A new data point on Utah birthrates

[zil]

25 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I think I disagree, not everyone is religious, and will not turn to religion for help, some people for whatever reason have no family, some people outlive their friends and family. One gentleman comes to mind he is 94 and has outlived everyone.  Then you have your mentally ill and otherwise afflicted. 

I think that there is a role for government, albeit a tiny one but there is a place for it.

There is such a thing as non-religious charities (which is basically what the government is poorly emulating).  I believe in them more than I believe in government for this kind of thing.  (As I said, it'll never go backward, too late for that, but I still contend it should.)

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not sure if you were being facetious or not.  But I'll go ahead and talk about this.

You bet.  A mule deer can provide something like 50 to 80 lbs of meat.  That's often enough for one to two months of meat (+ other items from a root cellar and canning) for an average family.

A caribou can provide 100 to 150 lbs of meat.  Elk, even more.  One elk could provide two month's worth of meat for a family my size.  Two elk throughout the winter would be plenty.  And you can also do small game hunting for pheasant, rabbit, etc. to supplement that.

I was being serious, but I understand why you thought I might not have been. 

I've never hunted in my life and I'm not the hunting type. That doesn't mean I'm against it, or think poorly of people who do hunt. It's strictly not for me. Like a comedian said "I'm not an animal rights guy. I'm a 'I don't like getting up at 4AM in the freezing cold to stand aimlessly for 20 hours in the woods' guy". 

 

[JohnsonJones]

Another thought I had on the subject.  My thoughts in relation to myself and my own fallen tendencies, not as a reflection of those in this thread necessarily.  I think many object to government aid for two reasons, we are selfish, and we are prideful.  Once again, this is more SELF Reflection than any commentary on what others have stated in this thread.  The church does not lean one way or another in regards to temple worthiness or otherwise.

We think that WE deserve what we get.  That because we are lucky enough to have good paying jobs, that we earned what we have.  Instead of saying the Lord has given us everything we have gotten in this life, we see it as something WE worked for and WE earned.  When we see others without, we say WE got what WE worked for and may blame them for various reasons, instead of being thankful that the Lord has seen to bless us with what we receive.

I know of a married couple (not I) who differed on their opinion on what they should or should not do with their children as they grew up. The Father felt they should simply kick the children out at the age of 18 and force the children to "grow up" and work for a living.  The Mother felt they should pay for college and help the children as they grew older.  They had four children, so they divided them up with the Mother helping two, and two basically being kicked out.  Both of those who went to college have better paying jobs, and are doing better, despite being dependent as adults for 4-6 years as they went to college.  Of the other two, one has had a hard time finding employment, though is lucky enough to finally have gotten a job that I tried to promote them for, and the other, though working, doesn't have as high an income as their other two college educated siblings.

This isn't true for EVERY child (there are those who earn more who never even graduated from high school, and of course you have Bill Gates stories and such of those who never graduate college), but I find that when we decide that people must learn the law of the world and kick them out to fend for themselves or other such thoughts, it isn't necessarily beneficial for them or society.

As I said, people tend to look at themselves in a prideful way, and say what they have is because THEY deserve it.  If they have more than another, it is because THEY earned it.  They do not feel the Lord is actually the one responsible in any way, and thus, in their own selfish way, feel that THEY are the ones that own it.  In this way, in my opinion, we sometimes place ourselves over others for no good reason.

I think it is much like salvation in some ways. NO MAN (or woman) can earn their way to heaven (besides the Lord, of course, who was perfect and without sin).  No one is counted as better than the other simply due to our "works" in this life.  All works can do is show that we have faith, but are nothing in regards to actually getting us to heaven.  It is completely on the mercy and judgement of the LORD that we either get salvation or not.

It is ironic that many can remember that in spiritual needs, we are all reliant completely upon the Lord, but forget it in regards to our physical needs as well, and instead feel that we are better than another simply because we have been blessed with more.  The Lord stated that it is harder for a rich man to get to heaven than for a camel to get through an eye of a needle.  There have been SOME rich men that have tried to explain it away with a rather absurd explanation of the gates of Jerusalem (which ignores a lot of the context and historical setting that the parable was actually told in), but in truth, I think it is more literal in some ways than many would like. 

As I said, this is in regards to me, and not specifically those in the thread, I have been very blessed in this life.  Sometimes I wonder (and no, I do NOT want the challenges of being poor.  In fact, I would say I am afraid of that challenge and probably why I am so deficient in the charge of charity at times, or because I am selfish and would rather have that new laptop or other such ridiculous wants in this life.  I pray that I do not have to suffer from the challenges of me and my family being in need, it really does scare me in that thought) how much my chances of obtaining salvation are in regards to that parable.  In relation to the world, we, in the US are very rich.  I don't know what my chances are and I have no idea if I am humble enough, or if in regards to the truly poor in this life, if I am righteous enough to get to heaven.  (The Lord in the New Testament speaks FAR more highly of the poor more often than of the rich or of the powerful).

Edited March 27, 2017 by JohnsonJones
Clarifying this is me speaking in reflection of my OWN weaknesses, not necessarily others.

[eddified]

I agree with what @JohnsonJones has said above. I do NOT feel it is wrong to get help from the government when needed. However, I feel that it is wrong to unhealthily rely on the government (or any other welfare-giving entity!) This is what leads to unhealthy dependence on the government. The encouragement of unhealthy dependence is what is wrong with the government welfare programs. The reason dependence on government welfare is so widespread, is partly because the government does a very poor job of managing welfare. Unhealthy dependence on the government is detrimental to one's spiritual health. (I leave it as an exercise to the reader to find articles on lds.org on why this is so).

Notice I am making a distinction between healthy dependence, and unhealthy dependence. The church welfare programs are administered in a more personal way with the long-term goal being self-sufficiency. This helps avoid unhealthy welfare dependence. 

Summary: unhealthy dependence on welfare of any kind is bad, while receiving welfare is not in and of itself evil. The example @JohnsonJones gave about helping children through college, can be an extremely beneficial thing (I figure that helping one through college is healthy dependence since the recipient of the welfare must still work for the education -- ie you can't give someone an education, but you can financially pay for it.. the recipient must still work to receive the education, there is no way around that.)

 

[anatess2]

44 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

As I said, this is in regards to me, and not specifically those in the thread, I have been very blessed in this life.  Sometimes I wonder (and no, I do NOT want the challenges of being poor.  In fact, I would say I am afraid of that challenge and probably why I am so deficient in the charge of charity at times, or because I am selfish and would rather have that new laptop or other such ridiculous wants in this life.  I pray that I do not have to suffer from the challenges of me and my family being in need, it really does scare me in that thought) how much my chances of obtaining salvation are in regards to that parable.  In relation to the world, we, in the US are very rich.  I don't know what my chances are and I have no idea if I am humble enough, or if in regards to the truly poor in this life, if I am righteous enough to get to heaven.  (The Lord in the New Testament speaks FAR more highly of the poor more often than of the rich or of the powerful).

It's not a matter of how much you have.  It's a matter of what you do with what you have.  You can be poor as a mouse and not enter heaven because you stuffed your last penny under a rock.  Or you can be as rich as Bill Gates and enter heaven because of the good you have done with what you have.  Or you can be poor as a mouse and enter heaven because you gave your last penny to the guy sitting hungry right next to you.  Or you can be as rich as Bill Gates and not enter heaven because you snorted your money up your nose.

As you can see here... it's not how much you have that matters.  I want to be 10 times richer than Bill Gates if not more.  Then I will never have to worry about having enough money when I see a problem that needs to be solved.  You know, like, having young men and women not be able to go to camp because they can't afford it.  Or missionaries who have to wait to serve until they saved up enough money.   Or missionaries who can't serve because they have to take care of their siblings or parents.  Or the 94 year olds and mentally infirm who have no family, church, or friends.  I can go on and on and on...

Government is not the answer.  Rich moral people is the answer.  But we like to vilify rich people so we end up having to rely on government that can't be trusted to be a moral institution.

Edited March 27, 2017 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

Truth of the matter is that it should be families, neighbors, and communities that help each other out. But who here is willi g to give up their precious ski boat payment to help pay for the poor neighbors to have a child? I find it interesting that in Amish communities they are most like Zion where all work hard and share alike and are truly equal in temporal things. I drive through the neighborhood in my town and one sees the great disparity of wealth and it neessarily isnt distributed according to ones work ethic or ability. We live in a very selfish and prideful society that doesnt really want Zion, especially if it comes at the expense of giving up the fancy motorhome or ski boat.

[anatess2]

23 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Truth of the matter is that it should be families, neighbors, and communities that help each other out. But who here is willi g to give up their precious ski boat payment to help pay for the poor neighbors to have a child? I find it interesting that in Amish communities they are most like Zion where all work hard and share alike and are truly equal in temporal things. I drive through the neighborhood in my town and one sees the great disparity of wealth and it neessarily isnt distributed according to ones work ethic or ability. We live in a very selfish and prideful society that doesnt really want Zion, especially if it comes at the expense of giving up the fancy motorhome or ski boat.

I'd do it for family in a heartbeat.  But not sure about a neighbor I don't know.  Okay... here's the thing about Filipino families... You can have a cousin you didn't know became your cousin because your grandma and his grandma were seatmates in 1st grade...

Edited March 27, 2017 by anatess2

[jayanna]

Is it wrong to receive government assistance? Of course not. First of all, when I first became a single mother after I had exhausted my savings I received assistance from the church for about a month, while my applications for government assistance were being processed...assistance that MY BISHOP told me to file for. He would not have advised me to do so if it were sinful. Since becoming an adult I have worked at least one job, sometimes as many as three. I believe that whatever assistance I received for that short time (the medical coverage was for about 3 years) was more than returned in the 18 or so years since then. I am very glad that I had that medical coverage since that was when I started having some very significant heart problems and had 2 toddlers at home.

Secondly, we are all using government assistance as we read and type. Even this website is funded by a third party. The roads we drive on are provided by government funding, as is our police force, fire services, and as we know here in Oklahoma, the National Weather Service is watching over us to take care of our storm safety. Is it evil to receive these things? Of course not. Should we all go build our own temple because the one we attend was built with dollars that were given by others? No. Let's not be ridiculous.

The very concept of money should be and will be eradicated at some point. I am more than happy to give part of the money I make at my job (and it isn't much at all) to help families welcome a little baby. The money doesn't really belong to me anyway. The Lord is merciful and only asks 10% of it back at this time, but someday it will be 100%. I look forward to the day when I no longer have to worry about money, I am so much closer to being a temple worker now.

This being said, we need to remember moderation in all things. Independence is a very important principle, as are all of our gospel principles. However, it is not meant to be taken to the extreme of not helping one another without judgement or malice.

The entirety of the gospel is the news that we are all washed clean of our sins and can receive eternal life through the sacrifice of one man. We are every one of us unprofitable servants. No, not one of us has earned atonement, it was freely given. Somehow, he has agreed to make us joint heirs, and he didn't have to. When we judge someone else because of 'welfare' may we always remember that the only reason there's a heaven possible for us is because we accepted charity from the Lord. Charity never faileth.

[Anddenex]

On 3/25/2017 at 8:58 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

One of the perennial arguments I see in discussions about the Church's encouragement of having children early, is that this teaching encourages Mormons to inappropriately avail themselves of government services (viz, Medicaid) that should be reserved for "needier" families.

This article (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/24-states-50-babies-born-medicaid) suggests that 31% of Utah births are Medicaid-funded, but interestingly--that's the third lowest rate in the nation.

Does anyone else find that surprising?

Over the past 18 years of marriage (with six children) I have noticed an increase of the cost of children. I remember my first bill for my first child and I remember the last bill for my sixth child. The cost doubled. My first child showed $5000. My last child $10,000. We are fortunate that none of our children were high risk pregnancies nor deliveries. With six children the cost of birth would have been around $70K.

1) Why is child birth so expensive? As a caveat, I would rather live in a society where "greed" is viable, than in comparison to a controlling government on individual's personal practices. Would medicaid use decrease if birth costs were lower? In my case, I know they would have.

2) If a person is working, laboring with their own hands, and their career choice is below $30K a year. I am fine with individuals seeking assistance. These are working men and women. The first 10 years of my marriage I made less than $20K a year. My third son's birth payment was more than half of what I made that year, and I was working two jobs. I am grateful for medicaid and its assistance.

3) I don't find this surprising as the cost of healthcare and births increase. They have doubled since my first child and then to my last child. I am fine with individuals seeking different methods; however, I would have lost a sister-in-law if they had decided to birth their baby at home. This is a bitter truth of pregnancy. Some women's bodies handle pregnancy and birth better, and the ones that do not, should be cautious.

4) I have a friend who is now an oral surgeon. While in school, he was on medicaid and on food stamps. He is now, as an active oral surgeon, paying more in taxes in one year than he received the whole time while on medicaid.

5) I agree with statements regarding abuse of aid. We have that in Utah. We have individuals who won't let your children work because they will loose government support/aid, which means husband will have to work more.

Some of the comments in this thread appear to be stemming from pride, "We worked hard, we never had too..." Great, good for you. I have seen people who work hard, two jobs, and are still below the bubble and receive assistance. They are good men and women who are doing the best according to their circumstance. As with my friend who is now an oral surgeon. He is probably going to pay more in taxes than the majority of the people writing on this thread, and he was on medicaid while going through school. I assume, he must not have worked hard, or was lazy, from some of the comments on this thread.

Overall though, unfortunately, the system is abused and politicians are OK with this as it allows them the opportunity to garner votes. It is hard also to see people who are making more money through governmental aid then the individual who is working, in some cases, working two jobs and still making less than someone receiving assistance.

The generation that brings forth Zion, will be a fortunate generation indeed.

 

[my two cents]

5 hours ago, Fether said:

Well yes... but if your not and it isn't because of being lazy... is one just suppose to starve?

Nope - grow a garden and grab a fishing pole...

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, jayanna said:

The very concept of money should be and will be eradicated at some point. I am more than happy to give part of the money I make at my job (and it isn't much at all) to help families welcome a little baby. The money doesn't really belong to me anyway. The Lord is merciful and only asks 10% of it back at this time, but someday it will be 100%. I look forward to the day when I no longer have to worry about money, I am so much closer to being a temple worker now.

There are a lot of admirable sentiments in your post; but I disagree a bit with your characterization of what money is.  "Money", in modern society, is merely a tangible and fungible form of time and labor; and some type of it will exist so long as individuals value their time and their efforts.

Ideally, we should stand ready to offer it freely.  But anyone who demands it of us without fair recompense, is flirting with slavery.

As it is, we seem to have created a society where most folks can't afford to birth/raise their own children; and the rest are bewildered as to why someone else shouldn't be paying those costs for them.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[NightSG]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not sure if you were being facetious or not.  But I'll go ahead and talk about this.

You bet.  A mule deer can provide something like 50 to 80 lbs of meat.  That's often enough for one to two months of meat (+ other items from a root cellar and canning) for an average family.

A caribou can provide 100 to 150 lbs of meat.  Elk, even more.  One elk could provide two month's worth of meat for a family my size.  Two elk throughout the winter would be plenty.  And you can also do small game hunting for pheasant, rabbit, etc. to supplement that.

And cow hunting may not be sporting, but a couple Angus will sure fill the freezer up.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think many object to government aid for two reasons, we are selfish, and we are prideful. 

With all due respect, this is caricaturing views that are different than yours and turning others into monsters.

People object to government aid because math is math and you can't shove a square peg into a round hole. It's not because we're inhuman monsters who want the poor to die on the streets. It's because we live in the greatest economy with the most individual opportunity for economic mobility every created and that economy exists because of the free market, and every time -- EVERY TIME -- societies turn to socialistic values and become welfare states they crumble, which is exactly what is going to happen to America as turns towards these broken nonsense ideas of government.

[zil]

Just because one doesn't want the government to be the ones helping the poor and needy doesn't mean one doesn't want to help the poor and needy.  Nor does it mean one isn't already helping the poor and needy.  Those I know who don't want the government to pretend to be a charitable organization don't find fault with honest individuals receiving benefits through government programs, rather, they find fault with the inefficient government programs riddled with corruption and administered to hold down rather than raise up, and with a culture which encourages its citizens to pawn their personal responsibility to care for the poor and needy off on government programs.  Further, I submit that to personally care for the poor and needy requires more true charity than to contribute (willingly or not) to government programs.

(Are there people who don't want either (as in, don't want government programs, and don't want to be charitable)?  Of course.  But that doesn't preclude the existence of individuals who don't want government programs, and who do live charitable lives.  I do not comprehend why that concept is so hard for some to grasp.)

[person0]

10 minutes ago, zil said:

Just because one doesn't want the government to be the ones helping the poor and needy doesn't mean one doesn't want to help the poor and needy.  Nor does it mean one isn't already helping the poor and needy.  Those I know who don't want the government to pretend to be a charitable organization don't find fault with honest individuals receiving benefits through government programs, rather, they find fault with the inefficient government programs riddled with corruption and administered to hold down rather than raise up, and with a culture which encourages its citizens to pawn their personal responsibility to care for the poor and needy off on government programs.  Further, I submit that to personally care for the poor and needy requires more true charity than to contribute (willingly or not) to government programs.

(Are there people who don't want either (as in, don't want government programs, and don't want to be charitable)?  Of course.  But that doesn't preclude the existence of individuals who don't want government programs, and who do live charitable lives.  I do not comprehend why that concept is so hard for some to grasp.)

I second that! 

[JohnsonJones]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

With all due respect, this is caricaturing views that are different than yours and turning others into monsters.

People object to government aid because math is math and you can't shove a square peg into a round hole. It's not because we're inhuman monsters who want the poor to die on the streets. It's because we live in the greatest economy with the most individual opportunity for economic mobility every created and that economy exists because of the free market, and every time -- EVERY TIME -- societies turn to socialistic values and become welfare states they crumble, which is exactly what is going to happen to America as turns towards these broken nonsense ideas of government.

Does it sound like I'm talking about someone other than me?  Interesting...

On Zil's comments, I agree.  IF we could actually be charitable enough to care for the poor and needy among us, there would be no need for government welfare.  In fact, it would be seen as highly redundant.  Unfortunately, that is not the case. 

I know I am far from perfect, and am not any better than the rest of you.  I cant' say I'm actually incredibly proud of it, but what you take as incrimination may simply mean that you are more like me, than you would think, for the incrimination I laid was upon myself and not necessarily anyone here.  In regards to us as a society?

I've unfortunately seen instances of terrible things that happen BECAUSE we, as a people are NOT that charitable (and this refers to me definitely).  When we consider what we are discussing, remember that the LORD himself appears to have been one of those homeless wanderers that was given food and drink at various times and places.  Are we better than he, are we to judge him?  Or is he our judge?  When we consider what we should do, the Lord has told us...

He literally says in Matthew 25

Quote

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Does it sound like I'm talking about someone other than me?  Interesting...

Well, you did say, "...we are selfish, and we are prideful", followed by a whole paragraph with capitalized WE. So...yes, it does sound like you're talking about someone other than just you.

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I've unfortunately seen instances of terrible things that happen BECAUSE we, as a people are NOT that charitable (and this refers to me definitely).  When we consider what we are discussing, remember that the LORD himself appears to have been one of those homeless wanderers that was given food and drink at various times and places.  Are we better than he, are we to judge him?  Or is he our judge?  When we consider what we should do, the Lord has told us...

See...here's more of it. We are evil. We aren't charitable. We aren't doing what we should.

Maybe I would interpret it as you speaking about yourself if you'd replace all those instances of "we" with "I".

[Guest]

13 hours ago, NightSG said:

And cow hunting may not be sporting, but a couple Angus will sure fill the freezer up.

Actually, we raised cattle for a while.  And meat from a single cow lasted an entire year for our family.

[Guest]

On Government Handouts.

I'd like to introduce Charles Moody.  He was the father of Ralph Moody who was the author of the Little Britches series of (autobiographical) books.  He was a man of tremendous ethics.

One thing was that he most often refused a handout from anyone, no matter how well-intentioned.  The only time he accepted a handout was when someone was just going to throw things away.  So, whether it went to him or get burned up in a burn pile... It may as well go to him.  And through it all, he never complained about his poverty.  A neighbor said of him:

Quote

Everybody knows that if it weren't for him and his invention and his papers none of us would have gotten a penny for our crops.  But there he is with only $110 for a year's worth of work and he's too proud to accept a bale of hay from a neighbor.  What do you do with a guy like that?

As we read the story, we recognize that this poorest of men with the ethics of a Saint was the most well respected man in the entire community.  They always knew that whatever happened to him or his family, he was a man who would always do the right thing.  Part of it was that he had a tremendous desire to always earn his keep.  The same neighbor that tried to give him some hay learned that if he wanted to give him something, he'd always frame it in a sort of trade for time or labor or something.

To me, it isn't about my wanting to donate; I do.  It isn't about my wanting to serve others; I have.  What I think of is if I were on the receiving end, what would I do, what would I expect and want?

I've been very poor.  I never told anyone how bad off I was during that time.  And, yes, I REALLY would have been very happy if I just won the lottery or something.  But when I thought about whether I would be happy having others pay for me, I felt a great sadness.  I felt like I'd be less of a man.

I was once unemployed for over a year.  During that time, I resisted using the Bishop's storehouse.  In fact, I knew of some bishops who made it a policy to not offer those services until a family had gone through their food storage first.  But many people, including my bishop, pressured me into going to the storehouse.  So, I did.

As soon as I stepped foot in there, I felt a sense of discomfort.  But I figured it was because it was just new to me.  As we went for successive trips, the sense of discomfort turned into a sense of "this is wrong".  And this wasn't even government.  This was the Church for heaven's sake.  It was a program to which I'd made significant donations to in the past -- to help others, not myself.  I reckon that part of the "wrongness" was that I felt like all the spirit of giving I'd made in the past was being undone by my partaking of the benefit.  It turned into an insurance program instead of a charity.  By using it myself, I'd cheapened it.  This is not what I was called to do in this life.

Later a new bishop was called who made it a policy that all who were on Church assistance would need to help clean the chapel once a month.  I thought this was at least a chance for me to work for the food I was getting.  When I arrived, I found out that everyone else there was handicapped in some way.  I wasn't. My family and I did the lion's share of the cleaning that day.  But throughout the day, I had a pit in my stomach.  We never filled out another order for the storehouse.

Whenever I think of our current idea of charity or welfare, I first think of the classical definition of Charity (as found in scripture) then I think of things like the Law of Consecration.  Then I think of all the principles I try to live by as a libertarian.

Then I think of Charles Moody. I've really tried to be like him insofar as accepting a handout and as far as being a father.  I've made his story my model to emulate... I'm still working on that.

Today I do things like refuse "free" offers.  I'm very careful about sale items or even loss leaders.  I don't allow friends to buy me lunch or dinner except under very special circumstances.  I don't like taking gifts from anyone.  But, of course, there's Christmas and birthdays, etc.

What are the ethics of those receiving welfare benefits?  Maybe we brush ethics off as Alfred Doolittle did?

The thing about government is that it is the most FORCED, inefficient, corrupt, and ineffective way to help the poor.  The very morality of it is screwed up.  It forces people to pay into a system that 99.99% of the time will NEVER give them any benefit.  It is government saying,"I'm going to take your labor and give the benefit of that labor to someone you will never see or hear about who will never get out of poverty because of this program".  

 

Edited March 28, 2017 by Guest

[zil]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The thing about government is that it is the most FORCED, inefficient, corrupt, and ineffective way to help the poor.  The very morality of it is screwed up.  It forces people to pay into a system that 99.99% of the time will NEVER give them any benefit.  It is government saying,"I'm going to take your labor and give the benefit of that labor to someone you will never see or hear about who will never get out of poverty because of this program".  

Its mere existence discourages the best in humans (true, personal charity; hard work - cuz (a) you're not required to work for it, and (b) if you take a job that meets some but not all of your needs, you lose the all benefits - how stupid is that); and encourages the worst (don't bother yourself, government has it covered; don't work or government won't take care of you; game the system, it's free money; build an industry around administering this system and make a profit off others' poverty).  The whole concept is evil.

Someone above said it's needed because we aren't charitable.  I say many aren't charitable because it exists.  Get rid of it and bring true charity back.  We've all seen how much people step up when there's a true need, let's stop discouraging that and start encouraging it.

NOTE: I know that from a practical perspective it's here to stay, but the principle of earthly government doing this (as opposed to individuals doing it) is just wrong.

[The Folk Prophet]

51 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

On Government Handouts.

I'd like to introduce Charles Moody.  He was the father of Ralph Moody who was the author of the Little Britches series of (autobiographical) books.  He was a man of tremendous ethics.

One thing was that he most often refused a handout from anyone, no matter how well-intentioned.  The only time he accepted a handout was when someone was just going to throw things away.  So, whether it went to him or get burned up in a burn pile... It may as well go to him.  And through it all, he never complained about his poverty.  A neighbor said of him:

As we read the story, we recognize that this poorest of men with the ethics of a Saint was the most well respected man in the entire community.  They always knew that whatever happened to him or his family, he was a man who would always do the right thing.  Part of it was that he had a tremendous desire to always earn his keep.  The same neighbor that tried to give him some hay learned that if he wanted to give him something, he'd always frame it in a sort of trade for time or labor or something.

To me, it isn't about my wanting to donate; I do.  It isn't about my wanting to serve others; I have.  What I think of is if I were on the receiving end, what would I do, what would I expect and want?

I've been very poor.  I never told anyone how bad off I was during that time.  And, yes, I REALLY would have been very happy if I just won the lottery or something.  But when I thought about whether I would be happy having others pay for me, I felt a great sadness.  I felt like I'd be less of a man.

I was once unemployed for over a year.  During that time, I resisted using the Bishop's storehouse.  In fact, I knew of some bishops who made it a policy to not offer those services until a family had gone through their food storage first.  But many people, including my bishop, pressured me into going to the storehouse.  So, I did.

As soon as I stepped foot in there, I felt a sense of discomfort.  But I figured it was because it was just new to me.  As we went for successive trips, the sense of discomfort turned into a sense of "this is wrong".  And this wasn't even government.  This was the Church for heaven's sake.  It was a program to which I'd made significant donations to in the past -- to help others, not myself.  I reckon that part of the "wrongness" was that I felt like all the spirit of giving I'd made in the past was being undone by my partaking of the benefit.  It turned into an insurance program instead of a charity.  By using it myself, I'd cheapened it.  This is not what I was called to do in this life.

Later a new bishop was called who made it a policy that all who were on Church assistance would need to help clean the chapel once a month.  I thought this was at least a chance for me to work for the food I was getting.  When I arrived, I found out that everyone else there was handicapped in some way.  I wasn't. My family and I did the lion's share of the cleaning that day.  But throughout the day, I had a pit in my stomach.  We never filled out another order for the storehouse.

Whenever I think of our current idea of charity or welfare, I first think of the classical definition of Charity (as found in scripture) then I think of things like the Law of Consecration.  Then I think of all the principles I try to live by as a libertarian.

Then I think of Charles Moody. I've really tried to be like him insofar as accepting a handout and as far as being a father.  I've made his story my model to emulate... I'm still working on that.

Today I do things like refuse "free" offers.  I'm very careful about sale items or even loss leaders.  I don't allow friends to buy me lunch or dinner except under very special circumstances.  I don't like taking gifts from anyone.  But, of course, there's Christmas and birthdays, etc.

What are the ethics of those receiving welfare benefits?  Maybe we brush ethics off as Alfred Doolittle did?

The thing about government is that it is the most FORCED, inefficient, corrupt, and ineffective way to help the poor.  The very morality of it is screwed up.  It forces people to pay into a system that 99.99% of the time will NEVER give them any benefit.  It is government saying,"I'm going to take your labor and give the benefit of that labor to someone you will never see or hear about who will never get out of poverty because of this program".  

 

For what it's worth, consideration-wise, I wonder if the attitude displayed here would make it any easier to follow the principles of the United Order, all things in common, etc., than someone who didn't want to give up their stuff and help others.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

For what it's worth, consideration-wise, I wonder if the attitude displayed here would make it any easier to follow the principles of the United Order, all things in common, etc., than someone who didn't want to give up their stuff and help others.

This is the opposite of today's conventional wisdom.  To wit:

1) Conventional wisdom says that the reason we need government is that rich people aren't charitable.

2) Your comment highlights that the reason we don't live the United Order is not because of a lack of charitable people willing to give, but a lack of receiving individuals willing to step up.

[The Folk Prophet]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

2) Your comment highlights that the reason we don't live the United Order is not because of a lack of charitable people willing to give, but a lack of receiving individuals willing to step up.

Both are required.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Both are required.

Correct.  My point was that the primary reason for past failure was not on the rich end, but the poor end.  That's only based on what I see in current US culture.  I'll have to do some more research to determine if that was what happened in the past.  But I believe it was.

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Correct.  My point was that the primary reason for past failure was not on the rich end, but the poor end.  That's only based on what I see in current US culture.  I'll have to do some more research to determine if that was what happened in the past.  But I believe it was.

Whether that is true or not (and it probably is), my point is that if a whole community of people had the attitude that they refused to accept anything that they didn't earn with their own two hands (which strikes me as more prideful than ethical, incidentally) then the United Order certainly couldn't work either.