What makes you think that the welfare programs are any different? Because they're not. By instituting these programs, you've enabled the families of the people who are on such programs to stop caring about them, destroying what keeps the family together. You have made it far easier for a woman to live with a paycheck and children than for her to live with a man who can provide for her and her children. You have made it far easier for a family to put their parents in government-run assisted living homes, which are prisons for the elderly, instead of the families caring for the people who raised them. You have made it so that the parents don't even raise their own children anymore, they rely on the government to raise them for them.
The entire issue boils down to this:
People need each other. When you take away that need, you remove the glue that holds relationships together. For example, what typically happens when a married man or woman wins the lottery? The couple typically ends up separated over the money. Back in the Book of Genesis, God cursed the ground, why? Because He knew that in order to keep a man and woman together, they would need each other. The man would need a woman to help him as he worked, and in return, he would work to support her.
When the government steps in and takes people's money to support the ones who are poor, it removes that need, so that the person who is on the program no longer needs his family, he can rely on the government to take care of him. Welfare has especially destroyed the black community in America. Let me ask you something, Arthur, when you drive through a bad neighborhood, and you see all the run-down houses of a community that has a welfare program, which do you think came first? A run-down house? Or a welfare check?
This is where I get that from. From your previous post:Not at all and I'm really not sure how you're seeing that from anything I've wrote.
"Says common sense. Take away any aid for people out of jobs, both capable and incapable of work and you up the poverty rate. What exactly are these people supposed to live on apart from charitable whim?"
As I explained above, the people who cannot work need their families to take care of them, not the government.Some people are incapable of work through debilitation/illness etc and there's a different set of entitlements available for those whose condition renders them unfit for work in both the long and the short term. I've never once argued that people in general can't learn new things or improve/transfer already existing skills either. I see people as people, simple as that. There's no disconnect with supporting a system that provides for people while out of work along with programs that people can avail themselves of to improve their chances of gaining employment.
No, but I have had to rely on family to provide for me when I was unemployed for 3 months, and I daresay it was far better for me to be prompted day in and day out by family to find a job than for me to have lived alone, because I know that had I lived alone, I would probably still be unemployed.You've clearly never lived on any sort of benefits have you?
That can be fixed by getting rid of minimum wage.Aside from the fact that many areas have a significant dearth of jobs it can be difficult enough for people to get by on the little they have.
When I see people at the corner of an intersection with a sign saying "need money, God bless" written on them, I don't think "Oh, that poor person." I think "That person, instead of standing there, holding up a sign so that gullible people will give him a dollar or two, could instead be out looking for a job." Yet the "beggars" (and I put that in quotes because of how many of them are just being deceitful) make more in one day than someone working an honest job for a week. And again, that could be fixed by getting rid of the "minimum wage."You seem to think that most people are just lazy or happy enough to exist on subsistence 'living' which says more about you than it does those you seem to so glibly judge.
Once again, I do not advocate a "theocratic government," as that will be implemented when Christ returns. Any and all governments in an 'enlightened' day and age do not have the right nor the responsibility to make provisions for the poor.You can say it as many times as you like, we don't live under a theocratic government and any government in an 'enlightened' day and age makes provision for the poor.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app