Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosHowso? If you had a hard time and you came to me and I assisted you in some way as you got back on your feet, that's charity. Warmth and attachment behind my giving (as cheesy as that sounds) you know it is a gift. Welfare from people's checks has no type of intimacy and the recipients often feel entitled to it. All I was saying is that if someone wanted to help say a teenagers college out for giving, that isn't a bad idea. But not making it a reason to give on its own. Because then the selflessness is missing.
Not if you dislike welfare and love rational thought there isn't.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Howso? If you had a hard time and you came to me and I assisted you in some way as you got back on your feet, that's charity. Warmth and attachment behind my giving (as cheesy as that sounds) you know it is a gift. Welfare from people's checks has no type of intimacy and the recipients often feel entitled to it. All I was saying is that if someone wanted to help say a teenagers college out for giving, that isn't a bad idea. But not making it a reason to give on its own. Because then the selflessness is missing.
The complaints I've heard against welfare are less "it's too cold", more "it causes people to become lazy". Charity has the exact same problem, you get money for nothing. If you help someone they no longer desire to do anything, empirical evidence to the opposite be damned.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The complaints I've heard against welfare are less "it's too cold", more "it causes people to become lazy". Charity has the exact same problem, you get money for nothing. If you help someone they no longer desire to do anything, empirical evidence to the opposite be damned.
Perhaps the argument is more that it gives already lazy people a chance to be lazy, rather than making non-lazy people magically lazy.
And Welfare can very well be an entitlement, just like unemployment benefits, after all we all pay into that as an insurance that if we fall on hard times we do have a safety. Which is not to say that there isn't abuse of the system, there definitely is, but in essence insurance like government set ups are surely the more noble and useful things that government provides.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosMaybe if it is done on a larger scale it could. That is why I don't give to those who are lazy, even brother and sister. I just won't do it; I had to bleed to start my company. However helping someone on their luck who is trying is different. Even the best have had help here and then. Honestly I'm more in favor of communities trying to help each other out over a government check doing it. There's nothing there. Back then the strongest survived and the weak perished, if one couldn't they were weak. Being broke is the lack of money; being poor is the mindset that keeps someone in lack, whether it is health, wealth, or relationships. There will always be poor amongst us. There are some that no matter what you do, they are always struggling. That is them and their decisions. I've seen it time and time again and I grew up in a poor are and now I live waaay beyond that. Talk to the people there and it's nothing but excuses for themselves. You should have a hard time briefly, but those who continuously go through it need to look at what choices they make.
The complaints I've heard against welfare are less "it's too cold", more "it causes people to become lazy". Charity has the exact same problem, you get money for nothing. If you help someone they no longer desire to do anything, empirical evidence to the opposite be damned.