Mona
As long as I breathe
I'll call you my home

### Re: Charity

Post by Jason Toddman » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:46 pm

> zanev wrote:
> Yes. It should not be mandated that people give to others. Let me ask, why should I need to give my money to help someone? Why shouldn't it be my choice?

One of the many questions that have been asked through the centuries without a clear resolution.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Charity

Post by drawscore » Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:28 pm

>>>For another POV (which I know Drawscore will diss as biased despite its accuracy):<<<
Not the story, but the source. Ben Adler and is a left of center "journalist," and "The Nation" is, and has been, a far left publication.
Drawscore

### Re: Charity

Post by Kyle » Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:28 pm

Can someone explain to me what Obama and Romney had to do with this discussion?

### Re: Charity

Post by Jason Toddman » Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:30 pm

Drawscore inserted the comment about Romney and Obama, for the same reason he always does this regardless of the topic.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Charity

Post by drawscore » Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:31 pm

The subject of "Charity" turned to the charitable contributions of political candidates. I mentioned that Romney gave about a third of his income (33%) to charity, while Biden contributed around 2% of his income to charity. Romney is charitable with his own money. Biden, Obama, and the rest of the far left crowd want to be charitable with the taxpayers' money, whether the recipients of their largess are deserving, or not.
Drawscore

### Re: Charity

Post by zanev » Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:38 am

Still it doesn't contribute to the OP or the discussion of if it should be governments responsibility or personal.
I close my eyes, Inis Mona
And reminisce of those palmy days
I moon o'er you, Inis Mona
As long as I breathe
I'll call you my home

### Re: Charity

Post by drawscore » Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:56 pm

I would say personal. I believe that Thomas Jefferson said something to the effect of "To compel a person to support through his taxes, that which he abhors, is tyranical."
Drawscore

### Re: Charity

Post by Jason Toddman » Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:16 pm

By your definition Drawscore ALL taxation is tyranny. And maybe it is, but we'd have anarchy without it, and only a total fool wouldn't think that was worse.
I abhor war, but I also accept the fact that I have to support the U.S. military through my taxes even when ti fights a war I oppose.
If I can do that, then you can live with the idea of helping to keep people from starving and freezing on the street with your taxes.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Charity

Post by Chris12 » Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:03 am

> drawscore wrote:I would say personal. I believe that Thomas Jefferson said something to the effect of "To compel a person to support through his taxes, that which he abhors, is tyranical."
> Drawscore

I believe he also said a that what would turn out to be a tough war with Canada was ''just a matter of marching'' so its not like he can't be wrong which he was in the thing you just quoted.
You can't seriously say that giving taxmoney to those who need it is tyranny.

### Re: Charity

Post by drawscore » Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:56 pm

But giving it to a collection of couch potatoes that refuse to get up off their asses and work, certainly is tyrannical. I don't mind helping those that strive to make life better for their families, but I have no desire to subsidize a bunch of lazy assholes.
Drawscore

### Re: Charity

Post by Jack Roper » Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:02 pm

In so many ways Drawscore reminds me of Ebenezer Scrooge in his statements and attitudes. Must be a fun guy to be around.
Here's a little bit of "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickins regarding charity in the famous early scene:
This book was published in 1843. From the book—
“…..This lunatic, in letting Scrooge’s nephew out, had let two other people in. They were portly gentlemen, pleasant to behold, and now stood, with their hats off, in Scrooge’s office. They had books and papers in their hands, and bowed to him.
“Scrooge and Marley’s, I believe,” said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. “Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr Scrooge, or Mr Marley?”
“Mr Marley has been dead these seven years,” Scrooge replied. “He died seven years ago, this very night.”
“We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,” said the gentleman, presenting his credentials.
It certainly was; for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word “liberality”, Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.
“At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “ I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides — excuse me — I don’t know that.”
“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.
“It’s not my business,” Scrooge returned. “It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!”
What follows is from an article on the Internet:
Read this about the contracting out the establishment and running of poorhouses. Some things never change.
“….the actual running of workhouses was not necessarily undertaken by the parish itself. It could instead be contracted out to a third party who would undertake to feed and house the poor, charging the parish a weekly rate for each inmate. The contractor would also provide the inmates with work and could keep any income generated. This system was known as ‘farming’ the poor. The contract was usually awarded to the bidder offering the best price for the job which might take a variety of forms, for example maintaining all the paupers in a parish, or just managing the workhouse, or just a particular group of paupers such as infants and children, or lunatics, or providing medical relief.”
Mr. Scrooge learned the error of his ways. Maybe three spirits will come to the White House and to Congress and our Republicans will be given a chance at redemption as well.
And, by the way, the reason Mitt Romney gave so much to charity was precisely so he could "prove" that he never paid less than 13% in taxes, which, of course, he refuses to divulge beyond two years of returns.
Another fun guy to be around.

### Re: Charity

Post by drawscore » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:36 pm

"A Christmas Carol" is one of my favorite holiday movies. I especially like the 1951 version, starring Alistair Sim as Scrooge, and a young Patrick McNee as Scrooge's nephew. The ones with Patrick Stewart and George C. Scott as Scrooge aren't bad, either.
And tell me, Jack, why do you care so much about what Romney does with his own money, but are unconcerned about what Obama and his socialist buddies are doing with ours? Besides, if I was Romney, I'd tell the media that I would release my tax returns right after Obama releases his college records. Obama spent over a million dollars to keep his college records out of the public eye, despite promising to be the "most open and transparent president ever." What's he hiding?
And here's something else to think about. It's a true story from a Ford dealership:
One of the salesmen had a woman in his office yesterday, wanting to lease a brand new Focus. As he was reviewing her credit application, he noticed she was on social security disability. He said to her "You don't look like you're disabled and unable to work."
She said "Well I'm really not. I could work if I wanted, but I make more now than I did when I was working and got hurt." (non-disabling injury).
She said the government sends her $1500.00 a month in one check; she gets $700.00 a month on an EBT card (food stamps); and $800.00 a month for rent. Oh yeah and 250 minutes free on her phone. That is just south of $3500.00 a month.
When she was working, she was taking home about $330.00 per week. Do the math and then ask yourself why the hell should she go back to work.
If you multiply that by millions of people you start to realize the scope of the problem we face as a country. Once the socialists have 51% of the population in that same scenario, we are finished.
The question is, "When do we cross that threshold if we haven't already?" There are not enough people working, to pay enough taxes to support the non-working people. Riots?? Be prepared to protect your homes.
She didn't lease the Focus here because the dealer down the road beat our deal by $10.00 a month. Glad to know she is so frugal with our hard earned money.
The system is broken. Four more years of Obama, and the system will be in the toilet.
Drawscore

### Re: Charity

Post by Chris12 » Sat Oct 13, 2012 1:37 am

> drawscore wrote:But giving it to a collection of couch potatoes that refuse to get up off their asses and work, certainly is tyrannical. I don't mind helping those that strive to make life better for their families, but I have no desire to subsidize a bunch of lazy assholes.
> Drawscore

For that there is a really easy sollution. Force them to look for work or they aint getting their money. Lets say you need to at least have 10 job interviews a month and if you don't, you don't get any money. Sure, this can be abused with only half hearted attempts to look for work but its a start.

### Re: Charity

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat Oct 13, 2012 8:10 am

Obviously there are abuses in the system; no one denies that. But don't throw out the baby with the bath water; fix the abuses rather than lump everyone together as moochers(and throw them all to the wolves). It wouldn't be all that hard to do; provided some sense is used.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Charity

Post by drawscore » Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:47 pm

>>>For that there is a really easy sollution. Force them to look for work or they aint getting their money. Lets say you need to at least have 10 job interviews a month and if you don't, you don't get any money. Sure, this can be abused with only half hearted attempts to look for work but its a start.<<<
Agreed, but wasn't it Obama that signed an executive order that eliminated the requirement to look for work? And earlier this year, too.
Drawscore

### Re: Charity

Post by drawscore » Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:56 pm

>>>Obviously there are abuses in the system; no one denies that. But don't throw out the baby with the bath water; fix the abuses rather than lump everyone together as moochers(and throw them all to the wolves). It wouldn't be all that hard to do; provided some sense is used.<<<
Too many abuses, and not enough enforcement officers to ensure compliance with the laws/regulations/requirements. Not to mention, that those who game the system could not do it without tacit or overt help from government entities and from those that have a vested interest in keeping people dependent on government.
Drawscore